Filed under: Antibodies, gender pimps, Grab a shovel, PUKE, rape extinction
I cannot imagine dedicating an entire post to why I am not anti-sex. No one should have to be so bored, so futilely engaged.
If what I am about to object to is seen as synonymous with sex then you and I live on very different planets heading in two very different directions. And I am not averse to telling you I think mine is more right. If right is free, if right is a right turn out of Patriarchy Lane, that is.
I am anti-sexy.
Anti ANYTHING that takes a form as sexy or trying to be sexy, or, only-succeeds-when-found-sexy. I am anti use-sexy-to-get-rewards sexy. Anti want-to-be-considered-sexy sexy. Anti want-to-consider-others-as-sexy sexy.
I don’t agree with jobs that rely on sexy. I don’t agree with exchanges that rely on sexy. I don’t agree with sexuality that relies on sexy. I don’t agree with institutions, businesses, constructs that need sexy for existence.
You might not be surprised then to find I am anti porn, stripping, BDSM, prostitution, hotness, objectification, cosmetic surgery. I don’t need to hear about how you reclaimed sexy in porn, BDSM, stripping, prostitution, hotness, objectification, cosmetic surgery. Sexy is not in your hands. Sexy is the invasive appropriation of each others’ bodies and externalities. Sexy is the lens you are forced to look through. Sexy is the lens your are forced to be seen through. Sexy is a constant state of against-your-will, without-consent, what’s-yours-is-mine, without-permission.
I don’t need to hear how you feel sexy when you are reading a good book. I don’t need to hear how your so-and-so thinks you’re sexier when you don’t have on make up or haven’t worked out in a little while. Sexy does not care. Sexy is only accounting for the role you play when you ignore your full human capacity. Sexy assumed your role all along. Sexy will still be there when you want out.
I don’t need to hear how you are helping young girls who have otherwise been abused and tortured and slain by patriarchy regain their “sexiness.” Sexy will not help. Sexy entitles our pleasure centers to others. Sexy is the visual rape primaries.
Stop with the Sexy already.
To those caught up in trying to Save the Sexy, reshape The Sexy, regain, reclaim, refresh The Sexy—please, we are feminists—we’ve got enough to do.
To those enslaved by sexy, beaten by sexy, afraid because of sexy, hidden by sexy, appropriated by sexy, employed by sexy, abused by sexy,… my sincerest apologies. We are working on it.
109 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Buried Alive 
So, how do you go about turning the dream into reality? Do you specifically seek out folks who do nothing for you? Or else do you get someone who *does* turn you on and smear them with garbage/pesticide/whatever-makes-you-gag before you do it?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Comment by Natalia Antonova January 25, 2008 @ 9:30 amWelcome Natalia.
“Do you specifically seek out folks who do nothing for you?”
This assumes I *seek out folks*.
This isn’t *about me*. It is about the idea/construct of “sexy”. And you would have to better define your “do” as what I am referring to is specific: a presumptuous approximation of someone’s sexual readiness by a set of standards separate from their (his/her) own.
“someone who *does* turn you on”
Do you mean arousal? Having to do with sex? Or something else.
Remember I said “sexy”–the adjective concerned with sex.
“smear them with garbage/pesticide/whatever-makes-you-gag before you do it”
You did get the “anti…BDSM” part right?
DISCLAIMER TO FUTURE POSTERS: I am not going to do the semantics merry-go-round. I’ve already stated my position with specific interpretations of how “Sexy” materializes–as sexy is defined by some of our fine Patriarchal establishments.
Comment by pisaquaririse January 25, 2008 @ 12:44 pmI believe she’s asking, when exactly is sex acceptable, by your standards?
Also: did I read in one of your other posts that you are a male person?
Comment by bemused January 25, 2008 @ 1:07 pmAmazing post, Pisaquari. Should be required reading for all sex pozzes!
Comment by Laurelin January 25, 2008 @ 1:15 pmReally? This one, too?
That wouldn’t be…a death threat, now, would it?
And from a boy, too.
Comment by bemused January 25, 2008 @ 1:24 pmUm, by my last comment I meant that your post might snap some people out of eating the sex-poz line, not that your post was sex-poz.
Your blog is wonderful- so glad I’ve discovered you 🙂
Comment by Laurelin January 25, 2008 @ 1:25 pm“I believe she’s asking, when exactly is sex acceptable, by your standards?”
This post, as stated in the beginning, is not specifically about “sex.” I tried to anticipate people’s confusion in separating the two in the beginning disclaimer but didn’t want to bore my regular crowd who is typically on the same page.
But this time I might have to navigate more.
In short: this post is not about when I find it acceptable to have sex, per se. As stated, I don’t think sexy and sex are the same thing.
“Also: did I read in one of your other posts that you are a male person?”
No, that was a different person who, yes, is male. He wanted to try his hand at expressing patriarchy so I told him he could give it a go on the little blog I’d created because I wasn’t sure I would ever get into this or not. I am (female) now the only author for this blog (but thanks for letting me clarify).
And hey Laurelin glad to see you around! (We’ve never actually *met*–I’m just a “…in the rain” lurker).
Comment by pisaquaririse January 25, 2008 @ 1:35 pmAnd I’m afraid most sex poxies will only see this as fuel to the fire. I expect E-greetings of the “Get Well Soon” variety in my inbox–addressed to my poor shriveled clitoris!
bemused, you posted assuming I was male before I could answer the question.
The part about killing off the characters was indeed a satirical reference to the extremes of film (porn) that are generally taken at face value for being “just art.”
Sorry you didn’t catch it–but that’s the last of those posts.
Check yourself.
Comment by pisaquaririse January 25, 2008 @ 1:42 pmYou’ve been warned.
No worries Laurelin.
Comment by pisaquaririse January 25, 2008 @ 1:43 pmso, you’re saying that “sexy” is all artifice, all fake and imposed from an outside source – AND a sexuality that relies on artifice is not authentic, and because of its inauthenticity, “sexy” is a…er…turn-off? or am I missing your point completely?
I have to say, I can’t really disagree in principle. There was a time in my life where I found “sexy” to be relentlessly oppressive. (I don’t so much anymore, but I guess that’s neither here nor there. you’ve already said you don’t want to hear it anyway.) I can see where you’d come to the conclusion that anything “sexy” is worth being “anti” over.
Yet, it is safe to assume, I think, that if I enjoy sexual activity, there is something somewhere that I find arousing on some level. it might not match anyone else’s idea of “arousing”, but something somewhere is arousing me, making me think favorably about engaging in sexual activity. which, as you’ve said, you too find pleasurable.
so what name would you give to something that makes one think favorably about engaging in sexual activity, but is still not matching commonly-held concepts of “sexy”?
Comment by antiprincess January 25, 2008 @ 2:57 pmI think Antiprincess brings up some good points.
Comment by notalodge January 25, 2008 @ 4:12 pmI know when I was dating another radical feminist we had a few times where we discussed words and phrases we didn’t like, a few of them being “fuck, hook-up, and sex” (I can’t think of anymore at the moment)
So we decided to rename sex as “intertwining.” I think you could use “soul meshing” as well.
I think turning your back on the patriarchy really opens up all sorts of paths of personal creativity you may not have or have ever realized you could make or were offered, before patriarchy was reining its ugly head on you.
antiprincess:
“relies on artifice is not authentic, and because of its inauthenticity, “sexy” is a…er…turn-off? or am I missing your point completely?”
You are in a way touching on where I’m coming from but I think I can clarify.
Obiouvly I think “sexy” is a socially constructed concept that works in a destructive way to control us through articial means–as I think artifical control is a (mostly) constant wrong. I’m not so much concerned with sexy being a turn-off –that’s not what would make it so destructive as I am explaining it. Rather, I feel sexy is a way to entitle us to each others bodies/looks in a sexual way and that is very invasive/wrong. Re: “Sexy entitles our pleasure centers to others” I think says it best (since everyone is so caught up on this sexuality part–not surprised). I don’t think we should have any assumed relationships/connections between our sexuality and someone else–when someone is considered sexy it is an automatic placement. Unless you can explain to me how people *choose* to find things sexy, are able to turn that off and on, get all parties on the same consenting page, etc…Please do… But the artificialness of it, I believe, would still exist.
“so what name would you give to something that makes one think favorably about engaging in sexual activity, but is still not matching commonly-held concepts of “sexy”?”
To be clear, I am not referring to only “commonly-held concepts of ‘sexy’–though I recognize those as namely the most problematic. It’s the assumed sexual level one person gives another. It can be a stubbed toe for all I care.
And not to teeter on the nuance of language but I have to divy this next portion: if some “thing” makes one want to engage in sexual activity then I say that’s objectification. If a *person* makes someone want to engage in sexual activity then I’d be inclined to bet that, again, that want is based on a construct that forces the wanted-person into a sexualized lens.
In short, I see it as a branch off the Rape Culture tree.
“which, as you’ve said, you too find pleasurable.”
Comment by pisaquaririse January 25, 2008 @ 5:36 pmPlease quote me.
What do you imply when you use the word “sexuality” though? I mean, obviously it encompasses more than straight-up intercourse, but your line about “sexy sexuality” I just don’t get in this context.
But your statement about “sexy sexuality” does not imply that at all. Because “sexy” in of itself has different meanings for different people, no?
I’m not trying to play semantics games, I’m genuinely scratching my head.
Comment by Natalia Antonova January 25, 2008 @ 5:39 pmNatalia,
I am beginning to ( I think) understand where the exact hang up is happening. Also, the semantics comment was not directed specifically at you but I inferred from your comment (and anticipated happening again) a sort of existentialist “what is *anything*” happening to the thread.
“But your statement about “sexy sexuality” does not imply that at all. Because “sexy” in of itself has different meanings for different people, no?”
Comment by pisaquaririse January 25, 2008 @ 6:02 pmI recognize (and my stance includes) those various meanings of “sexy-ies” for different people–that’s not my issue. My problem is with imposing on someone your sexualization of them. It can be through whatever means you have found/been conditioned to find, “sexy.” Is that clearer?
Because once you find a particular attribute, a particular so-and-so/whatever, sexy, you have imposed on them that they are in a constant state of sexualization from you whenever they are in possession of that particular attribute/activity/whatever.
Like I said in my response to antiprincess, I think that’s got massive undertones of rape culture.
“which, as you’ve said, you too find pleasurable.”
Please quote me.
I might have misunderstood or taken a leap of logic. you alluded to the fact that you were not “anti-sex”, to wit:
“I cannot imagine dedicating an entire post to why I am not anti-sex.”
so I assumed you found sexual activity (however you define it) pleasurable.
Comment by antiprincess January 25, 2008 @ 6:04 pmBecause once you find a particular attribute, a particular so-and-so/whatever, sexy, you have imposed on them that they are in a constant state of sexualization from you whenever they are in possession of that particular attribute/activity/whatever.
interesting.
ok. so, if I was inspired towards thoughts of a sexual nature at the sight of my husband wearing blue rubber boots, then anytime I see him wearing blue rubber boots I am rendered instantly incapbable of seeing him as a whole person, an individual with needs and hopes and dreams of his own? his whole entire being is reduced to “wearer-of-blue-rubber-boots-for-my-pleasure”?
Because I find blue rubber boots to be “sexy”, they have some kind of power over me that ONLY allows me to see three-dimensional human beings as mere puppets of my arousal?
See, I don’t think that’s the case, in every case.
although I can see that might be the case if I was completely devoid of anything resembling empathy or humanity. which happens, I know.
Comment by antiprincess January 25, 2008 @ 6:18 pm“Sexy will still be there when you want out.” So true. I love this post – I’ve only just discovered this blog, looks like I have some catching up to do! x
Comment by Debs January 25, 2008 @ 6:18 pmI think the point is more or less the process of objectification and “sexy” that is the dehumanizing Affect. And more so what is enslaving, or catching us in this patriarchal paradigm.
Comment by notalodge January 25, 2008 @ 6:34 pm(I am not being mean in spirit when I say this)
But I think any kind of objectification of an AFFECTive being is morally/ethically wrong. Even if they were wearing boots made of poopoo- and this isn’t the norm of “sexy” in our culture the process of objectification/reduction is what is to be acknowledged as much as the enslaving words and ideologies behind “sexy.”
antiprincess, to be fair, your original post said ” but something somewhere is arousing me, making me think favorably about engaging in sexual activity. which, as you’ve said, you too find pleasurable” which presumes too much about pleasure as I experience it and I think such a personal narrative would be tangential and useless.
“Because I find blue rubber boots to be “sexy”, they have some kind of power over me that ONLY allows me to see three-dimensional human beings as mere puppets of my arousal?”
I’ve never said “only.”
What I find problematic is that the person wearing the blue rubber boots doesn’t have a choice in your sexualizing of them and even if they did because you find them sexy already their choice doesn’t really initiate the sexualization–you have imposed it.
“although I can see that might be the case if I was completely devoid of anything resembling empathy or humanity. which happens, I know.”
Relevance?
Hello Debs! Happy to hear you might find something useful here.
Comment by pisaquaririse January 25, 2008 @ 6:42 pm*edited for spelling
Great post, Pisaquari!
For all those feminists defending “sexy” here, it seems to have passed you right by that “sexy” is only a requirement for women. Men don’t have to go around declaring how “sexy” they feel to remind the audience that they are obediently fulfilling their obligations as the sex class, or worry about how “sexy” they are or aren’t. “Sexy” is a judgement made almost entirely about women.
This kind of humungous gender divide should be screamingly obvious to feminists and when it isn’t I find it very strange.
Comment by delphyne January 25, 2008 @ 7:04 pmdidn’t mean to be unfair/rude/prying/too personal. I am sorry.
I see what you’re saying, I think. Thanks for the clarifications.
“although I can see that might be the case if I was completely devoid of anything resembling empathy or humanity. which happens, I know.”
Relevance?
I think that the whole “sexy = objectification = enslavement of the objectified” idea is only possible when one lacks a concept of empathy. as long as one can understand other people as human beings (and not simply hangers on which to drape one’s sexual fantasies), I don’t see much harm in engaging in some forms of “sexy”.
but I can see where you’re coming from.
Comment by antiprincess January 25, 2008 @ 7:05 pm“only possible when one lacks a concept of empathy”
I’m not ready to make that absolute though I certainly link more empathy to an individual averse to objectifying others.
“(and not simply hangers on which to drape one’s sexual fantasies), I don’t see much harm in engaging in some forms of “sexy”.”
– I will emphasize, one more time, that I am not concerned as much with the forms as I am the process. Forms matter but it’s the one-way sexualization *process* that is so troublesome. I don’t give people more credit because they can simultaneously sexualize and *see the person.* The wrong has been committed regardless.
Yep delphyne–men somehow get to escape a lot of these conversations. And leave the carrion to all us feminist vultures to feed on–that’s why I’d like to just leave the carrion be. No sexy. Keep flying.
Comment by pisaquaririse January 25, 2008 @ 7:27 pm“Sexy” is a judgement made almost entirely about women.
well, that’s what the author of the post seems to be focusing on, certainly. and that makes sense. but I’m not sure that’s always the case in the wider world.
although I certainly grasp the idea of “sexy” being oppressive, having lived through some of that myself. (I still think that was a function of my partner, not of the concept of “sexy”.)
however, even though I had that bad experience, I have to accept that at least some women somewhere have experienced a sight, sound, smell, taste, something that has moved us to consider sexual activity – some sensory input that can be interpreted as “sexy” by the women experiencing it.
so I think that “sexy”, as a judgment, while frequently (and oppressively) made about women, is not exclusively made AGAINST women BY men.
Comment by antiprincess January 25, 2008 @ 7:34 pm“well, that’s what the author of the post seems to be focusing on, certainly.”
Once again, quote me.
Comment by pisaquaririse January 25, 2008 @ 8:38 pmI have given examples that run the gamut for both sexes. And I have used “you” to stay more gender and/or sex neutral.
My recognizing that women talk more about issues with “sexy” does not ignore the reciprocal. It shouldn’t be a surprise in feminist dialogues that women take more note of their subjugation from “Sexy.”
(I am a relentless shark about tangents and misguided opinions. All they do is snarl.)
In fact, antiprincess, why don’t you just chill out on the commenting for a while, yeah?
I’m not down with phonies (I know, life sux).
Figure out what you want.
Comment by pisaquaririse January 25, 2008 @ 9:38 pm“Forms matter but it’s the one-way sexualization *process* that is so troublesome. I don’t give people more credit because they can simultaneously sexualize and *see the person.* The wrong has been committed regardless.”
I think this sums it up. Dropping the word “sex” and concentrations on gender, lets just focus on subject, object, desire. when someone is the ‘object’ of your desire, keyword being ‘object’ here, they are most certaintly objectified. This goes with anything, it could be a person or it could be a piece of chocolate. you use the object and once your desire is filled you move to your next agenda with complete disregard for the object used. in my personal opinion sex used for anything other than a physical expression of love, in this case the person would be the ‘subject’ of your love or the reason for your action (not for fullfillment but for expression), is objectification. my two cents
Comment by WACC January 25, 2008 @ 10:31 pmIt seems to me that Antiprincess was the opposite of phony, & asked reasonable questions. Is there any circumstance in which I unproblematically could be moved to look favorably on the prospect of sexual activity with another person? Could the other person, or any qualities of the other person, ever unproblematically be part of the circumstances that move me? Or, if sexual activity with another person is ever not wrongful, must I be moved to it only by circumstances having nothing at all to do with the other person or the other person’s qualities? If, as I suspect, not, then what word would you recommend for what it is about my perception of the other person or that other person’s qualities that leads me to be unproblematically moved? Do you have any evidence that, as a matter of actual linguistic practice, the word “sexy” isn’t used in such unproblematic contexts?
>If a *person* makes someone want to
>engage in sexual activity then I’d be
>inclined to bet that, again, that want is
>based on a construct that forces the
>wanted-person into a sexualized lens.
>In short, I see it as a branch off the
>Rape Culture tree.
No doubt you’d be inclined to bet, but it is a bet, not an apodictic certainty. Do you prescribe any word to use for outcomes that would cause you to lose the bet? If not “sexy.” then what?
Comment by KH January 25, 2008 @ 11:05 pmKH, you have not been given access to all the reasons why I am calling antiprincess on the two-facedness. I have not posted them here.
And I am not going to individually answer each of those questions. You use “move” which is too vague to be applicable as I have been more specific. I will ask that of the commenters trying to gain perspective.
“Do you prescribe any word to use for outcomes that would cause you to lose the bet? If not “sexy.” then what?”
Comment by pisaquaririse January 25, 2008 @ 11:38 pmThat “bet” was my kinder way of saying “yeah right.” If you want to contribute to my potential “losing” of that bet then address what I have said. I have more than addressed the same points/definitions of “sexy” on several occasions today with a stranglehold on specificity for clarity’s sake.
The ” yeah, but what about *this*…” is getting old.
And WACC I was wondering when you’d show up–all academic and stuff.
Comment by pisaquaririse January 25, 2008 @ 11:38 pmWACC
>… lets just focus on subject, object, desire.
>when someone is the ‘object’ of your desire,
>keyword being ‘object’ here, they are most
>certaintly objectified.
No. You’re confused by the polysemy of the word ‘object.’ An object of desire is no more inherently objectified in the wrongful sense you mean than an object of perception is inherently objectified in that way. (Sense perception of persons isn’t inherently wrongful.) Sexual desire for a person isn’t inherently wrongful objectification. And the person you love is, in ordinary usage, the object of your love, not its subject, & wouldn’t be even if it were possible, or desirable, to express it physically in the absence of sexual desire.
See Nussbaum.
Comment by KH January 25, 2008 @ 11:44 pm“No doubt you’d be inclined to bet, but it is a bet, not an apodictic certainty. Do you prescribe any word to use for outcomes that would cause you to lose the bet? If not “sexy.” then what?”
How bout Eros KH. Eros = uncontrollable passionate expression of love. Socrates understands sexual desire (i.e. being “sexy”) to be a deficient response to physical beauty in particular, a response which ought to be developed into a response to the beauty of the person’s ‘soul’ (essence) i.e. love.
Comment by WACC January 25, 2008 @ 11:50 pmyou dont desire to show love, you desire to be loved. Your sexual expression of your love is in order for it to be reciprocated. In love you therefore become both object and subject. You transcend normal subject/object relations. You become a slave to your very own desire not make the ‘other’ person a slave to fullfill your desire.
Comment by WACC January 25, 2008 @ 11:55 pmthe person is a subject of your love not only because you have both transcend subject/object. But you realize that the person has their own set of desires. you wait for the reciprocation in order to affirm your shared feelings (consciousness), only then is it real. the two become one.
Comment by WACC January 26, 2008 @ 12:14 amI think your argument, at its core, essentially implies that no one should have sex with anyone under any circumstances. Or even look at another person, for that matter. Because there is ALWAYS going to be a component of “sexy” there, I think.
I mean, I was reading the word “intertwining” here – and, there’s still going to be “sexy” in that equation. A rose by any other name, et cetera, et cetera.
Antiprincess’ example was actually a good one. It speaks to human relationships in general, to the way we bond with one another. You mentioned the problematics of her example – but what about issues of trust? Consent? Reciprocity? We’ve got problems in how we relate to one another – because we’re human beings (or so I think, anyway) – but I think that you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.
I am sorry to see that Antiprincess is no longer welcome here. She’s got a good blog post up about this, btw.
Anyway, I bow out. I’d like to comment on this issue some more, but will be doing so at Antiprincess’ place.
Comment by Natalia Antonova January 26, 2008 @ 9:12 amI thought you were quite clear in your post, and an excellent post it is, and in your explanations for the willfully obtuse who agree with you in principle, but simply cannot agree with what you did not say.
Comment by thebewilderness January 26, 2008 @ 9:04 pmI think that ‘sexy’ has become as much of a manipulative buzz word in our culture as ‘love’ is. Do you think we should blame english teachers or ad executives? Oh, oh, never mind, I know who to blame.
>In love you therefore become both
>object and subject. You transcend
>normal subject/object relations.
So mystagogues say, but you misdescribe the metaphysics of the encounters you approve. They’re a subspecies of intersubjective relations, in which the object is recognized also as a subject. (A subspecies only; there can be intersubjective relations between people who hate each other.) When one speaks of the object of love or desire, one doesn’t presuppose that the object isn’t also recognized as a subject, that the relation isn’t also intersubjective. The subject-object dichotomy isn’t dissolved in intersubjective relations. One doesn’t have unmediated access in consciousness to the whole contents of one’s lover’s mind; likewise with her body. The rest is bad poetry by way of defunct metaphysics.
Some form of attraction normally precedes fully mature love, & certainly anything mystagogues might construe as erasing the subject-object division. On your account, is everything preceding the erasure of the subject-object division problematic? How ethically does one reach your desideratum in the absence of desire?
Comment by KH January 26, 2008 @ 11:10 pmOh ffs. pisaquaririse’s post was quite clear in its content and meaning and I love it.
On the other hand what the fuck does “So mystagogues say, but you misdescribe the metaphysics of the encounters you approve.” mean?
Fucked if I know…
You accademic porn-pozz types really need to sort out your language, yunno?
Maybe I can spell it out in plain old Anglaise for you… teh sexay is NOT sexy. Teh sexay is a crappy, oppressive, capitalist misappropriation of human relationships. Teh sexay hurts real people – including children – in real ways. Teh sexay wins wars by reducing the “opposition” to ‘sexay’.
And women are subjected to being the object of teh sexay to the detriment of our lives.
Real sexy, now that’s different. Very personal. Not commodified. Never objectified. Never, ever sold. Warm. Safe(ish). Fulfilling. And no reason at all to be the subject of a blog post.
Got it?
Yunno, I always think that someone who needs to confound their audience with long words that no-one can understand has a huge point to prove to their parents and very little to say.
Comment by witchy-woo January 27, 2008 @ 2:13 am(Apologies on the delay—I somehow managed to get a life today)
Criminy bewilderness! Are you really ready for all that awaits you on this dark side?
Natalia:
“I think your argument, at its core, essentially implies that no one should have sex with anyone under any circumstances.”
-If you think sex parallels with what I have mentioned here then, as I stated earlier, we are disagreeing on a divide of planetary proportions. I have not even addressed sex, per se, and only “sexuality” has come close—which was one sentence out of my entire post. Addressing one aspect of my entire post will not lead you to the “core” as you say.
“Or even look at another person, for that matter. Because there is ALWAYS going to be a component of “sexy” there, I think.”
-Whoa–seriously? All people have a component of sexy? Meaning everyone can be, at some point, found sexy by another person? Or what….please elaborate (yeah, I’m just pretending in this post that there is continuity—I know you’ve gone elsewhere)
-The other major issue I have with that is you have taken away the choice of the sexualized to be sexualized. Do you really think everyone wants that? Or that they want that all the time? And how do you know? How do you know when? Do you go up to someone and say “Can I find your ass sexy?”
If they say “no” do you no longer find their ass sexy? You said someone “always” has a sexy component so consent does not matter to you—or, at least, *cannot* matter to you because this is just a constant we cannot help (?). You can say “I won’t look” but the fact that you find *that ass* to possess the qualities connected to your sexual desire does not change—which raises a question I have: do you think “sexy” is innate or constructed (I think it’s constructed—if you say innate I will only entertain the thought if you can provide scientific data not written by sexist fucktards so good luck with that!)
And so what if they say “yes”? What if everyone is on the same boat, knows the what and when’s and where’s of consent. Reciprocity, trust, and all of it—what then? I’d call it a nice palliative. And if you want that margin, if that’s what you came on my blog to get, after all this, then take it. There it is—*that* kind of sexy does not bother me so much. HOWEVER, I would still argue that sexy is a construct mostly out of our hands with umbilical cords to patriarchal standards. And likely, in world where consent activated the sexual exchange/desire (and not the other way around), “sexy” would simply go away.
And here is what it is coming down to: when it comes to sex I am consent-only, first, and all the time. When it comes to anything-to-do-with-sexuality-and-persons-other-than-yourself I am consent ONLY, FIRST, and ALL THE TIME. I think this is possible, yes, and that two people can discuss those terms before accessing desire or arousal or anything else related to sexualization.
So I’m sure this is just too picky for you to be bothered with (and the rest of you who took time yesterday to bash a blogger who has never so much as heard of you).
But until rape culture has stopped, and molestation, and harassment and pedophilia and sexual addictions and impossible/destructive appearance standards and patriarchy and on and on and on I think we owe it to ourselves and every stinkin’ other person on this planet to be more thorough and bullet proof in our approach with all things sexual. This is the sort of analyzation I require of myself and promote on this blog. I know this puts me in a very small minority and I am used to that. I’m not trying to make friends. I am trying to improve this world the best way I know how and sometimes it requires tediousness.
Anyone else can join me here to do that as well, BUT, and this is where I will answer your question about antiprincess, Natalia: my blog went from an average of 20-30 hits a day to almost 600 as of yesterday -most of which coming from blogs I do not read, post at, and support on a philosophical level. I received an unprovoked amount of ridicule and useless bullshit insults when I have not made ANY effort to summon those identifying as sex positive here. Honestly, if I want a pissing match I can just walk outside, you know? I’m for women’s rights for godssake.
I can understand your sympathies for antiprincess and, for the most part, I was glad she raised some of the points she did. But I’m also not oblivious to the discussions that went elsewhere on blogs and throughout a community I have not directly/indirectly engaged for very apparent reasons. Her support of those is what paints her as insincere to me. And I don’t find the two positions reconcilable. I spent a great deal of time trying to respond thoughtfully to posters—I was not about to engage someone so disingenuous.
I understand people stumble upon blogs but there is something suspicious about the way certain events unfolded yesterday that I am still trying to figure out. Most of you have already made your feelings about me known elsewhere, so that you continue to complain about someone so-apparently- insane is beyond me.
Comment by pisaquaririse January 27, 2008 @ 2:39 amI shall make my feelings about you known here, pisaquaririse. I think I like you quite a lot.
Comment by witchy-woo January 27, 2008 @ 3:48 amWelcome witchy! (likeness is mutual)
Comment by pisaquaririse January 27, 2008 @ 4:11 am>On the other hand what the fuck
>does “So mystagogues say, but
>you misdescribe the metaphysics
>of the encounters you approve.”
>mean?
>Fucked if I know…
>You accademic porn-pozz types
>really need to sort out your language,
>yunno?
Look, sport, I’m not the one who raised the specter of ‘the transcendence of the subject-object dichotomy’ as a reason for objecting to the word ‘sexy.’ That was where the ‘academic’ bullshit entered the picture. Did you also fail to understood what WACC was on about, or does the problem only arise when you imagine you disagree with the conclusion? In plain English, the sentence you claim not to understand means roughly, and in the language WACC introduced, this: fucked if she knows what she’s talking about.
Comment by KH January 27, 2008 @ 4:50 amYo, pisaquari,
Comment by thebewilderness January 27, 2008 @ 6:52 amKH is accusing you of being a mystagogue.
Are you now, or have you ever been a mystagogue? Or a sport? Did you raise a specter? That might be why KH thinks you’re a mystagogue.
The dark side, indeed.
No, TheBewilderness, you misread me. I did not ‘accuse’ Pisaquari of being a mystagogue (one who holds or spreads mystical doctrines, for those stumped by three-syllable words). She’s not the one who brought up the mystical gibberish. I said that some people who hold mystical doctrines claim to know how to, that phrase again, transcend the subject-object dichotomy, which is true. (Has anyone here ever actually transcended WACC’s subject-object dichotomy? I’d love to hear. Or are our sexual lives still deplorably sexy, despite all efforts?)
Pisaquari, on the other hand, mostly says that if one person wants to have sex with another because of the other’s essence or whole person – as opposed to some mere quality she has, which is far, far worse – then that, “in short,” is” a branch off the Rape Culture tree.” Which most plain-speaking people would call bizarre, but not mystical.
Comment by KH January 27, 2008 @ 7:30 amNo, what I was addressing was the core of the “sexy sexuality” statement. Sorry if that was unclear.
And… I don’t believe I’ve linked to you either. If that makes you feel less creeped-out. My hit-count regularly shoots up with no apparent explanation as well. And hey, I’ve got my real name up on the blog. I’ve gotten used to it.
Comment by Natalia Antonova January 27, 2008 @ 9:39 am…So basically you don’t care if every single other person on earth does not see Sexy in the same way you do: “Sexy is a constant state of against-your-will, without-consent, what’s-yours-is-mine, without-permission.” You still don’t want to believe that other people can, and do, have other experiences with Sexy.
Any time I was ever turned on by a man or woman it was wrong of me to ignore their full human capacity. However, it’s perfectly kosher for me to objectify my waiter by ignoring his visible stress levels, treating him only as a dispenser of food, and not tipping, as long as I don’t flirt or stare at his ass.
Please don’t worry about apologizing for my gainful employment (by sexy). However, you’re very welcome to apologize for the strange and notable fact that my phone sex customers (Goddess bless ’em, the sweethearts) seem to note more of my full human capacity than my IT-related customers, to whom I am a thing to be barked at, ignored, insulted, interrupted, underpaid or unpaid and otherwise useless as a person outside of my designated role as That Internet Type Person Who Does The Website Blog Google Stuff And Makes The Shiny Things Work.
Most people, and the vast majority of functional people, are fairly pleasant to those they find sexy, want to have sex with, or have recently had sex with. This is a good thing. It’s not just about wanting something out of someone – it’s also about admiration, in the same sense one is nice to their favorite author.
And yes, sexy can be turned on and off to a degree. It works more like a volume dial – it can be amplified or turned down. No, it can never be fully turned off – and that’s a feature, not a bug. People are turned on by many intrinsic qualities… personality, ideas, manner of speaking, voice, movement, kindness to those in need, firmness/lightness of touch. It’s exactly those unconscious personal signatures that turn on the body, heart, and mind all at once.
Down with Sexy isn’t as simple as shutting off the things that flip on our gonads. Sexuality is more complicated – and kinder – than that.
Comment by Sabrina Morgan January 27, 2008 @ 2:21 pmWelcome Sabrina!
“So basically you don’t care if every single other person on earth does not see Sexy in the same way you do: “Sexy is a constant state of against-your-will, without-consent, what’s-yours-is-mine, without-permission.”
-I cannot even begin to understand how you gleaned the position I don’t care about other people’s view of sexy from that quote. That quote was about the *victims* (if you will) of sexy–those sexualized, as well as, those artificially manipulated by patriarchal standards.
“You still don’t want to believe that other people can, and do, have other experiences with Sexy.”
-Quote me.
-As expressed MANY times, what people find or experience to be sexy is not the *crux* of my argument–the crux has to do with the lack of consent before someone sexualizes AS WELL as the destructive standards they are basing that sexualiztion on.
“However, it’s perfectly kosher for me to objectify my waiter by ignoring his visible stress levels, treating him only as a dispenser of food, and not tipping, as long as I don’t flirt or stare at his ass.”
-::strawman bows:::
-What?? I have NEVER said “sexy” is the only measure we should be using to decide how we treat each other. It is one of many.
“are fairly pleasant to those they find sexy, want to have sex with, or have recently had sex with.”
-Wow. Okay, well for all those prudish, annoying people out there *that don’t like it*–they can just get over it–they are not functional or in the “majority” anyways.
“And yes, sexy can be turned on and off to a degree. It works more like a volume dial – it can be amplified or turned down. No, it can never be fully turned off – and that’s a feature, not a bug. People are turned on by many intrinsic qualities… personality, ideas, manner of speaking, voice, movement, kindness to those in need, firmness/lightness of touch.”
-Well, isn’t this interesting…you accuse me in the beginning of not wanting to believe other people have different experiences of sexy (again, I’ve said differently many times) and then here you are laying out the way sexy “works” and what people like. By your own standards you have just ignored a whole host of persons with *different experiences*.
“Down with Sexy isn’t as simple as shutting off the things that flip on our gonads. Sexuality is more complicated – and kinder – than that.”
-I have defined sexy as the sexualizing of another–if you want to wax poetic a different definition then go for it. But it remains irrelevant to this discussion and I covered semantics in the very FIRST response I gave on this thread.
“Please don’t worry about apologizing for my gainful employment (by sexy).”
-As for this I can only say: I don’t care Sabrina. Seriously, someone telling me not to worry about apologizing? I see something wrong with sexy so those affected by it I apologize to, and you want to take a stand against THAT?
Pssshh…
Here is something I DON’T find consent based: apologies. I think they should come from a place of honesty,care, and concern–not consent. So maybe you could go off on how I am hypocritical for wanting sexy to be consent-based but not *apologies*. That strawman is almost blog-worthy.
(Unprovoked apology warning: I’m sorry that my tone is starting to reflect my frustration. I have spent so much time making sure everyone gets their own fucking customized definition of “sexy” so they “understand” that I am at my wits end. If you can’t be bothered to read this thread, or were never really good at reading comprehension, then do both of us a favor…)
Comment by pisaquaririse January 27, 2008 @ 4:26 pmThe hopefully-not-wilful misreadings of Pisaquaririse’s post are quite remarkable. As Witchy and Delphyne have said, it’s completely bleeding obvious what the post is about. The concept of sexy is sacrosanct in our society- sexy must never be questioned, sexy is ‘natural’ blah blah blah. A whole bunch of women’s self-esteem is bound up in sexy because of the way our society views women as objects to be judged. Threatening sexy threatens male dominance, and that scares a lot of people.
I’m sorry you’re getting all this shit, P. You’ve been clear as crystal on this, and have written a very brave post. It is so much easier for people to go, (to use a phrase beloved of sex-pozzes) ‘batshit insane’ on you that to face the real and frightening issues you have highlighted here.
Much love,
Comment by Laurelin January 27, 2008 @ 4:56 pmLaurelin
I would also like to solemly take this opportunity to wave my pom-poms at you, as your cheerleader. I’m afraid that as Britain is rather lacking in both pom-poms and cheerleading, my pom-pom was merely a goldy-browny scarf waved at the screen, but it’s the thought that counts right? 😉
I wish I had some pom-poms.
Comment by Laurelin January 27, 2008 @ 5:37 pmNo, TheBewilderness, you misread me. I did not ‘accuse’ Pisaquari of being a mystagogue (one who holds or spreads mystical doctrines, for those stumped by three-syllable words). She’s not the one who brought up the mystical gibberish. I said that some people who hold mystical doctrines claim to know how to, that phrase again, transcend the subject-object dichotomy, which is true.”
Sorry KH, my mistake, I thought you were addressing the post. It wasn’t the number of syllables that threw me, though I am an ignorant git. It was the absurd posturing that tickled my fancy.
Comment by thebewilderness January 27, 2008 @ 8:37 pmI, too, am sorry you are getting all this hit shit, P. (Virtual pom-pom wave.)
Great post Pisaquaririse and no wonder you are receiving so much anti- postings. Sexy and ‘hot’ supposedly defines women in that they are nothing but ‘sexy/hot.’ Any challenge to this patriarchal and misogynstic view is immediately met with excuses, denials and justifications. Reality check – women are ‘sexy/hot’ men are individuals.
Comment by jennifer drew January 27, 2008 @ 9:09 pmWell if such notable feminists are going to go around waving pompoms then I guess all is really lost–spirit fingers back atcha!
Welcome Jennifer–patriarchy has done such a job on our brains. You’d think (or at least I would think)self-identifying feminists (sex pos or not) would be even the *slightest* bit weary of all this sexy crappola given how mainstream and Big business it can be.
Comment by pisaquaririse January 27, 2008 @ 10:04 pmBut then again we’d have to question our precious and off-limits “sexuality” and that’s a big NO NO!
what’s ‘spirit fingers’?
I’ve given up the pompoms now. It just wasn’t me. I’m going back to my kicks and elbow-strikes.
Ah, that’s better.
Comment by Laurelin January 27, 2008 @ 10:10 pm“Sexy is the lens you are forced to look through. Sexy is the lens your are forced to be seen through.”
Yeah, the patriarchal lens!
I just read it. Great post, Pisaquaririse!
You definitely get it! The “sex pozzes” just don’t…
“Sexy entitles our pleasure centers to others.” How true that is!
Comment by Maggie Hays January 28, 2008 @ 3:10 amThis post is spot on and hilarious P!
Oh shit, the fact that I admitted that I like your post makes me un-sexy doesn’t it? D’oh!
But seriously, what’s up with all this metaphysics and raising spectres and intersubjectivity? Good lawd, how can people with such big vocabularies be such bad writers, with such poor reading comprehension skills?
Comment by xochitl January 28, 2008 @ 4:06 am“how can people with such big vocabularies be such bad writers, with such poor reading comprehension skills?” Nicely put, Xochitl!
I have to say, Pisaquaririse, you have far more patience than me in explain to the very dim what should be obvious over and over again! X
Comment by Debs January 28, 2008 @ 11:36 am“I have to say, Pisaquaririse, you have far more patience than me in explain to the very dim what should be obvious over and over again! X”
I was impressed by this too! I never have the patience, and I end up just writing ‘read the damn post’ and deleting comments.
Comment by Laurelin January 28, 2008 @ 12:00 pmJust want to extend a warm “why thank ya!” to the support. I think/hope it is because the post resonated with you.
(also should add, I do consider thoughtfully articulated questions/points against the post support as well)
Comment by pisaquaririse January 28, 2008 @ 12:07 pmI’m too sexy for my love, too sexy for my love
Love’s going to leave me
I’m too sexy for my shirt, too sexy for my shirt
So sexy it hurts
And I’m too sexy for Milan, too sexy for Milan
New York and Japan
And I’m too sexy for your party, too sexy for your party
No way I’m disco dancing
I’m a model, you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the catwalk
Yeah, on the catwalk, on the catwalk, yeah
I do my little turn on the catwalk
I’m too sexy for my car, too sexy for my car
Too sexy by far
And I’m too sexy for my hat
Too sexy for my hat, what d’you think about that
I’m a model, you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the catwalk
Yeah, on the catwalk, on the catwalk, yeah
I shake my little touche on the catwalk
I’m too sexy for my, too sexy for my, too sexy for my
‘Cause I’m a model, you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the catwalk
Yeah, on the catwalk, yeah, on the catwalk, yeah
I shake my little touche on the catwalk
I’m too sexy for my cat, too sexy for my cat
Poor pussy, poor pussy cat
I’m too sexy for my love, too sexy for my love
Love’s going to leave me
And I’m too sexy for this song…
Hehe couldn’t help it 🙂
Comment by sparklematrix January 28, 2008 @ 4:00 pmOh Sparkle…there are no words
Comment by pisaquaririse January 28, 2008 @ 4:46 pmHiya, you’re a great writer.
I just wondered something though – although I agree that much of ‘sexy’ in our society is constructed through a lens of patriarchy and is very male-centric, I’m just kind of wondering (as anti-princess did) where that does leave visceral desire? For example, just being attracted to someone – no matter what attracts them to you. I’m probably missing the point (I’ve had 5 hours sleep and have been up since 8am its now 5pm!), but it is something that I’ve been trying to work out as a feminist. I had a “debate” on Ren Evs thread near the end but I am trying to put two contradictory ideas together – that of allowing women a choice (yes I know, to many, we can not have ‘choice in a society where there are pretty narrow choices) to do what they want, and also exposing the lies in ‘sexy’ as defined by male centric desire. I don’t think pole dancing, stripping etc are empowering in themselves, and I know there are many problems allowing women the chance to ‘reclaim’ these things as their own, but I’ve been wondering recently if it is possible for women to enjoy these things (as many seem to) and feel happy with their lot. Argh I dunno, sorry! Its a great post despite my confusion about some things!
Comment by Liz January 28, 2008 @ 5:10 pmI’m too anti-sexy for this song…
Comment by Laurelin January 28, 2008 @ 5:11 pmDoh…I meant no matter what attracts you to them..not them to you.
On Ren Evs post it may not seem like I’m anti-porn but I am. I think I’m trying to work out those kinks because I know that the majority of women in porn are not happy. Ren ev and a few others are pretty much the only women I have met who think porn is a really positive thing, and obviously a vast many men. Also I know I’m not making a very good first impression..please visit my more sane blog for my views on stuff 🙂 Just want to say welcome, anyway!
Comment by Liz January 28, 2008 @ 5:21 pm“although I agree that much of ’sexy’ in our society is constructed through a lens of patriarchy and is very male-centric, I’m just kind of wondering (as anti-princess did) where that does leave visceral desire?”
I’m guessing since you separated visceral desire out that you feel it’s innate or somehow different than the most of those other constructs?
Because I don’t feel/think that way I don’t know how much my response will mean to you.
As I said in my response to Natalia, I want anything to do with sexuality involving other persons to be consent-based all the time, every time and before anything happens. The way sexy works right now, we are considered in a constant state of consent–consenting to be found sexy at someone else’s whim or accepting we can find whatever sexy when we want b/c it is our right/biology/etc…Also, because sexy goes so largely undisputed we cannot even know if we want those appropriations of our bodies/faces/features/whatever is being sexualized.
I maintain that these features, even if only present in our minds (“only” is stupidly used here since everything we do starts there!) are not acceptable if we are to try and build a healthy sexual society with consensual, equal sexual exchanges.
“just being attracted to someone – no matter what attracts them to you”
I think attraction is too general to be used here. My opinion remains the same if the attraction *involves* sexualization.
“that of allowing women a choice (yes I know, to many, we can not have ‘choice in a society where there are pretty narrow choices) to do what they want, and also exposing the lies in ’sexy’ as defined by male centric desire.”
It’s tricky, no lies there. You have to remember by *questioning* and *challenging* you are not in effect taking away someone’s choice. If you’ve come to feminism simply because you want to see women happy then the second part of that question is going to trip you up the most–because it is possible, even in 2008, for women to recieve lots of smiles and pleasures and orgasms from male centric desires.
If you’ve come to feminism because you want to stop all those male centric desires then the first one is going to trip you up b/c, trust me, someone, somewhere, thinks because they are *female* and enjoying themselves that whatever is giving them pleasure is “female friendly”–and as much as radfems get accused of black and white thinking I can’t even begin to understand the fundamental blindness of that.
I appreciate your being upfront.
Comment by pisaquaririse January 28, 2008 @ 8:48 pm*edited for grammar
This post was very interesting! It made me view things through an entirely different angle.
So thank you, pisaquaririse! And keep it up!
Comment by Mary Tracy9 January 28, 2008 @ 11:51 pmHey, no problem. I do agree with much of what you have said. After all, I define myself as a radical feminist, but sometimes have difficulties figuring out where choice begins. In my women’s studies department (at York) much of the emphasis is on giving women the choice to live happy, fulfilled lives. Obviously also on challenging the patriarchy! I am sure the whole thing will become clearer to me in time. I suppose I sometimes feel uneasy about criticising in an academic way the very real things that women are experiencing every day. Discussing something in a women’s studies seminar is not the same as KNOWING what it is like to be abused or to be earning money by selling your body. I do agree that ‘sexy’ is everywhere and in your face all the time. And I’ve found that attempting to extricate myself from that has allowed me to have a better relationship with my partner as I appreciate all the things that have drawn me to him better and vice versa. I think maybe the way we define desire needs to be looked at if we are to get to the bottom of all this. We do learn to internalise things via socialisation, and to an extent I think sexuality is learnt, but that doesn’t explain why we feel a kind of ‘attraction’ to someone, for whatever irrational reason (their smile, laugh, way of speaking, whatever). Your post is very thought provoking, thanks for the food for thought! xx
Comment by Liz January 29, 2008 @ 11:43 amHmmm… If only my futile degree at English Language would allow me to comprehend what your point is… 😦
Comment by Sarah February 1, 2008 @ 10:58 amWelcome Sarah–are you studying English as a second language?
Comment by pisaquaririse February 1, 2008 @ 1:24 pm[…] Posts RadfemPhobiaPatricia Smith’s “Skinhead”How did I miss this?Asshat Morning DJ’sHumorlessNot Anti-sex. Anti-SEXY.HAPPY BIRTHDAY to me and a big Fuck You to IndividualismBlogging the “No”We Howl Too (p.1)Feminists […]
Pingback by Hot for Tots (Sexual Stigma, p.1) « Buried Alive May 2, 2008 @ 7:02 pmOk I dont feel you’ve made it clear as to the difference between sex and sexy.
“hotness” (physical attraction) is wrong?
I’m tired of these radfem posts that condemn virtully every-f***g-thing that makes a dick hard and include ” but I’m not anti sex… ”
For the love of God/Goddess be more clear:
If you really think male sexuality is evil and men should give up their erotic natures and repress their sexuality, then come right out and say that. I wont agree, but at least its better than radfems constantly telling me this indirectly.
If you do not believe this then at least try to give a clear outline as to just how men are supposed to enjoy sex, feel arousal, be sexual etc (and that includes those who cannot attract a mate)
Basically, if I’m oppressing women if I look at a burlesque show, or if I masturbate to a Renaissance painting of naked wood nymphs, or if I even fantasise about a voluptous woman with a red feather boa lounging on my bed for instance, if as has been implyed, I’m partaking in anti-women activity even by these “innocent” examples….. just what the hell am I “supposed” to get turned on by and get off to!?
If you cannot provide clearer explanations as exactly what sexual attraction/expression is natural/desirable/acceptable vs what is anti-woman then anything radfems write on the topic will always come across as hateful to the very existence of male sexual arousal, whether thats you intention or not.
Comment by L.B May 9, 2008 @ 7:39 pmI doubt anyone here really gives a shit about whether you can get a hard-on or not, L.B.
Love the way you feel you can just storm in here and demand answers and validation… love the implied threat ‘if you don’t tell me what I want to hear, I’ll call you anti-sex’… now, before you call me an evil prudish bitch or whatever, re-read your own comment and try to work out why it earned this response.
hint: it’s not all about you!
Comment by Laurelin May 9, 2008 @ 8:08 pmOh noes! – we have failed to provide a man with the exact clarity of expression that he demands. Does this face look bothered LB?
Actually I thought Justin Timberlake was bringing sexy back – so maybe you can get together with him….
Comment by Polly Styrene May 9, 2008 @ 9:24 pm(Buried Alive Trivia FACT: this post receives the most consistent hits of any post)
Welcome L.B.
Okay, so your question point/question really comes to this:
““hotness” (physical attraction) is wrong?”
Okay, so, essentially yes.
As I’ve said elsewhere without gender, power paradigms, beauty standards, entitlement and appropriation there would be no sexualization or desire to do so.
I want all those things gone.
I don’t think for humans to have sex they need those elements. Thus I am not anti-sex.
(But can I just say *thank you!*–your “innocent” examples were a hoot! I was in tears by the time I got to the red boa. By all means keep your eurocentric classist “porn” and animal scarves!)
Hope that clarifies!
Comment by pisaquaririse May 9, 2008 @ 9:52 pmI’ve got a really wacky new idea… hold onto your hats…
what if people wanted to have sex with each other because of love, mutual respect and admiration for the other’s qualities? And what if that respect also meant that they cared for the other person’s choices and autonomy?
yeah, I know. that’s insane. really, it’s all about the lingerie and the feather boa. that’s a much more healthy attitude to have *eyeroll*
Comment by Laurelin May 9, 2008 @ 11:12 pmLaurelin you are a whack!
If people don’t have all these extra sensory accessories with which to aid in their sexual endeavors they may dry up and civilization will be over!
Seriously, tho–I’ve been planning on doing the post for a while now: why don’t people see appearance/sexual appearance standards for the prejudice they are?
Comment by pisaquaririse May 10, 2008 @ 1:33 amWhat? What? You mean I’ve been conditioned all my life to objectify people based on how well they stimulate my conditioned arousal response, and now oliver sudden I’m supposed to give a shit that their entire purpose in life might not be to stimulate a conditioned arousal response in me. Whadaya mean “Hotness” is all in my head?
Comment by thebewilderness May 10, 2008 @ 1:50 amWhat’s your average, conditioned to see themselves as the center of the universe, narcissistic asshat to do with that little gemstone of information?
Oh and ‘male sexual arousal’ well yes it does make me go Euuuwwww, now you come to mention it. Does that mean I am non-objectifying men though? And is that wrong?
I demand answers Damnit!!!
Comment by Polly Styrene May 10, 2008 @ 10:16 amAah what beutiful undertanding responses. Where do i begin…
“hint: it’s not all about you!”
No it isnt. But it is not NEVER about me either.
“Oh noes! – we have failed to provide a man with the exact clarity of expression that he demands. Does this face look bothered LB?”
Your the ones who insist men make these sacrifices and society change and all that…and I’m such an “asshat” because I dared to ask a question that implies….horrors….that my life, my happiness, my sexuality is of ANY relevance whatsoever.
Comment by L.B May 10, 2008 @ 5:44 pmPoor L.B.
Comment by thebewilderness May 10, 2008 @ 5:59 pmWhat a dreadful sacrifice for a man to be expected to behave like a decent human being to other human beings. It must be overwhelming for your poor sad self.
It is not your nature to be an asshat.
It is your conditioning. Resist. Look around you. Think.
“I’ve got a really wacky new idea… hold onto your hats…
what if people wanted to have sex with each other because of love, mutual respect and admiration for the other’s qualities? And what if that respect also meant that they cared for the other person’s choices and autonomy?
yeah, I know. that’s insane. really, it’s all about the lingerie and the feather boa. that’s a much more healthy attitude to have *eyeroll*”
Laurelin your model is far more morbid than u think.
Dont get me wrong:
Love, Mutual Respect, admiration for the other’s qualites:Thumbs UP!
Saying that things such as these should be….in both the natural sense and the moral sense….the primary components or the ONLY components in every sexual expression or thought:COOCKOO!COOCKOO!COOCKOO!
Comment by L.B May 10, 2008 @ 6:03 pm“Poor L.B.
What a dreadful sacrifice for a man to be expected to behave like a decent human being to other human beings. It must be overwhelming for your poor sad self.”
Ummm being a “decent Human being” in your book means not looking at any erotic imagry, never looking at womens bodies however descreetly, and pretty much fighting an uphill stuggle not to look at women in sexual way at all. yeah thats not too much to ask
Comment by L.B May 10, 2008 @ 6:09 pmNo. A request that you treat women as human beings is never too much to ask, L.B.
If you had come here with a genuine concern for women’s rights you would never have posted such an abusive comment in the first place. You would have listened, and considered your own behaviour.
Thank god it’s not all about you!
Comment by Laurelin May 10, 2008 @ 6:17 pmokay, L.B. I’m going to be nice for a minute. (Don’t worry, it never lasts long!) There is plenty of information on this blog, on my blog, and on other feminist blogs about the harms of pornography, the conditions in which it is made, and the abuse of women in the industry. Read up on these aspects before gazing at your ‘erotic material’ and telling yourself it’s okay so long as you get a boner. The information is out there- you just need the courage and the conscience to pursue it, and question your own behaviour and attitudes.
Comment by Laurelin May 10, 2008 @ 6:20 pmOh and ‘male sexual arousal’ well yes it does make me go Euuuwwww, now you come to mention it. Does that mean I am non-objectifying men though? And is that wrong?
I demand answers Damnit!!!
If you want an answer I’ll be happy to give one. after all its not like your an asshole just because u came on the board with a question pertaining to somthing important to you.
Of course your non-objectifying men. But you can do a lot worse things than “objecify” them.
Male arousal makes you go eeuw? Nothing wrong with that. You know what makes me go eew? homosexuality. But I at least struggle not to be a homophobe.
Heres a definition of homophobia: When fear and disgust at the idea of being raped by another man crosses the boundary of rationality so that everything having to do with male sexual attraction to other men feels like a violation.
I have a right to exist free of gay male sexuality being forced upon me, ….but that right reaches a point. If I try to outlaw or morally shame every form, every depiction, every expression of man-to-man desire that makes me even the slightest but uncomfortable, then thats imposing a cruel and unecessary sexual repression on them. So… this means theres a point where I need to show some TOLERANCE.
Comment by L.B May 10, 2008 @ 6:41 pmIf you had come here with a genuine concern for women’s rights you would never have posted such an abusive comment in the first place.
what abusive comment, quote please?
Comment by L.B May 10, 2008 @ 6:42 pmsorry I forgot to put quotation marks in the first paragraph of my last comment. just wanted to clarify.
Comment by L.B May 10, 2008 @ 6:44 pmYour first comment, which I and others have already critiqued in our comments.
And I would further ask you not to make any comments on how bad or not objectification is. This is something which, in this context, you are not qualified to make judgements about. Thank you.
Comment by Laurelin May 10, 2008 @ 7:00 pmYet another thread derailed by a d00dly troll in dire desperate need of a reality check.
Comment by thebewilderness May 10, 2008 @ 7:21 pmOh dear where to start
“Your the ones who insist men make these sacrifices and society change and all that…and I’m such an “asshat” because I dared to ask a question that implies….horrors….that my life, my happiness, my sexuality is of ANY relevance whatsoever.”
Well first of all “You are” shortened is spelt you’re. LB I don’t have the faintest idea who you are. You are a person on a blog thread. I am not demanding you do anything. I’m sure your life, your happiness and your sexuality is of supreme importance to you. However I don’t know you, so to be frank no, I’m not bothered about it. I am not demanding you do anything, nor is the owner of this blog. Do try to get a sense of proportion. It’s not all about you.
And homophobia is nothing to do with fearing being raped by a man. It’s an irrational fear and hatred of gay people. I can’t imagine many people, straight or gay, male or female, don’t fear being raped – that doesn’t make them homophobic, it makes them sensible. The problem is your assumption that all gay men are likely to rape you. Because often men who rape other men are ‘heterosexual’.
And if the thought of an erect penis makes me go ‘Euuwww’ (which it does) that doesn’t make me heterophobic either. Because straight men are not just walking penises. They are PEOPLE. See the difference? No probably not……
Comment by Polly Styrene May 10, 2008 @ 8:12 pmL.B. why is it you have not addressed my:
Comment by pisaquaririse May 10, 2008 @ 10:30 pm“As I’ve said elsewhere without gender, power paradigms, beauty standards, entitlement and appropriation there would be no sexualization or desire to do so” point?
>>>>>>Saying that things such as these should be….in both the natural sense and the moral sense….the primary components or the ONLY components in every sexual expression or thought:COOCKOO!COOCKOO!COOCKOO!<<<<<<<<
I’m amazed to find out that making bird noises constitutes an argument! And to think I’ve been wasting all this time on research, courage and using my brain!
Comment by Laurelin May 11, 2008 @ 11:59 amI think L.B. stands for “Lacking Brains” (or perhaps, “Lacking Boner”?).
Comment by Lara May 12, 2008 @ 1:30 amSince L.B.’s ridiculous-ass posts are not only chuckle-inducing but irritatingly long, here’s a summary of his argument:
“wha whaaaa!”
“>>>>>>Saying that things such as these should be….in both the natural sense and the moral sense….the primary components or the ONLY components in every sexual expression or thought:COOCKOO!COOCKOO!COOCKOO!<<<<<<<<
I’m amazed to find out that making bird noises constitutes an argument! ”
And how is…”it’s all about the lingerie and the feather boa. that’s a much more healthy attitude to have *eyeroll*” that much better? For that matter how are the direct insults, pointing out minor spelling (this is a blog posting not a business/college paper), making fun of my ALLEGED sexual fantasies, or endearing little comments like this: “here’s a summary of his argument:
Comment by L.B May 12, 2008 @ 6:36 pm“wha whaaaa!”” any better?
my dear, we’ve already replied to your assertions at length in our comments. Do try to keep up.
Comment by Laurelin May 12, 2008 @ 6:40 pmdo cuckoos take the bait? once again, i have swallowed it all… hook line sinker…
ayayayay! must exercise self-control; stop mocking the afflicted…
Comment by Laurelin May 12, 2008 @ 6:44 pmL.B-“yooohooo!”-I have presented a rather non ad-hom argument to your concerns which you continue to ignore.
For the thrice time:
Comment by pisaquaririse May 12, 2008 @ 6:48 pm“As I’ve said elsewhere without gender, power paradigms, beauty standards, entitlement and appropriation there would be no sexualization or desire to do so”
Polly Styrene,
Comment by L.B May 12, 2008 @ 6:52 pmI’m well aware that nobody sane wants to be raped. I was only saying homophobes possibly take that perfectly understandable fear and stretch it to a hatred of the very existence of same sex desire. I dont believe gay men are likely to rape me just because they’re gay. thats what a true homophobe would believe. Also I never said being grossed out by penises makes you heterophobic. If you have a problem with the existence of male desire, then you would be.
L.B-”yooohooo!”-I have presented a rather non ad-hom argument to your concerns which you continue to ignore.
“As I’ve said elsewhere without gender, power paradigms, beauty standards, entitlement and appropriation there would be no sexualization or desire to do so”
Ok I guess I got to adress this. Don’t know what to say at this time except I just dont believe it I’m not gonna make bird noises this time but IMHO its too out there.
I think what people find sexy is rooted in biology mingled with what I would call psychological or cultural factors. (i.e high heels saxaphone music etc. probably falls under this category) While it can be some of what passes for sexy may be deeply rooted in things related to patriarchy or dominance or what have you, I dont believe that if patriarcy, “gender, power paradigms, beauty standards, entitlement and appropriation” were somehow eliminated than things such as, say, an image of a woman gyrating in red lingerie would actually cease to be sexualy arousing. only difference is, the red lingerie or movementsmay be replaced by some other psychologically or culturaly inspired stimuli.
I cant beleive physical attraction and attraction based on base stimli is not hard-wired, as it occurs in the animal kingdom all the time. It’s always based on base stimuli (size, nose colour, feathers, scent etc). Thats all I have to say about that for now.
Comment by L.B May 12, 2008 @ 7:12 pmYou *guess* you have to address this? Don’t wear yourself out L.B!
“I think what people find sexy is rooted in biology”
“I cant beleive physical attraction and attraction based on base stimli is not hard-wired, as it occurs in the animal kingdom all the time”
Aha! Thought so.
Interesting–so what are these biological factors and is there some gene or something we can attribute this *innate* sexiness to?
I mean, what are the across-the-animal-kingdom factors we and rhinos alike just can’t stop finding so damn hawt?
(rhinos love them some gyrating red lingerie girl)
Comment by pisaquaririse May 12, 2008 @ 7:24 pmHmmm, then I take it that animals must have a pornography industry too? Or else they’d all turn into cuckoos? 😛
Comment by Laurelin May 12, 2008 @ 9:07 pmStop with all this Cuckoo-ing!
It’s making my Innate Walrus Sexy Biology go ccrrrazzzy!!!!
Comment by pisaquari May 12, 2008 @ 9:16 pmpisaquaririse:”I mean, what are the across-the-animal-kingdom factors we and rhinos alike just can’t stop finding so damn hawt?
(rhinos love them some gyrating red lingerie girl)”
Laurelin:
“Hmmm, then I take it that animals must have a pornography industry too? Or else they’d all turn into cuckoos?”
Well of course me and a rhino aren’t going to agree on what is sexy, we are both wired to respond to stimuli, but WHAT stimuli naturally differs among species.
And of course animals don’t have a pornography industry, thats only because animals haven’t evolved to the point where they can draw, write, photograph, film, and make money off of doing it.
So your point is…?
Comment by LB May 13, 2008 @ 1:09 amL.B.
Comment by thebewilderness May 13, 2008 @ 1:32 amYour beliefs are beside the point.
The fact that you prefer to cling to articles of faith rather than consider the clearly observable fact that you have been conditioned all your life to respond to stimuli that could not possible be hardwired is the point.
Man-ifest Destiny.
L.B like Bewilderness says, you are not willing to re-examine the source of this apparent “stimuli” because you’ve decided it’s something inborn (where’s your research on this? links please)–so your original *demand* for clarity is insincere.
If you read this thread you would see throughout that many here, including myself, do not feel sexy or sex appeal is innate. So unless you can bring some serious non-sexist research to the table on your position there is nothing more anyone here can answer for you.
Comment by pisaquaririse May 13, 2008 @ 3:20 pmHi Pisaquaririse,
Comment by easilyriled February 16, 2010 @ 4:16 pmthis is a really old post, but I wanted to comment anyhow…I LOVE it. love it. so clear, so concise, so radical. yummy. and your patience with some of the sex-poxies (as one of your readers called them, clever lass) is inspiring also. i’ll be back. Thank you.
Erin
In support, I wrote this and included your post:
On Being Anti-Sexy vs. Anti-Sex: a Radical (Pro)Feminist Perspective
Julian
Comment by Julian April 6, 2010 @ 5:34 amI read these old threads, almost misty. This community was a daily fire for me. Totally miss my writing fingers.
Welcome, much belatedly, to easilyriled and Julian.
Erin–I too am easilyriled. Don’t lose this :).
Julian, the linkage and support is much appreciated.
Comment by pisaquaririse April 12, 2010 @ 3:07 am@pisaquaririse
I hope you are able to write here regularly, and speak what you know to be true.
Comment by Julian April 12, 2010 @ 3:04 pmP.S. White Het “Man-infest Destiny” 😉
Comment by Julian April 12, 2010 @ 3:05 pmSexy is just a means of controlling women, making them perform for patriarchy. It is artificial. It is like black face is to black people, it is the same. It is also about the deep shame and self-hatred women feel when they are assaulted daily with demeaning images of women in a multi-billion dollar ad industry, and its shadow side, the porn industry.
It is against the will of women, but many women can’t bear the thought of standing up against this anslaught, so they seek to conform, very much the way slaves learned to please master. It is not freely given, it is imposed, and women try to persuade themselves that they are not cattle, not objects, but women are. The truth of this drives sex pozzie stuff, because the truth of it all is too much for third wave feminists and younger. They are unwilling to confront the hard truth, don’t have the organizational skills to do it, because patriarchy attempts to derail revolution every time. They are derailing it now women. They’ll do it again as soon as feminism catches on to its latest tricks… dehumanizing women with “sexie” making women think they want this stuff… making women believe they have to waste money on fashion accessories…
Comment by SheilaG August 21, 2010 @ 7:53 pm