I think that the porn market is off balance. It sells men's sexual dreams, the kinds of dreams that the men may see as simply tools to reach orgasm quickly, and therefore they portray women behaving in ways which don't necessarily give the women that much pleasure but do contribute to the speed of the man's orgasm. It isn't that far-fetched to assume that those who consume porn from early ages start expecting that women actually behave like that when they have sex.

As an example, I read so much about blow jobs these days. Sometimes it seems that many men would rather have the woman's mouth than her vagina. But it is very seldom that I read anything about women receiving oral sex from men. This makes me suspect that there is a servicing aspect to this whole thing, one which privileges men's enjoyment over women's enjoyment.

Thanks for the link to a fascinating exchange. I'll see if I can't respond to the Shalit-Kipnis exchange on my own blog, especially as one who (predictably) feels torn between the two.

Echidne, you're right. Even several times over.

Gosh -- I always thought that that was an index finger and she was making a point!

you know, i've always wondered if folks thought that. though i guess "fuck you" is a point to be made...

we're thinking about a redesign, so perhaps i'll make it clearer in the next image...

It never occurred to me to think it was anything other than the middle finger!

I will never understand how an oppressed class (women) doing exactly to the "T" what the oppressing class (men) wants them to do in the area which sees the most traffic in the oppressed/oppressing theatre (sex) is in any way thwarting the oppressors or liberating/empowering the oppressed.

But what do I know, I'm just a forklift operator. Some enlighted college grad could probably take the time and spell it out for me with puppets or something.

Damn, hit "post" too quick.

Anyway... the only way I can see the sex industry as "empowering" is if the person involved accepts the idea that "empowerment" comes from sexually stimulating men. In other words, that power comes from men seeing her as a sexual object. And that's a power she's ok with having - reliant, entirely, on males granting it to her based on her "object" status.

Oh! One more thing!

Don't any of the women doing this for an empowerment hobby, assuming it really IS empowering, care that most of the men consuming their product are MARRIED? And that by empowering themselves, these women are expressly DISEMPOWERING these men's wives? Women who know that their husbands, by and large, masturbate far more often to images of naked feminists doing god-knows-what than to bedroom memories of lovemaking and, by and large, far more often than they actually make love? Women who suddenly feel they have to measure up to this sexy, 20-something leggy feminist that is keeping their hubby at the burlesque club all night instead of at home, when they themselves are 40-something and have been through multiple pregnancies? Women who may not have wanted to or accepted the idea of obtaining independant power by displaying sexuality but now feel they have no other choice to regain the undivided sexual attention of their lifemates?

YOU may not have a problem with your boy toy running around ogling naked feminists who, by and large, ain't you, and you may have no problem with married men ogling you, but how many women say "Oh, I don't mind, I know who he really wants" then cry themselves to sleep and apply as much makeup and as short a skirt as they can get the next morning in an attempt to regain some self-esteem through their spouse's renewed sexual attention?

Even if it IS empowering, it seems very selfishly empowering - it empowers a young, porn-star-looking girlject at the expense of their customer's wives!

Woo, fired up I am! I need to get back to the floor before I get in trouble! Sorry, guys!

Geez alpaca rider, it's not my fault that there are a lot of neurotic women out there - it's not even the fault of porn or men who love it. It is really stupid to believe that you will embody the entirety of what turns your partner on. This is true for everyone, no matter where they measure on the hotness scale. Women who are insecure because their men are turned on by others don't need others to be less sexy, they need to stop demanding something from their partners that is impossible to give.

/it's not my fault that there are a lot of neurotic women out there /

No, but it can certainly be argued that a patriarchal system makes more women neurotic than would otherwise be, but that's another discussion entirely. And it certainly benefits you that there are such women out there - women who believe their worth as a person comes from you viewing them as sexual objects.

/It is really stupid to believe that you will embody the entirety of what turns your partner on./

Why?

I'm sure you would be rather upset if your partner decided to go out and sleep with a football team then said "It's really stupid of you to be upset; how can you expect to embody the entirety of what turns me on?"

If you didn't want to fuck the women you see in porn, you wouldn't look at them naked and being fucked. If you wanted to fuck your wife more, you'd look at her and masturbate about her more. It's pretty simple.

/Women who are insecure because their men are turned on by others don't need others to be less sexy, they need to stop demanding something from their partners that is impossible to give./

(A) I'm a man, and it's not impossible for ME to give, so that sort of shoots your entire premise right in its exaggerated, stuffed, overemphasized groin.
(B) Monogamy is impossible? Why? Are we going to play the "Evolutionary Biology as Described by Models that have Been Debunked Since Before Darwin got Stiff and Stinky" game?

I think that neither respect nor monogamy are impossible. The fact that I'm doing them both is sort of my first clue. But if they're impossible for YOU, please make sure that you, like ModernMan and his pregnancy disclaimer, put that into your Full Disclosure Introduction before you begin a sexual relationship with someone.

Along the lines of "I'm very attracted to you, and want to fuck your shoes right off, but in the interest of honesty, respect, and full disclosure I am ethically required to inform you that you will never be enough for me in a sexual capacity, and when I cheat on you - either with my penis or my head, or anything else - it will be your issue to get over, not mine, because I am an uncontrollable, biologically-ordained philanderer and there's nothing you nor anyone else can do about it."

Do you say something like that to your girlfriends BEFORE you hook them, like a mature, responsible, empowering, ethical person? Or do you just throw it at them when they get upset with you for screwing the babysitter and your wife's sister and the plumber's wife and the lifeguard at the contry club and....

If I were a betting man (and I sometimes am), I know where I'd put my money. But hell, maybe you'll prove me wrong.

the way i see it is if a woman wants to sell sex that is her business. empowerment? who knows. who cares. it is her business, her issue. Maybe it is impowering for her, maybe it is degrading. as outsiders with perhaps a different moral code, not sure what the point of being judgement is.

as for porn's influence, i definitely have seen it with women I date, particularly in the pubic hair styling department. or rather, the lack of pubic hair left to style.

Alpaca Rider,

I'm a happily monogamous married woman. I just don't believe in fidelity thoughtcrime. You may be wrong on the idea of my husband doing a football team - it might be pretty hot. Which is my entire point. He's married to me, but my sexual fantasies are mine.

/fidelity thoughtcrime/

It's not a "fidelity thoughtcrime", Madame Orwell. It's simply the common-sense notion that we think about what we want. We fantasize about our desires. If you are fantasizing about your husband with a football team, you want to see him do a football team. If you didn't, you wouldn't get off on it.

So if you're getting off on fantasies about men other than your husband more often than you are about your husband, that quite simply means you want other men more than you want your husband. I suspect that you, as a monogamous woman, probably include your husband in your fantasies more often than not.

But your husband, I will gaurantee you, does not reciprocate. If he masturbates to porn chickz more than he masturbates/makes love to you, it's kind of self evident that he wants them more than he wants you. They make him orgasm more than you make him orgasm. He would rather, if given the opportunity, be with them. Which sort of indicates one of two things:

(A) If you do not respond to his desires by trying to become that which he masturbates about, he will cheat on you given the opportunity to be with what he REALLY wants, or
(B) He will manipulate/force you to become what he REALLY wants.

[But very rarely does it result in (C) He sits you down and has a heart-to-heart talk with you about what his true sexual desires are and the two of you either work out an acceptable compromise or go your separate ways sad, but comfortable in the knowledge that you were not sexually compatible.]

The number of women guilted/tricked/forced/manipulated into "trying" something their man watches in pornography with the implied threat of occurence (A) is vast. For example, neither you nor any person on the planet will ever convince me that any woman anywhere actually enjoys, much less orgasms during, anal sex doggy style. Combine extreme pain with being as far from the clitoris as one could possibly get while remaining in the nether region and absence of even a single sexual nerve ending, and you don't exactly get a recipe for happy women. Yet for some reason, women are expected not only to DO it, but to pretend to LIKE it. Why? See (A) and (B). If they don't pretend to like it, the man they love and want to keep will go find someone who will.

Where on earth would anyone possibly get the idea that (1) sticking a penis in a recepticle entirely too small for it and (2) the recipient should like it even if that recipient lacks a prostate are normal, healthy parts of sexuality for both partners when the partner on the "giving" end would, generally speaking, more likely chomp a tooth-shaped cyanide capsule than actually go through the experience on the other end?

Similarly, where on earth do men get the idea that all women are inherently bisexual and would love sex with another woman for his pleasure if he could just get her (by hook, crook, or liquor in many cases) to try it? Where on earth do men get the idea that the perk of having a bisexual girlfriend is that she's just drooling over the idea of making out with other chicks for the man's boner-enhancement? Where on earth do men get the idea that women crave cum on their faces, breasts, stomach, hair, eyelashes, and up their noses? Where on earth do men get the idea that their penises, sans any clitoral stimulation whatsoever, will get women off? Where do men get the idea that bigger is better, and that women like big dicks, and that if one big dick is good, multiple big dicks should be even better and give her a BETTER orgasm (again, sans any clitoral stimulation)? Where do men get the idea that women should be screaming during the sex act?

And where, oh-god-almighty-where, do women get the idea that these are things they're SUPPOSED to be doing, that these are NORMAL expectations, and that they're PRUDES or FRIGID or OTHERWISE DEFICIENT if they do not engage in any activities included, but not in any way limited by, the above list?

Hint: The answer starts with a "P" and ends with an "ornography".

Simple Concepts, aka Reality as Seen by an Unenlightened Forklift Operator:
1: If I think about doing something and experience a sense of arousal, it is safe to say I really want to do that thing.
2: If I think about having sex with a person and experience a sense of arousal, it is safe to say I really want to have sex with that person.
3: If that person appears in my thoughts more often than my spouse appears in my thoughts, it is safe to say that I want to have sex with that person more than I want to have sex with my spouse.
4: Most spouses don't like the idea of their spouse going out and having sex with people other than them, primarily because it's disrespectful when done without including the non-cheating spouse in the decision-making process via open and honest communication of desire in a situation of equality and meaningful consent.
5: Therefore, it is safe to say that most spouses feel pressure to conform to the other spouse's desires, up to the point of their personal humiliation/pain threshhold, to keep their spouse's attention, by doing things that make no sense with her own pleasure is taken into account but which she has been convinced are "normal".
6: And without the aforementioned open and honest communication, the asshole spouse can say "Gee, I never SAID you had to do any of that! If you didn't like it, you should have just said no!" and disempower the non-asshole spouse more than he/she was disempowered by the situation already (because now he/she is just overreacting/crazy).

If all this is "fidelity thoughtcrime", then sign me up for the Society for Hindering All Fidelity Thoughtcrimes and Miscellaneous Egrarious Nimroddery (S.H.A.F.T. M.E.N). I'll wear the "Big Brother's Little Enforcer" badge with pride.

Sorry folks, the assumption that what a person fantasizes about is what they'd like to do in real life is completely off base. (First clue: they are called *fantasies.*)

Fantasies have a lot of uses--they allow people to discharge sexual energy, to get more wound up before and/or during sex with partners, to masturbate enthusiastically, and to daydream erotically. But research shows that people do not sit around fantasizing merely about what they could do, or have done, in real life. A fantasy is not a vote for what you'd rather be doing in real life.

Fantasy is a tool for playing with forbidden and impossible things. It can also be about one's own monogamous partner, but plenty of people have wild fantasies that they would never, ever want to even try in real life.

A lot of people are threatened by the idea of their partners having fantasies that they could never measure up to. They are threatened by the idea that their partner masturbates. But other couples masturbate together and have a great deal of fun sharing their fantasies. I think of it as having two sex lives--the one you have with your partner or series of partners, and the one you had first and will always have--the one with yourself, the one that goes on in your own head and wth your own hands, whether you're in a relationship or between relationships. What's so scary about that?

Thundercloud, I think people get very caught up in the idea that they're their mate's soulmate, that they're everything to them, etc. There's this romantic ideal sold to people that once they fall in love, everyone else disappears.

Clearly, that doesn't happen. Luckily, and contrary to what Alpaca Rider/Dim seem to believe, people don't fuck everything that turns them on. We value our relationships more than we value the physiological reactions we have to seeing a hottie go by on the street.

I'm physically attracted to a lot of different people, but I'm not married to them. I can't look like everyone my husband is attracted to, but that doesn't mean he's not attracted to me - I fall (comfortably) within the range of people to whom he is attracted. This is how we can have monogamy without trying to control eacothers' thoughts (and biochemistry).

I'm just bewildered that I have to explain all of this.

First, I am the poster formerly known as Alpaca Rider - I changed my display name to something a little more male-sounding.

The distinct separation between thoughts an actions exists nowhere else in our daily lives; I don't ever get a watery mouth thinking about a food I'd never really want to eat, or a drink I'd never really want to consume. If I'm scared of pickles (and I am; disgusting things, pickles), I'm not going to think of a pickle and get the physiological reaction of hunger. Generally speaking, I only "fantasize" about foods I want to eat. I may "fantasize" about foods I don't have the opportunity to eat (for instance, I'd really love to try kitten soup), but I still would like to eat that food. Should the opportnity arise for me to sample a taste of kitten soup, I will take it. And I'd venture to say that if I thought about eating kitten soup twelve times a day, I might go a bit further out of my way to get my hands on a kitten than I would otherwise.

In short, in every other aspect of my preferences and desires, I "fantasize" and get a positive BIOLOGICAL reaction ONLY about things I actually want to try or have liked before. I don't think about driving a Prowler, feel the wind in my hair, and cum my pants, then have the opportunity to drive one and go "Umm, no, I never really wanted to do that. Thanks, tho." I don't "fantasize" about riding a Percheron, imaginging how it would feel and how great it would be, then handily and easily reject an opportunity to ride a Percheron. I don't "fantasize" about Cirque du Soleil, but refuse to go see it when it comes to town because "I didn't want to do that anyway".

But yet, y'all expect me to believe that sex is exempt. That your sexual fantasies follow different rules than any other fantasy you've ever had and will have in any subject that is not sex.

Color me skeptical. I strongly suspect that if a 45-year-old man who fantasized about fucking 12-year-old girls in piggy tails got a chance to actually fuck a 12-year-old girl in piggy tails, he'd probably take it. I also strongly suspect The amount of risk he'd be willing to chance is directly proportional to how much of his fantasizing time that particular fantasy took up.
I reach that conclusion based on a body of evidence called "It works like that in every other situation, and as far as I can tell I have seen no relevant difference between those situations and this one, unless our brains are hard-wired to force us to masturbate and cum to images that we hate and would never in a million years find enjoyable."

I get all slobbery about Chicken Caccitori far more often than I do about Ramen Noodles. I think about Plymouth Prowlers far more often than I think about Volkswagon Beetles. I fantasize about Percherons far more often than I do about Quarterhorses. I get an excited adrenaline rush contemplating Cirque du Soleil far more often and to a far greater extent than when I contemplate a live showing of Reno 911. In all of those instances, and many others I have neither the time nor the wherewithal to list, the thought that tickles my neurons more often contains that which I actively want to experience more than the other.

Why does sex play by different rules?

Hint: It might have more to do with someone's ferverent desire to not believe they actually want to do the sick things they think about, in a classic Appeal to Consequences of Belief, than with some fundamental difference in the brain's hard-wiring in the area that pertains to sexual arousal as differentiated from other types of arousal.

Dim, my wife likes anal penetration, as do I. It need not be painful, done with lubication and communication. She penetrates me anally, and I her. On a few occasions, I have ejaculated while she is fucking me. On more than a few occasions, she has climaxed while my penis is in her anus.

I expect that you believe my wife is merely faking her orgasms to curry favor with me, the oppressor male. However, since I have climaxed during receptive anal sex, I have no reason to be skeptical of her response. Now, biologically, the process is of course different, as I have a prostate. When my wife has come during receptive anal sex, she has been in positions where there is pressure on her vulva translating to her clitoris, so these are in some sense clitoral orgasms. But your general belief that anal sex for women is some awful experience is a product of your prejudices.

Also, you have some nerve coming to this blog and telling a married, feminist woman that you know better than she does what her husband thinks. Not only is it without evidentiary foundation, it is damned rude. You should apologize to Yellownumber5.

I'm still seeing some problems in the arguments going on here. I disagree with the notion that fantasy=action, as in, every time I fantasize about eating, say, a chocolate shake, it means I want to do it, plan to do it, and will pass up anything else if I think I can get one. There are obvious bars to this (satiation, money, concerns about nutrition and fitness, etc.) even if I am passionate about chocolate milkshakes. I don't feel particularly deprived if I don't get a chocolate milkshake every day--especially if my partner gives me a vanilla shake once in a while. ;-)

Most of us have passed up opportunities to do something we've wished we could do, and for all kinds of reasons. You don't have to be a superior, moral, or even particularly mature person to realize that acting on a fantasy of screwing your next door neighbor probably isn't worth the price of destroying your long-term happiness with your current partner. Many people would refrain from taking what is offered under unethical circumstances, such as the other person being a minor, intoxicated, on the rebound, etc.

It's easy to toss around scenarios like "fucking the whole football team." That's a great fantasy, when presented (as all fantasies are) without unpleasant realities such as: not likely to happen, not likely to be enjoyable, not likely to be appreciated by your partner. But just because the idea is exciting to your mind and/or body doesn't mean that you really want to do it in real life.

Why does sex play by different rules? Because sex is complicated by human emotion and human relationships. Why do fantasies of taboo sex acts turn people on? Because they're taboo and they're about sex. So if I see a film of a couple of guys having anal sex and find that my neurons are tingling, what does that mean? If I'm a woman, it means I want to be a guy? If I'm a guy, that I want to be gay? That I want to have anal sex? Or is it simply that two naked people having fun is exciting to watch?

I just find all these generalized pronouncements about what's going on in other people's heads to be a little outlandish. Surely I'm only qualified to describe my own thoughts and feelings...I can observe actions, but by the arguments above, then monogamous people either never fantasize ('cuz they would have acted on it) or they simply haven't been propositioned right.

Thundercloud, thanks for chiming in.

I'd like to add that I fantasize about a lot of things that I don't do, even though I want to. I want to eat candy every day, but it's not smart. I want to sleep until noon and quit work, but that wouldn't be smart, either.

The thing that makes this conversation so truly absurd to me is that, of all things for a feminist to hate about porn, Alpaca Rider has chosen that it turns people on. Not that it's often made abusively, not that performers rarely get paid royalties, not that the working conditions can be dangerous, but that it's titillating. How about a little perspective here?

It is not true that you only fantasize about that which you would actually do. I fantasize about all kinds of fattening and unhealthy foods that I may enjoy eating, but I CHOOSE not to eat them because they are unhealthy. I LOVE french fries!! But, I gave up all fried foods over 10 years ago and have not eaten a fried anything since. I LOVE B and J ice cream, but read a package, that shyt is bad for you. I dont' eat it.

I fantasize about ex gf's all the time. if given the change id not touch them with a ten foot pole. Its the Memories that are exiting, not the reality of doing them again.

Porn is primarily a masterbation aid. So what? I think the anti-porn thing IS in fact a part of the entire fairy tale romance story, the "true love one and only" well, myself and many others who look at reality do not believe in that myth.

Dim UNdercellar, I think you have to lighten up. I for one believe that a partner should try to do waht they can to sexually please their partner. If they want to try something, why not just do it. If a chick, or a man for that matter finds that their parter is more sexually adventurious than they are, well, that means they are not really compatible. If a guy wants to shoot a load in his gf's face, who really cares? So long as the ballance of give and take in the relationship feels right to both people, then its all pretty much fair game in my book.

Plenty of chicks like to get crazy, the mentality you have that it is the guys only who enjoy this and push it is completely wrong in my experience, and i think many women and men here will agree with me.

/Dim, my wife likes anal penetration/

She's lying, btw.

You like it because you have a prostate. She "likes" it because you like doing it to her and she doesn't want to admit to not being your perfect sexual match.

(Because, PHYSIOLOGICALLY speaking, since all this talk of physiology is wonderful until it contradicts a patriarchal lie, there's not a sexual nerve ending within five inches in any direction of a woman's sphincter. Look it up. You ain't hittin' it, bud, not by a country mile.)

Now, I have to wonder:

is it just me?

Everyone since my post has admitted, in contrast to what was proclaimed a few posts back, that we fantasize about things we want.

That's all I'm sayin', here.

I didn't address the obvious bars to acting on that because, frankly, there will always exist a situation in which the bars are nonexistant or minimal, and in such a situation, based purely on the evidentary experience of every single person I've ever met or known (but maybe y'all are all exceptions), a person will act on their fantasies.

Repeated fantisization, and desensitization, increases the amount of risk/discomfort/inconvenience someone is willing to go through to act on their fantasy. That's just textbook psychology, for crying out loud.

If you heard that a man was arrested for molesting children one day, and it was discovered that he had fifteen years' worth of child porn in his house, would that surprise you? Does it surprise you that the cartoonist who drew Hustler's "Chester the Molestor" cartoons died in prison after being convicted of raping his daughter and her friend? That should be shocking and surprising based on the logic y'all are presenting, since fantasies don't have any bearing on how a person will act!

Hell, I'm sure that none of you would mind letting a neighborhood man babysit your 6 year old daughter if you knew he was fantasizing about 6 year old children. If you were drinking with that guy one night, and his lips got loose, and he admitted to having fantasies about screwing 6-year-old girls, you wouldn't consider that at all when it came to choosing him as a babysitter! Right? Right?

Wait, what do you mean, wrong? It's different? So now even some sexual fantasies play by different rules than others?

So which ones play by different rules? "Oh, someone who fantasizes about rape is probably dangerous, and someone who fantasizes about child molestation is definitely dangerous, and someone who fantasizes about female bovines is dangerous to cattle, but someone who fantasizes about what me/my spouse fantasize/s about is obviously never ever going to act on those desires even should they be in a situation where the Bar of Difficulty is very, very low. Because I wouldn't, personally. I'm a good person. On a completely unrelated note, I love the Fallacy of Composition."

I AM NOT SAYING THAT ANY GIVEN INDIVIDUAL HERE IS DANGEROUS DUE TO THEIR SICK AND PERVERTED SEXUAL FANTASIES. Obviously, everyone here has a bar set very, very high. Impossibly, improbably high, even. Maybe even "I fantasize about having sex with unicorns" high.

Then again, if I'm making you feel uncomfortable about the things you hate, are disgusted by, and would puke over if you weren't so close to orgasm, maybe you should take a better look at how you act when that bar drops a notch.

Further reading:
Dr. Diana Russell's "Pornography as a Cause of Rape"

/The thing that makes this conversation so truly absurd to me is that, of all things for a feminist to hate about porn, Alpaca Rider has chosen that it turns people on/

Quite frankly, if looking at images of women made up to look like teenagers and adolescents having sex with men who are made up to look their actual age turns someone on, yes, I hate that.

If looking at images of women being tied and beaten by several men before being simulatedly raped, with all the requisite screams of pain and terror, turns someone on, yes, I hate that.

If looking at images of a woman being systematically objectified and disempowered by any means, even "non-violent" ones, turns someone on, yes, I hate that.

A person cannot be turned on by images of women as rapeable, rapes, abuseable, abused girljects and legitimately want to free them from their oppression at the same time. It's a contradiction. A BLANTANT, EGRARIOUS contradiction of the LEAST subliminal, unconscious kind I can imagine. And it worries me that I seem to be the only one who sees it.

Until pornography is gone, until men (and women!) are no longer sexually aroused by images of women raped, abused, humiliated, degraded, and forced into submissing to an inherently patriarchal corruption of the idea of "sexuality", there will be no equality. There will be no liberation. There will be no societal respect for women or their issues. And until the Women's Movement as a whole wakes the fuck up to that, they will remain fragmented, ineffective, and essentially impotent (yes, pun intended).

Nobody is empowered by being exactly what their oppressors want them to be. Period. Ever. End. Finis.

...wow, I'm a smidge fired up, eh?

Dim, I know my wife nine years, and we have a child together. You don't know her name. You presume to know something about her sexual proclivities that I do not. That's the height of arrogance.

Also, we all choose not to do things we may have an urge to do. You, for example, could simply choose not to show up on a feminist site and berate feminist women for not being feminist enough. But you give in to your urge to abuse women, using a unique scam of espousing a more-feminist-than-thou position. You're a bad person.

My final comments, as a bad fucking person, are over at The Biting Beaver's Den.

I'm sorry I offended you by pointing out that pornography and the things which turn people on in our society are the single biggest obstacles to women ever being seen by men as anything other than Cum Recepticles that Usually Whine Too Much.
My bad.
Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa.

~Dim
(PS: Are orgasms in your household accompanied by screams of pleasure? You know those are fake too, right? Just askin'...)

Dim, I'm afraid you're simply wrong. If a woman is going to have sex with a man, she's going to some degree to become his sexual fantasy. She is going to do many of the things that are exhibited in porn. This does not make her abused or unduly objectified - it means she is getting laid. There is fucked up porn out there, and there are fucked up people who watch it. However, many men consume pornography yet do not think of women solely as sexual objects.

It is preposterous to tell Thundercloud that his wife hates anal sex. Your pushing of these old anti-porn feminist memes makes me think you've never really thought about them. In fact, instead of listening to evidence to the contrary of what you say, you accuse Thundercloud of abusing his wife and ignoring her humanity.

You may not be able to watch pornography without it making you go wild with lust and have to find a cute coed to nail pronto. You may never have met a woman who enjoys anal sex. You may never have met a woman who enjoys at times being a sexual object.

This means nothing about the rest of the human race, and I think we've made it clear here that the emotional and sexual beings of others are a little more complicated than your anti-pornography talking points. If you are concerned about relations between men and women, you might want to listen to what they actually think. Otherwise, please continue to ignore the world around you to help you feel self-righteous.

Need to jet back into the fray for a sec and clarify that I was not the one posting about my wife's feelings about anal sex, because I am in fact a wife with a husband. For the record, my husband and I have both fantasized about anal sex, found it a little tougher to enjoy in reality, but--now pay attention here--we still fantasize about it 'cause to us it just looks fun and a bit kinky. So my fantasy is still that if it is as fun as it looks, it would be...fun. Whether or not we ever try it again, it'll still surface in our fantasies. So there.

For those on this thread who like to go on and on about female physiology but don't HAVE ANY, please don't forget that people have many erogenous zones, including the space between their ears. The clitoris is not 1 cubic centimeter. The nerve network is quite extensive and many, many women find anal stimulation intensely pleasurable, whether or not penetration is involved. Just because it may not directly create an orgasm in the female doesn't mean it ain't worth doing (how's that for a feminist argument?). If that were the case, we wouldn't bother with nipple stimulation either.

So can we be a little less penetration=orgasm=mission accomplished in our orientation?

Yeesh. Time to go read some Nancy Friday!

Need to jet back into the fray for a sec and clarify that I was not the one posting about my wife's feelings about anal sex, because I am in fact a wife with a husband. For the record, my husband and I have both fantasized about anal sex, found it a little tougher to enjoy in reality, but--now pay attention here--we still fantasize about it 'cause to us it just looks fun and a bit kinky. So my fantasy is still that if it is as fun as it looks, it would be...fun. Whether or not we ever try it again, it'll still surface in our fantasies. So there.

For those on this thread who like to go on and on about female physiology but don't HAVE ANY, please don't forget that people have many erogenous zones, including the space between their ears. The clitoris is not 1 cubic centimeter. The nerve network is quite extensive and many, many women find anal stimulation intensely pleasurable, whether or not penetration is involved. Just because it may not directly create an orgasm in the female doesn't mean it ain't worth doing (how's that for a feminist argument?). If that were the case, we wouldn't bother with nipple stimulation either.

So can we be a little less penetration=orgasm=mission accomplished in our orientation?

Yeesh. Time to go read some Nancy Friday!

Need to jet back into the fray for a sec and clarify that I was not the one posting about my wife's feelings about anal sex, because I am in fact a wife with a husband. For the record, my husband and I have both fantasized about anal sex, found it a little tougher to enjoy in reality, but--now pay attention here--we still fantasize about it 'cause to us it just looks fun and a bit kinky. So my fantasy is still that if it is as fun as it looks, it would be...fun. Whether or not we ever try it again, it'll still surface in our fantasies. So there.

For those on this thread who like to go on and on about female physiology but don't HAVE ANY, please don't forget that people have many erogenous zones, including the space between their ears. The clitoris is not 1 cubic centimeter. The nerve network is quite extensive and many, many women find anal stimulation intensely pleasurable, whether or not penetration is involved. Just because it may not directly create an orgasm in the female doesn't mean it ain't worth doing (how's that for a feminist argument?). If that were the case, we wouldn't bother with nipple stimulation either.

So can we be a little less penetration=orgasm=mission accomplished in our orientation?

Yeesh. Time to go read some Nancy Friday!

(Sorry about the multiple posting, everyone. My browser seems to choke up when I use TypeKey. Shoot, now I've blown my image with y'all, huh? Heh heh.)

Hey Dim, feel free to spout any anti-porn stuff you want, but you need to cut out the personal insults/assumptions. We have a comments policy against that kind of language and antagonism. Thanks.

Whoops. I guess my fingers went on autopilot after typing "Th." Sorry to confuse you two, Thomas and Thundercloud.

I'm a woman and I LOVE anal sex, doggie style. I seldom climax from backdoor stimulation alone (only when I've been really worked up prior to it) but nothing makes me come harder or faster than a nice ass pounding while using a vibe on my clit... not vaginal/clitoral, clitoral on it's own or with any combination of earlobe sucking, nape kissing or toe licking. Close second would be clitoral stimulation while being rimmed.

To be fair, if you told me I would feel that way about it three years ago, I would have said you were crazy. In fact, I once sent an e-mail message to a guy who posted an adult personal ad looking for a woman who loved greek, and told him there was no such thing. So I understand how women might believe such a thing is mythological. You'vd got to use a lot of lube and start off slow to get the muscles to relax a bit, and press the vibrator firmly (as much as is desird) against your clit. It's gotten to the point where sex is a bit of a letdown for me if it doesn't include anal.

Dan Savage once quoted a female friend of his who said that people think of the clitoris as a little man in a boat, when in fact it is just the tip of the man's hat.

Not sure why they would call it a man instead of a woman in a boat. When men refer to their schvantz in the third person, they never say "she" but that's beside the point. The point is that there are nerve endings all over our bodies, and many pleasure points throughout the genital region. True the highest concentration is in the clitoris, but you don't need a prostate to enjoy rectal stimulation as a part of your sex life

Thanks for your comments Dim; they are much appreciated by this reader. I agree that you are assuming too much with your anal sex statements; as a woman who can find it pleasurable, I agree that it is unlikely that women can orgasm to anal sex alone, but, as FrenchKiss attests, it can be amazing when accompanied with clitoral stimulation (for this writer). And who knows, there probably is a woman or two out there who can climax somehow from anal sex alone. However, Pamela Paul's book, as well as other reports (and that's really all we have so far--reports; note that there are no controlled studies of porn use underway, due to conflicts w/human subjects regulations), heavy porn use can lead to some serious misery for the partner not transformed by it (or maybe just a round or two of faking orgasm during anal sex). Maybe this is a good thing for some people, but as someone who considers myself a feminist to the core and not anti-porn and definitely pro-fantasy, I am with you on your waryness of the "fantasy" comprising much of internet porn these days--the rapes, bukkake, bestiality, child porn. Paul's argument (and it is helpful to read the book before you berate my paraphrase) is that light internet porn use can lead to heavy, very heavy porn addiction (for some people), which does actually change the brain, which becomes addicted to chemicals released during fantasy sex/masturbation. Fantasy does not remain fantasy, and some of these folks don't have the critical training to theorize their actions into something they and their partners thrive upon. We need more like Dim in this world--he isn't some anti-porno fanatic as far as I can tell. And we will, I believe, be moving beyond the Dworkin vs. empowered sex worker outworn opposition soon. It isn't either/or. It is getting more complicated than that.