wait, rachel kramer bussel is a feminist?

I could have sworn she used to write about how empowerful it is to suck cock, take it up the ass, and get smakcked around during sex.

we must be using the term quite loosely these days.

Oh, geez. I have so many thoughts on this... I'm not even sure where to begin...

How do we talk about dating without letting all our secrets out or embarrassing somebody?

I think that's a pretty important aspect. If you're talking about sex or dating or sex and dating, and you're talking about your own experiences, it's probably hard to know where to draw the line. How much information do you give out about that last hot date? And how much detail do you go into about the horrible date you had, too?

I can see how a blogger could end up feeling torn- you want to be able to talk openly and honestly to your readers, but you also want to respect the privacy of your dates (one would hope).

I think it also gets into a lot of the questions and concerns we have- or maybe we should be having- about the digital age. We're living in a world where things like LiveJournal and MySpace make it easy for anyone to have a blog of sorts. Between easy access to the internet, digital cameras, cell phones that can take pictures and access internet... how much expectation for privacy do we or should we have when we date? If I go on a date, is it reasonable to expect that the woman I'm out with is going to keep our encounter private, or should I realize that there's every possibilty that she's going to post about it online somewhere? If she does, is there an obligation to tell me? Is there an obligation to protect my identity? How much?

It's too bad that it ended up being a disappointment, there are so many really interesting things to talk about with regards to dating and the internet.

Alice Paul, didn't Samhita just say, "I will not obey patriarchy and fight with other women, but I will interrogate concepts and recognize that they are a result of much bigger systemic problems"? Is it really productive to call RKB not feminist?

Now, I also get annoyed when she conflates self-exploration with what is good for women as a class, and I think she is too uncritical in discussing BDSM (I say this as a sadomasochist). But your comment doesn't sound like a critique of how she handles the topic. Your critique sounds like an attack on her feminism because she talks about sucking cock, taking it in the ass and getting slapped during sex. Are you critiquing RKB's approach, or are you putting your marker down as the sort of feminist that thinks her sexual practices exclude her from feminism?

Fucking and Feminism
Blowjobs, casual sex, and rape fantasies are under attack
by Rachel Kramer Bussel
July 13th, 2006 4:19 PM

"No one has the right to tell you how to fuck."
Ladies, be warned: Your pussies are causing the downfall of society. If we keep posing for nude photos, sucking cock (and enjoying it), and getting Brazilian bikini waxes, our hard-won feminist gains will disappear, according to the latest generation of scolds and alarmists, writers like Ariel Levy (Female Chauvinist Pigs), reality show rabbi Shmuley Boteach (Hating Women: America's Hostile Campaign Against the Fairer Sex), and Pamela Paul (Pornified). To them, fucking freely is bungling our climb toward equality. These well-intentioned prudes proffer a false choice: Be the next Jenna Jameson or support Hillary for president. There's no room for a lusty woman in office (never mind Mary Carey's political ambitions), and certainly no credence given to strippers or adult performers, who they see as airheaded sluts.
We're in the middle of a culture war around sex, and it goes beyond left vs. right. Many of the voices quick to excoriate you for buttfucking, baring your boobs, having a threesome, or public sapphic smooching come from the left. Levy argues that women have to (and want to) out-'ho ourselves to fit into our increasingly raunchy, male-identified sexual culture. She cites Paris Hilton as a lead "pig." That the devil-may-care heiress wasn't chastened for her slutty ways irks those who think women should never flaunt their bodies—even voluntarily. Blogger Twisty of I Blame the Patriarchy (blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com) incited feminist ire when she wrote, "There's a reason that deep-throating a funk-filled bratwurst makes a person retch." Holier-than-thou pronouncements of sexual superiority don't scream "sisterhood" to me.

There's a world of difference between being branded a sex object and choosing to be one under certain circumstances. Recall Tad Friend's classic 1994 "do-me feminism" Esquire article, in which Lisa Palac said, "Degrade me when I ask you to" (emphasis mine). Women's true desires may not make for perfect propaganda, but sex is justifiably complex. I may like to get spanked until I scream, but I still deserve to be treated as an intelligent human being. Submitting sexually doesn't equal becoming a doormat outside the bedroom.

Men are also unfairly judged—as brutish horndogs selfishly out to get as much sex as they can. The truth is, they're confused and constrained by the "macho" role too. Recently, a man asked me whether wanting to get fucked up the ass by a woman was "normal." Men have plenty of desires that aren't sanctioned by popular culture, leaving them to wonder if any woman will embrace such kinks as men wearing women's panties, getting tied up, or being penetrated with a dildo. On the other hand, women often question whether our dirtiest dreams (especially those involving BDSM) make us unfit as future leaders.

Feminists are just like any other women, with a range of sexual desires and practices from doggy-style to bukkake, and it'd be a shame for us to hold back in a misguided attempt to live up to the legacies of Susan B. Anthony and Gloria Steinem. We can choose to be celibate or to have someone come on our face. Having a full range of sexual options should be a high-priority feminist goal.

According to Boteach, "No single factor has led to the greater debasement of women than the widespread availability of casual sex. If a man can get a woman without having to earn her, what incentive does he have to try to become a gentleman?" Aside from the obvious insult to both sexes, Boteach misses the real point: What good is power in the boardroom if we have to lie back and wait to get fucked? Why can't we pursue pleasure as aggressively as we pursue promotions?

Sara DeKeuster is one of my heroines. In 2005, in The UWM Post, an independent student newspaper, she ran a photo essay exploring her rape fantasies. The uproar was instantaneous. One blogger, Kyle Duerstein, wrote (but later deleted), "Sara DeKeuster ought be[sic] raped today. And after that, she ought be [sic] raped tomorrow, by someone else . . . she might be killed by her attacker. Maybe then, she'll get it, and if not, she'll be dead, and the world will be a less f*$!ed up place." The Women's Resource Center claimed the spread created a "hostile campus" and was "an active act of harm." In response, DeKeuster evoked Cindy Sherman: "I am not sorry for my art! It would be like saying I'm sorry for being a woman and that I like sex (or to be fucked rather)."

Thankfully, many of us are exploring our kinks in all their flavors. I'm thrilled with the thriving sexually explicit blogosphere, from Inside the Velvet Rope (redvelvetropeburn.com) to masturbation blog Wank Log (wanklog.blogspot.com), but feel we're only halfway there when almost every erotic blogger is forced to use pseudonyms for fear of exposure.

I encourage all men and women to make the sexual choices that are right for them, regardless of what's "cool." I can't tell you how to fuck. Instead of looking to gurus, activists, porn stars, and how-to books, you'd be better off looking inside, spending some quality time with your fingers around your cock or pressed against your clit figuring out what sets you off. Forget about the judgments of your friends and neighbors (who are probably just as wild in the sack as you are).

The feminist sex wars were largely fought before I was born, yet sadly, women continue to battle each other over what we do in bed, as if coming up with the most politically correct form of orgasm will automatically solve other inequities. I believe in advancing the cause of sexual freedom for everyone, by increasing our knowledge and offering room for fantasy and safe, nonjudgmental experimentation.

Sexual freedom is not the only, or the most pressing, issue facing American women today, but it's vital to any true feminist movement. Excoriating other women and berating them for a host of erotic sins creates unnecessary divisions and puts people on the defensive. No one has the right to tell you how to fuck.

Thomas,

I think RBK is very much post-feminist and though I have read a few thoughtful and interesting pieces by her, I have never read anything particularly feminist, I don’t see why it should be a matter of whether or not it is productive to say so.
She is very much concerned with preserving the sacredness of orgasm. By that I mean, she doesn’t recognize that what we do in the bedroom has implications outside of the bedroom, in the context of patriarchy, and that people who discuss those things do have a valid point. She likes to throw around the world “sex-negative” in response to any such discussion. And I have never read anything by her where inequalities power relationships between the sexes are referred to in anyway. I don’t intend to be attacking her. I understand she is really off-topic, but I felt like I needed to respond to this. I don’t mean this as “an attack on her feminism”, I just don’t see where “her feminism” is. I am not against blow-jobs, far from it. But blowjobs, facials, and many other things, have certain meanings and connotations that they would not have, had equality been achieved, and I suspect that they wouldn’t be as popular without those.

"I can see how a blogger could end up feeling torn- you want to be able to talk openly and honestly to your readers, but you also want to respect the privacy of your dates (one would hope)."

What happened to pseudonyms? I mean, Mina isn't the name I use offline. ;)

I think it's problematic to start labeling fantasies as unfeminist. I remember a professor talking about homosexuality once (it's possible he was paraphrasing/dumbing down foucault or someone else for us, but I'm honestly not sure) and saying that it was odd that we've decided to take one sexual division (homosexual v. heterosexual v. bisexual) and make it into an identity (i.e. he IS gay, she IS straight) rather than just another descriptor. we don't define people by how often they want to have sex, or their fantasies. my point is, gay/straight/bi we accept as innate -- why is it impossible that other features of sexuality (like fantasies) are the same way? in which case you're condemning people for who they are.

plus, I don't want to be told what sex I should enjoy by anyone -- patriarchy, matriarchy, whatever. I understand that some people interpret things in the bedroom as having significance outside the bedroom. but anyone who thinks that if I enjoy spanking in the bedroom I must be a submissive unfeminist doormat out of the bedroom is pretty much a lost cause.

I second what sojourner said.

I don't care one bit what a woman does in her bedroom. But it is another thing entirely to think facials and rape fantasies are somehow feminist. It distorts the meaning of the word. Is everything feminist just because a woman happily does it? Are cooking and cleaning and baby-making feminist statements now too? Is walking around the house on all fours wearing a leash and a collar and licking the floor after your husband steps on it feminist because we are so enlightened and post Dworkin and third wave that every degrading act can be feminist if we simply tack on the word?

Village voicers like RKB, Dan Savage, and Tristan Taormino can be called a lot of things - porn and BDSM enthusiasts, sexual libertines, sex positive queers...but not feminists.

Sexual fantasies and behaviors do not exist in a vacuum, they have real social consequences and implications. The whole "don't tell me how to fuck" argument attempts to stave off such criticsms by, as RKB did in the above excerpt, calling feminist opponents "prudes." Real original.

RKB seems to think that female subs, like herself, are somehow alienated and persecuted. She only defends sex acts in which the woman is being degraded or humiliated. This isn't a feminist position, it is the same attitude enforced by dominant patriatrchal culture; i.e. woman-on-bottom.

Feminism exists in a variety of forms. There is not one feminist way to be and what works for you may not for someone else.

If we can't hold that possibility then there is no point. Clearly, alicepaul you take a lot more issue with RKB's writings than I do. I can respect that, but if you can't respect her, then please don't comment.

(Lurker, signed up to typekey so that I could waffle about this entry. Good morning.)

Quoth fragments of Samhita's text:

"The panel consisted of a variety of women writers/bloggers" ... "Granted this is a panel so it is limited" ...

Thoughts:

The panel wasn't so varied, considering. A panel of for-profit bloggers and writers for mainstream, hetero-marketed magazines/websites? (Note me generalizing.) They may indeed talk about problems relevant only to that constituency.

Quoth fragments of Samhita's text:

"how can we as feminist bloggers and feminist blog readers" ... "utilize the resources we have" ... "create transgressive environments" ... "include the voices that are truly ghettoized"

Thoughts:

It sounds like you have everything you need already. You have money for server space and bandwidth, expertise in running feminist websites and blogs, feminist bloggers (Samhita!), and blog readers. It's quite likely that by now, you have a handle on what will constitute a safe yet transgressive space on the web, and can nominate any number of marginalized voices (who aren't already in the feminist blog-politic, since you have your own blogs) to fill that space. Maybe toss it all together and stir, to see what you get?

Looking at it another way, if you do it yourself online you can do it better than SXSW did, and have a larger audience to boot.

Other stuff:

Concerning Sojourner and alicepaul's comments: Would it be more helpful if you used white male business executive submissives as your examples? Perhaps this might help separate the exclusively patriarchal notions from the solely BDSM notions, presuming that's possible. (I'm keeping in mind that submissive sexual desires aren't an exclusively hetero-female phenomenon.)

More generally in that vein, if somebody volunteers that, "I would like to have my orgasms through the use of technique X tonight", a response along the lines of "I don't think that's a feminist sexual practice so let's not do that" might not be wholly in line with her plans for the evening.

I'd just like to weigh in as someone else who doesn't want to be told how to enjoy sex. I like what I like. The men that I enjoy (including my current boyfriend) like the fact that I'm independent, strong-willed, intelligent, well-read, and that I stand up for myself. None of that has any impact on how I like to reach orgasm. Intelligent men (the only ones I'll have sex with) are able to draw a distinction between playing in the bedroom and living real life.

Besides which, how feminist is it to tell me that I have to have sex a certain way in order to be included in the club? As a friend of mine once said, that's just putting me in a different box, not setting me free from them.

I'll toss in my 2 cents too:
I think it's a bad idea to tell people what they should do or like, in sex or life. It comes across as rather judgmental. There are some sexual things I don't (usually) do because I don't particularly enjoy them. There are others I won't do because I consider them degrading. But I would never condemn another person for doing those things if he or she happened to enjoy them. Just because *I* find them degrading doesn't mean everyone should. Neither should everyone be expected to enjoy something just because some people do.

To me, that's what feminism is all about--letting people be themselves without someone else telling them they can't, regardless of which sex or group they belong to or identify with. How is saying "real feminists don't give BJs" any better than saying "real men don't cry" or "real women don't work outside the home"?

None of this is to say you shouldn't analyse why you like what you like and decide whether you're okay with your reasons for liking it. Do you really like doing "x" or do you just do it because you've been taught you're supposed to like it? How much of what you like has been instilled in you by your culture, the media, or as a result of using porn? If your preferences were instilled by these things, are you okay with continuing to indulge in them, or does knowing the source of those desires lessen their appeal to you? And so on...

If nothing else, examining these things will help you understand yourself, give you a better sense of who you are, and if someone ever asks you "why the heck do you do/like x?" you can give them a better reason than a shrug and "I just do, I guess."

An afterthought:
This is all assuming the sexual activity is undertaken with the full consent of all participants. If someone doesn't consent to an activity, or is incapable of consenting to sex (as in the case of children, animals, corpses, etc) then all that goes out the window and I damn well will judge your ass, because you're an abusive jerk. ;)

My feeling is, that it is not feminist to like to be spanked, no. However, it *is* feminist to own your own sexuality, to say "No matter what I do to get off, as long as it is safe and conducted with consenting adult partners, I choose to do it and no one has any business telling me what to do or not to do."

It may not be feminist to like having a guy come in your face, but it's also not feminist to tell women who actually do like it "no, you like sex all wrong, you're a poor duped tool of the patriarchy because you enjoy this."

When we critique the dominant imagery of the culture regarding sex, we have to be careful not to sound like moralistic scolds and prudes telling women what to do with their bodies. Saying "I find the common imagery of a man coming on a woman's face in pornography problematic and degrading to women" is one thing. Saying "Women who let men come on their faces are a problem in this culture" is something else. And if we say the first and someone pops up to say "But I like getting facials! It gets me hot!" we have to respond in a way that's respectful of her sexual agency and right to make choices while at the same time making the point that she's not the problem, the culture that pays women who don't like it to pretend they do and thus encourages straight men to want it in a proportion that is out of whack with the number of straight women who would like it is the problem. Or the problem isn't the act itself, but the "watch bitches get hosed down by cum!!!" advertising of it to straight men that reinforces that what *they* are supposed to get out of it is a power trip, punishing and degrading sluts.

(BTW, I'm usimng facials as an example here, but it could be spankings, hardcore BDSM, rape fantasies... whatever.)

Feminism is about giving women choices and respecting those choices. We are not the Sex Police. We can criticize sexual practices as they are advertised and promoted in our culture, but we should not criticize individual women for freely chosen sexual decisions, although pointing out that some of those "choices" weren't as free as the choosers think they were seems reasonable to me.

Telling a grown woman that her choices weren't as free as she thinks they were comes off as patronizing. As does putting choices in quotes. I know you probably don't mean it that way, but to me, it reads the same as "no, you like sex all wrong, you're a poor duped tool of the patriarchy because you enjoy this."

Although I agree with you 100% that many sex-related things, particularly as related to power plays in sex, are advertised and pushed in society in a very harmful way.

“None of this is to say you shouldn't analyse why you like what you like and decide whether you're okay with your reasons for liking it.”
That’s exactly what I meant. I have tried a lot of things including all those mentioned above and I don’t engage in or avoid sex acts based on whether they benefit feminism or womankind, but based on whether or not the get me off. Yet I can still engage in a conversation about the meanings of those acts and their implications outside the bedroom, and why I like them (could it be because I have seen in porn? Or read it in an erotic story? Or because it is everywhere?) without seeing it as a personal attack against me or as people trying to tell me which acts I should or shouldn’t like. It annoys me to no end that in response to any such discussion people start screaming “You don’t have a right to tell me how to fuck!” and that brings the discussion to an end, because of course you no one has a right to tell you how to fuck. It becomes more like “You have no right to express any kind of opinion about any sex act other than if you want to talk about how awesome it is!”. I am not interested in telling you how to fuck, it’s not about you, don’t take it personally; yes I have had cum on my face too. And that’s why I find the article above by RKB that kpsisu posted, annoying.

I don't care if you want to discuss different sexual practices. I'm all for it. Just don't tell me that I can't be a feminist because of mine.

Kimmy, Where did I say that you or anyone is not feminist because of their sexual practices?

Didn't say you did, sojourner. Perhaps I didn't use enough detail. The "you" in that sentence was a general "you" and not meant to refer to you personally. The comment itself referred to some of the sentiment upthread, which certainly seemed to imply that there was something wrong for a woman who enjoyed certain sex practices to also consider herself a feminist.

I was saying that discussion is fine so long as people don't lapse into the territory just explained.

Does that make more sense? Sorry about that, didn't mean to imply anything about you personally.

I think the act of discussing sex all along the continuum and pushing the boundaries of what is ok to discuss is transgressive- however, the mode of discussion needs to be safe.
I think that blogging about your sex life or dating life is great, as long as you either protect the identities of your partners or get their permission- similar to print journalism and other writing.

When I say that the mode of discussion needs to be safe, I mean the 'no asshole rule' as described in the book of the same name written by robert i. sutton, phd.

Basically, if you have a problem with someones ideas, it is fine to vigorously and thoroughly explore and discuss the ideas and alternatives. Personal attacks are absolute violations of the no asshole rule. Sometimes people are assholes on accident, upon occasion. I certainly am. The best test of a certified asshole, according to the book, is "the difference between how a person treats the powerless versus the powerful is as good a measure of human character as I know."

I certainly hope that we can all agree that women discussing sex as subjects rather than objects is still a relatively new concept and one without nearly so much steam behind it as the concept that women are supposed to keep their sexual desires and practices quiet and invisible, lest they let it out that they are not chaste, modest, 'good' women.

I am disappointed that a discussion that was supposed to be about blogging about sex and dating turned into a character smear.

If we don't have this safe space to discuss our ideas about an issue like sexuality which is at once intensely personal and politicised, we really can't expect people to put their ideas out there.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. Makes sense.

My intent was not to attack anyone's character. Instead, I want to stress that SEX IS POLITICAL. Just like who washes the dishes is political. Just because it happens (usually) in the privacy of your own house, doesn't mean you can just divorce it from social meaning because, wow, you really like the look on your bf's face when he orgasms. Nobody has a Get Out of Patriarchy Free Card, even when it comes to sex.

I think a lot of this generation's feminists have the idea that we should reform and overthrow and reconstruct every institution in order to liberate ourselves, except for sex because it is somehow sacred and "private" and "personal" and therefore beyond any type of critique.

Have we forgotten the messages of the women before us? You know, the one about how the personal IS political? i.e. perhaps the most important tenet of feminsm ever?

And FYI, I am not a stodgy old second waver, I am 22 and I used to be a sex worker. So yeah, I know a thing or two about degrading sex acts. Mainly that what goes on under the covers does not stay there, no matter how much you wish and pretend it does.

Once more, I didn't mean to offend anyone. This is just discussion, and I know it tends to be uncomfortable because of the intimate nature.

The bedroom is not a little box up in the corner of the sky somewhere. It's right there in the home, not too far from the kitchen. And I say it too is fair game for feminist action and transformation.

I feel you, alicepaul.

I think that particular sex acts can mean different things to different people at different times.

What makes sex feminist or not-so-feminist? (I am asking everyone, not trying to pick on anyone.)

Thank you alicepaul and I appreciate your feedback and your opinion.

And I do agree that the bedroom is political and one of the places where feminism has failed to interrogate effectively. We must push those boundaries to find new ways to not only talk about, but call it out for what it is. I think that it is easy for some people to claim "empowerment" from acts that are specifically not empowering for people due to other considerations, like being a person of color, or poor, etc.

But again, we are chartering new territory and yes the things that some women might do will on some level recycle into very normative patriarchal patterns. Our job is to not interrogate the other women, but to problematize the culture as a whole. And offer alternatives. What those are I am torn on. I go from "sex positive" to celibate, pretty frequently.

Any advice for other ways to battle patriarchy while embracing sexual freedom?

Our job is to not interrogate the other women, but to problematize the culture as a whole. And offer alternatives.

"Third wave feminists often focus on "micropolitics," writing about forms of gender expression and representation that are less explicitly political than their predecessors. They also challenged the second wave's paradigm as to what is, or is not, good for females." (Wikipedia)

The phrase "embracing sexual freedom" itself is problematic. Historically it has meant sexual freedom for men and men only. The so-called sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s did not liberate or empower women. To loosely paraphrase Twisty, it encouraged us to service a bunch of dudes as opposed to just one.

In a patriachay, I'm afraid that being sexually submissive to a man can never be a politically neutral act, much less anything remotely egalitarian or progressive. If men as a class did not hold power over women as a class, we could freely bend over and open wide to our cunt's content without it meaning anything or perpetuating any inequalities or oppressions.

One of the many terrible consequences of the patriarchy is that it royally fucks up our sex lives.

Alicepaul, I've known RKB for years, and can assure you she is indeed a feminist...this is not a convenient, shrinkwrapped term to apply to your personal narrow definition.

I'm also not going to bring anything new to this discussion, but rather just reiterate that you can't apply politics to ANYONE'S personal fantasy life, period. This is a lovely, dark area where we can escape day to day life. Like lucid dreaming, you can't control much of it, so why not just sit back and enjoy?

Again I ask: how feminist is it to tell me that there is something wrong with what gets me off? Feminism can take me out of the box of Mary Sunshine Homemaker, but that doesn't give it the right to put me into a different box regarding my sex life.

You may not have been sexually liberated, but I am. I specifically choose intelligent men who are reasonably enlightened and who know the difference between fantasy and reality.

So, please, tell me how my personal experiences in a closed room with a carefully chosen companion are contributing to harming anyone else? If someone is going to claim that I'm doing something wrong, I'd like to be shown the harm.

And it's not enough to say generically that submissive fantasies support the patriarchy. That's a cop-out, because you have to show a strong, literal (not theoretical) connection between my private, personal acts and the larger political structure.

You may not have been sexually liberated, but I am.

Wow. Wow. That's one hell of a statement to make.

So am I to understand that sex is inherently private even when it's public? (No criticizing porn or strip bars, under any circumstances.) That sexual degradation isn't degradation? (No criticizing porn or BDSM, under any circumstances.) That getting off on pleasuring men means you're extra specially sexually liberated? (RKB's specific reference to Jenna Jameson and to women who love giving blowjobs.) How cute.

I specifically choose intelligent men who are reasonably enlightened and who know the difference between fantasy and reality.

That sounds a hell of a lot like blaming the victim. Just choose the right man and everything will be great! And if it isn't, well, it's your fault because you chose wrong. Clearly you aren't sexually liberated.

I'm rather enjoying the "false choice" RKB holds up. (Is her point that I should want to be Jenna Jameson? Because I don't. Guess that makes me unliberated.) And her mischaracterization of Ariel Levy, whose focus in FCP was overwhelmingly on sex that women perform in relatively public circumstances, not what goes on behind closed doors.

And I don't care what goes on behind your closed doors. I care about what I hear about. I care about what's held up as proof that you're More Liberated Than Thou. I care about the coercive, judgmental pronouncements pro-sex people make while slamming radical feminists as coercive and judgmental.

What the hell are you talking about?

I said I was sexually liberated, because in the last post alicepaul said only men got sexually liberated in the 60s and 70s. It's called sarcasm.

I never mentioned anything about porn or strippers. And yes, I enjoy giving blowjobs. What the hell does that have to do with anything? I like it. So what? I also like having my boyfriend go down on me. Is it somehow better that he go down on me than that I go down on him? Is there something wrong with us both enjoying both activities?

I also never said anything about blaming victims. Victims of what? Nobody was talking about victims of anything. We were talking about consensual sex practices between two adults and which take place in private. Nothing more, nothing less. Please read the entire thread and make sure you understand the topic before you post.

Having been a victim of both spousal and sexual abuse (separate men), I don't appreciate your acting like I don't know what it's like to be victimized.

I was explaining that, in my sexual practices that have been objected to, I am careful to choose men who understand who I am and where I am coming from. That's all.

I also never said that people should want to be like Jenna Jameson. Never even mentioned the woman. Don't much want to be like her myself. I prefer my sex life to take place in private.

I don't know where you got all this stuff in your post, but none of it came from anything I wrote.

Nothing is off limits for feminists to critique. Expecially not sex, which comprises a great deal of the interactions between us an our oppressors.

It isn't about how the blowjob you give on Monday will directly "harm" someone else on Tuesday. Social dominance and subordination work in slow, subtle ways.

The response, "oh but teh mens I choose are so smart/sensitive/kind/enlightened, etc" doesn't hold water because, listen, ALL men have male privilege and power over women. This doesn't dissapear when he goes down on you or kisses you or "respects" you after the encounter, in the "real world"

What we do in bed is part of reality, folks. Sex doesn't happen on another planet or in a parallel universe or in your dreams or imagination. Sex happens right here in the context of the Patriarchy, whether you leave the bedroom door open or not.

I never said there is something "wrong" with what gets a woman off. Moralistic and paternal terms like right and wrong have no place in feminist discourse.

In other words, alicepaul, you are not capable of telling me how what I do in my bedroom with my boyfriend directly contributes to harm for anyone else. Thanks, that's what I thought.

Kimmy, you aren't getting it.

Does a woman performing (consensual) unpaid housework and childcare DIRECTLY HARM anyone else? No, probably not. In fact, it most likely makes the kids and the hubby happy.

But that doesn't mean it is at all in line with radical feminist goals or ideology. That doesn't mean it is productive in dismantling systems of dominance and oppression. Rather, such actions contribute to the role of woman-as-servant/cleaner/slave/vehicle/receptacle for other people's happiness and orgasms and wellbeing.

Everything we do has political consequences. The patriarchy doesn't temporarly shut down for fifteen minutes a day so that we can all have egalitarian, apolitical, context-free sex. Wouldn't that be nice though?

The sooner we accept this, the better.

alicepaul, I hesitate to inject myself into this very interesting discussion, but here I go.

I have a question, not because I'm attacking you (on the contrary, I'm vaguely leaning toward your arguments, but want to sort things through first), but because I'm genuinely curious: is your contention that these acts are anti-feminist, or simply that there is nothing affirmatively feminist about them? In other words, is it anti-feminist to enjoy a sex act that could probably considered demeaning in a broader social context? Or are you simply arguing against those who would claim it is inherently "empowered" and therefore "feminist"?

I agree with the second claim -- I truly don't think there's anything inherently empowerful/liberated about performing sex acts designed for men's pleasure (note: I'm not talking about ALL sex acts here. Note I started out talking about sex acts that, in a broader social context, appear demeaning toward women). I'd have to think about the first claim for a while to decide where I stand on it.

I was reading an article in the NYTimes about how the Pussycat Dolls say they're feminist. (I'm not trying to argue one way or the other on that, I'm just giving the next quote context.) And their manager (or someone affiliated with the group) said that to say that they're a step backwards for feminism is to say that what they do is in the service of men. I completely agree (although not with the argument that that doesn't hold for them...but anyhow, different topic).

To say that sex acts are antifeminist is to say that they are in the service of men. But what I'm arguing is that if I choose sex acts in service of myself, then that is not antifeminist. Sex isn't zero sum -- both partners can (and hopefully do, right?) enjoy it. I don't think reclaiming traditionally subservient sex acts is inherently feminist (any more than I think the pussycat dolls are feminist), but I think if you're participating because you want to, in activities that you enjoy, then it is as feminist as any other sex act.

While I agree that we need to examine our motivations (why do I enjoy/want this?), I've got to say that at a certain point I feel like I'm going around in circles: do I want this (sex/marriage/children/whatever) because I want it, or because I've been taught to want it? And should I therefore not want it, because now I'm being taught that I was taught to want it? Maybe I just don't have the patience to really sort it out, but I feel that at some point you have to say screw it, I WANT ____ and I need to do what I think will be the best for me/make me the happiest.

Law Fairy: the second claim is more along the lines of what I am suggesting.

Jess: The idea of doing whatever you want sounds appealing, but I am also in favor of making political sacrifices for the greater cause (liberation). I have this feeling that deep down, most women would trade things like being the receptive partner in anal sex, sucking dick, getting tied up, etc for total freedom. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe those things are really fundemental to some women's sense of fulfillment. It is just a hunch.

I realize not everyone's politics are like mine. I'm fairly militant. I put my money where my mouth is. I cannot personally reconcile being a feminist with sexually pleasuring men. So I've stopped doing it. The fun I used to get out of bjs, fucking, etc did not make up for the strong sense of capitualation I felt. In my opinion, as long as women remain "on our backs," as the saying goes, we can't be free.

I don't think women's insistance on empowerment can be taken seriously if, at the end of the day, we let our men use our bodies and ejaculate on our faces. Think of the message that sends; we deserve economic justice, reproductive rights, safety, respect, dignity, etc, but we also luv to get beat around and spit on and called sluts and strangled and slapped by our bfs when we get home at night. In fact, it makes us cum! And wait wait wait, it's totally just a fantasy! Just fun! Don't get any crazy ideas, it's Not ReaL!

This compartmentalizing of sexual desire is a real problem. There will always be overlap. The existance of queer communities is proof that what we do in bed is not merely that, it shapes our identities, our ways of communicating, our very culture.

The patriarchy doesn't temporarly shut down for fifteen minutes a day so that we can all have egalitarian, apolitical, context-free sex.

I totally agree - my patriarchy shuts down for about 1.5 hours. ;)

What you still haven't explained is whether you have a beef with blowjobs in particular, or all forms of oral sex. What about sexual pleasure in general? Is it "ok" for a man to please a woman by going down on her or allowing her to impale him via strap-on? If you're really striving for equality, this is a terrible argument.

I'm not going to apologize to anyone for what may turn me on. While you may see the compartmentalizing of sexual desire as a problem, I see the "judgementalizing" of those who don't fit your personal definition of feminism as a bigger problem. We still have so many young women these days not wanting to associate themselves with the "f-word," and such exclusionary statements don't help.

Her place as a friend notwithstanding, I find RKB's approach to the subject very refreshing. The last thing I need is another ivy league trust fund woman writing a book about what I ought to be thinking.

What exactly is "refreshing" about hearing a woman talk about how much she loves to be treated like a plaything or a toilet? Doesn't sound new or different to me, sounds like the same tired old recycled Hey, Wait, They Like Being Degraded! bullshit.

Remember when women in the 50s wrote about really enjoying being housewives? Phyllis Schafly, anyone? The Cult of True Womanhood? The gals who insisted that unpaid labor was so gosh-darn fulfilling? Ringing any bells here?

Same shit, different decade, folks. Only since now it is all about sex, we get terms like "empowerment" and "personal freedom" and "fantasy" and "choice" bandied about to make it seem immune to debate, criticsm, and even healthy suspicion.

When a feminist stands up and says, hey, just a minute, why are people defending play-rape and money shots as modern day liberation, she gets called "prude" and "judgemental." Huh, where have we seen this one before?

Have any of you even been following the past fifty some years of the women's movement? Or do you just watch Sex and the City and read the Village Voice for tips on how to get empowered?

Pardon my later response, I'm currently out of town on a business trip.

Alicepaul, what you're essentially doing is saying that a woman can only be feminist by your definition. And I disagree with that. Just want to get that out of the way.

Again, I don't do things just to please a man. I've been with men who wanted anal sex, and I wouldn't do it because I didn't like it. I do the things I enjoy doing. I ask the same of my boyfriend. I see nothing wrong with that, even if you don't approve of me enjoying them.

You also haven't answered the question of whether it is somehow more feminist to have a man go down on you than it is to go down on him. I'm really, honestly curious as to your feeilngs on the subject, and you've been asked more than once.

Finally, a few thoughts on empowerment as regards sex. Do I think blowjobs or bondage is inherently empowering? No. However. I do find it empowering to know that I can make my own choices, chase my own bliss (so to speak) as a woman. That if I want more traditional sex I can have it. Or I can make the choice to have a different kind of sex, depending on my own desires at the time. I find it empowering to be able to say what I want and when I want it, and how I want it done. However, having people attempt to shame me for wanting it is disempowering. Food for thought.

It's not an individual sex act that is good or bad. It's how it makes you feel, and whether it was your choice (real, free choice, not just "well, he likes it").

Do I claim that my sexual activities make me an empowered feminist? No. But I strongly resent any implication that they keep me from being one.

Alicepaul, what you're essentially doing is saying that a woman can only be feminist by your definition.

I don't think that's what she's saying. I believe that she's saying that sex, like everything else in life, is inflected and influenced by power relations, and in its turn, like everything else in life, inflects and influences power relationships. And yet, these days, whenever feminists try to analyze sex with respect to those power relationships, RBK and those like her cry out "you can't tell me how to fuck," as though analysis is the same thing as prescription, and setting up that straw man ("Those nasty feminists want to control how we have sex") instead of allowing that sex does not take place in some magic fairyland free from the gendered power relations of this world, and that feminist might as well study what is often a major locus of interaction between members of a dominant group and a subordinated one, has the effect of shutting down that analysis, much like shouting "I have the right to free speech," whenever someone suggests that we look at the implication of how language gets used.

Sure you do. And nobody's trying to take that away. But it doesn't mean that sex is above analysis either.

It's one thing to say "I like being tied up and hit" in bed. It's another to say "anyone who wants to think about why I might like that in the context of a misogynist culture is saying that I'm not a feminist."

I tell you what, I hate RBK's writing. It just smacks of that "I'm sorry you aren't as empowered and liberated as I am because you're not so comfortable with your sexuality, never mind your reasons" holier-than-thou crap. I don't see anything feminist about her. You like to sub in bed? That's nice. Doesn't make you a feminist, though.

thank-you, EG. That is what I was trying to say. whew!