Tag Archives: SMH
I really should *never, ever, EVER* read “Sam in the City” no matter how faux-progressive she promises or tries to be.
Up front let me say I don’t have the time or the inclination to follow up on her sources and so to comment on those. This is purely about the sort of logic with which she compiles her random tidbits, gives it a title and calls it an ‘article’.
But I’ve got to wonder: of the women nowadays who believe they own their own sexuality (because they sleep with plenty of men and engage in one-night stands), who do they think owned it before? The men? Their parents? The local council?
Yes. The men, the parents, the church, society. Oh the local council oh hardy har har.
You know, despite the *tone* you even think she might inadvertently hit on a good point: that the ‘sexual revolution’/'raunch culture’ has produced abundant benefits for hetero dudes and some rather mixed blessings for many hetero/bi women: giving head to a guy WHEN YOU WANT TO and feeling you’re entitled to enjoy it *is* great – but if the ‘revolution’ (for hetero women only) *only* means that they are *allowed* to play to men’s fantasies all day and every day and that meanwhile the concurrent judgments on *their* character, and the character of those who don’t enjoy it continue unabated and with often disastrous consequences, well it’s less of a revolutionary revolution, and more of a repackaged marketing ploy for masculinity and blokey consuming heterosexuality surely.
So there is a lot to be discussed in relation to the ‘sexual revolution’ and women: the slut/stud dichotomy, ‘slut shaming’, the right to say ‘no’ – at *any* point, and have *that* be fully respected and deferred to, as well as yes, a respect for women FULL STOP, not JUST a respect for their desires and wishes when it happens to coincide with a particular male wish that she get on her knees and enjoy it. I don’t wish to be put in the same camp as Sam here – I’m no crusader for the ‘Good women bake cookies and keep their knees TOGETHER’ camp: I want a respect for women who like it vanilla and a respect for women who like it kinked to the hilt, respect for women enough to know that they all might like it in all kinds of ways/not at all depending on time/context/various considerations, respect for women enough to know that sexual desires and sex acts *do not define them as a type of person*, respect for women monogamous and poly, single and into casual sex, I want respect for women in the sex industry, and for women who don’t like sex at all at all ever, who consider themselves asexual and I want respect for gay/bi/trans* women, I want respect for rights to choose to *be* sexual at any given time and to choose *not* to be sexual/sexualised at any given time.
You’d hope that Sam would be getting into this sort of stuff, but no. It’s a bit of a rant about how the dudes are lapping up the benefits ‘from the club to the bedroom’ – ie/ all dudes are the same, all men exploit, all stripping is exploitation, all sex is exploitation of women, women ‘gift’ sex ‘to’ men, well Hey there Tony Abbott.
While the men are calling these women “loose” (not empowered), the women are failing to understand what the fuss is all about.
“Why can’t I have sex like a man?” they ask. “I have sexual needs too!” the women lament. “But I wanted it just as much as he did … so what’s the freakin’ problem?”
To Tony Abbott, virginity is a “precious gift” that should not be thrown away … least of all before marriage. But to the rest of the women engaging in casual sex, aside from swapping a slew of sexual diseases and feeling used and low the following day, there’s another issue that no amount of casual sex or “owning female sexuality” can combat: “the orgasm gap”, denoting the fact that women are not getting their fair share of pleasure in the bedroom.
Ok now STOP. You’ve lost me and left me in a blind funk of rage before you even introduce your topic du jour. Excuse me while I ask a couple of short clarifying questions:
a/ The rest of the women engaging in casual sex? Is Tony Abbott a woman engaging in casual sex? Or…well what does it mean?
b/ SWAPPING A SLEW OF SEXUAL DISEASES????? Holy FUCK lady! You’re trying to negotiate the flaws of the ‘sexual revolution’ and you decide that all women who ‘engage’ in casual sex are not only SLUTS, but DIRTY, DISEASE RIDDEN, DISEASE SPREADING MENACE-TO-SOCIETY SLUTS??? And you want me to take you seriously as trying to engage with an issue of the imbalance of power between men and women
c/ ‘feeling used and low the following day’. Uh…presume a lot will you? The only way you can assume that a woman MUST feel used and low the day after casual sex is if you think we are all the same, emotion over body, desiring a miraculous love from every shag, secretly wanting marriage and babies where we foolishly deluded ourselves into thinking we wanted to fuck.
So okay, let’s engage with ‘the orgasm gap’ shall we? Personally I think Lily Allen said it better (hat tip to WP and her choice of ‘It’s Not Fair’ at Hoyden Karaoke last weekend) and with much more space for complexity and nuance. It’s entirely possible to love someone who still doesn’t ‘get you off’ – and entirely possible that while you might love them that it’s problem enough for you to resent it and potentially move on – that it’s a legitimate concern to have. And lest I (or Allen) be considered bitchy and judgmental and ‘down on men’ the song is *not* about men trying and failing to achieve a female orgasm for their partner, it is about this guy just not caring about her orgasm – she puts in, he gets off, that’s it for him. Say hello to a frank discussion of ‘the orgasm gap’ – do we have to call it that? It makes me think about hiring policies and employees. Though where the scenario Allen describes is in play, some affirmative action might not go astray.
Researchers from Stanford University have discovered that, while the men are getting off most of the time with a big climax and a smile on their faces, the women engaging in casual sex and random hook-ups are being left without a happy ending (let alone a follow-up phone call!).
I’d be interested to see how much better the researchers found that women in long term relationships were doing in terms of getting what they need from men, but as I said I don’t have time to go hunt all that down right now, and anyway, her presentation of it is horrific enough.
As Paula England, a professor of sociology at Stanford University, recently said, “The orgasm gap is an inequity that’s as serious as the pay gap, and it’s producing a rampant culture of sexual asymmetry.” Yeouch.
(As a side note, I really think ‘Sam’ uses ‘Yeouch’ as a substitute for ‘I simply do not understand this sentence or have the faintest idea of how to meaningfully engage with it’).
Can I just note before moving on that it can only be seen as an issue ‘as serious as the pay gap’ in the context of FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS – I’m ALL FOR orgasms, I’m like ‘Go orgasms, it’s your birthday’ or something to that effect (sorry Willow for butchering Willow-talk). And it is indeed bullshit, and I think it does have major implications for sex, for (hetero) relationships, and (hetero) hookups, for heterosexuality etc, and plays into all kinds of serious stuff. But really – and here I guess I’m broadening pay gap to include sweat shop labour/lowly paid menial tasks etc – you can still feed/house/cloth/seek medical attention if you don’t have enough orgasms, and it’s somewhat harder without money. YES – serious issue. But yes, undue conflation as far as I can see. Any counter arguments? Happy to hear them.
When it comes to returning favours, the women aren’t getting much satisfaction either, with the study finding that women dish out oral sex during 80 per cent of hook-ups, while the men do it back only 40 per cent of the time.
So what’s going on?
Michael Kimmel, author of Guyland, says it’s largely the women’s fault and equates it to doing the housework.
“Men don’t pull their weight on either front because no one makes them,” he says.
A/ giving oral sex is not always about favours, but can be intensely pleasurable for the giver, however B/ yes, I imagine in a lot of hetero relationships there is an inequality in attentiveness which is definitely not cool. But as to WHY is it a big mystery? Hello there partiarchy, male entitlement and the idea that sex is all about the dude blowing his wad. HOW THE HELL CAN YOU TURN THIS INTO A SUPER-SLEUTH ISSUE? and of course, without undue delay C/ OF COURSE IT’S FUCKING WELL WOMEN’S FAULT – IT ALWAYS IS FOR SAM’S “EXPERTS”!!!
But back to the WOTS. Owning your own sexuality and dishing out oral sex are all about choice. Of course no one wants to feel bad about themselves the following day when they discover that doing it like a man wasn’t as easy or fulfilling as they were once led to believe.
By Christ woman! Is it (and I would strongly suggest the affirmative) AT ALL possible that the issue is not that ‘doing it like a man’ wasn’t as easy or fulfilling as we were led to believe, but perchance that doing it with particular men (and indeed for many women with men full stop) is not as easy or fulfilling as we are constantly TOLD to believe?
The solution? Well may I suggest a few – sex with women, sex on your own, sex on your own terms, sex where if the guy is REALLY gonna roll over once he’s ‘done’ that the deal is he well and truly looks after you first, sex with guys if you enjoy sex with guys with men who are NOT selfish bastards? Frank discussions? Ditching men who don’t care, since as Allen says ‘It’s not fair and I think you’re really mean!’ – see despite the slamming of feminists as anti-men, FEMINISTS can point out that NOT ALL MEN just ‘fuck’ you, come and roll over – that there are many men out there who are caring and attentive, sexually generous and secure AND that there are for women multiple options in terms of WHO they have sex with, how, when and under what conditions they do it – and hey, that’s true just as much in casual encounters as relationships I’d wager. I’m not suggesting that it’s easy for women to negotiate these things, cos ‘Hello patriarchy’ but I am honestly sick to fucking death of Sam insisting that a/ all women are straight b/ all men are straight c/ all men are selfish pigs and can’t be expected to *change* that…oh there are so many generalisations I’d be here all day cataloging them.
The one guy who suggests that men in this scenario might want to make some effort has this to say:
“Always call a woman the day after sleeping with her and make her feel good about having let go with you – even if you don’t want to see her again or she doesn’t want to see you again.
And just when you thought *that* was offensive – don’t you know, take time and care to ensure she enjoys everything as much as you, just call her cos she doesn’t really want orgasms, she’s just insecure and needs a call – you get to his REASON for the suggestion:
Don’t ruin her for other guys.”
And THAT is the fucking ball game right there. It’s not about her, it’s never about her, it’s about you, your cock and looking out for other dudes. Chicks are just the commodities you trade.
Fuck you Sam, and fuck your fucking ‘experts’.
A little shout out to my laptop who attempted to save me from a terrible fate this morning. High in the right hand corner of today’s SMH I noticed the Devinely Bigoted Ms M was issuing a rallying call to all men: it said something like “It’s time for men to come to the defence of violent sport and the men who play it”…or something even similarly testosterone worshipping and bizarre.
I knew it would seriously “damage my calm”, but I held my breath and went to click and…my laptop battery died so the computer shut down and I was prevented from foolishly giving in to my curiousity on impulse and ruining my own day.
Of course, when I got to work and powered up I read the fucking thing.
Apparently Miranda feels that Johns lost his job because the feminists are in control of the media, and they (feminist media controllers) believe in gender as a construct which is obviously a far more dangerous notion than ‘boys will be boys’ and will lead to pissing in public being remarked upon and that is OBVIOUSLY far more dangerous than girls getting gang raped.
It’s an utterly bizarre article in terms of its logic and consistency (I’m sorry computer, you tried valiantly to save me but I have a self destructive streak).
Somehow feminists are to blame for raunch culture and getting girls to value their hotness and appeal to men over their own sexual fulfilment (um…what?), for de-manning the men (cos again, there’s so MUCH evidence that mens power and machoness has disappeared) the medias tendency to a good old fashioned lynching (cos we control it – SEE how feminist mainstream media is??), the decisions of football clubs (cos the feminists control sports and sports clubs too dontcha know?) and Willie Mason’s inability to take a piss in a back alley without condemnation (I’m actually *not kidding*). In the land according to Miranda a feminist STORM erupted over Willie Masons urinary habits and we DEMANDED his career in payment for the greivous insult to feminism his public pissing represented.
In the world according to Miranda, if feminism were truly about equality we’d have let that mother who pinched a beer mat rot in jail in a foreign country, because THAT is the same as 12 grown men taking advantage of a 19 year old girl – and THEY are in jail now so…oh…wait, where was I? Oh yeah, it’s all feminists fault.
Killing off rugby league isn’t going to stop men being aggressive and sexually motivated.
Well it’s lucky for the feminists that their main argument is not Stop Football Stop Rape isn’t it?
In fact, such games are the few outlets boys have left for excess physical energy.
Ah yes, the old pop-psych ‘boys are more physical and need to run around more and damned feminised society asks that they not rape and murder when they’re not allowed a quick jog in the office or star jumps in the classroom’ chestnut.
In sanctioned team violence on the football field, young men can test their courage and express what it feels to be male, to have testosterone surging through young bodies, building huge muscles and attack instincts for which society has little use any more.
Does anyone else have an urge to vomit heartily at this drippingly romanticised idealisation of maleness? PLEASE! A question for the science folk. Does testosterone build muscles? And now you’re telling us it DOES produce attack instincts thus making an argument that sport *is* potentially a problem in producing instincts for aggression and violence? Immediately before you tell us that sport DOESN’T make boys violent but teaches them to control that violence:
It is teaching them, not to be violent but how to control their violent urges.
Ah, but then, see we have that pesky FACTUAL problem of a serious and ongoing culture of aggression and violence and disrespect of women that has led to rape and glassings and other forms of violence.
That makes your bar mat stealing comparison seem a wee bit fucking silly doesn’t it?
She’s then on to the whole ‘ADD is not real, kids just need to kick the shit out each other’ lies.
Feminism is also responsible for popular culture, which is wierd when you think about it, since feminists spend so much time examining popular culture and discussing all the problems with it, all the ways in which it is anti feminist. You’d think we’d set it up more to our liking wouldn’t you? But in the deranged conspiracy theorist’s mind I guess it just makes sense – after all feminists like to be miserable!
Popular culture today presents a narrative in which the liberalisation of sex has travelled on an inevitable continuum from the 1960s to some Brave New World free-for-all where Huxleyan teens engage in clinical couplings in which the only things to be negotiated are safety and consent.
What? And I…wait, WHAT??? Clearly safety and consent is NOT being negotiated, and we weren’t talking about mutual teen activity there we were talking a large group of fully grown MEN who FAILED UTTERLY to engage with safety and consent (safety and consent being from the feminist perspective a bare fucking MINIMUM for sex – for good sex we require more, and if you think that needs to be clinical to happen then that’s your own lack of imagination).
Where once girls were told that sex without emotional attachment would leave them feeling hurt and used, now such ideas are regarded as judgmental and moralistic. Instead girls are taught the most anti-woman thing of all – to judge their worth and the worth of others by “hotness” – that is, how sexually desirable they are, even if they are only 12.
You cannot be even remotely SERIOUS in trying to pin that shit on feminists for fuck’s sake. The fetishisation of young women’s bodies? Yeah masculine culture has NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT! It appears from the stats that men, and not feminists, are the ones having difficulty accepting that adults fucking twelve year olds is rape and that their porn appetites for pre teen porn is an indulgence of THEIR obsession with young girls bodies rather than women’s.
Feminism doesn’t teach girls that they are moralistic and judgmental if they want an emotional connection as part of sex at all and you know it. It teaches them to be aware of their own bodies and pleasures, to have sex when and how they want to – to not feel like ‘sluts’ if they *want* sex which is motivated from lust, boredom, desire, curiosity or many other factors even if it is not seen as ‘aprropriate nice girl within-hetero-monogamous-relationship sex’. There’s a radical difference between the two.
The ensuing chaos in the mating world stems from this disconnect between what popular culture tells girls and boys they should want and how it really makes them feel.
Watch yourself Miranda, you’re almost making feminist arguments there. And again I take the time to point out – popular culture and its messages? Feminists aren’t controlling it or profiting from it are they?
In the end, men’s drives aren’t all violent and predatory [that's right - again, lucky that is not a tenet of feminism nincompoop]. Most have a deep, possibly hard-wired, desire to be noble and chivalrous [oh...ok - from whence to you produce this assumption? And what do noble and chivalrous mean?]. That’s why in situations such as the Port Arthur massacre, so many men died shielding their wives or women around them [really? Or is it love? The same love that makes women shield their lovers/children/friends?].
Chivalry was once the province of the fighting man – the knight in shining armour who behaved with gallantry, honour and courtesy on the battlefield and off [except all that pesky raping] and was always proud to help the weak and defenceless [again the urge to vomit - are you basing your arguments here on history or Mills and Boon novels]. But decades of androgynous feminism have stamped on chivalry, deriding men who opened doors or stood back for women as being sexist and patronising [way to have a nuanced and sophisticated analysis].
It would have been better for women if feminism had appealed to men’s better natures.
You mean like treating them as fully human? As capable of great decency as well as depravity? Of urging them to be well rounded humans because we know they can be? Or expecting them not to rape and beat because we *don’t* think men are all the same and biologically driven but can make choices? You mean like what feminism ACTUALLY does rather than your sick caricature of a straw feminist?
Dude. When Peter Fitzsimons can both love competitive football and clearly state that the culture in Australia is rife with misogyny and violence and you can only blame feminists for the unfairness of it all, you really know the problem is well and truly YOURS.
There’s an article in the paper about girls not being taught skills to resist sex they’re not ready for.
I’m all for equipping girls to resist peer pressure to do anything they’re uncomfortable with, just not interested in or don’t what.
I’m a little concerned however that at the very least the reporting of the paediatricians paper at least comes off moralistic (I am at work and don’t have the time to follow up on the paper or paediatrician in question):
Being drunk or tipsy at the time was also common. But losing their virginity while intoxicated, which conflicted with expectations of sex being “special the first time”, left some regretting their actions.
Surely just as much of the battle in ensuring girls have sex they want, have sex when and how they want (including NOT having any form of sex that they don’t want) and don’t end up regretting it is teaching girls about pleasure and their bodies?
Sex ed focuses on pregnancy, biology, sexually transmitted diseases. Certain cold ‘facts’ about “sex”.
I use scare quotes there because it teaches them facts ONLY about hetero sex, ONLY about sex with another person (always of the opposite sex sending the message that sex is not something for you to enjoy alone, or that it is so unthinkable that you might be attracted to someone of the same sex as to reinforce the idea that there’s some perversion to same sex desire/same sex sex/masturbation), almost solely about penis-in-vagina sex, though with some embellishments as to boys/men and their sexual pleasure. It presents the cock as the thing with the desire and the womans body as the thing equipped to make that happen with a vague ‘nod’ to the idea that it will be pleasurable for both (not TOO pleasurable thanks).
If girls were taught about their bodies not as something secret and shameful, or as an object of desire and pleasure FOR boys/men, but as instruments of their own pleasure, if girls were taught about the clitoris and its potential wonders (that it’s there not for biology but for your very own pleasure), if masturbation was not spoken of as some biological imperative of the cock, a quick jerk to relax, a boy thing, a ‘healthy red blooded males response to chicks tits’, but as a healthy and wonderful thing that people can do to learn about and experience their own bodies, in safety and comfort, to experiment with what they like/what they don’t, if girls were taught that it was a vital thing to learn early about pleasuring themselves, about whether they feel pleasure around ideas of sex, about what they want, what to ask for, if girls were taught that it’s not their role to be the moral guardians of society, that they are allowed to want sex, to desire it, to have it when and how they want, to think about all the scenarios in which they would like to engage and those in which they would not, who they might be willing to share sexual experiences with and who not, then I think a lot of regret would be lost.
I don’t like the idea of pushing on teenage girls already being dazzled by hormones and puberty, society’s strange quiet around healthy discussions of sex and desire (and the simultaneous worship of it in tedious cliched ways that enforce the idea that CHICKS ARE HOT and BOYS ARE HORNY and WOMEN ARE FUCKHOLES and THAT’S JUST HOW IT GOES and all the virgin/whore stuff that goes along with that), the societal pressure to be one of the ‘good girls’ and the silently absorbed lessons of how ‘bad girls’ get treated and talked about that the solution to being upset by the ways they’re treated during sex is that they just need to be morally stronger and ‘just say no’.
Because what if the girl DESIRED sex, but regretted it because it became apparent that the guy had no regard for her DURING that sex? Should she wear the blame – is it because she had sex too early, or because boys are taught it’s all about them? Because what if the girl WANTS to be equipped to have sex? What if she doesn’t quite KNOW, if she has sex because she’s NOT been taught to experiment and to pleasure herself and so gets swept up in the power of arousal and has sex because she didn’t know she could feel like that, but then realises she wasn’t ready, or he’s a prick, or it wasn’t ultimately satisfying? If she had experienced those feelings alone, earlier, then perhaps they wouldn’t have the power they do?
Anyway, enough pondering, I have work to do.
[Eta: Helen has more at Hoyden About Town - her post being about the frustration of seeing more papers on how to teach girls to *resist* pressure from boys rather than teaching *boys* to behave ethicially]
I still have issues with some of the language of the opening paragraphs (ie/”it may not have been criminal sexual assault”…also it may *well* have been, and “she had sex with six of them”, or if you believe Clare, was raped by six of them). I know what she’s doing there, she’s getting at even if it’s not technically criminal sexual assault their behaviour was still wrong and destroyed her. I just think that ‘it may not have been’ is well covered, where as ‘it may have been’ hardly got a look in. And if I was Clare ‘had sex with’ would sound incredibly offensive.
The work we do every day at the Rape Crisis Centre tells us there is a need for cultural change not just within league, but across all levels of society. If we want to reduce violence against women we need the silent majority of ethical men to take a stand. We need them to say the jokes about women, the mistreatment, and the violence are no part of being a man. We need them to say to unethical men that it is all utterly unacceptable.
Ok, so Wendy Frew’s article is not the *whole* story (and how can it be there’s just so VERY much wrong with Arndt et al and their *Knees Bitch* approach to marital harmony) of the injustices of ‘women are selfish sexless cows who won’t service the men who own them 24-7′ articles rattling around the traps.
But it *is* quite excellent. I know that immediately the Doodly Brotherhood of Chick Haters will be pouting and stomping at this damned upstart daring to turn the tables of patriarchy to apply high maintenance standards of appearance and attractiveness back on Teh Menz. *Oh so PETTY and SHALLOW*they will say fervently ignoring the Great Shared Manly Ladder of Boneability in which they participate each and every day, and to which women are subjected every day by the doodly ranking of each and every chick on their *hotness* or *notness* (ie, small, thin, young enough to be highly questionable if not strictly illegal is all that counts for *hot*).
But you know what? We *DO* deal with this shit EVERY. FUCKING. DAY. We’ve heard it from friends, aquaintances, bosses and family. It screams at us from every glamourfied billboard. *YOU ARE NOT HOT ENOUGH*. Every self help chick mag article, every ad, movie, tv show, op ed piece in which men hatefully scream we’re ugly demented prostitutes and should be treated as such beats us around the head with “EXERCISE. SURGERY. STARVATION. MAKEUP. JEWELLERY. CLOTHS: Work harder, spend more, neglect yourself, study, work, extra curricular pursuits and your life in general in favour of the unattainable goal to look younger, thinner, hotter, more like the airbrushed 20 year olds whose pictures we favour because OUR COCKS DEMAND IT!”
And this *has* resurfaced in the context of Arndt’s discussions! BAD women. Lose some weight bitches, then we might deign to bone you (but not til the footy’s over – and what? Oh GOD, don’t tell me you’re upset over that little incident where I yet again referred to marriage as a prison sentence? GOD you chicks are so needy and irrational!)
And don’t turn around and say ‘Just stop participating’, not when if we do you’ll start lamenting out loud that we’ve let ourselves go, stopped making an effort and share your thoughts in front of us about Just How Hot say the Olsen twins or The Veronicas are.
So really, along comes Ms Frew and says ‘Well, if attractiveness is about a toned body, sweet breath, maintenance, effort, and accoutrements, well YOU FUCKING PONY UP OR SHUT UP’.
The bigger story is that women know they’re treated as objects, as means to an end, that they’re not fully respected or appreciated and that they’re being required to be content with an utterly depressing role of The Little FuckHole That Would when you know from the mags you find just what he’s thinking about, and from his jokes just exactly how unattractive he finds you. This in the context of limited options, low pay, lack of paid maternity leave, gender role expectations, the taxing childbirth places on your body, the general hatred of and contempt for women in general and wives/mothers in particular. Oooh baby, getting HOT for dudes just thinking about this bum deal.
So Wendy Frew has hit right back. Cos honestly? The number of times I’ve heard these decaying decripit men with rank breath on public transport talking about ugly chicks, fat chicks, chicks you’d never root, and it just never ever occurs to them that their standards may perchance be double.
So another take on the ‘if it’s good for the goose it’s good for the gander’.
And while I don’t want to encourage attitudes that reduce people to ‘hot’ or ‘ugly’ and therefore ‘worthy’ or ‘unworthy’ it does really get up my nose just exactly what men expect of women to hit the Erection Switch when they do so very fucking LITTLE themselves.
Judith Lucy shares a story about her poor mother, who tried desperately to get her father interested in her body (which was still *killer* thanks to extreme methods of starvation and laxatives) when her father said to her (while she was in her late forties) about a South American 19 year old Miss Universe contestant: give or take a few years you should still look like that.
As Lucy remarks this was unfair as her dad looked like a cross between Bob Hawke and…I can’t remember…a walnut?
But my dad is the same. Constantly telling me it’s *fact* that men age better than women (and men are better chefs, but I digress) and ogling women and referring to them as ‘hot’ or ‘fine’ (very young women) when he is killing himself with the drink, has a swollen belly that will kill him early, has breath that literally means no one wants to sit in the same room, scratches his nuts and picks his nose in front of others…and his eyebrows are taking over the world.
Anyway. Go Wendy Frew!
Sam Brett is so FULL of bullshit contradictions. Let’s sample just a few shall we? Let’s call it the degustation approach.
A wise friend once exclaimed that a woman’s emotions become a man’s burden. When she says those three magic words – the ones that contain eight letters, three syllables and enough baggage to weigh down a 747 – and he’s not ready to hear them, a man can suddenly feel as if he’s been trapped inside a velvet prison. Especially if she’s lying on top of him, butt naked.
Just a warning. If you EVER use the phrase velvet prison in front of me I will wholeheartedly barf on your shoes. If you write it and I read it, I will barf on my own and mail them to you.
Oh yeah, then there’s the whole boring, overdone blah blah, women always say/think I love you “too early”, blah, “I love you from a woman=baggage not actual love” (because women can never be straightforward)…blah blah, if you say it ‘when he’s not ready to hear it’ you’ve done wrong/committed a relationship sin/he’ll run a mile (because women are ALWAYS at that point before men, because men are emotional cripples, because men’s “readiness”, men’s timing, men’s comfort is the ONLY readiness/timing/comfort that counts. If he says it and you’re not ready…well Sam can’t comprehend this notion, I think her head would explode…can we try it?).
[More fake 'Only in the world of Sam' conversations]
“Women always try and put things into boxes,” explained a male dating expert when I asked his opinion. “They’re always trying to define things way too early when it sounds like this woman has only just met this man. If she even so much as mentions the ‘L’ word, he’ll run the other way. He’s only thinking about getting laid. Not having her babies. Ever.”
Ah, yes. Thankyou Male Dating Expert. Because:
sex=totally meaningless, devoid of emotion, just about the orgasm=masculine desire=all men everywhere are the same
Anything ‘more’ than “meaningless” sex automatically equals BABIESBABIESBABIES. Women don’t have lives/careers/desires beyond OH BAAAAAAABEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESS!!!!! SO CUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTE!!! (We don’t likes sex, we just wants to make teh BAAAAAAAABEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSS)
And of course babies=meaningful=EVERY WOMAN’S DESIRE IN HER HEART OF HEARTS WHETHER SHE KNOWS IT OR NOT.
Cos (they’re telling us) that all men SEE women as tits and vag on legs, but all men KNOW they’re walking talking uteri just ACHIN’ (yup yup) for some reproduction (yup yup).
Because women never want just sex (and when they do they’re sluts and we should punish them for being man eaters).
Women want LOVE and BABIES and MARRIAGE and FOREVER…they want your SOUL!!!
And men NEVER want companionship/friendship/laughter with a woman, men can never conceive of the woman they want to shag as a whole woman, men NEVER see women as women, in the logic of Sam they seem them as holes to jerk off into.
Sounds familiar? That’s because scientists reckon this irrational female response to sex isn’t exactly her fault. Instead it’s the fault of the female limbic system, which, after sex, or flirtation, or even a text message with one x too many, releases a bunch of irrational hormones leading to the belief that she’s met her soul mate. Even if he’s only after some late-night nooky
Which scientists? Which hormones? What limbic system? What papers? What evidence? What the fuck are you talking about you dipshit?
Here we cross into the section on “Invitation to sex”. Now…you and I move in the world where men and women do actually manage to have discussions (hell, in our world men and men do and women and women, but you know, we’re dealing with SamLand here) but in the land the Dating Experts ‘study’:
Which brings me to the moment two people first lay eyes on each other. You see, men abhor rejection. They’re unable to make the first move without a clear signal from the opposite sex. Hence scientists have come up with the top ways to tell if a woman is into a man and it’s mostly through her sexual body language.
A woman will show a man she’s into him through a range of physical cues: by licking her
lips, touching her lips, putting on lip gloss or pretty much doing anything that may require her mouth, such as sucking seductively on a straw or eating her food playfully. More subtly, she’ll cross and uncross her legs, play with her hair and make lingering eye contact. But don’t take her smile for an indication she wants to sleep with you. Oh no, that’s strictly the male’s domain.
So her sexual body language as studied by “scientists” (ahem) show that she wants you real bad when she does all this.. (lending scientific credibility to the notion that women might say one thing and mean another borders awfully close to propping up rape logic). Again, WHAT science, which scientists, what study. But going against the ‘science’ she just used to back herself up to prove that a woman doing these things wants teh seks; Sam surmises that she doesn’t want teh seks.
Now read THIS:
Dudes, on the other hand, will frequently smile, talk to a woman while looking at her eyes and face (if he actually focuses on what she’s saying, then it’s a telltale sign he’s into her), while any form of touching, asking for her number or calling her the next day are signs he not only wants to sleep with her, but he might actually be interested in getting to know her first.
But HUH??? Men NEVER want anything beyond “just sex”, and WOMEN mess things up by being interested in men as people!!! That’s the LAW, it’s SCIENCE!!!
Again, that lovely false dichotomy (because she likes to pretend she’s hip to the Man-logic but she’s actually a fucking prude): if it’s in any way ‘real’ sex must wait, if sex happens too soon, it’s meaningless, *just* orgasms, the woman will make a fool of herself and the man will go cold. By this stage I’m crosseyed at her ‘logic’.
Blokes can forget those poignant opening pick-up lines they so habitually practise, because it’s the first kiss that says everything to a woman. From the very first snog, men need to beware: women are judging a man by his genetic compatibility. Yep, according to psychologist Professor Gordon Gallup at The State University of New York, Albany, women are searching for olfactory, chemical and tactile cues from the very first kiss in order to “make a determination about instances of potential genetic incompatibility”.
Damn straight the first kiss is important…but that’s cause I want to know how we kiss together. I want to know if it makes me reel with dizzy anticipation, if it makes me grab that person and pull them to me, or if I go…’Ewww….that was wierd’. It’s only happened twice in my life, but it was distinctly…not happening. But “GENETIC INCOMPATIBILITY”????
I want to know if the kiss will light my fire, I want to know the effect my kiss is having. And that is ALL. If I am not intending to breed again then WTF is with genetics? And compatibility? Well call me old fashioned, but I’d rather determine that sort of shit by years of jokes, discussions and laughter…that’s the only way I can think of TO discover it…and WHY is she making the AIM and measure of all things, the LONGTERMNESS? Can ye not be compatible for a six week fling?
Nope, grunt, grunt, it’s all evopsych bullshit here.
Sounds a little complex to me since men, on the other hand, can actually forego the first kiss altogether and instead head straight to the sex part. Or, if they have to engage in a pre-sex snog-fest, may do it only as a “means to an end”, Professor Gallup says. “Males tend to kiss as a way of trying to gain sexual favours, and also to attempt reconciliation.”
Ok, WOMEN are allowed to like sex, and MEN are allowed to like kissing.
What about all those wonderful hours spent smooching in adolescence? Were the boys who kissed me for hours deficient/not real boys? Would they have grown out of this now? What the fuck is with this wierd hardline delineation between sex and kissing? And wow…men are all manipulative, and are so unmoved/left cold by kissing that they only deploy it as a tactic of manipulation? WHAT. THE. FUCK.
After sex, a man’s dopamine levels drop dramatically, making the woman he’s just bonked less attractive, less desirable and with a less of a chance that he’s going to call her in the morning.
Well, for thos of us without your dazzling familiarity with science Sam, could you perchance include links? To this proven scientific FACT? To hard evidence that dopamine means waking up and being revolted by the chick you banged? That men are all just hormonal dupes?
If men are all hormonal dupes, then why is it that women are painted as irrational for being influenced by THEIR hormones? If we’re equally slaves to our genes/hormones, then perhaps Sam has it all backwards? And MEN are the ones fucking everything up? OR we could all be capable of being fully functional humans??? Influenced by hormones and other factors, but not utterly at the mercy of them?
I just really hate this woman and her writing, the disgusting dismissal of women as rational beings, the revolting reduction of men to total animal status. The reduction of all human sexual interactions to the guy gets his rocks off and just wants the chick to ‘shut up’ now she’s done her job. It’s sickening
Ok…yet again shall I say I don’t have a problem with people getting turned on by voyeuristic images of people having sex…what I *do* have a problem with is the culture of debasement that appears connected to it. Every fucking day some douchehound finds my blog by searching for things like ‘Underage girls love to fuck daddies’, ‘car rape videos’, ‘grandma raped while she screams’.
If you try to find just ‘regular’ sex [and oh thank god I re-read this, I need to edit to note that I do not mean by this hetero man on top missionary position sex, I just mean sex, whatever your flavour of the day which is consensual and mutually enjoyable, between adults no matter of what gender/how many/what have you], you’re bombarded with ads for ‘tiny girls and MONSTER COCKS’, ‘young sluts totally pwned’, ‘ass pounding with vomit’ etc. Even on amatuer porn sites, all the tags are still geared to this mentality of “They’ll only watch if it’s debasement of the woman”. I am no motherfucking prude people…I don’t give a SHIT about anyone watching people have sex…what I DO give a shit about is rape culture and it’s goddamned monopoly on porn.
And then there’s the whole “Oh but it’s not porn, it’s just pornified, photoshopped women in little to no clothes posed in ‘hey fuck me up the arse Mr’ ways”…like men’s mag pics, right? Like Zoo right? With their charming little “Come Wank Over the Chicks Men Killed” feature. Right. You get to claim it’s not porn (it’s just nekkid pornified chicks for the purpose of wanking) to assuage your unease/guilt, except it’s STILL PEDDLING DISRESPECT FOR AND OBJECTIFICATION OF WOMEN AND RAPE CULTURE.
“Men want to look at naked women, it’s normal” is the usual defence replete as it is with compulsory heterosexuality, and you know, whatever. Except you’re NOT looking at women are you? Women come in all shapes, sizes, colours…we eat, we work, we think, we argue. We have laugh lines and frown lines, and scars, and bodies capable of lugging our heads around. Because we’re people JUST LIKE YOU. You’re looking at a tiny select number of women, selected for their conformity to current standards of beauty whose profession is to not eat, to exercise ridiculous numbers of hours away at the expense of actual careers and life concerns and who EVEN THEN have curves erased, thighs ‘trimmed’, blemishes smoothed, have anything that marks them as different from a mannequin or a blow up doll erased, all for your visual stimulation because the most important thing in the world is YOUR BONER and you couldn’t POSSIBLY get it looking at a regular chick.
Sam in the City writes another half arsed opinion piece on porn. She cites Dr Robi Ludwig – psychotherapist, author and TV personality for couples who live in New York’s Upper West Side. (Who knew couples on the Upper West Side now need their own TV personalities?)
Dr Ludwig’s professional medical opinion is thus:
“I think all men look at porn,” she says. “Some men are more addicted and obsessed than others, but I think some men look at porn. So what?”
Well which is it dipshit, some men or all men?
So, you know, wevs, so what indeed…except really what about the *nature* of porn, of the porn they watch, or of masculine culture the connection between sex and degradation that means you need to go further and further to get the same perverse thrill?
Oh, well Dr Ludwig has an opinion on that:
She says that a man’s affection for porn is due to the enjoyment he gets from watching women being objectified, and the male being in a position of total control.
“It somehow hits the pleasure spot in their brain,” she tells me. “They identify with the male protagonist and it allows them to feel powerful and important. I think also these women are sexual objects and they get to play out fantasies in their brain that they wouldn’t get to play out with real-life women.”
So what indeed! So WHAT if men can only get turned on by turning women into objects, into things? So WHAT if men have such fucked up attitudes to sex that they equate sex with dirtiness, perversion, punishment? So WHAT if playing out scenarios in which the woman is utterly debased, humiliated and hurt for their jerk-off-pleasure makes men feel all STRONG and POWERFUL? So WHAT if that spills over into real life like when men rape strippers and scream they deserved it cos they’re sluts? So fucking what says the…tv personality for couples on the Upper West Side.
I really wish that fuckwits like Sam and Dr Robi fucking Ludwig, TV personality and therefore dispenser of all KINDS of wisdom would stop fucking pretending that what’s at issue is jealous deluded unrealistic whiny chicks who can’t handle that their man (again, responding to the compulsory heterosexuality here) handling his member if he’s not thinking about them. Fucking goddamn it. Beat it all day long if you like. Think about the rest of the goddamned universe if you like. Then I can agree ‘So what?’.
But fuck me dead, this does not happen in a vacuum, disconnected from society, disrespect for women, an lo I say it again: RAPE CULTURE.
At best we have the situation where all day long, every day we’re reminded that we are shiney little trinkets in a man’s world. We’re irrelevant if we don’t brighten the landscape for them, and if we do, we’re just another nameless faceless shiny little thing, to be objectified, wanked over, spat back out, not really people. We’re ranked and compared, having our noses held mercilessly in the knowledge that we’ll never ever be young enough, thin enough, perky enough, shiny enough, subservient/acceptable ‘sassy’ enough to covet the five minute prize of HAWT CHICK…there’s always some other New Object just rushing along to supersede you. And you can do all you want in other areas, but it’s a man’s world, and women are there to be HOT or to fuck off. Kick out the biatch and bring on the porn.
And then we have the porn issue. Leaving aside the fucking cliched aesthetics of *ugly dude bones woman who’s been freshly blowdried, manicured, and donned with tacky gold jewellery who mysteriously happens to enjoy a good dose of jizz in the face every night*, let’s look at the fucking power dynamics. Women are the holes, the receptacles, the object on which to act out all manner of degrading filth. The more she looks uncomfortable the better it is. Cos they’re disgusting sluts to be punished or the frigid bitches who want to take away our porn. Oh looky there, damned whores and god’s police.
So…when this culture is fucking EVERYWHERE, don’t you two morons be up in my face about how it’s all just the bad naughty girlfriend come to confiscate men’s toys.
November 25, 2008 WHOSE fault is it that your husband is a cheating prick who humiliated you by conducting an affair behind your back for years? Why YOURS of course!
Why am I EVEN surprised? I’m not actually…but I am sure as hell not going to NOT point it out.
Sam in the City ponders (in depth) “Who’s really to blame for an affair?”
Yes, before you ask it IS exactly as bad as you think…she just pretends for a while that’s not where she’s going.
So Gordon Ramsay’s been fucking around.
There appears to Sam to be an unprecedented SPATE of this!!! OMG cultural PHENOMENON!!
Is it the *Other Woman*’s fault? Is it YOUR FAULT as the wife??? (Here she pretends to shy away from this even though WE ALL KNOW it’s her ultimate conclusion and I just LOVE that she bounces from one woman to the other without pausing to reflect on the guy that is the one who actually broke the promises here).
Nooo, HONESTLY, *I* don’t think it’s the wife’s fault, *I* don’t subscribe to this….but…really…I heard a story, right and in this story a guy tried to cheat cos his wife was away for two weeks…so this made me think right? If he doesn’t get it at home… (um, what? She was away on a two week holiday who SAID he didn’t “get it at home”) does he feel “the need to stray”. (Oh poor MENZ!!! NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS to live lies! Couldn’t make a choice! Couldn’t be HONEST! Couldn’t have a wank and a nap! Couldn’t grow the fuck up and go pursue an unattached status where he’s free to sleep with whomever he chooses if that’s what he really wants! Coudn’t give his wife a fucking CHOICE in any of this!)
She never even pauses to think that maybe it’s not about the wife/her not ‘putting out’, that these men may well have had a rollicking sex life with their partner…but maybe he’s just a prick? Or maybe it’s about masculine culture and a sense of entitlement? Or maybe…no, too hard…let’s just blame the woman he’s humiliated and decieved. Excellent.
Oh also? When you as a woman are shocked and appalled at a married male friend hitting on your while his wife is away and tell him in no uncertain terms that it’s inappropriate and you are most certainly not intererested? Well you OBVIOUSLY are a liar who subconsciously led him on – and no amount of protesting on your behalf makes a difference since a random dude who doesn’t know you asserts that:
“She must have been doing something to lead him on in the first place,” he explained. “Because men abhor rejection. They must have seen each other in a previous scenario and she may have been giving him the eye. Men aren’t going to start something like that if they weren’t getting the signals.”
Um, if you don’t mind, I’ll beg to differ here as the recipient of MANY unwanted and upsetting advances, both verbal propositions by married men and the upsettingly taken-for-granted-as-normal groping/grabbing/molesting in clubs NONE OF WHICH involved any leading on, any eye-giving, any ANYTHING.
How is this not rape apology logic??
* OH, men KNOW the signals they’re getting more than women KNOW the signals they’re giving*. By this logic whatever a woman says/does/screams NEVER EVER MATTERS cos a man KNOWS when he’s wanted, and SHE STARTED IT and he’s a fragile little puppy and wouldn’t TRY anything otherwise!
Just fuck off and die.
[Oh and anyone who thinks I'm a little *over the top* with the anger/the rape association? Yeah, maybe I'm just fucking grumpy and worn down by pricks finding my site with searches such as 'Fuck granma screaming whle she's raped', 'rape in car videos' etc]
OH NO!!! Feminists do not blindly and uncritically support Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee for Vice Presidency. And she is a WOMAN! How DARE they be such utter hyprocrites!
She attributes the “excoriation” of Palin over this last week to feminists: this despite the fact that feminists have been keeping a strict eye on the instances of sexism directed against Palin, objecting strenuously and articulately to her being reduced to a VPILF, to her being ripped apart and assessed over her family choices/sex life/vicious personal rumours, in fact to anything directed against her that is not a fair discussion of the issues she supports/issues relevant to her potential role as VP:
Feminists stand up for Palin’s rights to be treated as a real life, actual candidate to be taken seriously (and boy is she taken seriously, her politics are disturbing):
This is from just two feminist sites, in what – a week?
In my readings of feminist sites (I think I’ve linked to about six or seven sites in all in this post) I have not come across one ’excoriating’ Palin, or having a go at her on the basis of her personal life.
Disagreeing with her and finding her stance on important issues repellent and cause for grave concern does not equal excoriation. The other issues facing Palin that Devine raises (and accuses feminists of perpetrating) – the rumours over the pregnancies, the affairs, claims she *breaths fire* are not, generally speaking coming from feminists but from mainstream, gossip peddling ’news’ publications, like Miranda’s own SMH which has been steadily running front page gossip articles about Palin over the last few days.
Devine argues that Palin’s reaction to baby Trig being perfect in her eyes should be cause for applause, that her management of her family and professional roles should be admired, that she is personally fascinating being a moose-hunting mamma, that she’s about to break the glass ceiliing. She manages to imply that it is feminists who want to deny her her choices in life, the feminists who ask if a mommy really should be allowed such a time consuming job, the feminists leading the attacks over her personal life, the feminists starting rumours. Devine says feminists assert without evidence that Palin is a homophobic anti-choicer, but the one bit of ‘evidence’ she uses to ground these claims that it is feminists doing all this is a quote. From the New York Times…I’d link you to that article, but Devine didn’t bother so I can’t. I don’t know what the article was, but a quick headsup Miranda: one NYT quote (even *if* written by an actual feminist) does not sum up feminists positions on and problems with Palin. Please see the links above and below. (Oddly enough these both manage to defend her right to be treated as a candidate, and not to be disrespected and annihilated by rumour, and simultaneously to point out issues with her politics! Feminists managing to not be one dimensional! Who’d a thunk it?)
Basically it’s the usual codswallop from Miranda, but you know, for real! It’s the mainstream media in fact going to town on Palin’s personal life, it’s the mainstream media asking if a mommy should be allowed a big job like this, the mainstream media who disrespect her choices – as to the feminists, I’d argue the position is: It’s great for Palin to have so many choices – it’s a shame she wants to deny life choices to others. And *that’s* what it’s all about Miranda.
So for feminist/left wing discussions of the *actual* opposition to/issues with Palin (AND for more writing about the frustration over the rumours/discussions of Palin’s personal life/love life/family life) coming from feminists/the left more generally, see posts and comment threads here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here*, a great collection of links here, here, here (that one’s a Times article)…ok, you get the point right? Cos I’m going crosseyed. The point is there are many many feminist/left wing posts on the valid concerns over Sarah Palin’s politics, and the prospect of her being the Vice President. So far not *one* of them has been about “I’m just not sure a *mommy* should be VP” or based on the rumours.
[Edited to note that I will add more links as I come across them...the thing is they're multiplying extremely quickly, so if you follow the links, you're likely to come across links on those links, and so on...enjoy. ALSO!! It has been noted over at Hoyden that while the feminists are still saying "OFF LIMITS" to bagging Palin out over personal life stuff, that there are quite a number of 'progressive male' bloggers doing so. So I need to add that caveat to my proclamation that the feminists and the left more generally have steered clear of this shit.]