The Blowjob Blowup is the topic that has resulted in way too many interesting points for discussion. Well done Twisty, you have proven that blowjobs are better than Oasis, the Beatles and Queen put together. I suggest CD blowjobs over vinyl for once, if only to avoid scratching.
Anyway, Zuzu at Feministe brings up something I’ve been meaning to bring up, but hadn’t had a good excuse opportunity to.
Being a sex positive het M-Theory Radfem means having thought long and hard about having sex with men, this is why I reserve the right to blow up when other women presume to know more about it than I do, when they frankly admit that they do everything in their power to avoid it or thinking about it for many many double plus good reasons.
This of course means that I have a prepared and well walked line of thought regarding the whole oral sex quid pro quo business.
In my humble opinion, you cannot be a sex positive feminist and accept the very concept of quid pro quo sexual activities.
However, unlike the sex negative types, I have a very well thought out reason for this, rather than just saying “THE PENIS IS EVIL, THE GNU IS GOOD” like some sort of sean connery (and his ‘tache) containing, flying, head shaped rock (admittedly, a giant sex negative head shaped rock made entirely out of straw, but you know how it is, one can never have enough strawmen).
To my understanding and personal experience of it, sex positive feminism is all about an active rejection of the patriarchy’s rape culture, while still being sexual because you are a sexual creature, this means that you have to reject anything obligatory, coersive, forced, abusive or just plain creepy (to whatever the hell standard of creepy you decide on) in sex if at all possible.
This of course means that the idea of having to, or being obligated to suck some guy off because they gave you the grand service of eating you out, or even (because I am insanely stubborn and sexually, if not philisophically, consistent) being eaten out because you sucked some guy off. Obligation is coercive, even more so when it’s a patriarchally created sexual obligation, and coercive sex is rape, ergo, sex that includes obligation is rape, and as all heterosexual sex is not rape for the very simple reason that rape is not sex, but a cruel parody of the sublime and beautiful act of self expression we call, rather anti-climacticly, “sex”, then you are not having sex if you started bringing quid pro quo into it, you are doing nothing more nor less than suporting the rape culture. In short, sex stops becoming sex as soon as you let something like obligatory fellatio/cunninglingus into the bedroom.
This does not of course mean that men who ask for blow jobs after cunninglingus are actively nasty rapists who hate women, they are tools, patsies, space monkeys to their patriarchal training, but they still can’t be given a free pass because of that, they need to be confronted so that they then have to choose to either actively be a rapist or actively chooze to be a lover, the obligatory act of oral sex needs to be momentarily rejected, and the why needs to be explained, nothing in bed should ever be obligatory, no one should be coerced, either him or me, and if that doesn’t sit well with your partner, even after you’ve explained why you’re not down with doing that now, then kick them out or put your clothes on and leave.
A sex positive feminist lacks the ability to pretend that it’s some how fair or okay to be obligated to perform a specific sexual action, they know that if it is even slightly tainted by the rape culture then by doing nothing to stop it or avoid it or negate it when they have the opportunity, they are complicit in their abuse by the patriarchy, and even worse, are potentially leaving a guy around who is not aware that this sort of shit is just not okay or normative. If it could be routinely expect for men not to be total fucking idiots, i.e. if certain people stopped pissing in the pool, the burden of responsibility wouldn’t rest so much on women, seriously, I hate that whole last paragraph because it places the burden for sex positively so squarely on women’s shoulders, like we’re not shoudlering enough of a burden anyway, that even liberation has to involve the constant fighting off of our friends, foes, lovers and everyone to the point it all becomes a burden, but unless anyone has a better idea that doesn’t involve celibacy, it’s the way things appear to be right now.
This has a rather interesting (to my mind anyway, but I’m rather easily amused) extention, which is, to my mind, part of the foundation of sex positive feminism; It does not matter what your reasons for not having sex are, they are all equally valid, no matter how petty, silly, stupid or pedantic they may seem, or are assessed to be by sonme outsider, if you have a reason, no matter how small, it is justification enough for stopping, leaving, or throwing the asshole out. When it comes right down to it, you can never be too picky about not engaging in sexual activity, because it should be a deep and meaningful experience, even one night stands (if you can’t find meaning in a one night stand you obviously need to study more about the subject, tantra’s good, sufiism has some interestings ideas, avoid “top 10 ways to have mind blowing orgasms”, and masturbate a lot), and if you have ANY misgivings about continuing you should, always, stop, and either work them out before continuing, or stop completely.
Sex Positive feminism emerges organically from the killing of two of the buddhas patriarchy ingrains in women, the one that say “you must do this” or “you must do that” to be a “good” (whatever the hell that means) sexual woman and the one that tells you there are “good” reasons for choosing not be sexual and “bad” reasons (because oppressed peoples can have opinions even if their social superiors don’t okay it, really).
No one has to do anything in bed except be themselves, unless they’re roleplaying.
And there is only ever your reasons for not doing so, and that is always more than enough.
You can’t have good sex if you’re unable to avoid having bad sex.
I’m unconvinced a genial, non-coercive tit for tat swap is really a threat. If you hate performing oral sex, then don’t. But my experience talking with other people is that without a general sense of fairness in the sack, far too many women finding themselves being scolded about having the expectation of an orgasm just because they made their bodies and skills available to a man so he could achieve one. Even that thread at Feministe had women defensively saying they don’t need orgasms since their husband condescend to cuddle them after shooting a load.
I should probably clarify a comment I left in a previous thread, which I’m certain went wholly unread, because I can see how it could be misconstrued.
No sex act is obligatory in my bed. It is the hallmark of a good lover, though, to be sensitive to the needs and tastes of one’s partner and oneself. (And not necessarily in that order; I wouldn’t demand a autofellatio shortly after a quick jerk.) This can effectively be achieved by communicating about sexual desires ouside of the fuck chamber.
And how hot can a “but I’ve got your juices on my chin” BJ be, anyway?
I wouldn’t demand a autofellatio shortly after a quick jerk.
Damn, you’re easy. I mean, I don’t want to tell you ho(w) to live your life, but you’ll never buy the cow if you give away the milk for free.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but, if not, I disagree that anytime you do something just because it’s something your partner likes then it is rape.
I do all sorts of laborious things in bed to please my partner that I don’t necessarily enjoy. I do them because I enjoy pleasing her and so its worthwhile, but, even when they become boring or monotonous to me but she is going insane, I will still do them because to not do so would be selfish and would waste an opportunity to make another person happy. And I really don’t consider myself to be raped each time I have this kind of sex where I go an extra twenty minutes or stay in the same position that’s really not much of a turn on for me so the vibrator can fit or whatever else and she can cum. I like my new girlfriend better because things are much easier and she can cum in almost any position and we both enjoy the same positions more, but I certainly didn’t feel raped when I was with my old girlfriend, it just wasn’t the best sex I ever had.
And perhaps you were just being a bit self-centered when you made the general statement and what you were really saying was (just) that giving a blowjob is tantamount to rape when you don’t really want to. If so, well, then, okay, I can see that. Most of the girlfriends I have had have enjoyed going down on me (or were at least good at convincing me they were), my current one isn’t really into it so I don’t let her. It’s a huge turnoff to have someone do something they don’t enjoy and it’s honestly not something that feels so amazing that it’s worth that. Almost nothing in sex really feels that great on its own, masturbating probably feels better, it’s the connection and togetherness that makes it worthwhile.
Micheal, from what you’re saying it sounds like you’re saying that you don’t find sex all that enjoyable in the first place.
I say this not as an insult, but as friendly advice: Have you ever considered the possibility that you might be asexual?
[...] If you need some light yet titillating reading, R. Mildred is sustaining the Twisty Faster-induced hummer kerfuffle with some commentary on the fellatio pro cunnilingus phenomenon. Something the right and proper Malkins don’t have to worry about. [...]
If he likes to masturbate, he’s not asexual.
I find it hard to believe there’s anyone out there who hasn’t hung in a little longer than they would have found preferable on performing oral sex because you wanted your partner to be able to orgasm.
Let me get this straight, Mildred. If someone isn’t into everything then they must be into nothing? I don’t see anything in Michael’s comment that isn’t essentially universal, up to and including the concept that most people know their own bodies better than their partners do.
umm, no, if someone is saying over and over again that they don’t find sex particularly pleasurable, there’s a good chance they’re asexual. Sex should be better than masturbation, because you have the bond, the bathing in each other’s glow (ewww) and the sort of trust and communication that allows the actual physical act to be very good indeed.
Some Asexuals actually do masturbate, seriously (don’t ask me how that works, they say they’re asexual, who am I to argue?).
From the bit of hanging around on AVEN I’ve done, things like this:
Almost nothing in sex really feels that great on its own, masturbating probably feels better, it’s the connection and togetherness that makes it worthwhile.
Sounds remarkably asexual, according to what I know of asexuality as a sort of sexuality, really, I’m not just bandying the word around for once.
This actually tes into the Nice Guy discussion of last week, in that in both cases the question comes up of, when is a woman obligated to do something sexual. And the answer is, never. Saying “you have to suck me off because I went down on you” is not really different from saying “you have to suck me off because I bought you dinner” or saying “you have to suck me off because I acknowledged your personhood.”
Yeah, Hershele, I’m with you. Here’s how I read it:
If a man goes down on a woman, he cannot then ABSOLUTELY DEMAND that she return the favor because of quid pro quo if she doesn’t want to do it. If you refuse to go down on him, even if he went down on you, that’s okay. And that’s what I’m hearing from R Mildred. Is anyone genuinely opposed to that idea here?
I don’t see how folks are construing her statements to mean that “hanging on a little longer” is somehow coercive. If you want to hang on a little longer, or do a little extra for your partner, that’s perfectly okay. No one is saying you have to love every second of it.
But if you want to say no to something, even if the same act was performed on you, you can. Is this really that controversial?
Marc, I’d go a bit farther. As I said on Feministe:
I mean, men having sex with women have an affirmative obligation to make sure they are not pressuring their partners; that their partners know that it’s okay to say no. Otherwise, the patriarchal pressure to be nice and bend over backwards to please men may weigh too heavily. Saying “only if you want to” and “not if you’re not into it” is all upside.
If a man goes down on a woman, he cannot then ABSOLUTELY DEMAND that she return the favor because of quid pro quo if she doesn’t want to do it. If you refuse to go down on him, even if he went down on you, that’s okay. And that’s what I’m hearing from R Mildred.
I’m not really exercised about this post and agree with most of it, and generally with your point, Marc. But I don’t think Mildred limited herself to ABSOLUTE DEMANDS:
I don’t even necessarily disagree with this. But “asking” and “absolutely demanding” are indeed two separate things.
I don’t see how folks are construing her statements to mean that “hanging on a little longer” is somehow coercive. If you want to hang on a little longer, or do a little extra for your partner, that’s perfectly okay. No one is saying you have to love every second of it.
For the record, I’m not objecting to Mildred’s original post. I’m objecting to what I perceive(d) as saying in her comment to Michael – to wit, if you don’t love every second of it, you might well be asexual.
True. And if you want to be very strict, maybe you can hold her to less-than-ideal word choice (though I am not presuming she regrets it — as Thomas points out, asking may in fact be a risky move, at least early, before you’ve established that you are not a typical patriarchal asshole).
I don’t feel you have to be overly generous to R Mildred to read her as I did, even with what you quoted, because of the context of this before it:
I also didn’t read her comment to say anything like “if you don’t fine every second enjoyable, you’re asexual.” She said it could be an option if, 1) “you don’t find sex all that enjoyable in the first place” or 2) “if someone is saying over and over again that they don’t find sex particularly pleasurable.” Those are her quotes, and there’s no mention of second-based unreasonableness in there.
I don’t even necessarily disagree with this. But “asking” and “absolutely demanding” are indeed two separate things.
I think it’s fairly clear that in context, the asking is less “please go down on me” and more “ok, I did you, now will you do me?” Although I, too, agree that either type of asking before he’s established his credentials is risky at best.
The post is a tad jargony, so I could be wholly misinterpreting it.
I had a friend once who couldn’t get off at all unless it was oral. She totally enjoyed all kinds of positions. She just didn’t get off.
I should think men would have to account for those women, if they happen to be dating them. which might be a kind of structurally built in reason why quid pro quo is out.
the other factor is that men always forget that, in terms of the larger culture, the images shot back at you are that you are not defined by your ability to please women per se. that is just one option for being a man. when you read men’s health or whatever mag geared toward men, you invariably read the argument that, if you like the hummer, then you should be sure to do it for her so you can get some goodness in return.
IOW, you are told to have an enlightened self interest. if it turns out you like it, great! plus, right off the bat, you are subtly being told that you should expect it.
Women’s mags, OTOH, usually start from the assumption that every gal IS a gal b/c she wants to please her man. it makes her who she is. occasionally, women’s mags will say you should blow the guy to get blow, but not so much.
There’s an imbalance there that conditions how we think of our very sexual identities and men have more options. You can find plenty out there to tell you to just take what you can get, who really cares if she gets off and still _feel_ like a man. not so much as it used to be, but….
without getting into innumerable other things that makes the situation unequal, that’s something that people tried to raise at twisty’s i think. it was spoken of abstractly here and there at Pandagon, but I dont’ think concrete examples were ever offered.
(Off topic, but germane to Bitch | Lab’s comment…)
Since I first saw the inside of one of those men’s health mags, I knew they were all worthless. Since I first saw the inside of a fashion magazine, I knew they were all harmful pieces of trash.
If you know me, you know I’m no anarchist, but seriously people: Stop watching television and stop reading these obtuse magazines. Without a doubt, it’ll make your sex life and overall mood better.
“This does not of course mean …then kick them out or put your clothes on and leave.”
The run-on sentence never looked so good.
without getting into innumerable other things that makes the situation unequal, that’s something that people tried to raise at twisty’s i think. it was spoken of abstractly here and there at Pandagon, but I dont’ think concrete examples were ever offered.
One of those things, in my experience, is women have a lot more internalized pressure not to ask for certain things than men do. I’m pretty open-minded but it’s downright hard for me to ask for head. All it takes is one lover to make a face like you just served him a plate of dog food to put you off asking forever. So that’s one huge difference. Men simply aren’t afraid they’ll have the word “fish” thrown at them in bed.
Dunno, R. A lot of women say they come harder from masturbating than intercourse, but they still want to have sex with men because they like the closeness. Coming harder from masturbating is seriously common, probably more than half the population.
Men simply aren’t afraid they’ll have the word “fish” thrown at them in bed.
“Pig,” maybe.
[...] I mentioned, way back in the day, that: To my understanding and personal experience of it, sex positive feminism is all about an active rejection of the patriarchy’s rape culture, while still being sexual because you are a sexual creature, this means that you have to reject anything obligatory, coercive, forced, abusive or just plain creepy (to whatever the hell standard of creepy you decide on) in sex if at all possible. [...]
The 17th Carnival of Feminists…
I like carnivals. The blog’s domain name, Pulp Culture, is named for the Ivrea Carnival and the historic Battle of the Oranges. The Ivrea Carnival has its roots in a story that readers of a feminist carnival might appreciate:
At that time a Coun…
The 17th Carnival of Feminists…
I like carnivals. The blog’s domain name, Pulp Culture, is named for the Ivrea Carnival and the historic Battle of the Oranges. The Ivrea Carnival has its roots in a story that readers of a feminist carnival might appreciate:
At that time a Coun…