Oh baby, yeah that’s it.
In case anone hasn’t noticed, I haven’t actually tackled the OMGsporkitdeadSPORKITDEAD! Village Voice piece yet.
That last post, that was just my initial reaction to some of the comments in the various threads that the peice has spawned in the blogosphere, and now that the various threads have had an opportunity to mature somewhat, I have to doff my hat to Twisty again, the number of tools and straight guys who she offended is most impressive, she has earned her Oppressed Minority To Watch Out For status ten fold, and I can only parrot bitch|Phd in the Boobalectemy ’06! thread over at IBTP: Twisty, I would so mess (around) with you. (though my hetereosexuality would now doubt leave me unable to mess you properly). Any lesbian who can make so many heterosexuals so incredibly uncomfortable with two very short posts, deserves a crown and an ermin robe which she can wear as she rules over the earth as its queen.
But enough about Twisty’s amazing ability to turn the heads of easily swooned het women, what about the Bussel peice?
Well where should I begin really? The gawd aweful picture of a pasty white pseudo-goth crack whore wannabe, her eyes sort of not quite squinting at the camera, her body resting back on her elbows because her boobs are about to pop out of the butt floss she accidently put on the wrong end of her body. ETA: I had no idea this photo was of Bussel, I thought they’d gone out and picked some poor woman, slapped half a ton of pasty white makeup on her, shoved her into that godaweful top (which, no matter how you try to spin it, is a really bad “Look at me! I have Tits OMGWTFBBQ!!!1!” top, sexiness is synonymous with natural, if you look like you’re trying to be sexy you never will be) and then got her to pose both awkwardly and, by the looks of it, painfully, in the asshole photographers basement, it looked like it was trying too hard to go along with a screed about sex-positivity from an anti-feminist who has no idea about sex-positivity, but does lurve herself some abuse.
In short, the photo is just perfectly suited for the writing, you can see that Bussel is one of hte best “my soul squirts out of my pen when I write” writers around, unfortunately she is an idiot who sold her soul to the often unconciously maintained system of, frequently sexualised, abuse and degradation that adversely affects women over men, which I call the patriarchy (hope that answer your question Bitchlab) so that’s not quite a compliment
Seriously, where does one begin tearing this sort of crap apart when that’s the accompaning photo? The caption to which is nothing less ironic than “no one has the right to tell you how to fuck”, which is precisely the sort of caption you should have under a photo of a woman who’s obviously been jammed into that faux-vampirella top (Cuz it’s sexy, bitch) and told to find the most ungodly uncomfortable position possible (cuz it’s sexy, bitch) by the photographer, who one can only assume had somewhere better to be that day because MAN, does it look rushed. But remember kids, being horribly abused and demeaned by the porn industry is “empowering”, a word that is quickly losing what meaning it once had thanks to its current use as prime anti-fem doublethink, doesn’t matter what it is these days, if it’s abusive and disempowering, some anti-fem is calling it “empowering”, as bussel is detirmined to prove over and over again
Oh sweet chocolate Cthulhu, I just wrote two paragraphs just on the photo that goes with the piece, God Help Us All…
No wait, can’t start on the actual piece yet, there’s more horrors on the page aside from the actual main peice.
For instance here’s two of the ads* in the side bar:
Victoria is Available In Manhattan, $1OO Special services
Click here: www.**********.com/amember /go.php?r=39 IT’S FREE TO ADVERTISE WITH US VISIT US ONLINE 24/7 Escort Name: Victoria Profile ID # 00000*** Available In: Manhattan Incalls: V.I.P $150 half Outcalls: V.I.P $150…LATINAS 2 GO
(**7) 4**-5*** LATINAS 2 GO When you need a hot LATINA to SPICE UP YOUR LIFE, call us! Our ladies are muy caliente! We have a WIDE VARIETY of Latinas…
*HeadDesks* yes folks, we have officially reached primo grade DEEP HURTING, a piece about how liberating sucking the patriarchy’s cock is, unsurprisingly, bracketed by ads for Prostitutes Escort Agencies, because whoring is fun and always entirely voluntary!
Soooo anyway, on to the piece itself…
Let me jump right in at the beginning, but ignore the intial start where she plugs some books for what sound like some anti-fems who I neither know nor care about. They’re anti-fems, there’s twenty more money grubbing assholes for every one with an actual book deal, and they’re all very careful to be pretty interchangable, so it doesn’t matter if she does lambast them, they’re anti-fems, you’re supposed to lambast them, what do you want? A medal?
This bit is the first bit that jumps out and pisses me off personally:
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.
… now what bugs me is that Hillary is, and always has been, nothing more than an expression of the misogynistic left-of-centrists’ barely functioning sense of shame about their unwillingness to actually support feminist causes or politics, she exists as a candidate and politician only so that these Kos-holes can pretend that they’re treatment of women is in some way different from the repugs. She is in short the left wing’s equivalent to Condileeza Rice, a total tool who’s ownership of a vaginal token has gotten her to places that other toilet cleaners just can’t reach. She is in short, a perfect mirror image of Jenna Jameson, as both have achieved what they’ve achieved by being vaginas first and people second.
And the thing about giving credence to strippers and “adult performers” (of course adult performances often involve pretending to be jailbait in school uniforms, but hey! Nothing wrong there!), I mean, Wtf? They’re victims, even those who aren’t physically assaulted in their profession, I mean, come on! Their jobs involve being sexual objects who pander to the patriarchal sense of entitlement men have which tells them they all deserve pussy on demand, and how do they feed this sense of entitlement? By paying hard cash for pussy.
Nothing wrong there, so men are buying women like they’re inhuman commodities? So what? That’s normal isn’t it? Like honor killings in modern islamic countries, it’s a cultural thing, you’re not allowed to criticise it!
Oh boy oh boy, I love this next sentence, Love it to pieces!
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.
Emphasis mine.
Now why I emphasised that is for the very simple reason that I’m pretty certain that Bussel (named after a form of victorian asspadding for high society ladies, because it’s silly names month at Punkassblog) is not actually referring to lesbians kissing in public, because that would in some way not reinforce heteronormativity, and every single one of these would be counter-twistylutionary polemics are all about the heteronormativity reinforcing (except my ones of course, because I am the God Shi-halud, and free from heterosexual privelage of course, teehee).
No, what “public sapphic smooching” refers to in this case is two het girls (and with women this immature, the term girls is appropriate in this case) kissing each other in front of some het guys, to show them all that these two women are willing to do anything to display their unwaivering allegiance to the patriarchy, including gaying it up with their friends. It is of course crap like that that gives Bisexuals such a bad rep in the LGBT community, but I guess that if the act wasn’t hurting some women somewhere bussel wouldn’t have mentioned it.
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.
Oh save us from the “voluntary” patriarchy victims! I’ve been thinking alot about multicultural feminism recently , and the thing I’ve stated to notice is a pattern that keeps reoccuring across all the various cultures that opress women, what happens is that a feminist will start talking about the nastiness in a foriegn culture and inevitably someone will whip out some variant of “but the women think that female genital mutilation is a good thing! Who are you to intervene?”, which of course instantly shuts down any discussion. Now of course western society is superior to all others, it is more enlightened, and of course feminism is no longer needed in the west for it has achieved its aims. This is bullshit, the “who are you to intervene” canard has kept large aspects of feminist critiscism silent all over the world, first and third world both, feminists are never allowed to actually criticise any culture for its abusive nature towards women, because there’s this culture and the women really want to be oppressed, really.
Do you know what? When a friend of mine turns into a total alchoholic, do you know what I’m obligated to do? Stage an intervention, irregardless of how much he really likes drinking til he pees himself, I’m supposed to stick my big fat nose into his “choice” to be addicted and gently kill himself with booze, because he needs help, and he needs to be made to realise that he has a problem.
But if it’s a woman, addicted to patriarchal self destruction, well that’s different, that’s a different sort of self-destructive “choice” all together, one she’s allowed to “choose” and if she’s being gently killed by her husband, well that’s an issue between man and wife and nothing for us to be concerned about.
Alchoholics get interventions by their family and friends, patriarchal abuse victims get bussel’s gentle rationalisations for their oppression.
Makes sense to me.
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.
Yeah, and you know what? Uptight little asswaste little heterosexual women doing their best to marginalize lesbian viewpoints doesn’t exactly scream “sisterhood” either, in fact the word “sister-fucker” comes to mind, along with the other term “anti-feminist”. FFS, Twisty is never Holier-Than-Thou, Twisty just doesn’t fuck around and pretend that she doesn’t mean precisely what she means. strange how when it comes to women sucking patriarchal cock, you’re free to do whatever but Oh. My. Gosh. As soon as someone actually blames the patriarchy for shit and Dares to mock the holy phallus no less, well, that’s just not on.
LOL, look at me getting all upset by this, like I’ve never seen a lesbian being marginalized before…
There’s a world of difference between being branded a sex object and choosing to be one under certain circumstances.
Umm, the net result if that you’re still a sex object, so that world of difference is not really all that different or good, is it?
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.
Yes, except this brand of “there’s nothing wrong with being abused” sexuality does kind of require you being a doormat with a vagina.
Oh, and then she blah blahs for a while, men are mentioned, this guy (who I assume is never giong to be invited around her parent’s place for dinner ever again) tells her he wants be fucked up the ass, because men are oppressed too you see.
Which is nice and all, especially as she’s spent the entire thing telling us that all the things that women do, including the various deeply self harming things, are all A-OK and nothing to worry about, because there is no patriarchal oppression, there is merely Twisty, oppressing women with her mean old cock mockage.
anyway, here’s the next interestingly stupid bit;
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).”
Of course, while DeKeuster is pissing around with her, ahem, “rape” fantasies (which are nothing of the kind, they’re just standard BDSM roleplaying fantasies in which she’s an “abused” sub), there is a whole world full of men who, having been told by the patriarchy that no doesn’t really mean no, are raping and murdering and abusing women.
But have fun with your “Rape” fantasies, I mean, there’s no possible reason why people would find that offensive, especially not on a college campus (where 1 in 4 women ARE NOT raped, remember). I love how she basically just pulled the “I’m entitled to be a selfish asshole who doesn’t care about anyone’s feelings but my own” justification after she got critiscised (but she dressed it up in “sex positivity” so it’s okay).
Oh and next week I’m going to germany so I can goosestep through a few holocaust memorials while wearing an SS uniform, but it’s a “choice”, and therefore above reproach, and no one is allowed to critiscise me or I’ll call them “Politically correct” waaaah!
God, how old is this woman? Is she planning on growing up anytime soon you think? Or is she a baby boomer?
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.
Of course, your vapid justifications for every single abusive sexual act possible, from rape to het women kissing each other has just enabled god knows how many asshole men to go out and abuse their partners and call it “liberation”.
Well done.
What I love about this sort of thinking though, is it’s totally disengenuous, why have feminists been critical of many of these sexual acts that bussel feels the need to defend? What’s the motivation behind such “attacks”? Who knows, because the unsourced strawfeminists presumably engages in total sophistry (as far as I can make out), which just handily means never having to actually engage anyone’s arguements about anything.
And there’s the problem with these “don’t mock the penis” types who have been trying rather lamely to kick Twisty while she’s dealing with her operation, they cannot admit that there’s valid reasons why all sorts of “choices” are wrong, the only important thing is that they’re “choices”, and as long as women choose something, including patriarchal oppression, well no one’s allowed to criticise because Oppression is Empowering (as orwell would say).
And the anti-fems do this because they have no real response to the charges of oppression, pretty much most of the examples Bussel provides of contentious sex is all heavily patriarchal, from strippers and the porn industry (both of which are unwaveringly demeaning towards women), to DeKeuster declaring that all women want to be raped (the other side to that nasty quote up there), Bussel, like wonkette before her, wants you to come away from her screed with the impression that, not only have feminists been simply declaring some things bad without good cause, but that you can engage in any sort of deeply misogynistic and self harming act, and not only is no one allowed to tell you that you are harming yourself (and thus stopping you from actually dealing with your problem) because it’s your “choice”, but you’re then allowed to go around telling people that the self abuse is “empowering” you as a sexual creature.
Of course this is nothing new, all oppressive systems do something like that, usually masking the oppression with talk about “culture” or “tradition”, both of which are inherently “good” things despite the oppression and hate and violence that such words end up associated with them. In America it’s most obvious with the homobigot fundie types, but in the last post I added something that, I admit, was an intentional provocation, designed to probe harshly at the edge of the Highheel spot, that place where way too many feminists will fight for their right to fuck their leg muscles, tendons, toes, ankles and spinal column up, more often than not in the name of attracting the attention of objectifying men. That’s not why all women wear highheels, but it’s certainly why the abuse positive women like Dowd and Wonkette and Bussel wear them.
Of course, with trolling comes people who get trolled, and Erica provided a perfect microcosm of the whole Bussel bullshitfest with this neato little comment:
I’m not sure what to make of this kind of attack against femme women. For one thing, it reminds me of men who make these claims against feminists. We must all be ugly sows for wanting equality. For another, it reminds me of anti-feminist prudes who say, “No, no. Nice girls don’t do that. Only bad girls with low self-esteem wear slutty clothes or sleep around.”
I used to have real self-esteem issues. I was worried about what everyone thought of me. Now that I’ve grown up, I believe that doing what you want, with little or no thought of the opinion of others, is a truly feminist act. It really disturbs me that at least one commenter on this thread has asked for R. Mildred’s permission to wear high heels. Fuck that.
Now you have here the problem, the paradox that allows otherwise good feminists to get shipwrecked on the craggy metaphors of anti-feminist rationalisations for patriarchal abuse, the first, most important step anyone under patriarchy has to do is say “goddammit, bullshit to hell yah, I don’t take no orders from anyone about my behavior!”, but this aspect of liberation does not mean that “I like this, therefore it’s not patriarchal” is a true statement.
Highheels are painful and debililtating, they also are the only shoe in exisence that leave the wearer unable to cross cattle grids without getting stuck.
They’re patriarchal, objectively so, if you do wear them for non-sexual reasons that actually are kinda empowering, that still doesn’t change their harmful and patriarchal nature, and there’s probably an alternative out there somewhere that isn’t (though I’m already tall enough to loom over people who dare oppose me, so I’ve always gone in for floor level footwear and don’t know anything in particular to help you ks, sorry).
The lesson we can learn from highheels is that some objects and behaviors are just plain downpressing to women, you can fuck around and try to co-opt them all you want, but the patriarchy is laughing at you while you do.
This is true of Bussel’s “submissiveness”, it’s not roleplaying, BDSM, feminist freindly submission, she’s saying that women can be a man’s chew cum stress relief toy in the bedroom, and that is bad, because she invites the power differential on which all abuse and oppression exists, into her bed and asks other women to do the same because “I like this, therefore it’s not patriarchal”.
Got a newsflash for you kid; the patriarchy can trick you, no really, and sometimes what you think you like, is actually just a result of conditioning.
*contact details removed because I’m not enabling the abusive practices of prostitution on Punkass blog
Really, the tagline for that article? Blowjobs are under attack? Did somebody smack the ice cream cone out of somebody’s hand?
And this:
These well-intentioned prudes proffer a false choice: Be the next Jenna Jameson or support Hillary for president.
What the fuck does this even mean? Are women’s choices that narrow? Or do women only get to choose between doggystyle and bukkake? I’m confused. All these false binaries and generalizations.
and certainly no credence given to strippers or adult performers, who they see as airheaded sluts.
I’m sure my feminist friend who graduated with a degree in architecture last year will be very bothered to find that a bunch of unnamed, imaginary feminists think she’s an airheaded slut for stripping on the weekends. But her boss in his three-piece suit? Her colleagues? Yeah, they don’t know about her second job. I wonder why. Let’s blame feminists.
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.
Right. Or some feminists find it comment-worthy to point out that she’s only famous for a) being rich, and b) having a sex tape made public. Even I, a Paris Hilton-loather, can sympathize with someone who had an intimate moment released for widespread public consumption, but for RKB, the context in which this is phrased sounds as though people want to beat Paris (in the bad way) for voluntarily (?) releasing the tape?
What? Sloppy as fuck!
And regarding Twisty: Holier-than-thou pronouncements of sexual superiority don’t scream “sisterhood” to me.
Nor did it scream “sisterhood” to a lot of people, which is why the conversation is STILL raging (did you notice, people? is RKB an active participant in the blogosphere, or does she just vet bloggers for column material?).
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.
Nobody’s arguing with you. We just don’t think your (or anyone’s) sexual proclivities, any of them, are beyond consideration merely because you claim victim status for having your ego paddle taken away by the mytho-feminist.
en 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.
Well, not if feminism has anything to say about that. Clearly feminists hate men and want to (or not? what?) fuck them up the ass.
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.
I’ll bet Steinem did it doggystyle once or twice in her life, just like the rest of us. Legacy, ahoy!
I’m ignoring the shit about Boteach. If this was really an argument about sexual politics within feminism, she wouldn’t have included him in the article and would have, perhaps, quoted a feminist or two.
The rest of the article? Feh. It’s okay. It’s been said before.
Regarding the rape fantasy bit: I have to say that I appreciate the “ravishment” terminology that B|L introduced into the conversation. I agree that rape fantasies aren’t about rape, necessarily, but about wanted to be “ravished.” It’s too bad we can’t convince the rest of the world to use that term instead of bolstering a million dudes’ sick fantasies by claiming that what women really want is to be fake-raped — when what we really want is to feel completely irresistable to our partners. Or to the world.
I get RKB’s point, I really do, but pretending that somebody’s trying to take away the right for us all to get it up the ass is disingenuous. It don’t matter if you’re a bi femme or a het or not. The nation’s sexual politics are pretty clear — women, at this point, are always going to get it up the ass.
Those are to femmes as hetporn lesbians are to dykes.
Oh contraire, we know fully well that Bussel considers such representations of femme sexuality to be representative of her sexuality because she presented a softcore picture of her imitating (badly) such things in the OpEd.
It’s a pretty standard image of heterosexual submissive women, Here’s a google image search for “bra ad”, note how Bussel has a less “alive” look to her face than most of the adverts, which often have women (omg) smiling! and showing (jeus christ!) emotions!.
Even repenetrator, which is an honest to god zombie porn movie, has the woman (who’s supposed to be dead ffs) involved showing something akin to agency and, if not sentience, then sexual urges (which even submissives are allowed to show btw), unlike Bussel’s piss poor attempt at displaying her tighty-whitey mainstream sexuality.
Oh contraire, we know fully well that Bussel considers such representations of femme sexuality to be representative of her sexuality because she presented a softcore picture of her imitating (badly) such things in the OpEd.
It still sounds like you’re eliding “femme” and “feminine.” I just saw a woman in a skimpy halter top leaning towards the camera. I’ve seen a lot of pornified photographs, and this one doesn’t quite fit that archetype. Bussel looks like Alanis Morrisette, not Elisha Dushku.
Bussel looks like Alanis Morrisette, not Elisha Dushku.
Isn’t that bad enough? :/
If she’d been smiling like those women, you would have criticized her shit-eating (literally, ha ha!) grin.
R. Mildred, it is just a picture. She may not care how she comes across and it really shouldn’t matter. I have pics of me looking like a doofus (granted I am one) and I keep them and use them because I think they’re funny.
Interesting that her pose in the picture perfectly matches many pictures that have received feminist criticism — the camera looking down on her, the 3/4 profile, the lack of looking directly at the camera and smiling, the come hither (but odd) look at the camera — all things criticized for female submissiveness in photos.
Ha!
No. If Bussel got nothing else, she was completely right about Twisty’s intent. Twisty is a radical feminist who believes that fellatio is intrinsically oppressive. Twisty’s been quite clear on that point. I’m at a loss why people are refusing to take Twisty at Twisty’s own word.
> is RKB an active participant in the blogosphere, or does she just vet bloggers for column material?).
oh well if that’s what this is mostly all about, then I completely understand.
not that she’d be the first or last to do such a thing, but.
(Foolish Owl’s right, you know)
Foolish and Belldame,
Do you think Twisty wants to oppress women and women’s choices? Because that’s what I’m hearing as her intent, I’m sorry — especially from Bussel.
>Femmes need to be more mainstreamed like fish need bicycles, and as soon femmes get that they’re not the most important people in the world (no honey, the patiarchy lied to you) and help to mainstream other, actually marginalized, forms of female sexuality and behavior, then the better off everyone will be in general.>
O’Rilly?
Because from where I sit, femmes (who aren’t just women, by the way) are pretty looked down in in general, across the orientation board. And you wanna know cause why? Internalized sexism, baby, pure and simple.
they didn’t call femmes “fluffs” for nothing.
Femme-lookin’ women, lesbeeens and otherwise: more often portrayed as objects of desire, sure. But taken seriously? (within the lesbian “community” and otherwise)? Seen as having agency? Hell, even *seen*? i guffaw. And offer my sensibly chunky four-inch platform heel to be given a big sloppy soul kiss.
R. Mildred, I agree with Piny, you seem to be conflating femmes with “feminine women.” That’s not what femmes are, not in the queer history of femmes and femme identity with which I’m familiar, and the identities of the femmes who I know. Femme, as I know it, is a gender identity held by lesbian/bi/queer women whose gender presentation is “traditionally” feminine. Many/most of the femmes I’ve known and read present critical voices on femininity and redefine feminine gender presentation as something that is not constructed for the enjoyment/pleasure/approval of men or in order to fit into standard societal gender roles.
And you know what – in that definition of femme, they are an oppressed group – they’re lesbians. They’re queer. And they’re quite often women. They’re oppressed in all of those ways. Maybe not by the same exact gender oppressions that gender-different folks are, but oppressed nonetheless.
Your continued dismissal of Bussel, calling her an “alleged ‘lesbian’”, heteronormative, etc is exactly what people are talking about as the erasure of femmes. People who are “traditionally” feminine are immediately written off as heterosexual and heteronormative, despite their true sexualities, despite their true thoughts on gender, despite their own examination and reconfiguration of what it means to be feminine in our society.
Where the hell do you get off making pronouncements about her sexuality being “utterly mainstreamed,” anyhow? It’s ridiculous, really. You see someone who is femininely gendered and who sleeps with non-trans men and decide that they’re mainstream, heterenormative, and a fake lesbian. Unbelievable. What, are the only people who are real lesbians butch? Masculinely gendered? Or are they the ones who meet some sort of Real Lesbian Gender Presentation standards that you’ve decided on? (btw, I’m curious – are you, yourself, queer or lesbian?) I guess I should let my “heteronormative” femme partners (past and present) know that they’re just “fake lesbians” to folks like you. Oh, wait – they already know. They’ve already heard that bull. It’s hella old.
And I’ve never, EVER, met an actual lesbian or bi in my entire life who uses the term “sapphic” in the unironic way bussel did
OK, I guess you’ve never ever read a copy of Curve, Girlfriends, On Our Backs (actually, I bet you’ve never read that!), GO NYC, VelvetPark, or any other number of lesbian magazines where I’ve seen that word oh so many times. Cheesy? Possibly. Used in cheesy mainstream “lesbian” porn at times? Probably. “Fake lesbian” by definition? No way.
I love how everyone is ignoring how bussel doesn’t think that a person who makes a college campus a sexually hostile enviroment is a bad feminist.
Again, was it the woman who put that art out there who made the campus a sexually hostile environment? Or was it the inappropriate, sexist, violent interpretation and behavior of the men on campus who made it a hostile environment? I really and truly believe it’s the latter. See my comments on Feministe for more on that.
In fact, this back and forth is fairly pointless, so I think I’ll limit any further input on this topic to that site.
I can’t read Twisty’s mind. I saw those posts–along with many others of hers–as deeply sex-negative in the true sense, yes; and contemptuous of those who didn’t see things her way.
I have real problems with this.
More than that: dunno. Don’t care, really.
nor particularly about defending RKB. she should have chosen her words more carefully, no doubt. could think things through more, no doubt.
she’d hardly be alone in that.
To clarify: I agree with Foolish Owl in expressing bewilderment at not taking Twisty’s words at face value. Particularly when the current argument seems to be about whether or not (or to what degree) to take *other* people (RKB, RM and all)’s words at face value.
seriously. guys. RKB may well be a “lightweight;” (I don’t read her regularly; certainly this si hardly the first time I’ve read such charges).
my question: if she had a buzzcut and packed a mean-strap-on, would y’all be talking about her in the same terms you’re using now, do you think?
Punkass marc:
Yes, in a sense. I think she misunderstands the roots of women’s oppression, and so opposes women’s efforts at their own liberation. I don’t think Twisty is evil; I disagree with her political theory and the conclusions she reaches.
belledame,
I do take Twisty’s words at face value, completely. She hates BJs and finds them inherently oppressive. I just don’t think she’s putting on stomping boots so she can eradicate them from the planet, which is what the level of shocked offense seems to suggest BJ-lovers like Bussel fear she might do.
But taken seriously?
Okay, you’re right on most of your points there, but bussel wasn’t talking about being taken seriously, she was talking about validation, and femmes are considered more normative and valid compared to full on dykes by mainstream society.
Women in general aren’t taken seriously or considered to be creatures with agency (see abortion debate and my need to get essure sooner rather than later before white women are banned from doing such things for na example) so I wouldn’t say that femmes are considered to have agency by mainstream society because women in general ain’t.
the reason why showing agency in those sorts of pics is important is Because women in general aren’t considered to have agency, or if they are allowed such a thing they aren’t allowed to be sexual agents with urges and stuff.
Being in a photo like that and putting it in a post about sex positivity as an example of sex-positive submissiveness, lets everyone down because it accepts the idea that submissiveness = inhuman and agentless to a degree. I feel a need to criticise bad examples of sex positive sexuality, if only because it, in theory (in practice, I suck), would highlight how to do it right.
my question: if she had a buzzcut and packed a mean-strap-on, would y’all be talking about her in the same terms you’re using now, do you think?
Hell NO! she’d still be stupid but the picture might have been okay (lindsay beyerstein, who’s current picture just creeps me out) and thus not have led me to fall into the gawdaweful picture cul de sac that has seriously constipated valid discussion about Bussel’s peice.
She hates BJs
She hates them due to experiential knowledge that means that they are, to her at the very least, symbolic of sexualised oppression by men.
I’m not going to criticise or minimise that, because it is a true fact for her, but I won’t call it universal either (I will describe the penis as a funk filled bratwurst because it is kinda apt, but I will do so with pride)
OK, I guess you’ve never ever read a copy of Curve, Girlfriends, On Our Backs (actually, I bet you’ve never read that!), GO NYC, VelvetPark, or any other number of lesbian magazines where I’ve seen that word oh so many times.
I haven’t read playgirl or any bodice ripper novels either, I just haven’t, and there’s no real reason I should have, so that’s hardly a gotcha moment.
I guess I should let my “heteronormative” femme partners (past and present) know that they’re just “fake lesbians” to folks like you.
LOL, the idea of these so called “fake lesbians” was precisely why I called Bussel on the term “public sapphic kissing”, maybe I misread her, but admit it, if I had been right we’d both be in agreement so you throwing terms back at me that I threw at bussel for precisely the same reason is silly.
However, the term public was the other aspect that set off my blamedar there, okay, so the term “Sapphic” may not neccesarily be a pornese term, but! What about the whole thing about “public”?
Let’s look at the phrase in context:
Now what sort of baring of your boobs, threesomes and public sapphic smoochings does the left routinely object to? with boobs we’re talking things like mardigras booby flashing probably, which I can see lefties objecting to because it’s often the wrong sort of objectification – the sort that parses a human being down ot thier constituent body parts in a dehumanizing manner as opposed to finding a person with body parts sexy – and threesomes? Porn threesomes that are all part of this male power trip fantasy I could see being ecoriated by the left.
Now we get to sapphic kissing, now tell me dear commenters, are you really saying that Bussel is saying that Norbizness (AKA The Left) finds lesbians kissing in public wrong, or, is it much more likely, highly likely in fact, that bussel is referring to het girls kissing each other in front of crowds of guys who wank to “lesbian” porn?
And are my points about why it’s actually kinda valid to criticise such an act that I stated up thread, still valid? does anyone actually disagree with those reasons given that I still think Bussel was referring to het on het “sapphic smooching” due to hte context?
Okay, you’re right on most of your points there, but bussel wasn’t talking about being taken seriously, she was talking about validation, and femmes are considered more normative and valid compared to full on dykes by mainstream society.
Women in general aren’t taken seriously or considered to be creatures with agency (see abortion debate and my need to get essure sooner rather than later before white women are banned from doing such things for na example) so I wouldn’t say that femmes are considered to have agency by mainstream society because women in general ain’t.
Yes, but that sort of validation is the same kind offered to bisexuals: it’s conditional on a complete misrepresentation of what’s actually going on. That misrepresentation occurs in the form of artificial boundaries between femmes and “full on dykes.”
Now we get to sapphic kissing, now tell me dear commenters, are you really saying that Bussel is saying that Norbizness (AKA The Left) finds lesbians kissing in public wrong, or, is it much more likely, highly likely in fact, that bussel is referring to het girls kissing each other in front of crowds of guys who wank to “lesbian” porn?
She referred to Ariel Levy. Have you read “Where the Bois Are,” or the chapter on bois in FCP? Levy, the person she was talking about, does, too, complain about “real” lesbians kissing in public.
Levy, the person she was talking about, does, too, complain about “real” lesbians kissing in public.
She also referred to Twisty right after levy, both of whom constituted “the left”, and if she had meant “Levy” and not “the left”, she could have said as much. How popular is Levy’s work on the left anyway? even if, by the left, she meant levy, if he’s not seriously well known then portraying him as a major leftie is UTTER bullshit.
I’m not sorry taht I’ve never read levy though, as that might have meant paying money for that sort of bullshit homophobia.
She also referred to Twisty right after levy, both of whom constituted “the left”, and if she had meant “Levy” and not “the left”, she could have said as much. How popular is Levy’s work on the left anyway? even if, by the left, she meant levy, if he’s not seriously well known then portraying him as a major leftie is UTTER bullshit.
First of all, Levy is a woman and a lesbian. Second, Levy is fairly popular–Feminist Chauvinist Pigs got a lot of airtime when it was published. And she definitely is not the first such leftie to argue that butch/femme//boi/femme sexuality is male-identified, pornified, and sexist. She referred to one real, live example, and so did I–she was making an accurate statement.
Whoops. _Female_ Chauvinist Pigs.
[...] I freely admit that I may be wading into waters above my head here, so feel free to push me under until I stop flailing, but I must profess confusion and astonishment at the worldview of people like Bitch|lab and Rachel “Do I really deserve this much attention?” Bussel. [...]
Yeah, FCM is, if not the source for many current talking points floating about wrt “raunch culture,” certainly one of the main popularizers (word?) of the term. along with the disapproval of hetlez pr0n and so forth.
Here’s my thing, as a sapphic-type person: honestly, the hetlez girl-on-girl HOTT! ACTION!! doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the suggestion that “real” lesbianism must look such-and-such a way, or, worse–and, let’s face it, this has been one of my own major irks wrt Twisty & many of her regulars–”real” lesbians don’t care nearly as much about hot lusty sex as they/we do rejecting all things patriarchal and lovingly affirming each other in our wimminhood that is, when not engaged in yet another round of critique and sniping and dwama.
that goes double or triple for the “political” lesbians.
Seriously, I find Sheila Jeffreys’/Twisty’s/regular IBTP readers like luckykl’s and so forth’s representation of (damn near indistinguishable from asexuality as far as I can see; apparently not familiar with most queer issues as I understand them, heavy on the hetcentric critiques of menmenmen and the wimmin who enable erm love them) lesbianism at least as alien to my own experience as the blonde silicon’d hottgirlz making out in front of drooling hetboyz; and twice as offensive.
but I’m still not gonna say they’re not *real* lesbians/bisexuals/feminists/whateverthefuck.
because if there’s one thing i find more tiring than endless processing of suckin’ hetboy cock, it’s doing the “realness” dozens.
you say you’re a lesbian? nu, so you’re a lesbian.
that still doesn’t mean you speak to my experience.
it doesn’t necessarily mean you *don’t* speak to my experience, either.
Experience including, p.s., an e’er so tragically repressed adolescence, during which (I strongly suspect) even the hotsy-totsy fakery of Girls Gone Wild!! and chastely selfconscious femmey liplocking on the odd sitcom would’ve been preferable to the representation of lezzie eroticism i saw during those misbegotten pre-Net days, i.e. “pretty much none.”
[...] learn. I’d like to think we’re all out here to do the same. -Bryan no comments trackback this article comment on thisarticle [...]
Yeah, okay, I lied and am writing here again. I suck.
and femmes are considered more normative and valid compared to full on dykes by mainstream society.
First, I’d argue the point that femmes are considered more normative and valid. Maybe they’re more tolerated because any gender non-conformity and queerness can be ignored and invalidated by mainstream society; that’s hardly true validation or privilege, there.
And, femmes are not full on dykes? What exactly is a “full on dyke,” then? Someone who “looks” like a dyke? What, then, does a dyke look like? I’m sorry, but this whole line of thought seems infused with homophobia to me.
and femmes are considered more normative and valid compared to full on dykes by mainstream society.
what the f-ck is a “full on dyke” can someone explain that to me….
this whole conversation is pretty damn sad and pathetic and a waste of my time, but i really wanna know what constitutes a full on dyke?
actually, if you do answer it, it probably will make me even more disturbed
what the f-ck is a “full on dyke” can someone explain that to me….
Shh…before everyone realises they’ve been talking in heteronormative stereotypes.
because then the hets will feel guilty, and then no one (i.e. heterosexual white people) will take your point seriously.
And it’d all be your fault for mentioning it of course.
Bad Nubian! Bad!
Shh…before everyone realises they’ve been talking in heteronormative stereotypes.
because then the hets will feel guilty, and then no one (i.e. heterosexual white people) will take your point seriously.
And it’d all be your fault for mentioning it of course.
What everyone? You introduced the term, and then I rejected it and Jack called you on it in even more explicit terms.
I have to say it…
I blame the Fellatriarchy.
Teehee.
Oh, and Twisty’s a bitch.
Belledame22, FoolishOwl — it’s so refreshing to hear someone actually speak to the issue, and truthfully.
Thanks.
You say bitch like it’s a bad thing :/
[...] So, I’m trying to figure out what the point is to calling some things objectively patriarchal or calling them out as not feminist in the next post she writes. To do that, I assume the writer wants to think it means something to actually define something as objectively patriarchal, right? Because why bother otherwise? If in one post you are telling people not to be influenced by the judgments of others, but int the next are telling people they should be influenced, this seems a little confused. [...]