Well, she is just relegating feminism to one partticular ideology. The Andrea Dworkin/Catharine MacKinnon style of feminism WOULD say rough sex is anti feminist. In fact, they say most heterosexual sex is rape and anti feminist. The radicals would agree with this post. However, I dont personally think most feminists these days think this way. If anything, feminists have broken the stereotype that women ONLY want lovey dovey romantic sex. We know full well that much of the time, the idea that that is what women want is a result of socialization and/or societies idea of what "fragile" women want in bed.

i wont even comment on the whole women really want to make babies and cant be bothered to research before they vote part either.

By the way, Katie, I think that whole "sex is rape" thing is a common but misleading misinterpretation of Dworkin. My impression was always that it was more "In the current societal context, the way most people go about heterosexual sex looks disturbingly like rape," which is a way different statement than just sex=rape. (Correct me if I'm wrong, all ye better-read feminists?)

On the original post -- um, yeahhh. I wish I could respond to the various writers' actual content, but I keep feeling like the real point may actually be that for some reason they've all had problems figuring themselves out and going after what they want in their own sex lives. At the very least, I have a pile of fun anecdotes to contradict pretty much every single assertion they've made.

"you can get head and be penetrated all at the same time. Shocking I know."

Hot. ;)

well, i think that is what dworkin meant, and while it is intriguing and worth thinking about, i hardly agree with it, and i dont think many other feminists do either. for one thing, it only reinforces the stereotype that this woman espoused AND dworkin, as far as i know, never offered an alternative other then lesbianism. that of course is fine and good, if women do it for you.

I just love how the authors of both articles presume that they know what “we women� all want! I for one most certainly don’t like to get scraped knees or bruises and though I do love fucking very much I can never ever reach an orgasm without clitoral stimulation.

The myth about the "all sex is rape" quote

Which quotes Dworkin: "Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent. But I'm not saying that sex must be rape. What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That's my point." (There's an interesting article here about Dworkin.

Which does not mean that feminists cannot enjoy rough sex. To quote a girl in The Guide to Getting It On (an excellent book for sexual reference and interesting points about sexual culture), "Sometimes I just like to be pounded like a cheap piece of meat." (So true.)

It's funny how feminism is blamed for so many things. Hell, back in Germany before WWII, feminism was blamed for Germany losing the war, and married feminists were blamed for taking jobs away from all the men and causing the depression. Because women got that whole "right to vote" thing (and ironically most women actually voted against the socialists that got the suffrage passed).

This is a case of 87.5% of all statistics being made up on the spot. "...what did the majority of the women choose to do? That’s right: cook food and make babies." WTF? Most women? She pulled that out of her ass. (I'm resisting the urge to make an anal sex joke here).

This is just idiotic.

Mary, thanks so much for those links!

Why is it always assumed that the only way for sex to be rough is for the man to be in control? Can't women be rough? Maybe if the author of that original post wants rough sex so much, she should just get on top and take some initiative herself... oh right, that's not how -real- men and women do it!

From another forum discussing this article:

Any woman who wants "wants a little aggression, a dash of force" but relies on pushing gender roles rather than actually *communicating* that to her partner gets no sympathy from me. There's submissive, and then there's just plain lazy. You don't get to excuse the latter by claiming the former.

"No one loses control, loses track of where they are, forgets that music is playing, screams, or weeps, when someone performs oral sex on them."

I...what? What level of bullshit is this?

You know, it's only women who are targetted by this ridiculous "we know what you want sexually better than you do" nonsense. Can you imagine a men's magazine running an article on how men really don't like blow jobs, because they just don't feel as good as actual penis-in-vagina sex?

"Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent. "

i am not sure how much i agree with her on this. While many both Dworkin and MacKinnon's ideologies take things a little to far for me, i do absolutely agree with MacKinnon's idea that us women may never know what we want sexually bc since the beginning of history we have had men defining it for us. which speaks to this woman idea that everyone else knows what is better for us except ourselves.

and um yes, i think most women sometimes just want sex for sex, why we are assumed to want something totally different and opposite then men!?

Oh man, I just love the idea that somehow consensual rough sex and date rape could be considered even close to the same thing. That is just... oh, lordy, when will people get it? Rape has nothing to do with the nature of the sex - rape could very well appear in the guise of gently looking into her eyes, etc etc. - it is rape because one of the people involved is not a willing and active participant. Is that so hard to understand?

>

I think this quote from the post in question speaks for itself.

>

A gentleman in the drawing room, a slut in the bedroom? Why does that sound familiar?

Basically this is someone who really likes rough, male-dominant sex and then succumbs to the common delusion that everyone else must like the same (a lot of lifestyle magazine articles I've seen over the years about What Real Guys/Women Are Like make the same flawed assumption).

And then she makes the idiot deduction that not getting what she wants proves feminism has ruined men, because y'know, otherwise we'd all call you ho's and dirty sluts while being intimate. Speaking as a man, I think I've been insulted.

I think it's probably true that most women don't keep up on politics before they vote. But then, so do most men. And hermaphrodites.

Anything found on a page named "Violent Acres" where its creator claims to be just like you, only valid - well, what's in a name?

As for oral sex:
Man to man, Y know nothing.

Woman to man, she doesn't want to get pregnant.

Anyone to woman, check out the song Lick It by God-dess and She. (god-des.com)

Ah, don't we all love broad generalizations in the morning (west coast over here), cause we all know women are like the Borg and can't think for themselves or experience sex on a different level. Oh no. We all like it the same and we all like it when another woman who likes it rough tells us that we like it rough too and if we don't we're just feminist puppets.

What I find truly funny is that the orignal Salon article either ignores or refuses to believe that the clitoris is the only organ on any animal that's made purely for sexual pleasure. It was put there so that the women could judge how good/attentive a parter she had and whether or not he was a keeper. It kinda backfired on us in the long run (because at some point men stopped caring altogether) but that's still it's purpose.

Sounds like someone's been reading too much Freud.

BDSM or rough sex correlates with those with higher education levels. Feminism is not taught in public schools and women usually learn about feminism in college or graduate school. Research shows rough sex is most prevalent among college graduates, those with master's degrees and couples who have attended college.

Oy. If I had a dime for every time I ran across this brand of anti-feminist hysteria...

So, I've spent a lot of time trying to satisfy my kinky sex urges, and as a knee-jerk feminist, I must say I have a low tolerance for the misogyny that runs as deep as the denial about it in the BDSM communities I've encountered. This "feminism ruined my chances for a good spanking" horseshit is all of the same vein. I have literally read complaints about some domestic violence laws that read as if their sole purpose was to persecute kinky heterosexuals. Interestingly, I have not come across tons of "feminists are ruining everything" rants in mostly gay male or mostly lesbian BDSM circles, although admittedly I've spent the bulk of my time with the straights so far.

Uninterestingly, I have met literally scores of men who are all too willing to do everything, and more, that these anti-feminists claim have been squashed out of guys. Unsurprisingly, I have met very few who are good enough at it to make them fun to do it with.

I am the first to admit that sexual frustration makes me cranky. I don't wish sexual frustration on anyone. I do wish that sexually frustrated bottoms/subs who attack feminism in ignorant ways would go fuck themselves, if they can't find anyone else to do it.

P.S. I am a huge fan of Dworkin's work, as well as MacKinnon's. I have never read either of them as being anti-sex, or anti-BDSM, so much as anti-compulsory ANYTHING.

I could be reading those charts wrong Donna (its monday after all) but what I see is people with "some" college have the most experiences with BDSM and people with bachelors degrees have among the lowest. I am not sure, if this is the case, that your assertion stands up.

dworkin is very clearly anti-pornography in most of its forms joan. Many of her stances I feel (and I am a fan of both her and MacKinnon as well) make more sex positive people feel a bit on edge. saying pentrative sex is inherently violent, well, i dont think her view gets much clearer then that.

college grads and masters degreed men and women are most likely to make it a lifestyle. men and women with some college, college degrees and masters degrees are most likely to have many experiences. among women, those with some college participate most while women with master and college degrees are second most likely to participate. either way, women with some college or more participate in bdsm.

there's no andrea dworkin/catherine mackinnon subtype of feminism. they only represent themselves and their works are quite reasonable in context. dworkin's books are brilliant.

Wow. Great comments and a very interesting topic. Intimacy draws on desire and speaking for myself alone, desire runs a wide spectrum. Switching meets many of my needs and I think, given the opportunity, more variety is better than less, in terms of practices. As for Dworkin, et al., one could say that eating is inherently violent. Penetration and mastication can be engaged in with violence, can be perceived at violent etc. I agree with the posts above that it is level of communication, the giving of informed consent that differentiates crime from pleasure.

I dig the Sarah Maclachan love as much as next person but what couple lasts having only one type of sex whether it be rough frisky male dominated sex or hearts and flowers romantic sex? Who the hell is she to decide how everyone eles's sex life has been ruined? It's idiotic.

The idea that feminism has taken the fun out of sex is just silly unless by fun you mean "desperate financial dependence combined with an utter ignorance of reproductive biology".

Hell, back in Germany before WWII, feminism was blamed for Germany losing the war, and married feminists were blamed for taking jobs away from all the men and causing the depression.

The stab in the back myth was never about feminism. Hitler complained about women's liberation and kicked women out of professional jobs as soon as he could, but to him as well as to interwar conservative nationalists, the scapegoats were mostly Jews, liberals, socialists, and pacifists.

I have never read either of them as being anti-sex, or anti-BDSM, so much as anti-compulsory ANYTHING.

I don't know about them specifically, but Against Our Will specifically complains that BDSM is "reactionary" (Brownmiller's term, not mine).

there absolutely is a dworkin/mackinnon subtype of feminism. while i think people who ascribe to feminism of all kinds can appreciate and admire their contributions, the ones that truly take it to heart are called radical feminists. there are ifeminists, the first wave, the second wave the third wave. there are feminists who lean toward the most sex positive. there are egalitarian feminists (they focus on laws as the vehicle towards equality). to say that dworkin and mackinnon do not constitute a more radical bent of feminism is just delusional . the fact is, they simply do not appeal to everyone. I am not bashing either of them, because i personally find their books/theories very enlightening (and i wouldnt call myself a totally radical feminist) but for sure many find them distasteful and divisive.

As someone who tends toward the Dworkin/MacKinnon side of things, I agree that the "all sex is rape" aspect of their work is being taken out of context. Does anyone here really deny that we live in a world where *everything* having to do with gender relations involves a skewed power dynamic? If we believe that men run the world, why would this suddenly stop in the bedroom?

Still, I don't think Dworkin and MacKinnon's point is that sex is "bad" or that having sex makes you "unfeminist." The point is that part of having your consciousness raised means you understand and acknowledge that virtually all heterosexual sex is subject to the same power imbalance that everyday life is. Armed with this knowledge, you're better equipped to go out there and try to find an enlightened and suitable partner, should you so desire. Someday maybe we will have really Good sex, on a broad social level. Until then, we make do with the less-than-perfect what we got.

As for the correlation between feminism and anti-rough-sex, this is yet another typical way of making rape "sexy." It plays out like this: rough sex is only hottt if women don't really want it. Feminism is a convenient scapegoat for any issue men want to point to to undermine women. So we'll pretend that women don't like rough sex, so that it will continue to be hottt for us, and we'll blame feminism for making it "naughty" -- that way, we can pretend to care about what women want, but still have naughty, rape-like sex just like WE want.

And, Jessica, if I could suggest a third point? Sex doesn't have to be rough to be good or "real." Women can like it rough, gentle, whatever, that doesn't make it any less "fun" or "real." Women shouldn't feel as though we're less sexual simply because we don't like the idea of limping around the next day (there are men out there who think this is the only way for sex to be any good. If you're into that, go for it -- but not all of us are). My best lovers have been the sort who take things very slowly and caringly... they've given me the best, most mind-blowing orgasms, internal *and* clitoral. My most recent ex saw sex as one of those pound-the-peg-in-the-hole games for toddlers, and needless to say, sex with him was nothing special. I think I might've come once in our entire relationship, which lasted about four months. Pretty pathetic track record for so-called "real" sex.

Anyway, the notion that sex has to be rough to be "good" or "real" is yet another way of denying the validity of women's sexual preferences. We should be free to do it any way WE want.

Katie - I think it depends on how "sex positive" is defined. I am also anti most pornography, and I do identify as a radical feminist. And although I haven't read Brownmiller since I was a stoned college student (as opposed to having re-read all my Dworkin and MacKinnon books since then), I can't say that I disagree about BDSM being reactionary. And I don't even know what she means by it, ha.

I worked for a couple of months at a place that showed pornography on tv screens all over the store. (A sex toy shop, not some creepy regular business.) I find all porn, that I've ever been exposed to, to be profoundly anti-sex. I never see anybody who is convincingly authentic, or genuinely sexy, much less doing anything together that has a real charge to it. I resent the fact that a huge industry thrives on portraying sexuality in such a zombied-out way. I further resent the way many people in porn get treated. And as someone who's actually read Dworkin obsessively, I have to say again that I never have seen her talk about censoring or controlling anybody else's sex life or viewing/reading material. She was in favor of civil suits against pornographers if and when harm could be proven. She wanted prostitution to stop being necessary rather than an arbitrary career choice (and it is not arbitrary for most people in sex work). She wanted rape to stop. And she and MacKinnon both simply reflected what rapists and rape victims alike have said - that there are times when consensual sex and rape are reminiscent of each other. Dworkin and MacKinnon talked about why that is, and who might be benefitting vs. who might be getting shafted by that. When has any of that resulted in even one person not getting laid? Who are these courageous people, "speaking out" against the oppressiveness of feminism, and meanwhile they're basically - by their claims - letting a couple of people's talk and/or writing control them? Sheezus.

It's possible that Dworkin would not like me nearly as much as I like her. The woman who runs the Andrea Dworkin website stopped emailing with me when I told her some of what I write about, and what I used to do for a living. So what. She cares about harm that's being done. She's not hurting me, she's just spending her time doing her thing.

Yes, I do have some free time here at work this afternoon. The last thing I want to say for right now is - I didn't intend to hijack this thread and make it about exclusively BDSM stuff, as I know that's not how everyone (maybe even most?) people define sex on the rougher side. I just felt like the anonymous (so ballsy!) blogger at Violent Acres sounded like every self-pitying anti-feminist I heard/saw in my travels across the kink landscape.

"Why is it always assumed that the only way for sex to be rough is for the man to be in control?"

Bingo! *Damn* it's hard to think past the same old mindset! Another false assumption would be that liking rough sex requires either dominance or submission.

(Incidentally, the whole rough-sex isn't feminist predates Dworkin and McKinnon by at least a couple of generations, at least back to "bread and roses" exceptionalist feminism.)

figleaf

I can't say that I disagree about BDSM being reactionary.

I'm sure you've reached that conclusion after a lot of careful consideration, too.

i dont know very much about dworkin and mckinnon, except what i have gleaned from critiques of their work penned by 'pro-sex'/anti-censorship feminists.

having read some of the posts on this thread about the misrepresentation of their work though, i feel like i should definitely see what i am missing by not having read their writings....

so, for those on this thread who have read their stuff: is there an essay or book by each of them that i should read as a primer to their work?

also, on the subject of the original post, just a quick point:

its really problematic to suggest that straight men would naturally want to engage in male-dominant, rough, penetrative intercourse if only feminism hadnt 're-trained' them. straight men might want to bottom and/or be penetrated bc they find it really hot and get off to it; they might find topping during "rough" intercourse to be disturbing for any number of reasons and therefore want to avoid it; they may prefer giving oral sex to penetration; etc. none of this necessarily has to do with the influence of feminism (except to the extent that feminism is partially responsible for making it more acceptable to voice these desires/preferences).

--amanda

Whoever she is, VA is striking a chord.

Traffic chart

To respond to Amanda's comment:
If anybody's more of a MacKinnon/Dworkin expert than me, please correct me.... I've read some of their work in classes in college. For MacKinnon, I would suggest Toward A Feminist Theory Of The State, and for Dworkin, Intercourse. I don't find that I personally agree with everything they say in those books, but they are certainly very important books and good food-for-thought on this sort of issue.

And as someone who's actually read Dworkin obsessively, I have to say again that I never have seen her talk about censoring or controlling anybody else's sex life or viewing/reading material.

Then you may want to look at this piece of legislation authored by Dworkin and macKinnon, which they pushed in several locations throughout North America. It was repeatedly struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as unconstitutional; but it became law in Canada in 1992, and was unanimously approved by the Canadian Supreme Court. It was subsequently used primarily to block the importation into Canada of gay and lesbian literature, including, amusingly enough, some of Dworkin's and MacKinnon's own writings.

Anthony Serrano,

Those are both myths. An example of what I started calling ‘framing feminism’. Here is the truth -
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/LieDetect.html

Andrea Dworkin got an antipornography law passed in Canada.
FALSE. While it is true that in 1993 the Supreme Court of Canada changed Canada's criminal statute against pornography in a decision called Butler, Andrea in fact opposed the feminist lobbying efforts that led to this court decision--as a public statement about Canada makes clear--because she does not believe in obscenity law.

Andrea Dworkin's own books have been censored due to feminist anti-pornography efforts in Canada.
FALSE. As the same public statement explains, several of Andrea's books were once detained for inspection by Canadian Customs officials but under procedural guidelines that were in effect for years before 1993 and have been unaffected by the Butler decision. (The books then passed routinely into Canada.)

I have no feelings about Dworkin or MacKinnon either way, but its astounding to continue to discover the lies antifeminists and Libertarian (faux)minists perpetuate in attempting to undermine the movement.

women like to be romanced with candlelit dinners before you gently (gently!) make love to them by first giving them hours of oral pleasure and then softly (oh so softly!) penetrating them while staring lovingly into their eyes

One thing that bugs me about this as it sits in my brain is the idea that men, if it weren't for all that drasted feminism making them wimpified, would never go for love-making like this. Ya know ... some of us men, while we might enjoy a quickie or a good rough sex (and I agree with the poster above who asked why the man has to be the aggressor in such a situation), also appreciate romantic candlelit dinners followed by oral pleasuring and lots of eye contact (for some of us, sex is the most comfortable time for eye contact), etc.

As to the "heterosex is rape" argument, I'm not familiar with the context of the argument, but from what I know, it sounds like something quite on the mark: if throughout the course of the relationship, from initial contact to the coital act(s), the man is always the aggressor and the woman just kinda goes along with it, when does she really consent to what's going on? And, while we are not privy to what's going on the bedroom, we've all scene relationships that at least appear to entirely rest of the man making all the moves and the woman just going along for the ride (pun intended?), so to speak.

> Interestingly, I have not come across tons of "feminists are ruining everything" rants in mostly gay male or mostly lesbian BDSM circles,

Me neither, Joan.

I think it's pretty safe to say that Dworkin and MacKinnon are both Against Sadomasochism (the title of an anthology back in the day, which they may or may not have contributed to). i would have to go rummage for the exact quotage but--well, pretty much all of Dworkin's writings on De Sade, for a start.

MacKinnon was also apparently of the opinion that teaming up with gay rights activism for repealing the sodomy laws was a red herring:

"These suspicions about the male supermacist nature of the privacy right were furthered by another thing some of us noticed. That was that the freedom of the penis to engage in anal penetration in the name of privacy had become a priority issue for women under the banner of "gay and lesbian rights," without connecting a critique of homophobia with a critique of misogyny."

--from the intro to "The Sexual Liberals and the War on Feminism," ca 1990, possibly one of the most annoying little collection of essays in existence.

I agree Joan with your assessment of most porn. I have however seen a few things that are not as bad as the mainstream crap, so I will never go as far to say that all porn is bad, although I dont think that is what dworkin was saying either. most would draw a line btw "porn" and "erotica". beautifulagony.com being one such example of erotica that personally, from what i have seen, does not have the same connotations of most of the stuff you find in a mans collection.

“pretty much all of Dworkin's writings on De Sade�
belledame222, I haven’t read what Dworkin had to say about De Sade. But he carried out his fantasies on unwilling victims which eventually led to the death of one of his victims. So I don’t see how anything she could have had to say against or about Sade should be taken as against consensual S/M.

Thanks as always to Dworkin/MacKinnon myth-busters, and to Nikki Craft by proxy.

My own favorite MacKinnon book is Feminism Unmodified. My favorite Dworkin books are Woman Hating and Right Wing Women. Intercourse seems to be one of the more difficult books for people to tolerate.

RE: what ANYBODY has to say about De Sade, including Dworkin - from everything I've read/seen/heard about what he did and what he stood for, he sounds like a dick, and a sociopath. As a confirmed pervert, I am grossed out when other pervs hold him up as some kind of rebellious hero. There is nothing revolutionary about being willing to torture, rape, and kill people. He's as derivative as they fucking come.

I don't know if that Alon Levy person was being sincere or sarcastic, but if it was the latter - in fact, I have reached that conclusion after a great deal of consideration, and experience, although the comment you referenced was a joke more than a serious declaration.

katie -

beautifulagony.com is hot.

As a digression, one of the differences between 'porn' and 'erotica' is what is left out. 'Porn' leaves nothing to the imagination. 'Erotica' is so ... ahem ... potent precisely because it invites your imagination in. End digression.

Regarding Dworkin: a lot of people say silly things some times, some people say a lot of silly things. Reading Dworkin, she seems to have a gift for the regretable phrase and unfortunate metaphor.

The 'sex is violence' epigram is a good example. Read the whole book. This is not what she's saying. Her definitions of the words 'violence' and 'sex' are political or metaphorical, not physical. Seen in that context I have a lot of sympathy for the point she's making.

And yet, and yet. Dworkin manages to rhetorically associate (by pointing out that there is no social or linguistic analogy between the two) penetrative heterosexual intercourse with Auschwtiz. I find that over and over again, Dworkin drowns interesting points in swamps of fetid language.

And really, is "The political meaning of intercourse for women is the fundamental question of feminism and freedom..."? I'm unconvinced. I'm sure for those staggering beneath the words "Arbeit Macht Frei", fucking was the furthest thing from their minds.

A note to the Violent Acres author, in case she checks in:

Stop angsting about teh evil femnists and just find yourself a good top, okay honey? Preferably one who can perform decent cunnilingus, cause clearly you've yet to meet anyone who can. Cheers!

For everyone else:
Generalizations of any stripe are just stupid.
But you already knew that. ;)

Joan, thank you. It is important to see feminist BDSMers call out the misogyny that (I agree with you) seems exclusive to the het BDSM community -- though frankly I think as a whole the community is still better than the general population. Too often, those feminists who address BDSM dismiss it entirely, which just pushes everyone who self-identifies with BDSM into the arms of the folks with an axe to grind against feminism. Being pro-BDSM is not the same as giving a pass to bigotry within the community; and my fellow het BDSMers would do well to remember that if the social reactionaries who hate feminists and queers were in charge, us het kinksters would hang on the gallows right next to them, or be sent to the same "re-education" camps.

ps, Joan, I apologize for acting like a fawning fanboy, but if you're the author of The Pleasure's All Mine, I _loved_ your memoir. Unvarnished self-revelation like that takes courage.

While it is true that in 1993 the Supreme Court of Canada changed Canada's criminal statute against pornography in a decision called Butler, Andrea in fact opposed the feminist lobbying efforts that led to this court decision--as a public statement about Canada makes clear--because she does not believe in obscenity law.

Nevertheless, the key fact about the Butler decision is that the Canadian Supreme Court adopted the Dworkin/MacKinnon definition of pornography. Saying Dworkin "does not believe in obscenity law" is merely arguing semantics; her legislation was intended to punish the production and distribution and distribution of pornography. That she set out to ban pornography on the grounds that it violates women's civil rights rather than obscenity statues does not change the fact that she was FUNDAMENTALLY anti-pornography.

I think they went overboard with the pornography litigation and also recommend Toward A Feminist Theory Of The State and Intercourse. One doesn't have to agree with every word they say but they provided food for thought. They speak only for themselves and do not represent radical feminism the same way Mary Daly also puts ideas out there (about the violence against women) and not represent radical feminism.

A good book for those interested in MacKinnon's take on the issue of free speech versus equal protection is Only Words. Personally, I find a lot of what she says compelling... those of us who are Americans, at least, have been indoctrinated (in the most benign sense of the word) with the notion that free speech trumps all. This isn't the case and wasn't intended to be the case by our country's Founders. MacKinnon makes what I find to be a compelling argument that the substantive guarantees of the 14th Amendment in fact trump certain aspects of the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. So in this way it's more of a legal argument for anti-pornography laws (versus a moral or philosophical one -- though there is plenty of that to be found in the book as well).

Personally, I adore Professor MacKinnon. But then, she did give me an A ;)

God that's a depressing article. I have no idea where this myth comes from, feminists have spent a long time trying to foster knowledge about female sexuality, and not all roses and candles either. As a feminist lesbian BDSMer, I can tell her feminists are as sexually varied as any segment of the population.
And why is oral sex lite sex? Why is penis in vagina considered the pinnacle of sex? And why oh why are female orgasms always considered mythical, whether they be vaginal or clitoral. All I can say is that the feminist basher is obviously having some really terrible sex.

Thomas,
Sadly, I don't find any hierarchical-based biases to be exclusive to hetero kinksters - I personally know gay, transgendered, blabbity-blah -type folks who clearly believe somebody has to be on the bottom, in shitty rather than fun ways. They just don't tend to be the ones I see littering the planet with "the feminists are trying to ruin our fun" complaints is all.

Also, I want to say that I've met a lot of straight men into topping who were not dicks in any way.

And, I accept your apology. God knows there's nothing I enjoy less than being fawned over and having my book plugged.

:-P

well in that case, joan, let's throw a link in the mix to send folks to your book!

Joan, I do recall that you recounted in your book running into that problem with a well-known female dominant (described conveniently so that all of us who care can figure out exactly who it is) ... and I bailed out of TES years ago because I was annoyed that some people though that anyone who identified as a subbie ought to be bottoming to them all the time. I tend to think of a general problem with hierarchy as somewhat different (and in my view less problematic) than specifically misogynist and heterosexist hierarchical tendencies. Though I agree that it's a problem.

You mentioned above that pro submission is what you used to do. Your book didn't really hint at any intention to get out. It has been my (admittedly anecdotal) experience that sex workers, even those that have other options and make a conscious choice and even those that connect in personal ways with the work that they do, have an incredibly high burn-out rate; that's one of the reasons I come out as a Swedish-model proponent and an opponent, on the whole, of sex work. Was your decision to stop doing pro-subbing a personal rejection of sex work? (Of course, I don't think I'm entitled to an answer, but I thought I should throw the question out there.)

The Law Fairy = A Teacher's Pet :P

Thanks, Jessica.

Thomas - in fairness I have to say that I encountered that attitude from most pro dommes, and the one I wrote about was not the worst, and also I probably get that irritated with narcissists because of my own narcissistic streak.

Speaking of me me me:

A) No hard feelings to me or other middle class whiteys who "have other options" but choose sex work anyway - but I don't think the privileged-young-woman-chooses-high-paid-sex-work-and-then-burns-out-on-it story is that fascinating. Really, you (or I) finally ended up feeling the way the majority of prostitutes feel from the start? What a revelation.

B) I don't mean the above to be snide at anybody, I'm truthfully just bitter because a magazine I like published an article about the so-called high-end, happy sex workers instead of a starker piece I wanted to submit. Sour grapes and whatnot.

C) I just watched Born into Brothels and I'm inconsolable. I feel like everything other than the horribleness that most sex workers live with and through has received all the air time it deserves, and then some.

D) I have a talent for run-on sentences. Best of luck getting through them.

E) I'm interested to go read other posts on this fantastic website so I can see how I might turn those threads into conversations about me as well. Over and out.

Only in my past life, donna ;)

Only joking in present life, tlf. :D

I just saw Born into Brothels too. What the women and girls go through is horrible but the movie is the worst example of paternalistic colonialism I've ever seen.

I'm relieved you said that, Donna. I almost posted about that documentary on Girlistic (I've been given keys to the blogdom over there) but I felt bad about feeling irritated with it. There were some really good things about the movie, it made me feel a lot of things and not all of them depressing. I still don't know how to articulate what didn't sit right with me - I wouldn't have said paternalistic colonialism even though I agree with that too now that you mention it - so maybe it's just as well I didn't blog on it.

Joan, your book looks very interesting.

The kids in the movie were amazing, normal, resilient, whatever but I was not ready for the patronizing tone. The star photographer kid gets to go to Amsterdam. Whooee! The kids get to go to New York where they are presented as Calcutta's red district kids with cameras! Blah.

I also - not that I think you should sugarcoat things to make it look like asshole women are not assholes - but I was weirded out by how the prostitute mothers were shown to be all but universally monstrous. I felt like, all signs point to the fact that the mothers were once the kids, just like the kids will one day seemingly end up where the mothers are - why don't we see anything about them, besides how fucked up/mean they are as mothers? Fine, they're fucked up and mean. Their conditions are also integral to the story of these children the filmmaker is supposedly so fixated on.

Thanks for the kind words about my book. I don't think it looks interesting, when I read other people describing it in reviews, etc. Looks irritating to me, the way it's presented. I certainly wouldn't read it. I will shamelessly say, however, that I like the book itself better than I like what it sounds like.

“Really, you (or I) finally ended up feeling the way the majority of prostitutes feel from the start?�

But why? I am curious to know why one would end up feeling that way if you are getting paid for something you enjoy.

Joan, while the story of the privileged white sex worker may not be any more inherently interesting, it is more important, because it's the margin that gets argued over. When people speak in favor of sex work, one of the main arguments is typically the validity of the experience of privileged women who choose sex work. I think we can all agree that women who do not want to be doing sex work ought not to be doing sex work, and the discussion then is around how to make that happen. But some folks think that we ought to want to preserve a space for sex work, even if we were able to eliminate it, because it is a positive experience for a small subset of women. That role in the argument makes those women's experiences important.

Sojourner - I was asked about the burn-out experience in relation to my own decision to quit sex work. Burn-out is what it's called when you've stopped enjoying something you used to enjoy.

Thomas - the story of the privileged white sex worker is not more important to me. And as someone who benefitted in various ways for various lengths of time from being one of those sex workers, I would gladly exchange every single good experience/dollar I got out of it for a world in which sex work was obsolete. As long as prostitution is considered necessary, prostitutes will necessarily be created. The fact that a certain number of sex workers claim empowerment/enjoyment is not an argument for "preserving a space for sex work." Name me one thing a person can get out of sex work that's good, that couldn't also be experienced in a different kind of world without sex work.

Tons of so-called easy money for fun work? I'd like to see a world where a woman's best option for such things does not involve consumer-ized sexuality.

Specific intimacies with specific customers? How great can these supposedly sweet moments be if they're unimaginable outside of sex work?

I'm not talking about closing down strip joints and throwing escorts and streetwalkers in jail, or trying to make sex workers as a group feel like shit about what they do. Whores are my people, for christ's sake. And right now sex work is obviously an option some people choose, and my opposition to the conditions and outcomes of sex work is not an opposition to those people. I do get a little tired of the hysteria - exactly how close has anybody besides Rudy Guiliani come to putting sex workers out of business? And Rudy didn't do it as a feminist cause.

Joan, Yes I know what burnout means. My question was why is it that the privileged high-paid sex worker, who gets into it because she enjoys it, and manages to not get treated like shit, gets tired of it. Maybe I didn’t state it clearly. Anyway, never mind, I think I can get my answer here: “I'd like to see a world where a woman's best option for such things does not involve consumer-ized sexuality.� and here: “Specific intimacies with specific customers? How great can these supposedly sweet moments be if they're unimaginable outside of sex work?�

Joan, I'm with you. I'm a Swedish model proponent.

Sojourner - I misunderstood your question, sorry.

Actually I don't know any sex workers who manage to not get treated like shit. I have known some who didn't ONLY get treated like shit, or at various points in their careers didn't OFTEN get treated like shit, but that's about it.

I'm not all serene yet about having quit that industry myself, but overall I've been extremely lucky to go from that, to having a job I can support myself with, and having that job be something I love. I was miserable for a while in kinky sex work, and in that sense I'm delighted that the shit times finally added up to cancel out anything good I might still have gotten out of it. I'm happier now and I also had some warped things around sex and self that I came into sex work with, and that got exacerbated by that job. Getting more and more freedom in those areas now is amazing, and wouldn't have happened if things had stayed mostly good or even mostly tolerable for me in sex work. Nobody burns out because they're still making tons of money with fun, nice clients.

And Thomas - I don't know what the Swedish model is, although I do know I'm small minded enough to be suspicious of it just by the sound of it.

The Swedes decriminalized the act of selling sexual services, but continue to prosecute solicitation, so that the johns get arrested but the sex workers need not fear prosecution.

The idea is to stamp out sex work with pressure on the demand side (entitled men) without directly pressuring the supply side (the sex workers). I've heard a lot of speculation about how this might be bad for the sex workers, but nothing convincing, other than that as the customers leave they will have to find another income source.

JoanKelly:

And Thomas - I don't know what the Swedish model is, although I do know I'm small minded enough to be suspicious of it just by the sound of it.

Forgive me for jumping in here, but I would imagine that by "Swedish model", Thomas is referring to the Swedish practice of making the purchase of sexual services illegal, but not the sale of them. This puts the pressure on the customers and not the sex workers.

Thanks for explaining, fellas. I'm definitely in favor of not legally harassing prostitutes. I don't know how I feel about the rest of it.

Tons of so-called easy money for fun work? I'd like to see a world where a woman's best option for such things does not involve consumer-ized sexuality.games