Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Ew, continued.

And then there are the even more contorted forms of sexism and general macho shitheadedness. Via SmackDog Chronicles and Renegade Evolution, Mr. Robert Jensen, luddites and germs.

This question* was posed to me recently by a man who had read an essay of mine in which I had argued that men’s ability to achieve sexual pleasure by masturbating as they watch DP scenes in pornographic movies was an example of a failure of empathy.

Observation #1: The only people who have ever asked me that question are men. I’m not suggesting that no woman has ever considered the question. But it is the case that in my 18 years of working on this issue, it has been a question raised exclusively by men.

From there, let’s move to other important observations and assumptions on which my conclusion will be based.

Assumption #1: There is considerable individual variation in the human species, yet there are also patterns in human behavior. That is, we cannot ever predict what any specific individual will feel, think, or do, but we often can find patterns in human emotions, cognition, and action. That leads to . . .

Assumption #2: There are women who in their personal lives find sexual pleasure and/or emotional fulfillment in DPs, which I call an assumption because . . .

Observation #2: In my 48 years, I have never met a woman outside the pornography industry who has acknowledged participating in a DP or having a desire to do so. It’s possible that I have met an unrepresentative group of women, or that some of those women have participated or harbor such desires but remain silent about it. But neither of those possibilities square with my experience, which includes traveling widely for many years to talk in a variety of settings about these issues.

Assumption #1: You are a credentialed (?) "expert" and you Rilly Care, and so are being completely honest here.

Observation #1: Renegade is a woman. He's "met" Renegade; in fact their back and forth is archived somewhere on her very blog, i think. And as she notes,

WRONG. See, Mr. Jensen, though we were not staring at each other over a couple of lattes, you and I discussed porn and rough sex AND DP at length and I admitted to liking it, having done it, and this was BEFORE I ever received a cent to do it PROFESSIONALLY. Making my own sex films and such for my own pleasure is NOT THE PORN INDUSTRY. And I know women NOT in the sex industry who do and like it. You know, if you had maybe TAKEN my suggestion to, oh, say, seek out ‘non porn women’ who do this sort of thing NOT for pay but for fun (because they do exist) maybe you would…oh, wait…maybe you would have to change your view on what all women really want out of sex, and porn, and all those other things and you might find yourself out of a job and with less fuel for the radical fire and…oh, damn…what would happen then?

Assumption #2: The "question" he's responding to must've invited a response like this, right? Presumably the person he's addressing is the one who brought up DP in the first place, right?

Observation #2: Well, this is the essay he seems to be responding to:

I read Robert Jensen’s Dissident Voice article of October 31, “The Consequences of the Death of Empathy,” with some concern. He says two things that I feel require addressing. First, in reference to a conversation with a young man about the young man’s pornography viewing, Jensen writes:

I asked him to tell me more about what he watched. As he talked, it became clear he was describing exactly the kind of material I had discussed, and I could see the realization emerge in him: My assessment of the rough and degrading nature of that pornography was accurate, and he had simply never recognized it. When he mentioned a type of sex he liked to watch in pornography called a DP -- double penetration, in which a woman is penetrated vaginally and anally at the same time -- it really started to dawn on him: In these scenes, the sex was defined by men’s sense of control over, and domination of, women.

(/Jensen's quote-within-quote, begin Eric again:)

Here, there is a very clear intimation that double penetration is somehow inherently sexist, quite apart from anything involving pornography. I do not know how many women are interested in this sexual act, or have willingly performed it and enjoyed it, but if there is, has been, or will be even one woman anywhere on the face of the planet who has either fantasized about it, and/or has done it and enjoyed it, then I do not believe it is an appropriate position for a lefty to be suggesting, as Jensen does, that it is an inherently sexist act.

I e-mailed Jensen and asked him for clarification on these two points. Specifically, I wanted to know if he felt double penetration was an inherently sexist act, and I wanted to know if he felt that the videotaping of sex acts for public consumption was an inherently sexist act. In an attempt to be as clear as I could be, I also asked the second question in a different way, asking if he felt that, in a good society, say, 100 or 200 years in the future (assuming the human race hasn’t caused its own extinction by then) -- after capitalism has given way to, say, parecon (participatory economics), and after other forms of oppression (e.g., sexism, racism, heterosexism) have either been eliminated or at least had great strides taken toward their elimination -- if he felt that in such a society there would still be pornography.

I did not feel that Jensen ever really gave me straight answers to my questions...

Assumption #3: Say, aren't people like this, people who are so um passionate about other peoples' sexuality, usually kind of...creepy?

Observation #3: Why, yes, actually.

And on that note:

I remember clearly what I wanted to say to him. I wanted to suggest to this privileged young man at one of the United States’ most elite universities that we conduct an experiment. I wanted to ask him to come to the front of the room and take off all his clothes in front of the group, lie down on his back, put his legs up, and make his anus as open and available as possible. Then we would ask if other men could volunteer to do a double anal on him, and he could then report back to us about whether that experience felt degrading. It would have been inappropriate for me as an older man with a professor’s status to be so harsh to a student, and I was more measured in my response. But that’s what I wanted to say to him: Why don’t you come up here and we’ll let two of the biggest guys in the room fuck you in the ass at the same time so that you can tell us from direct experience whether a double anal is inherently degrading.”

Um. Empathy. ...yeah.

As Renegade notes,

ONE: of course to a straight male being double penetrated by other men is going to be degrading. TWO: double penetration and double ANAL penetration are two TOTALLY DIFFERENT things. HELLO? Anus generally not as accommodating as a vagina, Prof. Jensen!

Well, maybe some peoples' are; what with their entire head up in there, i suppose it would require some stretching, yes.

Besides the actual point itself wrt the finer nuances of het pr0n, I would just like it noted that I, ev0l Sex-Pos Defender of the Patriarchy, do not normally talk about such things as teh pros and cons of DP, and other pr0n staples. Not because such talk necessarily makes me squeamish, of itself--context, as we see, matters. Because, for the most part? actually? I. don't. care. Not about that.

For that matter, Renegade, Ev0l Voluntary Sex Worker, pr0n supporter and even maker, and Henchwoman of the Patriarchy, generally speaking, isn't as obsessed with the actual, you know, acts; because she doesn't have to be. And having read them both for months now, I will vow I have never seen Anthony, Ev0l Male and Pr0n Defender, be one tenth as icky-graphic in his talk as Jensen here. The ones who I see bringing up gratuitously graphic, always laid over with a heaping helping of disgust, imagery, are this kind of anti-pr0n activist. Often enough in contexts which frankly didn't invite it at all. At least, I wouldn't have thought so.

But then, I suppose, Jensen and that ilk only resort to this sort of thing because they want to shock people out of their complacency, right? Yes indeedy. Nothing but the purest of motives here; they are doing it for our own good. And they can't help but report on the degeneracy they observe; what kind of responsible citizens would they be if they didn't? And anyway, how can you miss it? Pr0n! Pr0n! Everywhere you turn! Even the hardcore stuff! Especially the hardcore stuff!

"But Doc, you're the one showing me all the dirty pictures!"

Eighteen years
of research on this disgusting, disgusting stuff. It is good of him, I feel, to make himself wade through such filth; it is, indeed, a dirty job, but apparently someone has to do it. And apparently their work is never, ever done, nor will be; such is the debauchery of this world.

But by all means, Mr. Jensen: try out your little experiment. I hope it brings you some satisfaction. Would it work as well for you if it turns out some of the men actually enjoy the idea? I mean, according to you, [all] men who watch pr0n only get off on the idea that the fucked ones--the women, of course, that only could mean the women, you wouldn't dream of actually looking at any real gay male pr0n, it probably doesn't even exist in your universe--don't like it. You sure there isn't just a bit of projection going on, there? Maybe in more ways than one, even.

I've said it before: if there's one thing i lurrrrrrrve, it's the male radfems i've encountered. Not that I haven't encountered female anti-pr0n activists who are just as full of self-righteous, proselytizing awfulness and prone to seriously creepy imagery; i just, you know, whatever it says about me, find these guys rather special, somehow. Just as freaking misogynist and hung-up as the MRA's, but with "for your own good" lathered on top of it, plus the lovely experience of having Certain Women put aside their eternal I Blame the Menz (and their Sexbot Enablers) to breathlessly make way for their Opinions. ("oh, but, look, he's really trying. he's EXAMINING himself. hairshirt="examining." coo, flutter).

Seriously, dude: speaking on behalf of all of Class Woman, which I do--like Whitney, I'm Every Woman--do not do me no favors. Work it out on your own time; go drum in the woods or something. Have a nice healthy circle jerk, I mean the concrete kind, as opposed to the kind you and your ilk instigate online (for instance), because the former kind ends. And unlike your own very nonconsensual obsessions, they'd effectively leave the rest of us the hell out of it.

Leave us the hell out of it.


Renegade Evolution said...


Rootietoot said...

you know, I don't know this Jensen person, or where he lives or what he does. I have, however, nearly all my life lived in towns with major Universities featuring schools of psychology and Womens Studies and other liberal arts Anyway, the male instructors are generally of a type: Agnostic/atheist/ In Touch With Their Feelings/ and Smarter Than You. Why am I getting that vibe off this guy? I sense a meershaum pipe with cheap tobacco and lots of hmm-hawing and a really ugly cardigan sweater.
I'm not saying...for all I know he likes to hunt bunnies with a crossbow, but it just seems..well.

belledame222 said...

Well, the men that I know who are genuinely smart and in touch with their feelings, including some university professors, are nothing at all like this weirdo.

that said, it is true that there is a certain type of asshole that does seem to thrive in academia and other rarefied atmosphere particularly well (*coughAnnBartowcough*).

this one doesn't strike me as particularly edjumacated; the business about "here's my card, please call me" actually puts me far more in mind of the Kirk Cameron/TBN style of evangelist.

'course, there are a number of women who've ranted about the "nice guys" and other "allies" who are actually anything but.

or as Veronica of Nine Pearls once put it,

"Nice is like Zen*; if you have to mention it, you probably aren't"

...and as far as i'm concerned that goes double or triple menz like this, who keep bugling about how very pro-woman they are. And this is helping whom, how?...

*"If you meet the Nice Guy on the road, kill him."

Renegade Evolution said...

The thing that originally annoyed me about Jensen in our original debate was his whole dismissive attitude because I (a woman) actually (dared) to disagree with him and said, more or less "you cannot speak for the feelings and desires of all women" (the nerve of me). He really could not be at all bothered to address or discuss any of my questions or implications and kept driving his OWN agenda. And of course, he asserts that he is speaking TO men, yet the rad-fems lick it up like homemade gravy... Jensen is my new nemesis, that's all there is too it.

belledame222 said...

o yes, the "speaking for."

(Marvin Martian voice)

Isn't it -lovely?-

That was what originally sent me over the edge, with Dim; that was my first real incursion into the Wars. fuck you, asshole, if you're -really- such a -radical feminist- then you might consider that part of your job is, when a woman is talking about her experience? even if it's not one that you're already prepared to sympathize with? sit the hell down, shut up and listen.

otherwise, you're just the equivalent of a recent overnight "sinner" and alcoholic who stands outside liquor stores and heckles everyone about the evils of the demon rum.

and, oh, yeah: STILL a fucking sexist asshole.

Rootietoot said...

That is PRECISELY the attitude I'm talking about. I get it from Them because I lack a college degree, and therefore am incapable of comprehending the depths of their BS. I've lived 'mongst these people nearly my whole life (minus 8 years). There really is A Type. Ugly cardigan, pipe and all. I stand by my stereotype (they do it to me, the l'il' woman o the house).

belledame222 said...

h'm. I guess I'm partly reacting off my own encounters with some people who basically have gone, oh, you with your fancy EDUCATION, you think you're so much -better- than we are, don't you...

when i've said no such thing; and it's like, so, okay, but apparently you're the one with the mind-reading abilities, so...

i -have- always gotten the "she's too smart/stuck up/showoff" business, pre-college, i mean.

and i'm at the point where it's like: fuck knows that having the piece of paper on your wall means, of itself, pretty much nothing except that you had the means and drive and circumstances to be able to earn the piece of paper and put it on your wall. yeah, that can be a classist snob thing, among other things. I don't like it either.

at the same time, (and I'm not saying you're doing this, just teasing out my own sore spot here), i'm not gonna pretend I'm someone I'm not just to make someone else more comfortable. Yeah, I use a lot of four-dollar words. I talk theory. I refer to books and shit. Makes you feel insecure if I know something you don't? (i have someone very particular in mind here, but i'm not gonna open that one up again; it's not like sie'd ever deign to post here anyway). Well, you know what, the library's over -that- way; i bet with all the energy you just spent defending your ego you could've just looked the fucking reference up for yourself. Don't want to? Okay then. But. -Still- having a problem with me for talking about something that you don't "get?" And making like it's -my- problem, that -I'm- the one who's being a snob? "Bite me." Was that down-to-earth enough for you?

belledame222 said...

and yes, rt, I do know that type quite well. Too.

31 flavors and more of assholes in this world; and yet somehow at the end of the day it all tends to end up producing pretty much the same thing.

belledame222 said...

and just to re-emphasize: the "you" in that rant was not directed at anyone here. honest.

belledame222 said...

anyway, as i've been observing it around the Internetz, what -really- pisses a lot of people off is if you don't have the piece of paper but you still make them feel like you're smart than they are anyway.

this seems to go double or triple into effect when it's a woman of color, (see: Nappy as I Want to Be ["you just mad 'cause i ain't got no formal edjumacation], Black Amazon, nubian, and others) a woman who doesn't otherwise "fit," due to class signifiers, background, whatever (Bitch Lab, for one; kh -really- threw people for a loop, i think); and damn me but if the injunction against women who are -too- smart, hell, -people- who are too smart, isn't a part of this, too.

There's a difference between "showing off" (as in, deliberately trying to make other people feel inaequate or inferior) and just being who the hell you are without apology. but of course, women in particular aren't supposed to acknowledge their gifts; someone might get Jealous. well, Renegade, isn't this what you've been dealing with, from the looks end of the equation? you can't win for losing, honestly.

belledame222 said...

anyway i guess i'd conclude that yeah, there sure are a bunch of people who wield their pieces of paper and other symbols of "success" like crucifixes at a vampire, if not actually using them to smack other people in the face with: see, I do, I DO MATTER! they irk.

i also think that along with the greater body of people who simply find this irksome, there are -some- people who maybe do -not- have (any particular status symbol) ...but that doesn't mean they still aren't obsessed with it. Don't make as much of mammon-like worship of it as the ones who do have it. just, instead of being smug, they're bitter, and turn everything into a projection-fest when they encounter someone whom they think does, indeed, have something they want...except they'd never admit that it -is- something they want.

either way, i've got no time for it.

Rootietoot said...

ok *chomp* there, I bit you.

Funny- oppostie sides of the fence and all, yet I understand your point. Thing is, if THEY would quit assuming I speak 4 yr old because THEY don't know I spend my time in the library reading up on stuff and could probly talk circles around them in the science and mathematics arena ( Guess what! I know how a rail gun works! Do you. Dr. Philosophy Screwin' the Grad Students? Hm? How about what's so fabulous re cloned corn? Can you tell me, Dr Philosophy StGS, what good BAER testing is?)
See, I'm not philosophical, really. If I think about something it tends to be about something I can put my hands on. SOmetimes, in these blogs -yours particularly- I feel like I'm swimming in molasses, and I have to read...real...slow... so I can try to get it. But I like that, that's why I'm here. I have to think in another direction. So unless you're wearing a butt-ugly sweater and smoking a pipe with cherry tobacco (Please, say no), I'll *try* to avoid rolling you into my cherished stereotypes, while I'm baking cooking and dustng the windowsills. I don't have time for dealing with such folk, except to cluck about them.

Tom Nolan said...

BD or anybody who knows -

What, precisely, is a "circle jerk"? I've been coming across this phrase for I don't know how long, and I still can't work out what it means. Is it a fairground ride like the "gravitron" or the "centrifuge"? That would make sense, as it's often mentioned with reference to a lot of people together (usually men, now I come to think of it). Or is it a dance, perhaps?

Please help me out, I wasn't brought up on the internet.

belledame222 said...

i didn't realize anyone still actually did the pipe thing-and -cherry- tobacco? -ew.-

it must be sort of like i dunno, going to France and people are really wearing berets and striped shirts and pencil-thin mustaches and spouting existentialism all the time? i guess some people really are walking stereotypes...

i think that the "hands-on" thing isn't so much about "smarts" as, y'know, the whole Myers-Briggs thing. it sounds like you're more "sensation" oriented; I'm very "intuition" oriented. so yeah, big cloudy's just where I'm comfortable. to a point, anyway.

belledame222 said...

tn...oh. hm.

i'm fairly certain the practice pre-dates the Internet. you mean, the -real- practice? as in, group of dudes standing (or sitting or sprawling i guess) in a circle and...jerking?

online i just call it a wankfest; a thrash, you know, a stupid big fight where there's a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing; but a lot of hilarious assholery on display.

Tom Nolan said...

Oh...I see what you mean. I'm not just new to the Internet (barely three years old in information technology terms) but I'm also a Brit, so Americanisms confuse me sometimes.

Pity it isn't a fairground ride though. "Do you want to go on the circle jerk with me?" "No, it always makes me sick..."

Dan L-K said...

So unless you're wearing a butt-ugly sweater and smoking a pipe with cherry tobacco...

Well, not at the moment, but I have them handy.

I do it in kind of a Goth way, though, if it makes you feel any better.

antiprincess said...

I left a comment on Stan Goff's site, reproduced here in its entirety so that I may have a chance to look big in front of my friends:

“Is a DP inherently degrading to women and therefore sexist? I don’t know, and I don’t have to know.

so, a woman's opinion on what gets up her own ass is not important to this man?

“Is a DP inherently degrading in the minds of men? That’s a much more important question, and that answer is much more disturbing.”

The opinion of Class Man on what gets up a woman's ass is the important question?

some feminist.

Veronica said...

Shit. Now, I'm all confused about terminology.

Like, I thought DP was a more general term for "involving two penetrative objects on one individual." (HA! I AM OBJECTIFYING THE PENIS AND OTHERWISE UNATTACHED PHALLIC OBJECTS! OBJECTIFY! OBJECTIFY!)

I didn't realize that it was specifically and exclusively to be used for THAT particular act on a woman. Gosh. Learn something new every day.

belledame222 said...

no, i think you're correct: the uh broader term is what DP means. (or on a man, i suppose; if oral counts, too). he changed definition midstream, and/or simply didn't bother to differentiate between one act and the other.

Rootietoot said...

I don't know that one should expect a Brit (internet novice or no) to get 'circle jerk'. This is, after all, the society that calls a dessert 'spotted dick'.

I was confronted just today with an ugly cardigan smelling of cherry tobacco. In Walmart, where it was droning on about rampant consumerism and barefoot children in the Amazon. There was enough stereotype in that person to cover 20 other faculty members.

I'm still puzzling over why on earth the topic of dp matters. I mean, really, people have been sticking things in their assorted holes since they first discovered those holes existed. Why is this an issue?

Veronica said...

I mean, really, people have been sticking things in their assorted holes since they first discovered those holes existed. Why is this an issue?



And, I should have known that the confusion was Professor Dude's fault.

belledame222 said...

so, wait, he goes -to Walmart- and stands there bitching about "rampant consumerism?"

was he leading an armed resistance against the ev0l Empire--you know, the checkout dudes and dudettes, i assume--or was he simply oblivious to even that degree of irony?

o well. was he standing in the middle of the aisle, blocking traffic? because that's what i'm picturing.

my parents are both in academia, and they have had some real doozies for colleagues (this is why i fled my fate for so long; and i -still- don't want to end up tenured faculty); otoh, i don't recall ever encountering anyone working the cherry tobacco. i think i would have remembered that.

then again, this was California; smoking in general's pretty declasse at this point...

maybe they wait till they get home, and i was just never invited.

Rootietoot said...

my parents are academics too, tho science and math types, which is a slightly different species from liberal arts type, in my experience.

Yes, walmart, with stuff in his buggy and blocking the aisle and O! So Supercilous and Condescending and Solicitous and Other Big Words. It's a second tier school here, so the Academics are trying a little harder to appear Academic, so they can get to a first tier school, get tenure, and have sabbaticals and insurance that pays for drug rehab (but not mammograms). Plus, it's in the South, so stereotypes are seen as Alternative Lifestyles, because they refuse to tote guns and name their dogs after their mother in laws.

Tom Nolan said...


What's wrong with Spotted Dick? I mean, apart from the name which does, I concede, sound like a venereal disease.

A mouthwatering ovoid of quaking, blemished suet killed screaming at your table as mother pours a saucepan full of scalding custard over its naked flanks! I'm getting quite peckish just thinking about it. What's in the pantry I wonder?

belledame222 said...

My Dad's a science type: chemist. Mom is a Spanish professor at a small Brethren-run college. well, they're both more in administration now, dad especially.

belledame222 said...

>insurance that pays for drug rehab (but not mammograms

AUGH. don't even get me started on frigging health insurance.

yeah, truth is, mom's about ready to get the hell out, although she doesn't want to retire without anything else to occupy her time, and is still searching. but i think at this point the main reason she's sticking it out till the bitter end is for the insurance. as a cancer patient heading into her 60's, this factors.

tom: yes, that description certainly has made me...peckish...also. *ul*

seriously, just in general: pudding in a can? what's up with that?

o never mind, i make fun of fastlad cause on account of he eats crap like "mushy peas" and baked beans for breakfast.

whereas he doesn't get the "macaroni and cheese" concept, so i guess we're sort of even.

Alex said...

Prolly way too much info, but I'm with RenEv on the desire for (if probably not the ability to act on that desire). So make that at least two of us.

belledame222 said...

> Plus, it's in the South, so stereotypes are seen as Alternative Lifestyles, because they refuse to tote guns and name their dogs after their mother in laws.>

You know, I have been wondering if this mightn't be a factor wrt Certain People who were recently annoying the living shite out of me. y'know, liberal in a red state, relatively small-town-or-city sophisticate: lookit me, ma! I mock religion openly! I talk about sex out loud! I'm not a "good girl!" in your FACE! you may all marvel at my daring now.

maybe i've been unfair, you know; maybe all that really is a bigger deal elsewhere than it would be, well, here, on the whole. (yes, i live in Queens; 'tis the glamorous life, truly) as it is, I'm all: really? you're a liberal and you talk about sex and mock religion? why, i've never HEARD of such a thing. what a convention flouter! next thing you know, you'll be telling me you've smoked some of that wacky tobaccy I hear all the kids are into these days.

belledame222 said...

then again, I grew up in the 'burbs, fairly conservative ones at that; and my parents, while nice secular humanist Democrats/liberals, aren't exactly flaming radicals/counterculture types.

not saying i am either, just; people who strike me as overly impressed with themselves, particularly for being edgy-daring-outre, tend to weary me pretty quickly.

in this instance i was already pissed off at ___ for a number of other things as well, so, open season really. It's fine; i know they're mocking me, too. including people i respect but are also friends with ____. So it goes.

belledame222 said...

>particularly for being edgy-daring-outre

Specifically: say, i'm gonna throw a grenade, and let's you and them fight! You and me, me and them, whatever, just as long as there's conflict; a conversation just isn't interesting unless you've managed to get someone's panties in a wad! that ability makes you SPECIAL. that ability is what's gonna lead us to the promised land, politically speaking, as opposed to just leading you to a nice job as yet another talking head or take-the-piss book author, or something along those lines. yee-ha!

antiprincess said...

three, alex.

my comment at Stan Goff's got tagged with a "moderator's note", to wit:

Ah, so you write the credentials? Porn posse trolls… be advised. We have been through this gang tackle crap before. We have seen all these polemical fallacies before. You make us very very tired. If we post you at all, when you have nothing to contribute but this kind of misrepresentation and venom, then we will intervene thus, right inside your comment. If you don’t like it, troll elsewhere.

which makes me sad.

I wasn't trying to dis his academic creds, or his activist creds - I don't get how someone can specifically say "what women think about double penetration IS NOT IMPORTANT TO ME - What men think about double penetration IS IMPORTANT TO ME" and still everyone thinks he's a better feminist than me.

belledame222 said...

Misrepresentation? gee, projecting much, there?

but hey--we're a posse! PORN POSSE! w00t

belledame222 said...

> then we will intervene thus, right inside your comment>

y'know, maybe i'm overthinking here.

but something about the phrasing of this, in the context of what he's on about, i find a tad unsettling, somehow...

antiprincess said...

represent, yo.

yeah, why does he have to penetrate my comment like that? ew.

antiprincess said...

and in such a borg-y way.

WE will INTERVENE, right INSIDE your comment.

resistance, apparently, is futile. guess I'll prepare to be assimilated.

Renegade Eye said...

The bigger question, is sex in odd numbers misogynist? If the number isn't two, it would seem some DP act would be natural.

Anthony Kennerson said...

Actually, the "porn posse" smack that Gooney Goff laid on Antiprincess is mostly a indirect crackback at people like Nina Hartley, Ernest Greene (Nina's hubby), and a few others (including moi) who have gotten into Stanley's face about his antiporn ranting thinly disguised as "leftist" theory. For reasons unknown to all but himself, Goff has internalized all of the Dworkin-MacKinnon cult mindset about "pornstitution" being the epitome of rape and assault against Classwomen; and added a nice bit of pseudo-Marxist social theory quackery all his own for good measure.

Don't fret none, AntiP...he does that to everyone who's not in perfect unison with his mission.

If you can stomach it, this is his article attempting to slam Nina as the chief enabler of rape and sexual slavery....all because she had the ovaries to criticize an antiporn colleague:

Birds of a feather....well, you know the rest.


Alex said...

> then we will intervene thus, right inside your comment>

I'm in ur comment, intervenin on yur pr0nz?

(Or am I mixing my online locales too much for that to make any sense to anyone?...)

Renegade Evolution said...

AK: If you can stomach it, this is his article attempting to slam Nina as the chief enabler of rape and sexual slavery....all because she had the ovaries to criticize an antiporn....

still got my guns, still chicken huntin' and Nina is damn cool... ;)

Renegade Evolution said...


Ren is on the warpath..please be do SO kind as to supply me with that fellows web address...

Renegade Evolution said...

nevermind, i found his blog, and my response:
Moderate would only be typical.

If you see in my own blog, I have had, as a woman, the "DP" conversation with Robert Jensen before. I am a woman. I like DP. I find it amusing yet insulting that so called feminist minded men presume to know what woman may or may not like in the bedroom. I find it sexist as well. And women who DO like DP? Well, considering a mans unwillingness to generally have his penis that close to another penis? At least half the time, those women who DO like it request it. And it is for pleasure, not power.

Prove me wrong."

Cassandra Says said...

Male radfems are scary. Just thought I'd second that.
Actually the very few who are sex positive are just as scary, oddly enough. I had one tell me that if I personally wasn't willing to do sex work I had no right to call myself a feminist. And you get to define who does and does not get to call herself a feminist because?
And this...
"I'm still puzzling over why on earth the topic of dp matters. I mean, really, people have been sticking things in their assorted holes since they first discovered those holes existed. Why is this an issue? "
Blows kisses
See, I think if you want to call yourself a feminist maybe what you really need to grok is that whatever a woman wants to put in the orifice of her choice is no one's damn business but her own. Is that really so hard to understand?
Apparently so for Mr Jensen. The "but what really counts is what men think!" part was particularly amusing.

Lady Aster said...

For the record, what Jensen says is easily falsifiable. I myself have no particular desire for double penetration (unless a couple of nice men wanted to pay me lots of money ;), but a close friend of mine- never been involved in pornography or any other form of sex work- ideologically very sex-postive but personally monogamous by preference- feminist, bisexual- happens to well, (gasp!) *like* the forbidden sexual practice.

Why do I suspect that if Jensen were to meet her, he'd end up accusing her of lying or being a dupe of the patriarchy. or just pretend she didn't exist by one method or another?

Oh, and for that atter it's worth noting that DP isn't necessarily a guy-on-girl thing. For Mr. Jensen's enlightenment, there exists such a thing as a strap-on.

Lady Aster said...

Ew. Ew. Ew. I've just been reading through Jensen's web page, and this quote reached out and struck me (really, I think I need some ice).

"My political life for the past dozen years has been anchored in resistance to the pornography of men and the wars of the United States, the struggle against patriarchy and empire. That means my life has been saturated with images of cruelty, from the intimate to the global."

Oh, blessed goddess, what Tartuffery. "Oh... how I've *suffered* being exposed to all of this evil. I am a martyr. I am a paladin. I'm soooooooooo noble."

Robert Jensen is a grown-up goody-two-shoes, playing teacher's pet to the progeny of Andrea Dworkin in the hopes of revenge, snob rights, and a cookie.

Don't they still read Nietzsche in academia?

Reminder to self: do not sell Mr. Jensen any cookies. He funks my creep test.

Rootietoot said...

I love parents. My dad's a retired neurologist (prof, also taught histology), mom a botanist. My husband's a chemist, I...well I have a lapsed EMT license. I was raised EXTREMELY conservative Presbyterian always vote republican and Dad never once wore a cardigan sweater..ok once, but it was alpaca that my mom had spun and my grandmother knit.

TOm- Spotted Dick just sounds so...
ugh....a brick of raisin studded fat drenched in liquid custard. My arteries whine. Why did they have to call it that? It don't make no sense to me. They should change the name. My delicate feminine sensibilities are offended.

RE said:"The bigger question, is sex in odd numbers misogynist? If the number isn't two, it would seem some DP act would be natural."
What about 2 women and one man? Isn't that some kind of fantasy? Couldn't one woman be the recipient and the other woman have some toys in her hand? I don't think that'd be misogynist.

Lady Aster said:"Reminder to self: do not sell Mr. Jensen any cookies. He funks my creep test."
Haaaaw! Oh Haw! 'funks my creep test' priceless!

belledame222 said...

Tartuffery: haw!

2 women and 1 man: o well OBVIOUSLY that's misogynist, as it's catering to the MAN's fantasies; no women would ever think of that on her very very own, y'see. there is no such thing as a bisexual woman, or a woman who just enjoys the odd threesome once in a while; there are het women, who, well, i'm not exactly sure -what- is acceptable for them to do, in this worldview, to be honest, but -certainly- they do not engage in woman-woman sex unless it's to please the MAN, ever; (and of course deep down they despise the degradation, oh yes, every last one of 'em);

and then there are lesbians, who are either "spinster aunts" and/or a kind of SupraFeminist, who never EVER have sex with men, or discover themselves in such circumstances as "say, you know, actually I like making out with Suzie much better than I do sex with Rob, and I kind of feel more strongly about her as well; bye Rob!" Oh, and they don't like penetration, or kink, or pr0n, not -real- lesbians; that stuff is all MAN stuff. mostly they gaze intently into each others' eyes and commune to the tune of dolphin noises, possibly touching pinkies.

hey, i've read at least one straight radfem who took it upon herself to explain what real lesbians do and don't like, and i think her boyfriend as well; i don't doubt that Jensen and/or Goff have opinions on the subject also.

oh yeah and: gay men do not exist. Or they may as well not. as for the idea of a bisexual man who is into the DP scene because he also likes the idea of being with the other guy, as opposed to just rilly wanting to extra-humiliate the woman:

-crickets crickets crickets-

belledame222 said...

seriously, these dudes' "research" remind me of Paul Cameron. unfortunately it seems like they're taken more seriously. perhaps i'm mistaken. i do hope so.

o yeah, and of course there's always whatsername, Judith Reisman, who's got appeal to both camps, for whatever reason, *nods to Anthony for the reference*

belledame222 said...

oh yea, RE: will you do Judith Reisman next? i've got an old post on her if you want to get started; that was me arguing with w-w.

Tom Nolan said...

Rootie (if I may?)

Listen, I'm into puddings, alright? And I don't mean fluffy sweet souffles or low-fat gooseberry fools. I mean the hard stuff, the visceral stuff, the stuff that makes you feel shamefaced but still curiously smug when you think about it while smoking a cigarette afterwards. If I'd wanted censorious comments about what are, after all, MY PREFERENCES I'd have gone to an anti-suet blog and published them there.

It's my choice, damn it. And it's my right as an Englishman.

belledame222 said...

i expect the "spotted dick" business didn't mean, you know, -that.- there are all kinds of cutesily named foodstuffs in British cuisine. some come from stuff like, i dunno, rhyming slang? not an expert.

i have no idea where "bubble and squeak" derives from; presumably it's not a reference to the noises you would make after eating all that cabbage.

belledame222 said...

--go, Tom! REPRESENT!


actually the supra-dense chocolate puddings always sounded worth trying to me.

and there are times when "heavy/dense" works really well: for instance: the cream. -double- cream. which does not pour, but rather stands. we don't get that over here. nor clotted cream (which is also an unlovely name, but no matter, it is a lovely foodstuff).

...word verification: tomtcgvo

belledame222 said...

(pro-suet!! suet-positive!!)

antiprincess said...

RenEv - my reply to the reply to your post:

"You just proved you are going to argue against an argument that Jensen didn’t even make… "

well, see, I think he did make the argument that women don’t like it, which is why men like it - because they know, deep down inside, that women don’t.

to wit: "The attraction of a DP in pornography for heterosexual men is not just that it’s a social taboo — a sexual practice considered by many to be inappropriate or immoral — but that men know women don’t want it. (emphasis mine)"

so he’s saying “women don’t want double penetration”. not “some women” nor even “most women” nor even “women who have been subjected to nonconsensual sex acts for the purposes of selling photographic evidence of these nonconsensual sex acts” - but simply “women”. All women. Every woman.

which I believe to be in error.

if he meant something different, he should have said something different.

Rootietoot said...

Tom, I'm sorry, but you're WRONG. WRONG! I say! You only think you're in touch with your appetite because you've been told all your life that's what you're supposed to eat. You're just a pawn of English culinary practices. I must feed you fried okra and a peach cobbler. So you'll know what REAL food is.

"It's my choice, damn it. And it's my right as an Englishman."

Only because you simply don't know any better. poor man.

antiprincess said...

what about jello? jelloists are part of the trembling-dessert community too, but nobody ever talks about jello.

is jello just a weak-knee'd stand-in for pudding? is jello the erotica of trembling desserts, and pudding the hardcore gonzo?

antiprincess said...

You're just a pawn of English culinary practices.

oh the false consciousness! oh the culinary hegemony!

pass the cobbler. I'm-a liberate myself.

Amber said...

"misrepresentation and venom"? WTF??

Goddammit goddammit I feel a rant coming on. Except, doh, I'm going to be in training all day for a work-related thingy, so I probably won't be able to actually type said rant for another, oh, 7 or 8 hours. I'll be plotting it in my head the entire time I'm supposed to be learning about this new software...

Some people really, really piss. me. the fuck. OFF!

Okay, off to skim the rest of the comments before I head to training... I made it to AP's and felt myself about to burst. Oh and also! Add me to the "too much information" (not according to me, but) pool - 'cause I've participated in a DP, and it was just swell. And I fantasize about it... well, not daily, but damn here. 'Cause it's HOT in my book. So THERE, Mr. Jensen!!

Renegade Evolution said...

heheh, I am now a noted (and proud) member of Antiprincesses pro-porn-posse!

There will be a public verbal evisceration of male feminists on my blog at some point today, oh yes indeed!

Rootietoot said...

jello isn't really food, so isn't worth commenting on.
*snort* jello...phhht.

(tho it's really tasty with cool whip and a spoon)

Ok, as for the 2 women and one man concept. Let me reface by stating I have no interest in having more than 1 person in my bed, and a very particular 1 person at that. Havnig said that, it seems to me that women have a tendency (note: tendency, not all women are like this. no stereotyping here, thank you)to be sort of soft and roundish in places and kind of smooth, and I can see how that would be appealing to a person, male or female. Men can be hairy and kind of smellish in spots and have bits that hang out, and I can definitely see how that could be appealing or off-putting, depending. So I can understand how a woman (or plural) would enjoy a proverbial roll in the hay with another woman, all that soft stuff, or even with a woman and a man, best of both worlds. What I fail to grasp is how 2 women and 1 man would be misogynistic, seeing how easy it would be to get the man in a state where he's not thinking clearly and just tie him up. I think the whole Robert Jensen Extra Holes controversy is a misplaced fantasy, he's having it and being all self-hating about it. It's exactly like the Christian who pickets the abortion clinic then hustles his daughter to one in another state so no one will question her purity. Sounds to me like Mr. Jensen just need a real vigourous lay.

Renegade Evolution said...


"Sounds to me like Mr. Jensen just need a real vigourous lay."


belledame222 said...

Carol Queen had an interesting theory: coined a term she called "absexual:" people who can only get off via their own fascinated repulsion and crusading against whatever-it-is. thus: both Jesse Helms and Dworkin would be absexuals. this dude, too.

iow: it's not about "prude," at all. it's people who claim to be so very against whatever it is but can't seem to shut up about it.

i mean I'm sure this Jensen dude's looked at -far- more pr0n than I've -ever- seen, and apparently it's -still- not enough to buy him a clue, much less, you know, make him go, "okay, you know what, this is doing my head in, enough already." i mean if he HATES it that much.

but so Queen's idea was that it's actually not simple hypocrisy, exactly; just plain out and out indulging wouldn't do it for people like this; the outrage and crusading is part of the fetish/sexuality.

which as such, could be tolerated as just another kink, except unlike many others, this one is pretty much nonconsensual by definition.


antiprincess said...

heheh, I am now a noted (and proud) member of Antiprincesses pro-porn-posse!

woah, wait a minute. I thought it was your posse.

who's in charge here?

Renegade Evolution said...


You are. YOU ARE THE HEAD PIMP of the Porn Posse...I mean, I'm just a whore. YOU were credited with being the leader of this merry band of sluts and degenerates!

antiprincess said...

woah. I so didn't get the memo.

Renegade Evolution said...


Well, this was in the response to me over there...

"We also note that antiprincess has in the past, on her own blog, rallied the porn-posse troops to launch flame attacks on other porn-critical sites, like Den of the Biting Beaver. So our suspicion that there is a porn-posse is proving to be correct… as is our decision to nip this in the bud."


belledame222 said...

So, is this like the royal "we" or what?

and it is awfully...something of the dude to come rallying to the defense of BB, armor gleaming and sword at the ready.

of course antip and RE themselves have just done the same damn thing in a different context. and rightly so, don't get me wrong, i was in there too, but...

she does seem to inspire that reaction a lot, does BB. just noting.

then again, i am a heartless cynical bitch, i expect.

belledame222 said...

and of course, we're -only- about the pr0n; what else could it possibly be about? what else could ANYTHING be about? don't be fooled by protests about some assy thing you've said that actually has nothing to do with pr0n whatsoever; that's a decoy. Stay true, man. Stay the course.

Renegade Evolution said...

I am all about the p0rn. and chicken huntin'. and well, making fun of Prof Bob...heheh....

belledame222 said...

yeah, RE, though, you couldn't -possibly- be as much about the pr0n as these people, much less their feverish little imaginings of what the "pro-porn-posse" (yeeha!) must do. it'd be like,

(to the tune of Monty Python's "spam spam spam spam..")

porn porn porn porn PORN! wonderful porrrrnn...

"well, there's egg and bacon, egg and porn, egg bacon spotted dick and porn, porn eggs spotted dick patriarchy and porn, porn porn porn porn porn porn porn baked beans and porn, or lobster thermidor aux crevettes with a mornay sauce and double penetration and porn..."

Renegade Evolution said...

ROFLMAO! Just posted a new "ode to Bob Jensen..." This not being civil thing is fun...

Rootietoot said...

"woah. I so didn't get the memo"

AP-- it's a natural fact that if you don't show up for the meeting you get elected chairman.

"porn posse" har...I'll stick with waving from the saloon balcony.

Rootietoot said...

"coined a term she called "absexual:" people who can only get off via their own fascinated repulsion and crusading against whatever-it-is."

That strikes me as being remarkably similar to people who watch NASCAR for the crashes. They're all like "EW! I must study this more so I can say 'EW' with authority!"

My mama taught me that if I don't like something, I should leave it alone.

Poor Mr. Jensen. He proably just wants to be universally loved.

Word verification sez :fungsfukus

belledame222 said...


damn right.

Amber said...

"We also note that antiprincess has in the past, on her own blog, rallied the porn-posse troops to launch flame attacks on other porn-critical sites, like Den of the Biting Beaver. So our suspicion that there is a porn-posse is proving to be correct… as is our decision to nip this in the bud."

Again I say... WTF?? Where was this? Over at StanGoff or some such place? I will need to catch up later... and I haven't been over THERE at all, since yesterday. Been stuck in this training all day, bleh.

But... sheesh!! I cannot grasp the reasoning behind this level of ridiculous antipathy for AP - of all people!! Christ on a stick, she has been MORE than civil! And what about trotting BB out like some kind of measuring stick... um, not to mention the fact that AP has defended her too, but...

Anyway. Back to training.


damn right.


piny said...

“Is a DP inherently degrading to women and therefore sexist? I don’t know, and I don’t have to know.

so, a woman's opinion on what gets up her own ass is not important to this man?

“Is a DP inherently degrading in the minds of men? That’s a much more important question, and that answer is much more disturbing.”

The opinion of Class Man on what gets up a woman's ass is the important question?

some feminist.

I think his argument was, rather, "I can't speak to women's experiences, but I do consider myself in a position to speak about men's perspectives." _But_ that doesn't mean that a woman can't get annoyed at the framing of that discussion, given that women will go on to participate in it, or pissed at his presuming to speak even for men as a class--including the men she sleeps with.

And then he proceeds to the argument that all men are interested in this stuff because they believe women don't enjoy it or are degraded by it.

I think that these things tend to flare up around porn--and a few related issues--because that's where they make their broadest claims. They kind of have to. In this post, for example, he sets aside women's perspectives, completely ignores the queer ones, and obviously centers the discussion around the men with whom he's most familiar. We see all of that, get irritated, and complain, and then we're all about teh you-know-what.

piny said...

Male radfems are scary. Just thought I'd second that.
Actually the very few who are sex positive are just as scary, oddly enough.

Yeah, well, you're not a real feminist, or you'd have given me a cookie by now.

No, seriously--gender is fraught, and so feminism is fraught. People use it as a field on which to resolve all sorts of issues. I've seen fundamentalist feminists, religiose feminists, penance feminists, rebel feminists, enlightenment feminists, fascist feminists, You're Not My Real Dad feminists, Love-me feminists.... Male feminists can use feminism to work out internalized guilt in unhealthy ways, and so a lot of them, yeah, come off as scary. Plus, calling oneself a feminist doesn't necessarily keep you from being an entitled asshole, or even a masculinist one.

I get annoyed with some male feminists because they come off as sycophantic--it becomes not about engaging sexism, but bashing lesser creatures so as to get in good with the women you've decided are your leaders. Look at Angry Scientist and the way he treats transwomen. He's like a cat bringing dead birds home for momma.

And now, of course, I'm afraid to say all this for fear they'll go splenetic on me.

belledame222 said...

Angry whom? I've not been keeping up, clearly.

there are probably too many male feminists to generalize about them, and "some of my best friends..." who are not at all paternalistic, yadda, etc. so i won't.

Male RADfems on the other hand, seem to be a rare and very strange bird. I can count the ones I've encountered on both hands if not okay both hands, that's right...and they've all been -seriously- creepy in my book. Like the misogynist equivalent of a dry drunk, all bound up with a double dose of arrogant self-righteousness & self-pity; and oh yeah, strangely enough, given space and cookies by many if not all of the female radfems--hell, some of 'em even date 'em and fuck 'em!--despite the endless rants about menmenMEN, how they're wankers, how she's never really met a non-manipulative one since (years before current partner if one does the math), how you can't trust 'em none of 'em not really, how they trample all over the place with their size 9 shoes dominating the whole damn place with their entitlement...

...which, yah; and especially when *you let them,* honey.

Jesus. I dunno.

piny said...

there are probably too many male feminists to generalize about them, and "some of my best friends..." who are not at all paternalistic, yadda, etc. so i won't.

I was trying _not_ to--I hope I didn't come off otherwise. All I meant to say was that people bring other issues to the table, and men have other issues too, and may have more in one particular direction, so....

Angry Scientist...I'll send you the url later. It's pretty bad. He makes Gonzman look like Imani Henry.

Male radfems creep me out because they treat non-rad-fem women the same way their female counterparts do, but...whole different dynamic there in some ways, you know?

belledame222 said...

no, no, piny, didn't mean you were doing it.

"angry scientist." why do i have the suspicion that the d00d fancies himself quite the Apollonian ideal of rational objectivity, and actually comes off more like yer average crank, only with a scientistic bent ?

and yeah, there is something extra-special about a (straight, yet, cisgendered, natch) guy telling me about 1) how a woman's body -really- works, erotically speaking 2) how my own desires and practices are not up to feministic snuff; are, in fact, Oppressing Women! thanks for sharing, man! now allow me to tell you about exactly how to clean under your foreskin. what do you mean, you don't have one anymore? well, that's not what i've read, and no man i've ever talked to has ever -not- had to clean under the hood for dickcheese. now hush up and listen; this is for your own good. first, get a tube of Tiger Balm...

Tom Nolan said...

To all those who have been kind enough to point out to me the evils of my suet addiction

Yes, I see it now, you're right, and I'm ashamed. I guess I got into it before I was old enough to discriminate - it was very much part of the culture I was born into - and by the time I hit puberty my tastes were already fixed. You know, so much of this stuff comes from our families and friends, people we love and trust. We see them eating spotted dick and toad in the hole, getting off on illustrated provincial cook-books, remarking salaciously that the dripping sandwiches in the meat-safe "need to be eaten" (though the opinion of the poor sandwiches, of course, was never asked for). And that's the sort of mentality we find ourselves adopting.

Rootie, your offer of cobbler and okra was a kind one, and I hope to take you up on it one day. I've decided to give up suet and all those other pervy pleasures for good; and, not content with my own salvation, I intend to call out and humiliate (for their own good, of course) every custard-bibbing golden-syrup-guzzling culinary deviant who shows up here. Hey! Britfoodjunkie! this is supposed to be a safe space for people who *care* about food, especially when it's inoffensive and hygienic. So you're not welcome.

I feel a lot better, a lot cleaner now. It's such a burden.

FoolishOwl said...

In general, I think you're all right in criticising Jensen's absolutist rejection of pornography and his blindspot with regard to women's sexual agency.

I do want to say in his defense, though, that Robert Jensen has risked his career in publically opposing the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and has a long career of doing excellent work in organizing against the death penalty.

I'm not saying anyone should pull their punches when he's very wrong. But I am saying he's not somebody to write off. He's a real left activist, not the fake kind.

As for why he might take such a wrongheaded position on pornography and sexuality, I can't be sure, but I can say why I've had similar ideas in the past. Somewhere, Belledame said something about Jensen wearing the hairshirt. For a long time, I both worried about the complaints of women around me about constant sexual harassment and worse, and I accepted the "common sense" idea that women were less interested in sex than men were. Wearing the hairshirt was something like the simple negation of Jensen's notion of the "john," and it was the only way I knew to make it clear I cared about women. It's taken me a long time to find ways to start to break away from that.

belledame222 said...

well, I hear you, FO, but I think Jensen's old enough and ugly enough to have figured it out by now; if he hasn't by now, he hain't gonna, I don't think.

Rootietoot said...

Tom Nolan said:"I feel a lot better, a lot cleaner now. It's such a burden."

Tom, bless your heart.

belledame222 said...


FoolishOwl said...

On the third hand, I was started to describe this brouhaha to my roommate, who's much more central to a lot of anti-war organizing than I am, and when I mentioned Jensen, he groaned then went on to say how Jensen self-flagellates about "white skin privilege," insist on objecting to war on "spiritual" grounds, and so forth. So, he's consistently annoying.

belledame222 said...

*snicker* never doubted it for one second.

yah, the self-flagellation is big, isn't it. o only metaphorical of course. of COURSE.

never mind the good lay, i think with some people,

"all he needs is a good flogging."