Link Farm and Open Thread #7

What I’ve been reading lately. As always, you are invited to post whatever you want here, including links to your own posts.

In Defense of Sex Positive Feminism
Bitch | Lab defends “sex positive feminism” from a variety of blogger critiques. I have a lot of sympathy for this article – especially the frustration at people who criticize alleged statements of sex positive feminists without actually providing quotes or links. At the same time, I will never like the term “sex positive,” because of the implication that feminists who don’t share those views are “sex negative.”

Jill Fisks an Interview With Anti-Feminist Kate O’Bierne

Changing Jobs from Writer to Janitor
A true-life redemptive tale. As Amber says, it’s very long, “but well-written, so it’s a quick read.”

GenderGeek Discusses Her Past Life As A Christian Fundimentalist

The church, in retrospect, taught me a great deal about how the patriarchy shakes down. I saw that single women were at the bottom of the hierarchy, with marriage a shortcut to power and status within the congregation. I saw many young women, a few years older than myself, rushing to marry young men they barely knew, ablaze with certainty in the gracious provision of a matchmaker deity. I saw women told to avoid the intellectual and spiritual temptations of an Oxford education….

More on The Myth of The Opt-Out Revolution

Showtime Wants To Pick Up Arrested Development
But only if series creator Mitch Hurwitz comes along, and Hurwitz may want to get off this roller-coaster.

On Governor Tim Kaine’s “Discomfort” With The Anti-Gay Legislation He Plans To Sign Anyway

Atrios Gets It Right On Choice For Men

It’s a Big Fat Revolution
If you haven’t yet read Nomy Lamm’s stunningly good, multifacited essay on fat acceptance, you should.

A Sane Position on Iran
At Body and Soul, of course.

Women Are Not Baby-Machines
Redneck Mother relates her own painful reproductive history to her committment to abortion rights.

New Blog To Watch: Feminist Law Professors

Teen Oral Sex Isn’t As One-Sided As We’ve Been Told
There’s been a lot of concern about an “epidemic” of teen girls giving – but not receiving – oral sex. But the research shows that girls are actually a bit more likely to recieve than to give, for whatever that’s worth.

This Is The Title Of The Story, Which Is Also Found Several Times In The Story Itself
This classic recursive short story (very short!) is well worth your time, if you haven’t already read it.

Giving Up On Abortion Rights: All Costs, Few Benefits
Scott at Lawyers, Guns and Money questions the current strategy among many (usually male) liberals.

Shorter Peter Morris
Who knew that if you become a father, there’s a chance that one of those icky girls would be born? And that’s just for starters.

Analysis of the Ayotte Decision
Over at ACSBlog, Jennifer Brown of Legal Momentum nutshells the Ayotte decision. Things definitely didn’t go as bad as they might have – I’m grateful this was decided before O’Connor departs.

Medical Innovations Reported In The Canadian Medical Association Journal
“We describe the off-label use of a recreational device (the Super Soaker Max-D 5000) in the alleviation of a socially emergent ear condition…” Via Sisyphus Shrugged.

Groundbreaking Research From The British Medical Journal

A search of the medical and other scientific literature through Google, Google Scholar, and Medline using the keywords “teaspoon”, “spoon”, “workplace”, “loss” and “attrition” revealed nothing about the phenomenon of teaspoon loss. Lacking any guidance from previous researchers, we set out to answer the age old question “Where have all the bloody teaspoons gone?” We aimed to determine the overall rate of loss of teaspoons and the half life of teaspoons in our institute, whether teaspoons placed in communal tearooms were lost at a different rate from teaspoons placed in individual tearooms, and whether better quality teaspoons would be more attractive to spoon shifters or be more highly valued and respected and therefore move and disappear more slowly.

Be sure to scroll to the bottom and read the response letters. Via Riba Rambles, who has many more links along these lines.

This entry was posted in Link farms. Bookmark the permalink.

121 Responses to Link Farm and Open Thread #7

  1. piny says:

    Here, from this thread, are the places where we either imply or explicitly state that there is abusive BDSM, that there is indeed such a thing as “irresponsible BDSM:”

    Me: No one asserted that “B[D]SM is ‘safe, sane, and consensual.'”

    Thomas: Nobody I know of is saying, “all BDSM is okay because it is by definition safe, sane and consensual.” I and I think some other folks are saying that some BDSM is okay if and only if it is safe, sane and consensual.

    Me again: Nobody is disputing that abuse occurs within the context of BDSM, or that BDSM practice is never abusive, or that people who commit abuse within the context of BDSM consider themselves BDSM practitioners.

    Thomas again: So, if I understand you correctly, your major issue is that people who are patriarchal abusers see SSC BDSM, and model their behavior on it, imposing abusive BDSM (adopting your term) on women. I’m not denying that happens. …The solution to abusive BDSM is the same thing.

    Me again: It’s true of many forms of BDSM and non-BDSM sexual relationships that I would absolutely consider abusive and coercive. My position is that there are kinds of BDSM that a reasonable person would not consider abusive, that do exist in a framework of meaningful, evolving consent.

  2. Ampersand says:

    Folks, I really want to see this discussion cooled down several notches. (And for goodness sake, do NOT respond by telling me it was the other person’s fault!)

    FCH has said that she didn’t intend to compare anyone to a rapist. That’s good enough for me; let’s all accept that it’s true.

    Piny has said that he didn’t intentionally misread FCH. That’s good enough for me; let’s all accept that it’s true.

    Please be careful to treat each other with respect – which means not only not swearing at each other, but not making snide or belligerant remarks. Try waiting five minutes after you write a post and then rereading it and editing out snark BEFORE you hit the “post” button.

    And all of you, please don’t force me to be more heavy-handed with my moderation.

  3. piny says:

    Sure, Amp. I’ll be more diplomatic. Sorry about the flaming.

    On a sidenote: you’ve committed a malapronoun.

    [Sorry for the typo, FCH – I’ve corrected it. -Amp]

  4. Thomas says:

    you say “No, all BDSM is responsible BDSM because we have these rules.”

    FCH, that is flat-out wrong. I’m not saying that, I didn’t say that, and as Piny pointed out, he and I have explicitly said the opposite over and over again. I adopted your term “abusive BDSM.” Insofar as your point is that there are people who do BDSM committing acts of misogynist abuse, I Agree With You. Please stop accusing us of denying this.

    To the extent that you’re arguing against excusing the behavior of abusers because they call their abuse “BDSM” you are engaged in a battle with a strawman.

    You also said this:

    Now, why the big beef with BDSM? Because BDSM as a sequence of actions … meaning, hitting, slapping, kicking in the testicles, humiliating … is INDISTINGUISHIBLE from “abuse”.

    You’re assuming your conclusion. Hitting is indistinguishable, not from abuse, but from hitting. It’s abuse when it’s done in an abusive context. When my doctor jabs me with a lancet, is it “indistinguishable from abuse? Or shoves a finger in my ass? No! It’s medical treatment! “abuse” isn’t an action, it is a context that arises from the absence of meaningful consent. An action rarely if ever “is” abuse in and of itself.

  5. piny says:

    Whoops! Sorry. I meant to blockquote:

    FCH has said that he didn’t intend to compare anyone to a rapist. That’s good enough for me; let’s all accept that it’s true.

  6. Charles says:

    Way back up there in post 68, Crys T wrote:

    Lis: “My question for you is, how do you know that other women aren’t sufficiently self-analytical, just because they come to conclusions you disagree with?
    [BTW, using the phrase “completely honest” does carry a certain implication that others are dishonest or lying, which is a harsh accusation. I am not saying you’re doing this intentionally, but just pointing out some of the subtly loaded language that comes out in these discussions and can make civil conversation more difficult.]”

    How do I “know”? I don’t claim to “know” much of anything. Obviously, the context for each instance need to be taken into account. And, as I said earlier, each of us can only work with the information we have at the time. So a lot us make bad decisions in good faith.

    And yes, “completely honest” is a loaded term. But, OTOH, we all know that we are less than honest with ourselves sometimes. We should be able to own up to that. I’ve never met anybody who hasn’t rationalised their heads off in order to justify a decision that they really wanted to make, even if they knew it wasn’t 100% “right”. And of course, I include myself there.

    “ Since puberty, I’ve spent massive amounts of time thinking about the roots of my sexual desires and whether they’re healthy or not and how I may have been affected by which childhood influences.”

    There will be others who’ve done like you, but also many more who never will. And that’s the problem: I’ve had this argument with a number of people who self-defined as “sex-positive” and they have, in so many words, said that what happens during sex should be kept apart from the rest of life. I’m not claiming that’s a generally-held tenet amongst all people who’d accept the “sex-pos” label, but I’ve certainly come across it a lot. And I flat-out don’t buy it. In fact, I believe that what happens during sex is crucially important to what happens to relationships of all types in “the rest of life”.

    I’ve never understood why sex had to be cordoned off as some sort of special little area & given special status amongst all other human relations, either by the truly sex-negative or the so-called sex-positive. Every human interaction you have has meaning which carries over into every other interaction you’ll have. Putting sexual behaviour on some sort of pedestal or locking it away in a closet are both bullshit.

    I’ve read what you wrote on stereotypes, and while it is interesting and I agree with some of it, there’s still that hyper-individualism thing going on. Yes, if Jews are stereotyped as spendthrifts or misers, you’re fucked any way you go. But I’d say in such a case that your choice when faced with that situation is to call bullshit about the stereotypes in the first place.

    We all know that women are denied owning sexuality while simultaneously being expected to be the suppliers of sex. So yeah, any demonstration of active interest or desire in sex is going to be misinterpreted. That’s one issue, and it affects us all. A different issue is buying into patriarchal definitions of what sex is and what sort of behaviours it can or should incorporate. I mean, for fuck’s sake, we’ve all come out of societies that have incredibly twisted, screwed-up definitions of sex, how the hell can we expect that what we consider sex or sexy will be healthy? Yet in argument after argument that I’ve had, both online & IRL, that’s what I’m expected to do: just accept that dominance/submission is a “natural” part of sex (sorry, that’s evo-psych bullshit”“won’t accept it as an explanation of men “naturally” dominating women in everyday life, won’t accept it here)(and, btw, I know that here is where someone will come sailing in to point out that there is same-sex BDSM and also dominant women/submissive men…blah, blah, blah….yeah, and of course NONE of the above could POSSIBLY have internalised society’s generally fucked-up message that D/S is “sexy”…nahhhh) so it’s beyond criticism, or that sex work will “always” exist, blah, blah.

    I’m sorry but no: nothing is beyond questioning when it comes to behaviour. I can understand that people whose sexuality is not mainstream feel upset & threatened when this happens, but all I can say is that I question ALL sexual expression, not just those that mainstream society calls “perverted”. I don’t think it’s possible at this point in time for anyone to have a truly healthy sexuality. We’re all too polluted by patriarchal thinking.

    However, I’m also not advocating that we all therefore stop having sex. I’m also not pointing any fingers & saying that certain types of sex are “worse”. We’re all fucked up and sick when it comes to sex and all I want is some fucking recognition of that and some effort made towards making it better, instead of lame attempts made to justify sick practices that only serve to keep us ALL down. And yes, I’m including het vanilla sex, which I consider the height of hypocritical, there too. And no, Sex-Pos Ooh, Victorian Prudery! Squad, I don’t envision a future with nothing but platonic cuddling, either. I want to fuck, I just want to find an honest way of doing it.

    I think that this gets at the axis of the sex question that matters, and is worth some serious discussion. I totally agree that neither side of the libertine – anti-sex divide answers the relevant questions, if it refuses to look at the way that sex is tied into patriarchy (and other systems of oppression), and that patriarchy (and other systems of oppression) is tied into sex. I don’t think there is much benefit to an “its all good” attitude towards sex that doesn’t incorporate that recognition that – actually – its not all good, its all pretty fucked up.

    Crys and I probably disagree somewhat on what to do with that understanding, and how to get to an honest form of fucking, but – while I think that disagreement would be worth exploring – I think the understanding that sex must be seen within its oppressive cultural context is more important, since without that step, there isn’t even any hope of meaningful dialogue.

    Anyway, I think if we could drop the BDSM terminology discussion in favor of returning to the important parts of Crys’s response, that would might be really interesting.

  7. FurryCatHerder says:

    Thomas writes:

    You’re assuming your conclusion. Hitting is indistinguishable, not from abuse, but from hitting. It’s abuse when it’s done in an abusive context. When my doctor jabs me with a lancet, is it “indistinguishable from abuse? Or shoves a finger in my ass? No! It’s medical treatment! “abuse” isn’t an action, it is a context that arises from the absence of meaningful consent. An action rarely if ever “is” abuse in and of itself.

    No, I’m not assuming any conclusions.

    As a sequence of ACTIONS — and a “context” isn’t an action — the actions involved in “physical abuse” and the actions involved in “BDSM” are often / frequently indistinguishible.

    And to stear this away from a BDSM terminology discussion, the ACTIONS involved in rape, and those involved in patriarchal oppression of women are also often / frequently indistinguishible from consensual sexual intercourse and egalitarian relationships.

    Yes, of course it’s all about CONTEXT. It’s the context of non-consensual sexual intercourse which makes it rape. It’s the context of patriarchal oppression which makes it patriarchal oppression. And so there’s no arguing about ‘context’, here’s the definition I’m using —

    The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

    An “event” is an “action”. What are the circumstances in which a penis is inserted in a vagina? What are the circumstances in which a woman performs a particular task in a workplace or home environment? What are the circumstances in which a man hits a woman with a piece of wood?

    I would argue that the existence of feminist women who’ve concluded that the “rat race” is bad for them can be used to convince non-feminist women that they “really” belong in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Is this sufficiently less controversial than BDSM that we can discuss that without claiming someone has called someone else a rapist? Because I’m making the same argument with respect to BDSM and feminists have discussed the harm that occurs when women publically opt out of the rat race and return to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

  8. Bitch | Lab says:

    “Bitch|Lab, yes, I agree, Susie Bright stashed enough apparently positive stuff in there about Dworkin that it could pass the damn-her-with-faint-praise test and could schmooze people with not much knowledge of feminist history. It made it possible for someone determined to read Bright generously and to ignore feminist history to excerpt the nice stuff out of a huge gigantic litany of horrible stuff and to say, “See there? She said that nice thing.”

    Chrys, I invite you to read my blog and then tell everyone I know nothing about feminist theory and history.

    For the record, I’ve taught women’s studies courses in gender, sexuality, the family, and sociology of work at 5 different universities. I rec’d my graduate degrees at a University that offered a special certificate in Teaching Women’s Studies, a certificate I received. I also attended a feminist women’s studies department with a mentor who, along with several other women, sued a well-known university in the 70s for sex discrimination. All of them, but two had to drop out of promising academic careers b/c of that suit.

    Part of my work for her was helping her sift through and organize tons of feminist materials from the 70s. In those days, there weren’t publishers who’d publish the work and it was all produced on mimeographs, stapled together or placed in three prong folders and passed about.

    In other words, aside from living feminist history for the past 40s years, I studied and taught it.

  9. Bitch | Lab says:

    “Bitch/Lab, having read the way you treated Samantha and some others on your home ground, I advise you take your own words to heart, ASAP. So far, I only see you placing a sympathetic light on the Hartleys and Brights, not those who can’t stomach their particular racket.

    All or nothing, B/L,when it comes to sympathy”“ though I personally don’t regard my skepticism of much “pro-sex” thought enough to make me an “interlocutor” of anyone. ”

    I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Because I mocked Sam for telling me that I’m only concerned with my “moist pussy”?

    Telling a feminist that her politics are about her moist pussy is pretty disgusting.

    Otherwise, perhaps you have me confused with the commenters at the blog.

    Sympathy has nothing to do with emotions. A “sympathetic reading” might better be understaood as what is otherwise called “an internal critique.” You understand something on its own terms and criticize the author on their own terms.

    For instance, If you’re a Marxist, you don’t read something by an anarchist and then criticize the anarchist for not being a Marxist. That would be called an external critique and the audience for such critiques is usually someone already sitting in the Marxist choir.

  10. Bitch | Lab says:

    >>I’ve occasionally gone to her site and read some stuff. In general, I haven’t liked it. End of fucking story. Accept that or not, I personally don’t give a shit. And if you think you can shame me into being a good little girl and dutifully trotting over to find quotes just to prove to you that I’ve done what I said, you can REALLY fuck off. Who the hell are you that I need to prove myself, anyway? A lot of people here know who I am, whether they like me or agree with me or not, so if you think you can cast me as some sort of faker, you’re trying it in the wrong place.

  11. Thomas says:

    FCH, now it appears that you agree with much of what I wrote. If the physical actions of rape and consensual intercourse are very similar, and the physical actions of abusive BDSM (not I’m not denying the existence of such a thing) and SSC BDSM are similar, then do you agree that the solution to the abuse problem in BDSM is no more to attack SSC BDSM than the solution to rape is to attack consensual intercourse?

  12. Bitch | Lab says:

    An interview with Bright that a reader sent me:

    Boston Phoenix Interview

    I’d appreciate hearing more about why people are so upset with sex positive feminism, but I won’t be checking into Alas as much as I’d like: too much work. Please send the info to me offblog. you can find the contact info at my blog http://blog.pulpculture.org or post it to my questions at the blog.

    thanks

  13. alsis39 says:

    I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Because I mocked Sam for telling me that I’m only concerned with my “moist pussy”?

    Telling a feminist that her politics are about her moist pussy is pretty disgusting.

    Oh, I think that it’s safe to say that you were mocking Sam from the get-go. So let me get this straight: You have a cleavage shot as your blog logo, for pity’s sake. Susie Bright can talk endlessly about tits, pussies, cunts, cocks, assholes, etc., but her critics cannot mention the word “pussy” in passing because that’s crude ? WTF ?

    Let’s rephrase it then. Samantha is claiming that Bright and those who aaccept her teachings wholeheartedly are letting their sex drive do their thinking for them. They have decided that anything that sexually arouses a woman is good and should not be closely examined for its effects upon the larger world. Any detrimental effects on someone other than the sexually aroused woman are not her problem. I think that you already knew that’s what Samantha meant, but there. I’ve jumped through your hoop. Now you can find something to ridicule about me, too.

    “Otherwise, perhaps you have me confused with the commenters at the blog.”

    Sorry. Perhaps so. But I’ll pass on returning, I think. It’s obvious that there’s a policy of hostility there even toward those of us who aren’t quite as radical as Samantha or Cheryl. Frankly, the contradictions embodied by people like Nina “No Condoms It Interferes With My Profit Margin and By the Way I’m A Socialist” Hartley make my head hurt.

    Sympathy has nothing to do with emotions. A “sympathetic reading” might better be understaood as what is otherwise called “an internal critique.” You understand something on its own terms and criticize the author on their own terms.

    That sounds like a contradiction to me. Up above, you were angry at Samantha for using the word “pussy,” in a room full of people who largely dig porn and exhibitionism. What ? Only you can decide when discussing genitalia is A.OK ? That’s quite a marked deck you use in your poker games, B/L.

    For instance, If you’re a Marxist, you don’t read something by an anarchist and then criticize the anarchist for not being a Marxist. That would be called an external critique and the audience for such critiques is usually someone already sitting in the Marxist choir.

    I’d say that you should go take a good look in the mirror then. Because your own attitude on your blog sure didn’t make me anxious to run out and buy Bright’s books or Hartley’s videos.

  14. alsis39 says:

    Charles wrote:

    …I don’t think there is much benefit to an “its all good” attitude towards sex that doesn’t incorporate that recognition that – actually – its not all good, its all pretty fucked up.

    Crys and I probably disagree somewhat on what to do with that understanding, and how to get to an honest form of fucking, but – while I think that disagreement would be worth exploring – I think the understanding that sex must be seen within its oppressive cultural context is more important, since without that step, there isn’t even any hope of meaningful dialogue…

    That would be nice.

    Incidentally, I didn’t have all that much of a problem with the interview Bitch/Lab linked to until I got to the part where Susie Bright seemed to think that the two choices for a lonely single woman on Valentines Day were to hit a singles bar in a sexy dress or go to an orgy. A lot of why our approach to sexuality IS so fucked up is contained right there. I mean, THESE are the only choice a woman has ? I wonder if there’s any circumstance at all in which Bright would say, “Maybe it’s just not a good idea to get laid at all. Maybe sex wouldn’t make you feel better. Maybe your troubles lie in some other arena and you should turn your attentions there instead of bowing to the peer pressure against being alone on Valentines Day.”

    That’s the problem you run into when dealing with someone who imagines sexuality as a product, and then makes a career of selling it back to her audience. Once sex is a product and it has a pitchwoman, there is simply no way that she’s ever going to admit that her product might fall short in some areas;That no one product can do everything for everybody.

  15. Samantha says:

    Susie Bright can talk endlessly about tits, pussies, cunts, cocks, assholes, etc., but her critics cannot mention the word “pussy” in passing because that’s crude?

    I get this reaction sometimes when using the sexual words common in prostitution to speak about it, like “whore” and a recent example where I used the phrase “heads up their vaginas.” Usually I try to ignore it or brush quick past it so as not to get sidelined from the main point, but I always wonder why the opprobrium is directed at me while the pornography industry they are defending has best-selling titles like “50 Guy Cream Pie Whore” and “Shockingly Stretched Meat Tunnels #12.”

    I’ve never seen pornography or prostitution advertisements that refered to a women in them as “sex workers” instead of whores, hoes, bitches, sluts, lolitas, lesbos, cum-swallowers, jizz-guzzlers, any number of barnyard animals, etc. “Cum see hawt sex workers getting nasty” doesn’t have the same marketing appeal to porn-using men as calling women “fuck pigs” does.

    Despite this, someone who can’t decide whether such standard porn terms are pro-feminist or anti-feminist and therefore claims a Switzerland-like neutrality on porn had no problem coming to the rapid conclusion that me using the phrase “heads up their vaginas ” is indubitably anti-feminist.

    If any of these folks who bitch at me about my language in debates on pornstitution have written one letter to a pornographer protesting the woman-hating language they use to make billions I would be very surprised.

  16. Bitch|Lab, I have no doubt that you know a lot about feminist history. But it’s very clear to me that like many, many feminists, including women’s studies teachers and professors, you have only heard one side of the story as to the Sex Wars. That is understandable because that is a story that a whole lot of people have worked very hard to erase. My saying that you don’t know what went down between Susie Bright and Andrea Dworkin and other anti-pornography feminists is less an insult (though I admit I felt aggravated when I wrote what you responded to) than it is an observation.

    Heart

  17. Sheena says:

    alsis:

    “I wonder if there’s any circumstance at all in which Bright would say, “Maybe it’s just not a good idea to get laid at all. Maybe sex wouldn’t make you feel better. Maybe your troubles lie in some other arena and you should turn your attentions there instead of bowing to the peer pressure against being alone on Valentines Day.””

    Yes indeed.

    “That’s the problem you run into when dealing with someone who imagines sexuality as a product, and then makes a career of selling it back to her audience. ”

    Double yes. I don’t like the idea of sex as a product, full stop – and somehow, some people seem to interpret that as meaning sex-negative, vanilla, whatever.

  18. Charles says:

    Total agreement on not liking the idea of sex as a product. And I’m hard to call vanilla (sex-negative, who knows).

    I was talking with Sarah (my spouse) about porn the other night, inspired by this thread. Sarah is heavily involved in fandom, so, for her, porn mostly means slash fiction, and we were talking about why slash seems acceptable to both of us, while male targetted porn does not. After some discussion of the different positions of men and women (which we both agreed were important) and the issue of visual versus written forms (the importance of which we disagreed on), and recognizing the importance of the conditions of the creation of most mainstream male targetted (visual) porn, we settled on the difference between slash (acceptable) and romance novels (creepy). The big difference? Slash is created to be shared in a community of reciprocal relationships that revolve around what the authors and readers mutually find exciting. Romance novels are a commodity created to appeal to what the audience is assumed to find exciting, designed to sell as much product as possible.

    In slash, sex is not commodified.

    Anyway, I thought it was interesting.

  19. alsis39 says:

    Thanks, Sheena.

    You, too, Charles. I really wish that there was more acknowledgement that issues change when we commodify. Or, more rarely, de-commodify.

  20. Pingback: Bitch | Lab » Pivot babe for the circle jerk

  21. Pingback: The Rhetoric of Patriarchy

Comments are closed.