John, you are evil. Just because you feel you've been cast out of heaven, you want to take the rest of us down with you. But I reject you, and all your works.
A BDSM relationship between a dominant husband and submissive wife is actually the ideal of marriage set out in Ephesians 5:22-26 taken to its logical conclusion!
22: Yeah, it's really not, and a lot of it is actually nearly identical to traditional Judaism. So like I said, I would be okay with Christians following these rules.
35: Sure, but they seem like a definite improvement over the status quo among practicing Christians. Still bad, but not as bad. It's kind of a moot point, though, since no one's actually doing this stuff.
Basically, all my statements are made in comparison with the sex rules contained in Christianity as it is actually practiced right now, and my conclusion is that these rules would be better. Not much better, but better.
Not to, um, ruin your fun, but I can't resist the temptation to relate what is my favorite interpretation of this doubting Thomas business. I have a friend who, as a student of religion, was aghast that everyone takes this as a reproachment to doubt. I.e. "Doubting Thomas!" is a epithet of disdain and dismissal. His interpretation is that it should be one of honor, and that what Jesus was saying was, "Yes, if you doubt, test your doubt as the opportunity presents itself and see if the faith that is asked of you holds up. Don't be an unbeliever when you have the opportunity to be a believer who has come by his faith honestly." So yes, sometimes you have to take faith on pure faith. But when the opportunity is offered to you, test it---don't miss out on the chance.
I'm afraid I know nothing of fisting, and so cannot add that to the equation, but I always liked my friend's interpretation.
Don't worry, I was just about out of things to say in that conversation. Your friend's interpretation is interesting; is there a lot of support for it in the exegetical tradition?
My father -- a non-believer but who was raised as a Catholic -- has always been quite proud of his name (Tom) for precisely the reasons given in 59. That Thomas, the doubter, is a figure to be admired rather than disdained.
The interpretation of Saheli's friend might not be orthodox one (and I really wouldn't know whether it is or is not) but it's not a totally uncommon one either, it would seem.
A wife may even anally penetrate her partner with a strap-on dildo if he enjoys this, and if their respective roles as husband and wife are secure outside of the bedroom.
i like saheli's friend's interpretation. but also feel compelled to point out that the doubting thomas business is almost definitely slander, an attempt to discredit the author of the Gospel of Thomas, which is older than most of the gospels accepted into the bible (cf. Nag Hammadi scrolls). This Thomas was the brother of Jesus (his name literally means "twin"). He was Peter's rival for passing down the teachings of JEsus. Where Peter reinterpreted a lot of stuff in the light of Jesus' apparently shameful death on the cross, bringing in the heavy emphasis in christianity on sacrifice, sin, jesus' gruesome suffering and notions of an afterlife as reward, thomas' text sticks to the actual sayings and teachings of jesus rather than focusing on his life & miracles - which was almost definitely a distortion of the historical jesus' teachings. for thomas, jesus is a prophet in the tradition of prophets, who teaches that the kingdom of god is HERE AMIDST us, not in another world, and it's better to give up possessions and attempt to realize it emotionally & spiritually now, instead of bothering about an institutional church...
just thought i'd get that off my chest.
at while i'm at it, has anyone heard radio ads directed towards evangelical christians whose faith has been shaken by the Da Vinci Code movie? my mother has and says it's been a serious threat to the faith of a lot of holy rollers. which was interesting to me because i thought stick-your-head-in-the-sand faith like that couldn't be threatened, from any angle, because it is too ideological.
clearly somebody needs to make a movie with that new Gospel of Judas that national geographic is hawking.
well, you can't speak of "accepted fact" when it comes to bible philology -- educated deductions is more like it. that said, the sayings and parables common to the gospel of thomas, the gospels accepted into the bible, and the source most people call Q, are all almost certainly contemporaneous to the historical jesus. the interpretations you see added onto those parables were almost certainly added on at a later date, and support later evolutions of church structure and institutionalization.
i wasn't thinking of elaine pagels particularly, though i like her work. all serious bible scholars and philologists agree that enormous changes and additions and distortions were made as christianity transitioned to becoming an institution after jesus' death. just think of the famous and well-established mistranslation of the hebrew word for "maiden" as "virgin" in early texts, leading to official church dogma of a virgin birth.
should have been: "the interpretations added onto parables that jesus spoke, transcribed in the new testament bible text," are almost certainly later interpolations.
The specific claims you made in 66 - vis a vis Thomas as actual rather than metaphorical twin, and the claim that the gnostic interpretation of Christ as teaching that the kingdom of God is here among us was the 'original' teaching and that the later Catholic tradition is a modification, etc. It's my understanding that that's roughly Pagels' view and the view of others who share a similar perspective rather than anything like orthodoxy.
Of course, as you say, the whole field is confused and there is no *one* orthodox interpretation. I just wanted to point out that the 'Pagelian' sort of a view is only one among many. There's some Jesuits who might disagree.
Anyway, as you say, it's a side issue.
Early Christian history is confusing but fascinating stuff even for a non-Christian like me. I do wish I knew more about it.
IIRC, there still exist old Christian groups who honor St. Thomas, in India (Kerala).
What we think of as Christianity was put together over the period of centuries, ending in certain councils around 500 AD, and then heavily revised to fit German culture around 800 AD or so, and then heavily revised again during the Reformation period.
On the other hand, who cares what the original Jesus said? The only reason he's a big deal is because his name has been used by the various other, later people. It's not like we know he was a great teacher any other way.
that the historical jesus' teachings were not preoccupied with sin, sacrifice, and an afterlife, --that these things are a later modifications based on jesus' biography--is pretty well attested.
it's also pretty well attested too that jesus said the kingdom of god is amidst us -- though scholars argue whether he said it's within us or around us. paying attention to records of jesus' sayings that predate the biblical gospels don't necessarily = gnosticism. Q isn"t gnostic text - it's earlier than the biblical gospels and a lot of the gnostic texts too.
otherwise i agree: whether or not thomas is literally the twin of jesus, or his brother but not twin, or a disciple with fancy rhetoric, is much more up for debate.
It's not like we know he was a great teacher any other way.
Where are Jesus's teaching evaluations, eh? I'd like to see those found in a clay jar in the Sinai somewhere. "Cool guy, but grades too hard." "Nice haircut." "Too much assigned reading, exam questions not clear." "Plays favorites with some disciples."
I hate it when I join conversations late with something slightly OT, and you hate it too, I'm sure, but I highly recommend God's Gym, a wonderful book on homoeroticism and God's relationship with various ancient Jewish dudes. It makes an excellent case for the possibility that King David, the "man after God's own heart," was actually getting schtupped by YHWH, and that the dance celebrating the return of the Ark was an erotic private dance (with a big fake phallus) for God's titillation, and so forth. God also sodomizes and gives VD to a huge population of unbelievers at one point.
And don't even get me started about Secret Mark and Jesus having sex with a rich gay zombie boy!
Oh for god's sake. Fisting is great. You don't have to want to do it, but I don't see why it has to be dangerous if you take it slowly and don't force anything.
I'm pretty sure I saw IDP at the Loyola stop this morning. I hate it when you get that "I know that person" feeling, but the realization of who doesn't hit you until five minutes later when it's too late to say hi.
even more OT: Is "you take things too seriously" as bad as "I think you're reading too much into it"?
Sadly, no, I don't have those kinds of powers. I have met him before.
Although one time, I was on the train, and recognized this guy that I had corresponded with a couple times (and seen a picture of) but had never met, and went up to him and was like "hey, I'm so-and-so."
That was awkward, especially when we both got off the train at the same stop and ended up walking the same direction to our houses which were one block apart, and so what I meant to be a "hi" ended up being like a 20-minute awkward conversation.
Hey, White Bear, I'm going to join you in offering educational reading material that's only slightly on topic. (Well, it kind of responds to Wolfson's post.)
Anywho, if you want to read all about Christ and his wounds as feminized, read medieval theologians or mystics, or just skip to the secondary material that pulls it all together for you and read Caroline Walker Bynum's Jesus as Mother, wherein his wounds are not just vagina-like, but his blood is also breast milk.
Or, if you prefer your Christ more masculine and, potentially, homoerotic, read Leo Steinberg's The Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art and Modern Oblivion. (Lots of pictures where Christ has a hard-on. No fisting, I'm afraid.)
If the receiver is really, really aroused, it doesn't have to be that slow. The attraction? Being penetrated by something really, really big. Being totally full.
Also, there's just something about the focused attention. When a guy is fucking you with his dick, he is (of course) somewhat distracted by how good it feels to him. With fingers, hands and/or mouth, it's all about you. Extra bonus if your arousal is making him hard. It can be a nice li'l feedback loop.
Though I still don't get it. Feeling "full" is one thing, but, for instance, guys like tight spaces and I've never heard of sticking your dick in a vice becoming much of a trend. Seems overkill to me.
Incidentally, if that's the level of attention you're used to receiving from a guy, you REALLY need to throw that dork who wouldn't get you a cab or throw an orgasm your way to the curb! :)
It's exactly the fact that you would have to be very slow, careful and deliberate that makes it seem a whole lot more like a gyno exam than a sex act.
Anal sex is also "very slow, careful, and deliberate," at least in the early stages. Both anal sex and, I suspect, fisting (haven't done the latter) can have a sexily ritualistic quality, precisely because there's no such thing as an anal/fisting "quickie." As Bitch Ph.D. says, the fuckee has to be the focus of the fucker's attention. (Hegel's master/slave bit comes to mind of course.)
106: Just in the loose sense, common to S/M, that the bottom appears to be dominated/"losing" but in significant respects is in control/"winning."
Not suggesting a close reading of Lordship & Bondage as S/M treatise, tho when I was reading "Story of O" the same semester as the PhG, the idea of a porn version of the PhG *did* seem like a good one. "Story of G"?
I was curious because an important characteristic of the lord in that section seems to be that he lacks self-consciousness, while the fister must be careful and, in that respect, fully aware of the implications of his actions.
I resist the idea that it has anything to do with S/M.
Not necessarily, of course, but YMMV. I would only point out that some of the S/M dynamic permeates a lot of plain vanilla sex, but I'd hope to dodge the less than fruitful on/off-our-backs debates ....
Similarly, as for care/consciousness, *playing* at a lack of same can be part of the dynamic. Just as the (bottom's? but that invokes Bitch Ph.D.'s objection, & "receptive partner" is so legalistic ...)fuckee's "control" is in fact mutually consented to. In Hegel, people really are being enslaved, which is just another reason the PhG does not actually work so well as a sex manual.
Eh, I'm not convinced by the whole "some of the S/M dynamic permeates a lot of plain vanilla sex" claim. I mean, sure: sex involves exchange, aggression, reception, passivity, activity, etc. etc., in various combinations and at various times. But I think the connections can be overstated.
Well, we tend to overstate the connections that work for us, & avoid dating people who overstate the one's we'd rather understate .... Obviously the S/M resonances work for me--I'm a lawyer ....
No, gswift wants the barbed brush of freakishness, and he doesn't want it slow. Speaking of tingling, burning sensations (maybe this should go in the VD thread?), my idiot roommate nearly killed us all. He left something in the oven and left the oven on. Apparently we do not have a smoke detector. I just tried knocking vigorously on his door to tell him about this, but he's not answering even though I'm pretty sure he's in there. Maybe he's asleep. Oh well. I flooded the apartment a week ago. But I cleaned it up before anyone got home.
Yeah -- it was actually a little weird to read Bitch Ph. D.'s 108 -- it seems to me like I have read her arguing before that a key property of subtext is that you do not have to be conscious of it for it to affect you -- and it seems to me like S/M (to which I hasten to clarify, I am entirely a stranger) is at least in part a vocalization* of a subtext that is present in sex.
*Right word? I am trying to say "this subtext is there but unspoken; in practicing S/M somebody is giving it a name, bringing it out into the open and playing with it".
108 does open with 'sure'. I don't think she's denying that you can look at it that way; just asserting that the importance of S&M as a tool for understanding all sex can be overstated.
Of course the argument MK puts forward in 121 is there to be made. I think I'm still reacting to the Great Blow Job debate, which in part hinged on the question of whether bjs are inherently submissive/degrading.
123 -- yeah, I'm pretty agnostic about the merits of the argument. Just that it seemed like 108 was denying that it could possibly exist or have any merit in a way that seemed uncharacteristic coming from you.
I read that thread. In fact, I felt a kind of evil satisfaction that a vanilla ox was being gored. I certainly don't think bj's are inherently submissive anyway; on the contrary, they often make you feel powerful. But that goes back to the idea that power, aggression, exchange, &c. are present in vanilla sex.
But I oscillate constantly between insisting that there is no fixed meaning and dogmatically asserting the Way Things Are! Maybe it's been too long since my last absolutist declaration. I'll have to come up with something.
No, seriously, where is it? Just so I feel fully informed on the subject. Should it come up. And maybe most importantly, is "great" modifying "debate" or "blow job"?
136 - B, that's more tired than the BJ debate. Don't tell me that next we're going to go into "if all sexual relationships have D/S dynamics, is marriage institutionalizing blah blah blah." If we're going to talk blowjobs or BDSM, make it good.
There aren't any women bloggers because they're too busy making submissive eye contact while giving blowjobs that to the uneducated eye look like sexual assault and fantasies from porn, but to the educated eye are what's really going on in every bedroom.*
*Unless it's BDSM. Because then it's an ironicblowjob.
"I'm pretty sure in a world where men and women were equal, people would continue to go down on each other."
Absolutely. I'm almost as sure that there would continue to be S/M. I think, at least much of the time, the origins of masochism are damaged trust in one's childhood, and difficulty trusting in adulthood. It's erotic to be forced into a position of near-absolute trust in someone, even if it's only pretend near-absolute. About sadism, I'm much less sure. For one, it's less common (tops are hard to find) and for another I'm sure many tops aren't actually sadistic, but take vicarious pleasure through their bottoms.
And things like that don't go away when everyone is equal. They go away when parents stop fucking up their children.
OK, I've only just found one of the Great Blow Job debate entries, so maybe it sucks, and I'll realize that shortly, but so far it looks like sister-shaming is worth the price of admission.
pdf23ds, I'm inclined to agree with you about the impulses leading to bdsm, but I'm not sure there would be bdsm if there were no patriarchy, because I think patriarchy may be what makes sex the kind of crazy fantasy heal our booboos space it is. But I'm not wedded to any opinion.
Words I don't identify with w/r/t sex: "masochist," "irony," "game."
156: You may be right about that. On the other hand, S/M play doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sex. I imagine the humiliation and slut-shaming aspects would disappear from S/M play (and I imagine many feminists wouldn't be into those aspects currently), but there's plenty to BDSM besides that.
Also, I don't use the word "masochist", since "bottom" is there and much better. But I don't believe "bottomism" makes a great neologism.
Forgive me for my stubbornness, but what is so submissive about the mid-blowjob eye contact? I can understand the argument that the blowjob itself is submissive/degrading (although I do not agree), but why does the submission reside/get intensified by the eye contact?
171: Dude, don't ask me. I suppose if the argument is that bjs are degrading, then being sure you can watch someone watching you degrade yourself is doubly degrading.
171: I was wondering that myself. Here I am, someone who actively seeks out submissive feelings, and I've never experienced eye contact that way. It's always more like "Hey there, baby." A way to increase intimacy and connection.
171, 175: Honestly, it never occurred to me, but the impressions I got from the Twisty/Pandagon threads was that the eye contact request originated in porn cinematography, so a guy requesting it is like him requesting you to be his porn star (submissive, attendant to his needs, etc.)
slut-shaming aspects would disappear from S/M play (and I imagine many feminists wouldn't be into those aspects currently)
I don't know that that's true. One's conscious beliefs and one's subconscious desires often aren't aligned all that well, right? (See, TMK? Back to normal!)
I remember suddenly that someone's kitty was struck and killed by a car today, and I am so sad for that kitty, and for that someone who had to find out.
I o-earnestly, fervently believe that if all voting Americans understood praeteritio, litotes, and a few other rhetorical devices, all our political problems would vanish.
To be replaced by other, far more sophisticated ones, of course.
186: You don't know if my parenthetical remark is true, or whether the first part is true? Because of course the second part isn't always true--many people come to feminism after being brought up in grossly misogynistic environments, well after their psychosexual development is more or less finished. But I stand by the first part.
Slut-shaming! I was pretty excited about reading that book, The Myth of the Teenage Slut or whatever it was called, but then it sucked. Absolutely horrible writing and organization.
Someone wrote that I was a slut in the girls' bathroom in 7th grade. Good times.
OK, I've become a little bored by the GBJD. I haven't read anywhere near all of the comments, but it seemed mostly like people were neither overly earnest or o-earnest. Pretty fun, and a few laugh-out-loud funny moments along the way. It reminded me a bit of here.
So, Tim, what you're saying was that it started out really fun, then you got kind of tired, and then a little bored, and then wished it would just finish up already?
127–n-1 (where this comment is n) are an interesing snap shot of male-female dynamics on Unfogged.
A couple of months ago I was talking to somone in a conversation that ended with him saying to me, "who the fuck are you talking to that you frequently need to look up the names for rhetorical forms?" And my answering, "my invisible blog friends."
Actually, B, what lured me was the word Twisty, because every thread I've ever read there had a yet-more-unbelievable explosion of stupid from Pony. And this one was no different. She might be my favorite commenter in all of the world.
216: That is such crap, Apostropher. Pony isn't a particularly noteworthy commenter on the Twisty's thread. (At least through the point which I've read.) She doesn't have any particularly great lines. And Puffin's the one who appears to have ruined everything, not Pony.
Tim, she goes from "I've never given nor received oral sex" to "I was a prostitute, so I'm one of the few who actually knows what blowjobs REALLY are about." And it only takes a few dozen comments to travel that entire distance. Now that's some kind of special.
Past jewels include "Porn is to women what Auschwitz was to Jews." And my personal favorite, after she was plainly shown to have never read a book she had just recommended:
I'm recommending it because it's going to inform us on this subject. Did you think recommended means "I've read this and believe it and agree with it"? That veers into religion.
Really, I look forward to seeing her show up every time I venture over to Twisty's. She's like a bottomless pitcher of idiocy and overreaction.
Oh, she hasn't claimed to be one. But I'm finding the oscillation between 'old woman who lived before blow jobs' and 'former sultry prostitute' and 'omg I hate porn' to be someone's parody of what he thinks a feminist poster should be saying.
Pony's a troll, no? You see the name, and you keep on moving. No one seems to be actually responding to her (FWIW, I also assume s/he is really a guy). Puffin is, to the point I've read, clearly Womyn of the Match.
I remain disappointed that no one seems to have used the phrase "shame spiral." That seems like a gimmee.
Also, people there did respond to Pony, made reference to Pony's blog, inquired about Pony's welfare. P may be an agent provocateur, but I don't think the other people there know it if so.
Huh. I thought it was only one or two people who kept responding to Pony, and most of her comments were one line sentences. But I don't know anything at all about that blog beyond that thread.
I know a million other people have said stuff like this, but I feel like saying it anyway: the thing that's so impoverished about twisty-esque ideologies is that they don't offer a way to live in the world. They're so convinced that we [the set of women who enjoy things they believe constitute obeisance to patriarchy] don't understand how much politics and ideology structure our actions and choices. But in fact, a lot of us do understand that, but further understand that politics and ideology are not the only things that give us desires and beliefs; we have lives as individuals; we have relationships with individuals. We can look at certain things we want and recognize their troubling origin but still find a way to make them our own. We all have our own interpretive faculties. If I spend an hour curling my hair on a Saturday night, I know tricksy patriarchy is rubbing its hands together in glee that I'm expending so much effort. So that means I should rob myself of the pleasure of self adornment? Shear my hair? Because it's not like patriarchy ever demanded that women looked plain. It seems to me that defending my freedom, paying attention both to what I want and how what I want was constructed, and being compassionate to others is the best way to be a person in the world, instead of an ideological construct on paper. Also, writing a post that was explicitly intended to pit people against each other unconstructively? Kind of patriarchal.
What strikes me about reading many of Twisty's commenters is the following: My experience is X, therefore the universal experience is X, and any non-X experience is invalid.
Or, I've read about X in a book and it was bad, therefore the universal experience is X and bad, and therefore, if you say X isn't bad, you obviously are a poor deluded soul who hasn't thought it through.
To piggyback on 229: It's probably also worthwhile to note that if one did try to live by explicitly rejecting the 'patriarchy' (god, I hate that term) at every possible instance, it would have just as much control over your life as if you were marching in lockstep with the fashion mags.
I mostly agree with 299, but I love Twisty because she fuckin' takes it to the next level, you know?
Also, one thing I don't like about the hard-line ideologies is that you simply can not maintain them without a twinge of sister-shaming. Because sometimes one makes choices that constitute, as Tia said, obeisance to the patriarchy, and either a) one knowingly made that choice, in which case, sister-shaming, or b) one didn't knowingly make the choice, in which case, seriously insult to one's intelligence.
Patriarchy is all about making women slaves to the approval of others, in this case, this dubious expectations of men. The hard-line on marriage, hetero sex, blowjobs, poses the danger of women again making choices for the approval of an entirely different set.
The other night, I had a strange dream that I was in a lovely relationship, and that the dude in question proposed to me (wtf?!). I remember that my first thought in the dream was "how will I ever tell my friends?"
I have to say that I'm sort of fond of the hardline ideological patriarchy blamers, because they expand the universe of discourse.When you've got unreasonable people on one side of an issue, you need them out on the other side to balance, or you end up with:
Person A: I get all the cake.
Person B: No, let's split it equally.
Honest Broker: If you can't agree, we'll have to compromise. A gets 3/4, B gets 1/4.
Reasonable as B is, the end result would be a lot more reasonable if B were a little less so. (Not that this applies literally to the BJ debate, which I got bored with fairly quickly.)
I guess that's true, but I think they might also restrict the number of people, and in particular, women, who take that discourse seriously. I sometimes come across anecdotes that suggest such restriction. I don't know how much of that is "Modern Love" stories, though.
When you've got unreasonable people on one side of an issue, you need them out on the other side to balance
Absolutely. My negotiation skills are not as refined as to put it so eloquently as your example, but I've thought that same thing about, say, Dworkin. You need people all the way on the other side from where the status quo is to pull you to reasonable. Reasonable people won't pull you to reasonable, they'll pull you halfway between batshit crazy and reasonable.
On the other hand, this same justification for the hardliners seems to imply that there's some merit to playing devil's advocate for its own sake, which I think is fuckin' bullshit and people who love to play devil's advocate without acknowledging that they are doing so and then later when you try to attack their premises say "oh, I'm only playing devil's advocate" annoy the fucking piss out of me.
Patriarchy is all about making women slaves to the approval of others, in this case, this dubious expectations of men.
Except it doesn't, really. The discussions tend to go two ways:
1) Patriarchy is slavery, therefore we must resist it by doing the exact opposite.
As Tia and silvana noted, this leads to sister-shaming and just as narrow a range of options as the patriarchy devotee.
So, we conclude it's not prescriptive, but
2) Patriarchy is slavery, therefore we must resist it by thinking about it really really hard before we put on our corsets.
And that doesn't seem to be much better. If it's really slavery, then promising to think about it really hard and acknowledge the underlying conditions isn't really an improvement. ("I've decided I like these chains. No, really!") Witness: Hirshman's opting-out moms, who are probably claiming they've thought really hard about dropping out -- but it's still not a choice that promotes equality.
2) doesn't seem to stand up to intellectual scrutiny.
1) does - which is why Twisty's argument was a lot of fun - but then you've got an even narrower range of acceptable choices and we get into nasty sister-shaming.
So, while I'm not going to deny that culture shapes expectations of gender roles, because I'm not retarded, I'm wondering if the concept 'patriarchy' should be relegated to the scrap heap with 'choice feminism.'
and people who love to play devil's advocate without acknowledging that they are doing so and then later when you try to attack their premises say "oh, I'm only playing devil's advocate" annoy the fucking piss out of me.
I seriously lost a friend over the devil's advocate thing. I was like, either have a fucking opinion and own it and take responsibility for it, or shut the fuck up and stop telling me that "it's fun to make people think." It's unbelievably condescending.
Eh, I'm not convinced. It strikes me as analogous to "We must do the opposite of whatever Osama bin Laden wants, regardless of what that is." Osama is opposed to cancer, everybody smoke up!
Another good example of the shaky legs of 1) was the roller derby thread, which basically boiled down to "you can't dress however you like because men might look at you."
I think a "devil's advocate" can be a good thing, as long as the advocator doesn't just drop the argument whenever he or she gets bored with it, but follows it through the whole way to admitting defeat.
But I would generally only use a devil's advocate tactic in argument with someone whose conclusions I agree with but whose reasons I think are weak. A devil's advocate argument can show why they need to adopt better reasons.
246: Yeah, but I think it's disingenous to pretend that you believe something you don't just to rattle someone else. I prefer full disclosure: "In principle agree with you, but [group of people who disagrees with us] would say that [counterargument]. What would you say to that?"
And I found that people tend to pull the whole "I'm playing devil's advocate thing" when they see that you've bested them, or you're at least starting to. This would happen to me in college all the time with men who were used to intellectually intimidating 18-year-olds into agreement and/or silence.
Another reason you might play the devil's advocate is if you think someone hold some position to unreflectively or vehemently--that they're not justified in being so sure of their position.
I agree, though, that being contrary solely for the sake of being contrary can be a big pain in the ass.
245: To the extent that, say, if I really believe high heels are slavery, really believe it, and then I reject them, I'm being consistent. A view can be crazy while being intellectually defensible. This is why we have philosophers.
And I think devil's advocate is fine as long as the person playing devil's advocate steps up to the plate and digs in when challenged (and admits defeat when defeated) rather than going 'ooh, don't hate me, it was only devil's advocate.' Because arguing isn't about making people like you or cheerleading for your side.
I think Twisty acknowledges that constant resistance is another form of response to the p word. She thinks you can't step outside it. I just think she's wrong that the only way to interpret everything you do is political. If a woman's giving a man a blow job, it's true that one of them is a member of dominant class A, the other a member of subserviant class B, but they are also two individuals who have a relationship not outside of that, but in addition to it. That's the thing she'll never credit. And it's reductive and deeply confused about how people live their lives. Symbols and acts can mean more than one thing.
Now that's religion!
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:30 PM
Caravaggio thought otherwise.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:34 PM
You know, fisting can be fun, but the fisting / Christiantiy combination seriously icks me out. I may now be scarred for life.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:35 PM
Yeah, but that Caravaggio is still pertty sexual. It looks like Thomas is playing wih his nipple.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:35 PM
I disagree.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:36 PM
Do NOT click on 5. GOATSE.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:36 PM
Ah, the goatse man. No matter how many times you see it, it still gets ya right there.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:37 PM
I'm pretty sure the site is fake. Check out the oral sex page.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:37 PM
John, you are evil. Just because you feel you've been cast out of heaven, you want to take the rest of us down with you. But I reject you, and all your works.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:38 PM
4: I meant about finger vs. fist.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:39 PM
So it's actually fingering that echoes Thomas's doubt. Fisting is still good because of the Fist of Might, though.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:41 PM
4: I meant about finger vs. fist.
You can't just haul off and sock your fist up there, jeez, eb.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:41 PM
Jesus was a feminist:
(1) To avoid the impropriety of male homosexuality, a heterosexual couple should not under any circumstances form a threesome with another man.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:42 PM
Ben si so converting to Christianity:
A BDSM relationship between a dominant husband and submissive wife is actually the ideal of marriage set out in Ephesians 5:22-26 taken to its logical conclusion!
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:44 PM
Baudelaire has a poem - one of the banned - where he takes a similar analogy to sickening levels.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:46 PM
14: I suspect that that quotation actually pretty much nails it. Fuckin' fundies.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:49 PM
Check out the question-answer section.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:50 PM
EWWWWWWWWW
Fisting period is pure ICK.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:50 PM
The site is obviously a spoof.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:50 PM
(I know that 19 is obvious. I'm just drunk enough that I figured I needed ot say it to remind myself.)
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:52 PM
If there really were a type of Christianity like this, though, I would totally be in favor of other people practicing it.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:53 PM
It's not too off the wall though. i mean, is their "oral sex is OK as long as she swallows" really all that different from the Catholic "oral sex is OK, but only as foreplay"?
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 10:59 PM
18: Okay, honestly, why?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:00 PM
The woman doesn't have to swallow, though; read the first question and answer in the Q&A page. If the man swallows, that's cool too.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:03 PM
Ah, i missed that. Just don't get any on your clothes.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:04 PM
What if you suck the stains out?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:05 PM
22: Yeah, it's really not, and a lot of it is actually nearly identical to traditional Judaism. So like I said, I would be okay with Christians following these rules.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:07 PM
27: I think that by and large these rules do sum up a lot of unarticulated Christian practice. They're sexist, though.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:08 PM
Becks, your typing has improved dramatically.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:08 PM
#23
Just one of those things that for me scores too high on my arbritrary plot of dangerous vs. gross.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:09 PM
i'm starting to sober up a bit. I still have to pack tonight.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:10 PM
Vaginal fisting is gross? I can see the fear of danger, but the yuck factor?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:10 PM
I think that by and large these rules do sum up a lot of unarticulated Christian practice.
Perhaps. They do seem to go against a lot of traditional Christian teachings, though.
They're sexist, though.
Well, duh. If you want non-sexist religion, you're looking at the wrong tradition.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:13 PM
Just seems to be a disturbingly large object to be cramming up there.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:13 PM
Yeah, but on the sexist grounds I'd have a problem with (do have a problem with) people practicing them.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:13 PM
34: Okay, fair enough. I was just wondering.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:15 PM
35: Sure, but they seem like a definite improvement over the status quo among practicing Christians. Still bad, but not as bad. It's kind of a moot point, though, since no one's actually doing this stuff.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:16 PM
Bah. You all sure aren't commenting fast enough to help me procrastinate from packing.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:18 PM
And maybe it's because I'd feel like I was crossing the line from lover to puppeteer.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:19 PM
39: Y'all are determined to just ruin everything, aren't you?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:22 PM
What do you mean "y'all"?
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:23 PM
(Come on, Becks wants us to pick up the pace.)
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:24 PM
There's a "puppet master" joke around here somewhere but I can't find it.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:26 PM
Well, you're the one saying you've got no problem with sexist sex rules.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:26 PM
For my next trick I will make a woman orgasm while I drink a glass of water.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:26 PM
Well, you're the one saying you've got no problem with sexist sex rules.
I don't recall saying that.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:28 PM
Look ma! No hands!
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:28 PM
46: Dude! 21 and 27!
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:29 PM
Look at 37, though.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:30 PM
Like most commencements, mine was pretty unremarkable. Except for the class poem about fisting.
Posted by Ess Bee | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:36 PM
Oof. I'm going to bed and am going to pack in the morning. This is probably a Very Bad Decision.
This is the night of Very Bad Decisions. Don't mix gin and tonics, dark and stormys, Burgundy wine, and sketchy, ill-gotten absinthe.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:37 PM
Basically, all my statements are made in comparison with the sex rules contained in Christianity as it is actually practiced right now, and my conclusion is that these rules would be better. Not much better, but better.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:37 PM
This is the night of Very Bad Decisions. Don't mix gin and tonics, dark and stormys, Burgundy wine, and sketchy, ill-gotten absinthe.
Words to live by.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:38 PM
52: You may have a point, but that fails to justify being "okay" with those rules, no?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:39 PM
(I'm really just arguing out of idleness. In case that's not clear. I don't actually have much of a dog in this fight.)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:40 PM
I'll concede that my phrasing in 27 was suboptimal.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:41 PM
55: Me too. I'm not even Christian.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:41 PM
Right. Well, neither am I, depending on who you ask.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:44 PM
Not to, um, ruin your fun, but I can't resist the temptation to relate what is my favorite interpretation of this doubting Thomas business. I have a friend who, as a student of religion, was aghast that everyone takes this as a reproachment to doubt. I.e. "Doubting Thomas!" is a epithet of disdain and dismissal. His interpretation is that it should be one of honor, and that what Jesus was saying was, "Yes, if you doubt, test your doubt as the opportunity presents itself and see if the faith that is asked of you holds up. Don't be an unbeliever when you have the opportunity to be a believer who has come by his faith honestly." So yes, sometimes you have to take faith on pure faith. But when the opportunity is offered to you, test it---don't miss out on the chance.
I'm afraid I know nothing of fisting, and so cannot add that to the equation, but I always liked my friend's interpretation.
Posted by Saheli | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:49 PM
Don't worry, I was just about out of things to say in that conversation. Your friend's interpretation is interesting; is there a lot of support for it in the exegetical tradition?
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 11:52 PM
If there really were a type of Christianity like this
Actually, you might want to check out the Free Spirit heresy.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 12:11 AM
My father -- a non-believer but who was raised as a Catholic -- has always been quite proud of his name (Tom) for precisely the reasons given in 59. That Thomas, the doubter, is a figure to be admired rather than disdained.
The interpretation of Saheli's friend might not be orthodox one (and I really wouldn't know whether it is or is not) but it's not a totally uncommon one either, it would seem.
Posted by nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 12:28 AM
A wife may even anally penetrate her partner with a strap-on dildo if he enjoys this, and if their respective roles as husband and wife are secure outside of the bedroom.
Wisdom of Our Fathers and Words to live by.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 1:59 AM
When a woman performs oral sex on her partner, she is symbolically enacting drinking the living water of Christ.
I'm going to church Sunday, but only so that I can catch the rest of you there.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 2:06 AM
Be sure to catch the puppet show.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 2:20 AM
i like saheli's friend's interpretation. but also feel compelled to point out that the doubting thomas business is almost definitely slander, an attempt to discredit the author of the Gospel of Thomas, which is older than most of the gospels accepted into the bible (cf. Nag Hammadi scrolls). This Thomas was the brother of Jesus (his name literally means "twin"). He was Peter's rival for passing down the teachings of JEsus. Where Peter reinterpreted a lot of stuff in the light of Jesus' apparently shameful death on the cross, bringing in the heavy emphasis in christianity on sacrifice, sin, jesus' gruesome suffering and notions of an afterlife as reward, thomas' text sticks to the actual sayings and teachings of jesus rather than focusing on his life & miracles - which was almost definitely a distortion of the historical jesus' teachings. for thomas, jesus is a prophet in the tradition of prophets, who teaches that the kingdom of god is HERE AMIDST us, not in another world, and it's better to give up possessions and attempt to realize it emotionally & spiritually now, instead of bothering about an institutional church...
just thought i'd get that off my chest.
at while i'm at it, has anyone heard radio ads directed towards evangelical christians whose faith has been shaken by the Da Vinci Code movie? my mother has and says it's been a serious threat to the faith of a lot of holy rollers. which was interesting to me because i thought stick-your-head-in-the-sand faith like that couldn't be threatened, from any angle, because it is too ideological.
clearly somebody needs to make a movie with that new Gospel of Judas that national geographic is hawking.
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 3:45 AM
re: 66
That's Elaine Pagels, interpretation is it not? Rather than widely accepted fact.
Posted by nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 4:48 AM
well, you can't speak of "accepted fact" when it comes to bible philology -- educated deductions is more like it. that said, the sayings and parables common to the gospel of thomas, the gospels accepted into the bible, and the source most people call Q, are all almost certainly contemporaneous to the historical jesus. the interpretations you see added onto those parables were almost certainly added on at a later date, and support later evolutions of church structure and institutionalization.
i wasn't thinking of elaine pagels particularly, though i like her work. all serious bible scholars and philologists agree that enormous changes and additions and distortions were made as christianity transitioned to becoming an institution after jesus' death. just think of the famous and well-established mistranslation of the hebrew word for "maiden" as "virgin" in early texts, leading to official church dogma of a virgin birth.
how did we get off fist-fucking again?
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 5:33 AM
should have been: "the interpretations added onto parables that jesus spoke, transcribed in the new testament bible text," are almost certainly later interpolations.
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 5:35 AM
re: 68
The specific claims you made in 66 - vis a vis Thomas as actual rather than metaphorical twin, and the claim that the gnostic interpretation of Christ as teaching that the kingdom of God is here among us was the 'original' teaching and that the later Catholic tradition is a modification, etc. It's my understanding that that's roughly Pagels' view and the view of others who share a similar perspective rather than anything like orthodoxy.
Of course, as you say, the whole field is confused and there is no *one* orthodox interpretation. I just wanted to point out that the 'Pagelian' sort of a view is only one among many. There's some Jesuits who might disagree.
Anyway, as you say, it's a side issue.
Early Christian history is confusing but fascinating stuff even for a non-Christian like me. I do wish I knew more about it.
Now, back to fist-fucking ...
Posted by nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 5:59 AM
Fist-fucking is not nicely bouncy.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 7:08 AM
It's got to be a parody site, obviously.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 7:19 AM
72: Yeah, but what about the one in the link?
Posted by gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 7:31 AM
IIRC, there still exist old Christian groups who honor St. Thomas, in India (Kerala).
What we think of as Christianity was put together over the period of centuries, ending in certain councils around 500 AD, and then heavily revised to fit German culture around 800 AD or so, and then heavily revised again during the Reformation period.
On the other hand, who cares what the original Jesus said? The only reason he's a big deal is because his name has been used by the various other, later people. It's not like we know he was a great teacher any other way.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 7:43 AM
32: Most people are very accepting of anal fisting, but have serious reservations about vaginal fisting.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 7:49 AM
re: 70
that the historical jesus' teachings were not preoccupied with sin, sacrifice, and an afterlife, --that these things are a later modifications based on jesus' biography--is pretty well attested.
it's also pretty well attested too that jesus said the kingdom of god is amidst us -- though scholars argue whether he said it's within us or around us. paying attention to records of jesus' sayings that predate the biblical gospels don't necessarily = gnosticism. Q isn"t gnostic text - it's earlier than the biblical gospels and a lot of the gnostic texts too.
otherwise i agree: whether or not thomas is literally the twin of jesus, or his brother but not twin, or a disciple with fancy rhetoric, is much more up for debate.
is fist-fucking bouncy?
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 7:51 AM
It's not like we know he was a great teacher any other way.
Where are Jesus's teaching evaluations, eh? I'd like to see those found in a clay jar in the Sinai somewhere. "Cool guy, but grades too hard." "Nice haircut." "Too much assigned reading, exam questions not clear." "Plays favorites with some disciples."
Posted by gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 7:55 AM
Plays favorites with some disciples.
Teh funny.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 7:56 AM
"Too much prostletyzing. I am not paying to hear his personal opinions!"
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 8:03 AM
Prostletyzing should be a word.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 8:46 AM
You weren't aware of this popular term for prostatic depilatation?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 8:50 AM
Depilation.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 8:54 AM
Goddamnit. I knew I should have looked that shit up. I hate you people.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 9:00 AM
You sound irritable, like someone who's tired of shaving her prostate. Do I have just the thing for you.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 9:03 AM
SB, prostate messiah.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 9:07 AM
I hate it when I join conversations late with something slightly OT, and you hate it too, I'm sure, but I highly recommend God's Gym, a wonderful book on homoeroticism and God's relationship with various ancient Jewish dudes. It makes an excellent case for the possibility that King David, the "man after God's own heart," was actually getting schtupped by YHWH, and that the dance celebrating the return of the Ark was an erotic private dance (with a big fake phallus) for God's titillation, and so forth. God also sodomizes and gives VD to a huge population of unbelievers at one point.
And don't even get me started about Secret Mark and Jesus having sex with a rich gay zombie boy!
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 9:32 AM
I hate it when I join conversations late with something slightly OT, and you hate it too, I'm sure
God, that White Bear, always nattering on about something.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 9:55 AM
It's true, Bitch! I'm always like, "Funny you should mention it; I have a relevant anecdote that detracts from the fun of conversation!"
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 10:05 AM
Oh for god's sake. Fisting is great. You don't have to want to do it, but I don't see why it has to be dangerous if you take it slowly and don't force anything.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 10:06 AM
OT: Unfogged sighting!
I'm pretty sure I saw IDP at the Loyola stop this morning. I hate it when you get that "I know that person" feeling, but the realization of who doesn't hit you until five minutes later when it's too late to say hi.
even more OT: Is "you take things too seriously" as bad as "I think you're reading too much into it"?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 10:10 AM
90: Have you met before, or did you just feel it was IDP, in your bones?
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 10:13 AM
Sadly, no, I don't have those kinds of powers. I have met him before.
Although one time, I was on the train, and recognized this guy that I had corresponded with a couple times (and seen a picture of) but had never met, and went up to him and was like "hey, I'm so-and-so."
That was awkward, especially when we both got off the train at the same stop and ended up walking the same direction to our houses which were one block apart, and so what I meant to be a "hi" ended up being like a 20-minute awkward conversation.
Now I see him everywhere.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 10:17 AM
Hey, White Bear, I'm going to join you in offering educational reading material that's only slightly on topic. (Well, it kind of responds to Wolfson's post.)
Anywho, if you want to read all about Christ and his wounds as feminized, read medieval theologians or mystics, or just skip to the secondary material that pulls it all together for you and read Caroline Walker Bynum's Jesus as Mother, wherein his wounds are not just vagina-like, but his blood is also breast milk.
Or, if you prefer your Christ more masculine and, potentially, homoerotic, read Leo Steinberg's The Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art and Modern Oblivion. (Lots of pictures where Christ has a hard-on. No fisting, I'm afraid.)
Posted by Dr. Virago | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 10:22 AM
Serious question Tia. What's the attraction?
It's exactly the fact that you would have to be very slow, careful and deliberate that makes it seem a whole lot more like a gyno exam than a sex act.
More power to you. But I don't get it. Unlike, for instance, anal sex, which also doesn't much appeal to me, but at least I get it.
Posted by samuel | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 2:24 PM
If the receiver is really, really aroused, it doesn't have to be that slow. The attraction? Being penetrated by something really, really big. Being totally full.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 3:31 PM
Also, there's just something about the focused attention. When a guy is fucking you with his dick, he is (of course) somewhat distracted by how good it feels to him. With fingers, hands and/or mouth, it's all about you. Extra bonus if your arousal is making him hard. It can be a nice li'l feedback loop.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 3:36 PM
Ok, guys, we've gotta clean it up—my mom's hip to the game.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 3:41 PM
*waves to Ben's mom*
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 3:44 PM
Oh, Ben, I'm sure your mom knows all about fisting.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 3:45 PM
Fisting!
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 3:46 PM
Should have come up with a better pseudonym, Ben.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 3:57 PM
Fair enough answer I guess Tia.
Though I still don't get it. Feeling "full" is one thing, but, for instance, guys like tight spaces and I've never heard of sticking your dick in a vice becoming much of a trend. Seems overkill to me.
Posted by samuel | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 4:38 PM
Incidentally, if that's the level of attention you're used to receiving from a guy, you REALLY need to throw that dork who wouldn't get you a cab or throw an orgasm your way to the curb! :)
Posted by samuel | Link to this comment | 06-17-06 4:43 PM
What an education thread for naive little me. :-)
I'm talking about the gnostic interpretations of course.
Posted by Saheli | Link to this comment | 06-18-06 4:21 PM
It's exactly the fact that you would have to be very slow, careful and deliberate that makes it seem a whole lot more like a gyno exam than a sex act.
Anal sex is also "very slow, careful, and deliberate," at least in the early stages. Both anal sex and, I suspect, fisting (haven't done the latter) can have a sexily ritualistic quality, precisely because there's no such thing as an anal/fisting "quickie." As Bitch Ph.D. says, the fuckee has to be the focus of the fucker's attention. (Hegel's master/slave bit comes to mind of course.)
Posted by Anderson | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 1:46 PM
I'm not seeing it (the lord/bondsman thing). Expound?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 2:21 PM
106: Just in the loose sense, common to S/M, that the bottom appears to be dominated/"losing" but in significant respects is in control/"winning."
Not suggesting a close reading of Lordship & Bondage as S/M treatise, tho when I was reading "Story of O" the same semester as the PhG, the idea of a porn version of the PhG *did* seem like a good one. "Story of G"?
Posted by Anderson | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 2:26 PM
Ick. I resist the idea that it has anything to do with S/M. Not all sexual acts that involve attention and care are about dominance or submission.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 2:30 PM
I was curious because an important characteristic of the lord in that section seems to be that he lacks self-consciousness, while the fister must be careful and, in that respect, fully aware of the implications of his actions.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 2:31 PM
I resist the idea that it has anything to do with S/M.
Not necessarily, of course, but YMMV. I would only point out that some of the S/M dynamic permeates a lot of plain vanilla sex, but I'd hope to dodge the less than fruitful on/off-our-backs debates ....
Similarly, as for care/consciousness, *playing* at a lack of same can be part of the dynamic. Just as the (bottom's? but that invokes Bitch Ph.D.'s objection, & "receptive partner" is so legalistic ...)fuckee's "control" is in fact mutually consented to. In Hegel, people really are being enslaved, which is just another reason the PhG does not actually work so well as a sex manual.
Posted by Anderson | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 2:40 PM
. . . the bottom appears to be dominated/"losing" but in significant respects is in control/"winning."
Wait a second. You mean Michael's been winning? All this time??? That sneaky little bastard!!!
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 2:49 PM
Eh, I'm not convinced by the whole "some of the S/M dynamic permeates a lot of plain vanilla sex" claim. I mean, sure: sex involves exchange, aggression, reception, passivity, activity, etc. etc., in various combinations and at various times. But I think the connections can be overstated.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 2:52 PM
But I think the connections can be overstated.
Well, we tend to overstate the connections that work for us, & avoid dating people who overstate the one's we'd rather understate .... Obviously the S/M resonances work for me--I'm a lawyer ....
Posted by Anderson | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 2:54 PM
LOL. Fair enough. And kudos for a good-humored response. :)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 3:02 PM
I would only point out that some of the S/M dynamic permeates a lot of plain vanilla sex
This gets it exactly right.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 3:32 PM
What constitutes "plain vanilla" is a bit subjective. I resist your efforts to paint the rest of us with your brush of freakiness.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 4:06 PM
Whatever, freak.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 4:29 PM
I resist your efforts to paint the rest of us with your brush of freakiness.
Oh, come on, you know you WANT the brush of freakiness to be dragged lingeringly across your bare torso ...
Posted by Anderson | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 4:31 PM
No, gswift wants the barbed brush of freakishness, and he doesn't want it slow. Speaking of tingling, burning sensations (maybe this should go in the VD thread?), my idiot roommate nearly killed us all. He left something in the oven and left the oven on. Apparently we do not have a smoke detector. I just tried knocking vigorously on his door to tell him about this, but he's not answering even though I'm pretty sure he's in there. Maybe he's asleep. Oh well. I flooded the apartment a week ago. But I cleaned it up before anyone got home.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 5:29 PM
I second 115.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 7:08 PM
Yeah -- it was actually a little weird to read Bitch Ph. D.'s 108 -- it seems to me like I have read her arguing before that a key property of subtext is that you do not have to be conscious of it for it to affect you -- and it seems to me like S/M (to which I hasten to clarify, I am entirely a stranger) is at least in part a vocalization* of a subtext that is present in sex.
*Right word? I am trying to say "this subtext is there but unspoken; in practicing S/M somebody is giving it a name, bringing it out into the open and playing with it".
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 7:27 PM
108 does open with 'sure'. I don't think she's denying that you can look at it that way; just asserting that the importance of S&M as a tool for understanding all sex can be overstated.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 7:29 PM
No, not "sure," "ick."
Of course the argument MK puts forward in 121 is there to be made. I think I'm still reacting to the Great Blow Job debate, which in part hinged on the question of whether bjs are inherently submissive/degrading.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 7:34 PM
Hey did I mention my friend's client, who is trying to use his inherited wealth to open a BDSM B & B in the city?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 7:35 PM
Oh god, not that debate.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 7:36 PM
123 -- yeah, I'm pretty agnostic about the merits of the argument. Just that it seemed like 108 was denying that it could possibly exist or have any merit in a way that seemed uncharacteristic coming from you.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 7:39 PM
I read that thread. In fact, I felt a kind of evil satisfaction that a vanilla ox was being gored. I certainly don't think bj's are inherently submissive anyway; on the contrary, they often make you feel powerful. But that goes back to the idea that power, aggression, exchange, &c. are present in vanilla sex.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 7:41 PM
But I oscillate constantly between insisting that there is no fixed meaning and dogmatically asserting the Way Things Are! Maybe it's been too long since my last absolutist declaration. I'll have to come up with something.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 7:41 PM
127: Agreed.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 7:41 PM
By the end of the thread I was just pissed off at everyone for confusing 'I feel powerful' with 'I am empowered.'
Leaving the Sex Police aside, I'm pretty sure in a world where men and women were equal, people would continue to go down on each other.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 7:44 PM
Umm...where is the Great Blow Job Debate?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 7:52 PM
The great blow job debate was boring, Tim. Be glad you missed it.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 7:55 PM
I dunno. Where are all the women bloggers?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 7:56 PM
No, seriously, where is it? Just so I feel fully informed on the subject. Should it come up. And maybe most importantly, is "great" modifying "debate" or "blow job"?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 7:57 PM
Here's the reference. It was going on at Twisty's, Pandagon, and Feministe over the weekend.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 7:57 PM
Can men be feminists?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 7:57 PM
Toilet seat: up or down?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 7:59 PM
136 - B, that's more tired than the BJ debate. Don't tell me that next we're going to go into "if all sexual relationships have D/S dynamics, is marriage institutionalizing blah blah blah." If we're going to talk blowjobs or BDSM, make it good.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:00 PM
(Sorry, I'm cranky today.)
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:00 PM
Where are all the women bloggers?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:04 PM
Fine, Tia, but what I'd like to know is, where are all the women bloggers?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:05 PM
That's what I'm asking.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:06 PM
I can't hear you, I have a banana in my ear.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:08 PM
There aren't any women bloggers because they're too busy making submissive eye contact while giving blowjobs that to the uneducated eye look like sexual assault and fantasies from porn, but to the educated eye are what's really going on in every bedroom.*
*Unless it's BDSM. Because then it's an ironicblowjob.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:09 PM
Do you have a hearing aid?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:11 PM
I can't hear you, I have a banana in my ear.
Mmm...hott. Do you feel degraded or empowered?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:12 PM
Do oo huuh huh houwou oud?
Louder, sonny. Banana.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:13 PM
"I'm pretty sure in a world where men and women were equal, people would continue to go down on each other."
Absolutely. I'm almost as sure that there would continue to be S/M. I think, at least much of the time, the origins of masochism are damaged trust in one's childhood, and difficulty trusting in adulthood. It's erotic to be forced into a position of near-absolute trust in someone, even if it's only pretend near-absolute. About sadism, I'm much less sure. For one, it's less common (tops are hard to find) and for another I'm sure many tops aren't actually sadistic, but take vicarious pleasure through their bottoms.
And things like that don't go away when everyone is equal. They go away when parents stop fucking up their children.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:14 PM
Ben has a watermelon in his ear because he likes to feel totally full.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:15 PM
Huh. I didn't get to pet the kitty, but my comment still didn't register in the sidebar. Usually when that happens it's when I've pet the kitty.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:16 PM
150: I've also noticed that happening lately.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:18 PM
Ben has a watermelon in his ear because he likes to feel totally full.
Totally full.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:22 PM
If men can't be feminists, then isn't feminism itself sexist?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:24 PM
Also, is that "watermelon" thing some kind of racist crack? Hmm?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:26 PM
OK, I've only just found one of the Great Blow Job debate entries, so maybe it sucks, and I'll realize that shortly, but so far it looks like sister-shaming is worth the price of admission.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:26 PM
pdf23ds, I'm inclined to agree with you about the impulses leading to bdsm, but I'm not sure there would be bdsm if there were no patriarchy, because I think patriarchy may be what makes sex the kind of crazy fantasy heal our booboos space it is. But I'm not wedded to any opinion.
Words I don't identify with w/r/t sex: "masochist," "irony," "game."
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:27 PM
Becks, you have betrayed the sisterhood for the amusement of the Patriarchal Oppressors. Your membership is being revoked.
Oh fuck, that was me. Time for a self-criticism!
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:28 PM
Also, the first google result for "Twisty's" is neither the appropriate blog, nor SFW.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:29 PM
when parents stop fucking up their children
Yeah, well: this be the verse, bain't it?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:32 PM
Wait, I think I'm on to something.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:32 PM
If relativism is true…
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:33 PM
Then the Unhappy Consciousness is due to emerge?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:34 PM
From your ear.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:35 PM
... then relativism is false!
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:36 PM
156: You may be right about that. On the other hand, S/M play doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sex. I imagine the humiliation and slut-shaming aspects would disappear from S/M play (and I imagine many feminists wouldn't be into those aspects currently), but there's plenty to BDSM besides that.
Also, I don't use the word "masochist", since "bottom" is there and much better. But I don't believe "bottomism" makes a great neologism.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:36 PM
159: I had that in mind while writing my comment. I hesitated to write "fuck the children", though.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:37 PM
Relativism didn't really stand a chance, did it?
Let's do materialism next.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:38 PM
Actually, rereading that, it does say "fuck up". Huh. I wonder why I misremembered.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:38 PM
159: but that's not what "fuck up" means there, as I thought I'd ably demonstrated elsewhere.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:38 PM
I wonder why I misremembered.
I'm going to resist the cheap shots.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:39 PM
Forgive me for my stubbornness, but what is so submissive about the mid-blowjob eye contact? I can understand the argument that the blowjob itself is submissive/degrading (although I do not agree), but why does the submission reside/get intensified by the eye contact?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:40 PM
ably demonstrated
I loved that post, Ben, but "ably" isn't the word I'd use.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:40 PM
171: Dude, don't ask me. I suppose if the argument is that bjs are degrading, then being sure you can watch someone watching you degrade yourself is doubly degrading.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:41 PM
I'll let slol's use of praeteriteo pass without comment.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:42 PM
171: I was wondering that myself. Here I am, someone who actively seeks out submissive feelings, and I've never experienced eye contact that way. It's always more like "Hey there, baby." A way to increase intimacy and connection.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:42 PM
Here it be.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:42 PM
That be the kitty.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:43 PM
I won't explain that I feel entitled to praeteritio, as a safer indulgence than drinking oneself blind, once in a blue moon.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:44 PM
171, 175: Honestly, it never occurred to me, but the impressions I got from the Twisty/Pandagon threads was that the eye contact request originated in porn cinematography, so a guy requesting it is like him requesting you to be his porn star (submissive, attendant to his needs, etc.)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:45 PM
175: Yeah, it's just like a communication substitute. You can't exactly say anything, because, well, you're busy.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:45 PM
That's an odd use of the subjunctive, teofilo. Or maybe you're a pirate?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:45 PM
Also, there's praeteritio, and then there's laziness.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:46 PM
Arrr.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:47 PM
174: Wow, that is one obscure term. Thankfully, the rosy-toed Alameida comes to the rescue. And only one other page? Wow.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:47 PM
Also, wouldn't an avoidance of eye contact somehow signal shame?
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:48 PM
slut-shaming aspects would disappear from S/M play (and I imagine many feminists wouldn't be into those aspects currently)
I don't know that that's true. One's conscious beliefs and one's subconscious desires often aren't aligned all that well, right? (See, TMK? Back to normal!)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:48 PM
Or did SB misspell it? I'm so confused.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:49 PM
Although I agree that the slut-shaming thing would go away if the concept of sex being shameful did.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:50 PM
I remember suddenly that someone's kitty was struck and killed by a car today, and I am so sad for that kitty, and for that someone who had to find out.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:50 PM
that is one obscure term
I o-earnestly, fervently believe that if all voting Americans understood praeteritio, litotes, and a few other rhetorical devices, all our political problems would vanish.
To be replaced by other, far more sophisticated ones, of course.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:50 PM
187: yes.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:50 PM
Anyway, 175 accords with my experience.
186: You don't know if my parenthetical remark is true, or whether the first part is true? Because of course the second part isn't always true--many people come to feminism after being brought up in grossly misogynistic environments, well after their psychosexual development is more or less finished. But I stand by the first part.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:52 PM
Slut-shaming! I was pretty excited about reading that book, The Myth of the Teenage Slut or whatever it was called, but then it sucked. Absolutely horrible writing and organization.
Someone wrote that I was a slut in the girls' bathroom in 7th grade. Good times.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:53 PM
Someone wrote that I was a slut in the girls' bathroom in 7th grade.
Jeebus. Isn't that a sort of serious charge in Egypt?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:55 PM
Well, it was an American school.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:56 PM
192: The second. The first I agree with.
189: Sad!
190: Okay, now I feel ignorant and unqualified for suffrage.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:59 PM
USA! USA! USA!
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:59 PM
190: Okay, now I feel ignorant and unqualified for suffrage.
I wouldn't worry too much about not knowing what litotes is, though it's true it's played a not unimportant role in rhetoric historically.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 9:01 PM
197: By which I mean that I'm glad that there were (I assume) lesser consequences to such a charge. Not that the charge was made.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 9:02 PM
I'll just go shoot myself now, shall I?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 9:02 PM
The Forest of Rhetoric.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 9:06 PM
Praeteritio isn't on that list.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 9:08 PM
Awesome! Thanks, Ben.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 9:09 PM
OK, I've become a little bored by the GBJD. I haven't read anywhere near all of the comments, but it seemed mostly like people were neither overly earnest or o-earnest. Pretty fun, and a few laugh-out-loud funny moments along the way. It reminded me a bit of here.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 9:10 PM
So, Tim, what you're saying was that it started out really fun, then you got kind of tired, and then a little bored, and then wished it would just finish up already?
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 9:13 PM
That site is awesome.
The mormons need their rhetoric to convince people of crazy shit. Go figure.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 9:13 PM
205: Yeah, roughly. And despite the boredom, I'll still be going back for more, later.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 9:15 PM
205 is brilliant. I only wish I'd thought of it at the time.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 9:15 PM
Holy shit. I just killed a 3 inch grasshopper in my bathroom.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 9:19 PM
202: Cataphasis is, and it appears to be a close synonym.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 9:21 PM
Wouldn't help someone who didn't know what it meant, though.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 9:25 PM
209: And that's not a euphemism.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 11:02 PM
127–n-1 (where this comment is n) are an interesing snap shot of male-female dynamics on Unfogged.
A couple of months ago I was talking to somone in a conversation that ended with him saying to me, "who the fuck are you talking to that you frequently need to look up the names for rhetorical forms?" And my answering, "my invisible blog friends."
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 12:45 AM
132: I wish I had listened to your advice. I'd like those brain cells and that part of my night back.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 1:01 AM
Serves you right for being lured by the words "blow job" instead of listening to Becks.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 1:07 AM
Actually, B, what lured me was the word Twisty, because every thread I've ever read there had a yet-more-unbelievable explosion of stupid from Pony. And this one was no different. She might be my favorite commenter in all of the world.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 1:21 AM
216: That is such crap, Apostropher. Pony isn't a particularly noteworthy commenter on the Twisty's thread. (At least through the point which I've read.) She doesn't have any particularly great lines. And Puffin's the one who appears to have ruined everything, not Pony.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 6:40 AM
Tim, she goes from "I've never given nor received oral sex" to "I was a prostitute, so I'm one of the few who actually knows what blowjobs REALLY are about." And it only takes a few dozen comments to travel that entire distance. Now that's some kind of special.
Past jewels include "Porn is to women what Auschwitz was to Jews." And my personal favorite, after she was plainly shown to have never read a book she had just recommended:
Really, I look forward to seeing her show up every time I venture over to Twisty's. She's like a bottomless pitcher of idiocy and overreaction.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 6:51 AM
The quotes in the first paragraph there aren't actual quotes, but paraphrases.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 6:52 AM
I'm pretty sure Pony's a guy.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 6:54 AM
That doesn't square with what I've read, but really? You've probably read more than me. If so, that makes it even funnier.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 6:56 AM
Oh, she hasn't claimed to be one. But I'm finding the oscillation between 'old woman who lived before blow jobs' and 'former sultry prostitute' and 'omg I hate porn' to be someone's parody of what he thinks a feminist poster should be saying.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 6:59 AM
Pony's a troll, no? You see the name, and you keep on moving. No one seems to be actually responding to her (FWIW, I also assume s/he is really a guy). Puffin is, to the point I've read, clearly Womyn of the Match.
I remain disappointed that no one seems to have used the phrase "shame spiral." That seems like a gimmee.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 7:06 AM
Huh. If so, s/he got me.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 7:23 AM
If Pony is a troll, why doesn't Twisty ban him/her? Are not her comments aggressively moderated?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 7:25 AM
Also, people there did respond to Pony, made reference to Pony's blog, inquired about Pony's welfare. P may be an agent provocateur, but I don't think the other people there know it if so.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 7:31 AM
Huh. I thought it was only one or two people who kept responding to Pony, and most of her comments were one line sentences. But I don't know anything at all about that blog beyond that thread.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 7:37 AM
Sounds like another future denizen of the... Troll Blog (cue scary music)!
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 7:57 AM
I know a million other people have said stuff like this, but I feel like saying it anyway: the thing that's so impoverished about twisty-esque ideologies is that they don't offer a way to live in the world. They're so convinced that we [the set of women who enjoy things they believe constitute obeisance to patriarchy] don't understand how much politics and ideology structure our actions and choices. But in fact, a lot of us do understand that, but further understand that politics and ideology are not the only things that give us desires and beliefs; we have lives as individuals; we have relationships with individuals. We can look at certain things we want and recognize their troubling origin but still find a way to make them our own. We all have our own interpretive faculties. If I spend an hour curling my hair on a Saturday night, I know tricksy patriarchy is rubbing its hands together in glee that I'm expending so much effort. So that means I should rob myself of the pleasure of self adornment? Shear my hair? Because it's not like patriarchy ever demanded that women looked plain. It seems to me that defending my freedom, paying attention both to what I want and how what I want was constructed, and being compassionate to others is the best way to be a person in the world, instead of an ideological construct on paper. Also, writing a post that was explicitly intended to pit people against each other unconstructively? Kind of patriarchal.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 8:01 AM
What strikes me about reading many of Twisty's commenters is the following: My experience is X, therefore the universal experience is X, and any non-X experience is invalid.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 8:06 AM
Or, I've read about X in a book and it was bad, therefore the universal experience is X and bad, and therefore, if you say X isn't bad, you obviously are a poor deluded soul who hasn't thought it through.
To piggyback on 229: It's probably also worthwhile to note that if one did try to live by explicitly rejecting the 'patriarchy' (god, I hate that term) at every possible instance, it would have just as much control over your life as if you were marching in lockstep with the fashion mags.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 8:34 AM
I mostly agree with 299, but I love Twisty because she fuckin' takes it to the next level, you know?
Also, one thing I don't like about the hard-line ideologies is that you simply can not maintain them without a twinge of sister-shaming. Because sometimes one makes choices that constitute, as Tia said, obeisance to the patriarchy, and either a) one knowingly made that choice, in which case, sister-shaming, or b) one didn't knowingly make the choice, in which case, seriously insult to one's intelligence.
Patriarchy is all about making women slaves to the approval of others, in this case, this dubious expectations of men. The hard-line on marriage, hetero sex, blowjobs, poses the danger of women again making choices for the approval of an entirely different set.
The other night, I had a strange dream that I was in a lovely relationship, and that the dude in question proposed to me (wtf?!). I remember that my first thought in the dream was "how will I ever tell my friends?"
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 8:44 AM
I also agree with 299.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 8:45 AM
I have to say that I'm sort of fond of the hardline ideological patriarchy blamers, because they expand the universe of discourse.When you've got unreasonable people on one side of an issue, you need them out on the other side to balance, or you end up with:
Person A: I get all the cake.
Person B: No, let's split it equally.
Honest Broker: If you can't agree, we'll have to compromise. A gets 3/4, B gets 1/4.
Reasonable as B is, the end result would be a lot more reasonable if B were a little less so. (Not that this applies literally to the BJ debate, which I got bored with fairly quickly.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 8:49 AM
because they expand the universe of discourse.
I guess that's true, but I think they might also restrict the number of people, and in particular, women, who take that discourse seriously. I sometimes come across anecdotes that suggest such restriction. I don't know how much of that is "Modern Love" stories, though.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 8:53 AM
On what thread is this comment #299 that you guys are all agreeing with? I'd like to partake in the comity myself.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 8:59 AM
It's a sunny day today.
Posted by: Tia | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 09:00 AM
________________________________________________
299
The Modesto Kid wants the barbed brush of freakiness on his chest. And he loves a watermelon in his ear.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 9:03 AM
When you've got unreasonable people on one side of an issue, you need them out on the other side to balance
Absolutely. My negotiation skills are not as refined as to put it so eloquently as your example, but I've thought that same thing about, say, Dworkin. You need people all the way on the other side from where the status quo is to pull you to reasonable. Reasonable people won't pull you to reasonable, they'll pull you halfway between batshit crazy and reasonable.
On the other hand, this same justification for the hardliners seems to imply that there's some merit to playing devil's advocate for its own sake, which I think is fuckin' bullshit and people who love to play devil's advocate without acknowledging that they are doing so and then later when you try to attack their premises say "oh, I'm only playing devil's advocate" annoy the fucking piss out of me.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 9:05 AM
234 -- So rather than blow jobs all the time or never, we can get them in moderation? Sounds good.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 9:06 AM
Oh there it is! Yeah I can dig 299 too.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 9:07 AM
Patriarchy is all about making women slaves to the approval of others, in this case, this dubious expectations of men.
Except it doesn't, really. The discussions tend to go two ways:
1) Patriarchy is slavery, therefore we must resist it by doing the exact opposite.
As Tia and silvana noted, this leads to sister-shaming and just as narrow a range of options as the patriarchy devotee.
So, we conclude it's not prescriptive, but
2) Patriarchy is slavery, therefore we must resist it by thinking about it really really hard before we put on our corsets.
And that doesn't seem to be much better. If it's really slavery, then promising to think about it really hard and acknowledge the underlying conditions isn't really an improvement. ("I've decided I like these chains. No, really!") Witness: Hirshman's opting-out moms, who are probably claiming they've thought really hard about dropping out -- but it's still not a choice that promotes equality.
2) doesn't seem to stand up to intellectual scrutiny.
1) does - which is why Twisty's argument was a lot of fun - but then you've got an even narrower range of acceptable choices and we get into nasty sister-shaming.
So, while I'm not going to deny that culture shapes expectations of gender roles, because I'm not retarded, I'm wondering if the concept 'patriarchy' should be relegated to the scrap heap with 'choice feminism.'
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 9:08 AM
they expand the universe of discourse
Because god knows the universe of discourse needs more predictably dreary vitriol.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 9:10 AM
and people who love to play devil's advocate without acknowledging that they are doing so and then later when you try to attack their premises say "oh, I'm only playing devil's advocate" annoy the fucking piss out of me.
You betcha.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 9:10 AM
I seriously lost a friend over the devil's advocate thing. I was like, either have a fucking opinion and own it and take responsibility for it, or shut the fuck up and stop telling me that "it's fun to make people think." It's unbelievably condescending.
Not that I'm bitter or anything.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 9:15 AM
1) does [stand up to intellectual scrutiny]
Eh, I'm not convinced. It strikes me as analogous to "We must do the opposite of whatever Osama bin Laden wants, regardless of what that is." Osama is opposed to cancer, everybody smoke up!
Another good example of the shaky legs of 1) was the roller derby thread, which basically boiled down to "you can't dress however you like because men might look at you."
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 9:16 AM
I think a "devil's advocate" can be a good thing, as long as the advocator doesn't just drop the argument whenever he or she gets bored with it, but follows it through the whole way to admitting defeat.
But I would generally only use a devil's advocate tactic in argument with someone whose conclusions I agree with but whose reasons I think are weak. A devil's advocate argument can show why they need to adopt better reasons.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 9:17 AM
236: That was the joke I was making in 233.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 9:19 AM
246: Yeah, but I think it's disingenous to pretend that you believe something you don't just to rattle someone else. I prefer full disclosure: "In principle agree with you, but [group of people who disagrees with us] would say that [counterargument]. What would you say to that?"
And I found that people tend to pull the whole "I'm playing devil's advocate thing" when they see that you've bested them, or you're at least starting to. This would happen to me in college all the time with men who were used to intellectually intimidating 18-year-olds into agreement and/or silence.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 9:22 AM
Another reason you might play the devil's advocate is if you think someone hold some position to unreflectively or vehemently--that they're not justified in being so sure of their position.
I agree, though, that being contrary solely for the sake of being contrary can be a big pain in the ass.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 9:22 AM
245: To the extent that, say, if I really believe high heels are slavery, really believe it, and then I reject them, I'm being consistent. A view can be crazy while being intellectually defensible. This is why we have philosophers.
And I think devil's advocate is fine as long as the person playing devil's advocate steps up to the plate and digs in when challenged (and admits defeat when defeated) rather than going 'ooh, don't hate me, it was only devil's advocate.' Because arguing isn't about making people like you or cheerleading for your side.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 9:23 AM
Ack. "... holds some position too ..."
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 9:23 AM
250 before 248, which I agree with.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-20-06 9:24 AM
I think Twisty acknowledges that constant resistance is another form of response to the p word. She thinks you can't step outside it. I just think she's wrong that the only way to interpret everything you do is political. If a woman's giving a man a blow job, it's true that one of them is a member of dominant class A, the other a member of subserviant class B, but they are also two individuals who have a relationship not outside of that, but in addition to it. That's the thing she'll never credit. And it's reductive and deeply confused about how people live their lives. Symbols and acts can mean more than one thing.
Posted by Tia |