We always knew they were coming for us, and they were just waiting for a signal from a female Speaker of the House.
In a previous installment of “Are Wingnuts Aware Of How They Don’t Conceal Their Psychosexual Issues Well?”, we found wingnut Ace of Spades assuming outright that if a series of women give up wanting to fuck him after trying him out for about a week, it’s because they have a problem and probably don’t like sex.
Or are you one of those One Week Wonder sort of chicks who will lure me in with lots of sex when we start dating and then lose virtually all initiative and enthusiasm by day eight?
Because I’m prone to speculation, I suggested that men, especially sexist pigs, who find themselves in a situation where women routinely taste the goods and opt out may, just may, be a tad selfish in bed to the point where there’s no point in sleeping with them. But see, my explanation for the situation can safely be written off as just more evidence that there’s nothing wrong with sexist pigs, just something wrong with the entire half of the human race called “women”. Which is to say, I could only be saying that out of feminazi man-hatred.
That said, I have it on good authority that HTML Mencken is an actual XY, penis-toting man. But for some bizarre reason, he seems to think there’s something laughable about Ace’s newest foray into offering his sexual expertise to the internets. Ace has found an article on ABC News about telling whether or not your husband is gay. (First clue: You are also a man. Bizarrely, this is not on the checklist.) Ace, after establishing that his homophobia is a product of his fear that legalizing gay marriage means that straight people have to marry gay people, decideds to set the easily confused Libruls straight on what is Teh Gay and what is not. He offers a sample from the list of how to tell your husband is gay and some commentary.
If your husband is turned off by the thought of touching your vaginal area or performing oral sex on you.
If his best friend is gay.
If he hangs out in gay bars.
If he enjoys watching gay porn movies and surfing gay porn Web sites.
Best friend gay — okay, I can see that one going either way; one of my best buds is a homo. Turned off by cunninglingus? Eh, a lot of guys don’t dig that. Who the hell knows what’s going on down there. It’s like H.R. Geiger giving up ink and canvas to work in the avant-garde medium of Play-Doh and bacon.
The funny thing is that in a general sense, I agree with Ace—fear of putting your face in the pussy and contempt for the idea that your female partner should have fun in the sack are not signs that a guy is gay, but usually better signs that he’s sexually immature and sexist. And probably that he’ll be blaming you when you give up on him in a week, telling everyone in town that you’re some sort of frigid One Week Wonder, hoping that you’ll be too ashamed to tell anyone, “He visibly recoiled from me when I took off my clothes and said, ‘God, do I have to touch that gross thing?’” In the heat of the moment, it’s hard to come up with those H.R. Giger jokes, unless you’ve been practicing.
The H.R. Giger reference alone makes my day worth it. For those who don’t know who Giger is, he’s bent, if fascinatingly so. He did all the design work for the “Alien” movies, which alone shows how remarkable his imagination is, since he designed aliens that are a combo of the phallus and the vagina dentata.
Most of his work shows a continuing fascination with the violent implications of these dual fantasies of the all-powerful phallus and the vagina dentata. Naturally it’s the first thing that comes to Ace’s mind when contemplating the sheer horror of witnessing a bona fide naked woman experiencing actual pleasure.
127 Responses to “No, really, it’s her”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Okay, so cunnilingus is playdoh and bacon in this little simile. What’s ink and canvas?
Let’s not forget another reason for eight-day wonders. Some men and some women like to fuck and move on, and in some cases that’s all they like to do. It’s not necessarily that their partner is a bad lay or has issues or is a bad person, it’s simply what a movin’ on kinda lover does.
I’ve had only one boyfriend who wouldn’t go down (or rather would do it grudgingly and rarely) and he’s so deep in the closet he’s shitting mothballs. Although he’s also immature and sexist. Hmm.
I though the aliens were based on water bugs & dragonfly nymphs.
Sure, he could have intended that, but we are talking about the artist who got a Dead Kennedys’ album banned for this artwork in the album cover.
Awww! The poor guy just needs to come out to himself already.
Today’s mood: A little too nice.
I’d just like to toss out my take on cunnilingus:
1. It’s fun for the woman I’m doing it to, particularly if she’s into it as well, and is willing to tell me what pleasures her the most. I enjoy watching women orgasm.
2. It’s fun for me. ‘Nuff said.
3. Since some illnesses are associated with changes in the taste and aroma, what better way is there to discern the state of the partner’s health (men, take note - this goes for you, too - I’ve disappointed a few guys after taking a whiff of the goods).
4. Did I mention it’s fun?
Yeah, if anyone knows anything about Giger’s work, that Ace comment comes off really weird.
And yes the Alien head is a huge phallus. Look at some or the work it gets featured in.
As an aside, my friend and I were watching Species and when Nathasa Henstridge takes off her top, wee both commented “she was hired because she has Giger-type breasts”
Amanda Marcotte and Radley Balko…
Are Amanda Marcotte and Radley Balko actually the same person? On the ABC News test about whether your husband is gay, Radley: How to tell if your husband is gay. The number one tip: If you also happen to be…
“The funny thing is that in a general sense, I agree with Ace—fear of putting your face in the pussy and contempt for the idea that your female partner should have fun in the sack are not signs that a guy is gay, but usually better signs that he’s sexually immature and sexist.”
Does this work the other way around too? Are women who don’t like giving blowjobs “sexually immature and sexist”?
Or are we still allowed to entertain the idea that not all people (male or female) enjoy the same things in the sack? Chacun a son gout sorta thing?
Tim, try reading past the first half of that sentence.
Wow Amanda, that picture is like an X rated Magic Eye drawing!
Don’t get me wrong. I like Giger, as much as the next science fiction dork and have some posters of his art on my walls. While I always saw that some of his works had elements of sexual creepiness, it wasn’t until I saw an exhibit of his work at a museum in Austria that this all became clear. One section was dedicated to pages of his sketchbooks, which all seemed to have a bizarre fascination with lesbian S&M. There’s just something sexually messed up going on in his head… his public works have subtle themes of explotation, but in private he seems to revel in these fantasies.
“Are women who don’t like giving blowjobs “sexually immature and sexistâ€??”
Can you understand the difference between not particularly liking to perform oral sex and finding the act disgusting?
If a woman is afraid of her boyfriends penis as Ace of Spades appears to be of vaginas, I’d say that either she is on the immature side or he is abusing her. If she dislikes all penises (peni?) in general, she’d probably feel more comfortable in the sack with another woman. If she dislikes both male and female genitalia, she might want to go see a therapist about her sexual frigidity and focus on being content in celebacy.
“HARKONNEN CAPO CHAIR IN ALUMINUM” - inquire for price
I really want this, but I’d definately pay just for a picture of Dick Chaney sitting in one.
i think what’s sexist is not helping your sex partner get off. refusing to give blow jobs but helping him come by engaging in penetrative sex is a lot different from refusing cunnilingus but engaging in penetrative sex (which isn’t as easy for women to come from).
It could be that Ace is just crap in the sack, but there’s another factor at work: Wingnut guys tend to date wingnut women, who have a whole passel of psychosexual issues of their own. If you internalize the madonna/whore dichotomy, theres an incentive to be a whore to get a man and a madonna once you have him.
That picture is kind of alluring and disturbing at the same time. Sort of like a pod people orgy with concentration camp burial scene undertones, or an anthropomorphic mushroom sex party. Given a choice, I’ll go with the mushroom sex party, in honor of spring and feeling nice about stuff ‘n’ everything.
Or maybe it’s that he’s not giving them very much reason to continue a overly sexual relationship…just a thought…
six-oh-seven-nine says:
I think you’re missing the point here. This idiot is saying that most ALL of the women he has seen have been “eigth day wonders.” If it happened to me once or twice, then your premise is correct. But if it continually happens to me, then I would wonder what is wrong with me, not what their problems or perspectives are. But then, my sexist fellow males have proven not to be too big on things like introspection.
Oh. And what The Wanderer said goes for me.
First time I ever played “you show me yours and I’ll show you mine” someone had told the girl that the boy was supposed to stick it in. I said, “I dunno ’bout that, but I’ll kiss it.” Ain’t seen much reason to change that response over these long years. :})
Okay, so cunnilingus is playdoh and bacon in this little simile. What’s ink and canvas?
Masturbation.
Let me get this straight - he likens eating pussy to playing with Play-Doh and bacon, yet he’s confused as to why women don’t really like to have sex with him?
*headdesk*
*headdeskheaddesk*
What a maroon.
Ya know, I’ve got quite a few straight friends. Indeed, my best friend here in Boston is straight. He’d never refer to me as a “homo.” I may refer to myself that way in an ironic pomo queer way, but for a straight person to refer to me that way shows that they don’t respect me. That “friend” of Ace’s may want to re-evaluate the relationship.
Does this work the other way around too? Are women who don’t like giving blowjobs “sexually immature and sexist�?
Awwww, it’s cute when the wingnut confuses me with the sex-hating strawfeminist in his mind. Anyone who actually knows anything about the real me knows that yes, I think that people who aren’t giving and game in bed need to grow up and stop inflicting themselves on sex partners they aren’t into pleasing. The game of “gotcha” doesn’t play here. I’m not going to step in it and demand that sex abuse victims start sucking cock and liking it, though. There’s enough pressure being applied to women who, for various reasons, can’t enjoy sex normally. Those women need to work through their issues before they have sex in an ideal world, but in our world, women are treated like such utter sex objects, it’s no wonder that women who can’t enjoy sex feel obliged to do it, lest they be considered less-than-women.
But seriously, if a couple finds that they both are perfectly happy with no oral sex, then good for them. I don’t get it, but not my business. What we are discussing here is a supposedly straight guy, who when presented with the idea of oral sex on a woman, immediately starts to delve into why the cunt is disgusting. Anyone who rejects oral sex by insulting the genitals of people they supposedly find sexually attractive is an asshole, man or woman.
Ace of Spades, lousy lay.
Bwahahaha! Perfect.
(Also, what the hell is “Play-Doh and bacon” supposed to refer to?)
Let’s hear it for Blowjob War ‘07! Yeah!
Wasn’t it pretty much a standard warning to young women that all the young man wanted was to get them in the sack, and then he’d lose interest?
In this case the approving Giger reference pretty much solidifies the misogyny. But after about a week of continuous whatever you choose to do in the sack, most non-olympic-caliber folks tend to have to come up for air. And that would be when you realize the person on the other side of the latex is an arrogant conservative jerkwad with no real regard for you. (Which for most people is a turnoff unless the sex is really really good, and eventually even then…)
I suppose it’s possible that Tim mixed me up with Twisty, who insults fellatio on a regular basis, which I don’t do. Twisty, unlike Ace, is funny. Also, she puts her money where her mouth is and doesn’t alternate between calling men disgusting and then blogging about her real, true, endless fascination with the male form. Which isn’t true of Ace—one minute he’s screaming about how disgusting women are and then the next blogging about pictures of celebrity women who wants to wank to.
This recent *imperative* to perform oral sex, and to be expert at it — regardless it’s coming from misogynist porn culture or from sex-positive feminism– is really annoying.
I’ve enjoyed giving it and receiving it sometimes, and sometimes not. It depends on so many particulars. But the last thing I need is for my love-making to be some kind athletic event or test of ideological fitness.
I’d emphasize that the issue there is really “pleasing” one’s partner, rather than the particular method of doing it. The problem with guys who won’t go down on their female partners is that they usually don’t use another method to get their girlfriends off, instead assuming that PIV sex is going to take care of it because it works for them. Whereas, even if a woman doesn’t like to perform blowjobs (and I would argue that anyone who’s had her head pushed down may be averse to them), there are several alternate options for getting to the destination. If she’s unwilling to do those, then we can tell her she needs to grow up.
Off Topic: Yes, I know that the source of the word is Bugs Bunny cartoons, but could we please stop calling people maroons as a perjorative?
Thanks.
So, Ace alternates between posting about how disgusting women’s bodies are and fantasizing about unatainable women? So. In. Denial.
No, Hava. Once Paris Hilton realizes she’s be demeaning herself all these years, and needs a REAL man, she’ll turn up on Ace’s doorstep. Just you wait.
Just to reiterate: the problem of sex abuse makes comparisons between men who won’t and women who won’t dodgy—like zuzu said, the fact that most women who freak at the possibility have been harassed or forced at some point kind of takes the piss out of the “gotcha” complaint. Unless, of course, you’re the kind of prick who doesn’t sympathize with sex abuse victims. Ideally, women who are freaked out by heterosex would just avoid it until it didn’t freak them out, but in our culture, if you aren’t with a man, you’re “wasted”, so it’s no wonder that we can’t reach that ideal.
>>Unless, of course, you’re the kind of prick who doesn’t sympathize with sex abuse victims.
Well, we are talking about right-wing nuts and MRAs, right?
Richard noted, “If it happened to me once or twice, then your premise is correct. But if it continually happens to me, then I would wonder what is wrong with me, not what their problems or perspectives are.”
A valid point. But a parallel one would be that “you” may (unconsciously or no) seeking out and bedding (or being bedded by) men/women who are of that type.
I think that people who aren’t giving and game in bed need to grow up and stop inflicting themselves on sex partners they aren’t into pleasing.
Sensible policy for a sound Britain!
A Giger link. You are truly making this geek’s day.
Alien was a great, great movie, and what’s great about it is that in some ways it’s the ultimate triumph of style and atmophere over substance (meaning characters and plot). In any other hands, Alien would have been a cheesy B-movie with one great shock moment: the chest burster scene.
Ridley Scott knew how to bring the queasy psychosexual undercurrents in the story to life and squirm under your skin as you watched. And a lot of that comes from letting Giger do his thing with the alien designs.
Alien is really one long nightmare about rape and forced pregnancy, but what’s remarkable is that it makes the MEN in the audience, as well as the women, feel those fears. The most horrible thing in the movie happens to the most Capt. Kirk-ish explorer type male in the cast, and not some pretty young girl–Kane was the only one who really wanted to, uh, probe the depths of the womb-like alien ship.
Poor Ace of Spades must have really freaked out when he saw this movie.
I have it on good authority that HTML Mencken is an actual XY, penis-toting man. But for some bizarre reason, he seems to think there’s something laughable about Ace’s newest foray into offering his sexual expertise to the internets[…]
fear of putting your face in the pussy and contempt for the idea that your female partner should have fun in the sack are not signs that a guy is gay, but usually better signs that he’s sexually immature and sexist
To be fair to HTML Mencken, not one of the non-sexist straight guys I know can wrap their brains around the “female body parts are icky” or “women don’t/shouldn’t have fun in the sack” concepts. It just doesn’t parse to them, and they have trouble believing that any normal guy actually thinks that. (Although the usual response is more “what an idiot” or “what an asshole” rather than “obviously gay”.)
I don’t know a single straight guy who doesn’t like giving head, or would admit to such a thing, but I did know a number of straight girls in college who didn’t like getting it, mostly because they didn’t really think anyone would enjoy doing it to them. It’s really fucked up how many women think most guys are pissants like Ace. Which is, obviously, exactly how he wants it.
I did know a number of straight girls in college who didn’t like getting it, mostly because they didn’t really think anyone would enjoy doing it to them.
That’s not the only reason not to enjoy it though. For one, mouths are nasty, which is a nightmare for a girl susceptible to yeast/bacterial infections (ie, on hormonal birth control). An orgasm, presuming the man is good enough at cunnilingus to actually bring one, is NOT worth a yeast/bacterial infection. Ever.
I will admit it’s easier to say, “Oh, you don’t want to go down THERE, do you?” than it is to say, “No, I don’t want any of your nasty spit in my cooch, thanks,” which may have something to do with the popularity of the former. Plus, it has the added bonus of not turning him against cunnilingus with his next partner, who may not be as susceptible to the yeast/bacterial infections and therefore enjoy it more.
hmmm. bacon? dunno what vulva this cat’s been cruisin’, but….might wanna take it off the oven!
giger also has a lot of sperm imagery in his work as well as flavors of egyptian hieroglyphic art.
I’m def. starting a band called Sperm Imagery.
“I’m def. starting a band called Sperm Imagery.”
Triple bill with Lovin’ Spoonful and 10cc…
Moira - eep! I had no idea. Thanks for the heads-up.
Justicewalks- 2 words. Dental dams.
“Justicewalks- 2 words. Dental dams.”
You can also use an antibacterial mouthwash (rinse well afterwards) immediately before oral sex. It’s recommended for partners of women with immunological issues or a history of infections.
Dental dams are a pain in the ass, expensive, and too small to be much good. I recommend Saran Wrap and plenty of your favorite water-based lube. Saran Wrap even comes in lots of nice bright colors. And, extra double super bonus, it doesn’t taste like latex. Ick.
caitlin: No sweat.
It’s not widely known, which is the impetus for my little informational campaign.
Thanks for the oral sex advice, but I was just giving an example of one non-prude, non-traumatized, non-brainwashed reason for declining that particular “favor.”
Interestingly enough - and I’ve been celibate for years now, so maybe things have changed - but from what I remember, no man ever quibbled with me over the, “Oh, you don’t really want to go down THERE, do you?” excuse. I never once had a man insist that, yes, he really did want to go down there. To a man, and we’re talking more than a couple, they accepted my excuse, gratefully even, sometimes with an audible sigh of relief, and moved on to other activities without so much as a wayward glance back.
Justicewalks -
Perhaps things have changed, but put me down as a guy who would make that wayward glance back. I don’t “insist” because, hey, in the end, it’s supposed to be for her benefit, right? But I do miss it if she doesn’t let me do it every so often.
That said, you bring up an interesting point, though. One I wasn’t aware of. My wife *is* on hormonal birth control, and she does seem particularly prone to yeast infections. Maybe I should ask her about it…and invest in antibacterial mouthwash.
Interestingly enough - and I’ve been celibate for years now, so maybe things have changed - but from what I remember, no man ever quibbled with me over the, “Oh, you don’t really want to go down THERE, do you?� excuse. I never once had a man insist that, yes, he really did want to go down there.
I had a friend who was pretty traumatized by her college boyfriend, who managed to convince her that not only did he not like performing oral sex, no man did, and if they told her otherwise, they were lying.
The guy who did finally convince her that he really, really did like giving her oral sex is the one she married. Not a coincidence, I think.
“I never once had a man insist that, yes, he really did want to go down there”
and my experiance is the exact opposite. once again, we come to the conclusion that not everyone is the same and generalizations dont work.
Seraph, unfortunately, sperm and condoms, especially those with spermicide on them, are also culprits for yeast/bacterial infections. As a married woman, your wife probably has regular vaginal contact with at least one of those things (spit, sperm, condoms, spermicide), so her chances of ever being yeast infection-free while on birth control (for whatever reason; I take them for endometriosis) are pretty slim.
It wouldn’t be a bad idea to talk with her about it, though. I’d recommend that she take regular acidophilus supplements to regulate the vaginal pH. They market acidophilus as a digestive aid, but it’s the one thing, other than celibacy, that ever kept the infections under control in my case.
We also need to remember from his previous posts, that per Ace women don’t ever really enjoy sex anyhow, so of course it’s not his fault for not pleasing them. They’re incapable of being pleasured sexually! They just lie there for a while sometimes hoping to snag a husband.
Yeah, I’m afraid that you can’t generalize. A lot of men are pretty much happy to visit downtown all day long.
Oh my god, go over to the S,N! thread to see Ace flailing hilariously. He brings up Amanda and the Duke case! For no apparent reason! Brilliant.
I want to smack my wife’s ex in the head, with a brick. She didn’t like cunnilingus, but didn’t want to say so lest her Official Lesbian Membership Card be revoke. So she told my wife that it wasn’t that she didn’t like eating pussy, she just didn’t like eating her pussy ‘cause it tasted bad.
Gah. She still believes that shit. >.me.
)
[…] Wingnut blogger and favourite target of those Sadly Nosian scamps, Ace O’ Spades, is the cause of much current hilarity at liberal US blogs for his take on a lame satrical newpaper article on how to tell if your husband is secretly gay. […]
That last line should read “Gah. She still believes that shit. >.< (And yes, you’ll note that she married me
)
elektrodot:
once again, we come to the conclusion that not everyone is the same and generalizations dont work.
It’s a good thing I wasn’t generalizing, then, what with all that usage of the word ‘I’ and ‘me.’
I don’t have a girlfriend yet, so I really haven’t experienced anything good or bad yet.
Moira, I briefly went out with a woman who kept insisting that since I really liked going down I wasn’t a ‘real lesbian’. She tried to convince me that ‘real lesbians’ only use their hands. It was right when I was finally coming out, still really fragile about accepting my sexuality and didn’t have much experience. Now it kind of seems funny in a perplexing sort of way, but at the time it felt very damaging to my identity.
I don’t know if I’d buy “doesn’t like to eat pussy” equals “closeted gay” each and every time. Someone on the Sadly, No! board made the comment that a large number of Southern teenaged boys had a horrid aversion to munching carpet and, being a former Southern teenaged boy, commented further. It’s true that my peer group looked upon yodeling in the valley as “gay”, but in the way that meant you were basically a woman if you liked going down on your girl. Being “gay” equaled being a woman, and being a woman was the worst thing in the world to the pack of goobers I grew up with.
Granted, this is rural Mississippi, and they’re still trying to wrap their heads around the whole gay thing. No one is out without it being a big deal and, sometimes, a bit of a surprise. Not too long ago, there was a bust at one of the stops on the Natchez Trace near Tupelo and the cops, obviouslly with nothing better to do with their time, caught 18 cats being naughty with each other. One of ‘em was a favorite teacher of mine, and no one was really shocked, to be brutally frank. Another was my momma’s preacher, and that flat surprised the hell out of everybody, believe you me.
But in high school, a bafflingly large number of my peers (and their parents) thought I was gay. Why? Because I read a lot, especially stuff that wasn’t required for school. Only girls do things like that and study hard and enjoy school and learning. There’s apparently still a few folks who’re surprised I haven’t come out of the closet because of that. And because I have hair down to my butt, go figure.
Point is, and maybe it’s just my skewered cultural perspective* working on me, I don’t think it’s so much that someone who abhors the very thought of eating at the Y might not so much be gay and closeted, he might just hate women. Sort of a double-whammy of mysoginy there. I have heard the occasional grown male who can vote and buy beer and everything express a disgust with cunnilingus, but it’s rarely been a case of that being the guy’s only fault inre: his relationships with women.
And the only oral sex-related relationship annecdote I wish to offer up concerns my last girlfriend.** She didn’t like to go down on me because, she said, it made her jaw hurt, and I guess I can’t argue with that. She did when the whim struck her, it just wasn’t a regular feature. Going down on her was, however, and while she could get off with PIV sex, she was much more enthusiastic about oral stimulation. I’m fond of giving head, so much fun was had all around.
Here’s the thing, though. She did not like hearing me refer to giving her head as anything other than “I want to go down on you”. Anything else would cool her engine toot sweet, and I learned quick to keep my language clean when it came to going down on my girlfriend. No matter how often, and it was often, nothing but “I want to go down on you”. And it was just that, just in refernce to me giving her head. I could be as nasty as I wanted to be concerning anything else, and she more than once gave a salty worded command to get down to business, as it were, and go down on her. But me? Nope, just “I want to go down on you”. Never have figured that out.
* Though I’m to understand this trait is shared among rednecks, frat boys, b-boys, bangers, punks and just about any other meathead subculture, so there ya go.
** More likely than not, too.
I’ve never dated a woman who refused to let me “kiss her on the lips,” to use a phrase.
I had a friend who was pretty traumatized by her college boyfriend, who managed to convince her that not only did he not like performing oral sex, no man did, and if they told her otherwise, they were lying.
Hey, I think I dated that guy too. My husband is apparently a really, really great liar.
Matt T.: (Disclaimer: as always anecdote not equal to data)
I’ve often wondered if “good ol Suthern boys” who say that are only trying to trip up the competition, because I’ve yet to run across one who didn’t proceed enthusiastically when presented with the opportunity — no matter what he might be telling his buddies.
matt t! the whole time i was reading your post i was thinking to myself “why am i so bothered by references to cunnilingus as ‘eating’ or other slang terms?”! it’s very odd. i very much don’t like to hear it. i might able to tolerate “licking” or “kissing” but “eating” just … i dunno, it makes me feel gross or something. not in a “my vagina is gross” kind of way or even a “my vagina is a bed of flowers” kind of way.
maybe i have a problem with the imagery of *eating*?
It’s the disgust and contempt (and the fact that he apparently has no idea what a real vagina looks like) that distinguishes Ace’s comments here. A man or woman simply being disinclined to give oral sex–because it hurts your jaw, it makes you uncomfortable, you’re not very good at it, just not into it, etc.–is understandable. Finding the genitals of the sex you’re supposedly attracted to repugnant speaks to a whole host of psychosexual issues. That (among other things) is what makes Ace creepy.
Tricia,
Forgot about that little bit of knowledge, but it is true. Most rednecks, when pressed, will eat pussy when they’re sure they’ve got one who won’t tell on ‘em. I don’t think it’s so much a matter of tripping up the competition, however, as it just avoiding any and all ragging. Teenage Southern boys are brutal to each other, and owning up to going down is opening yourself to a hail of torment.
Gotta keep up the front for the boys, donchaknow. In my experience, romantic conflicts within Southern rural culture are rarely solved through craft and guile. More often than not it’s a quick ass-kickin’ one way or another, and that’s ball game. I knew a dude in high school who got his butt whipped at least twice a month for three years because he kept sniffin’ around another dude’s girl. And this was considered a perfectly reasonable way to solve the conflict.
And people wonder why I never moved back home.
I had a college boyfriend who was rather shy (despite being tremendously good looking) and insecure, and, even though we’d been dating a long time, he didn’t have the confidence to go down on me. I don’t think he was closeted gay, but he didn’t enjoy doing it, from the simple fact that he thought himself horrible at it.
I’d been flirting shamelessly with a rather nutty, outrageous guy — quite the opposite of the boyfriend described above — and in the middle of a conversation about something totally different, he just stopped, looked me right in the eye and said, “God, I really want to eat you out.” Alas, when he got his chance, he tried too hard and was more into it as a mountain-climbing expedition, not wanting to give up until he reached the summit, but whatever. That kind of balls-out confidence was such a turn-on that I remember the earlier moment much moreso than its later fruition (or lack thereof).
rachel,
Makes as much sense as anything. It doesn’t really sound, you know, “sexy”, does it? A woman I was involved with after the woman I mentioned above thought that made sense and came up with different phrases for the act. I can’t for the life of me remember any of hers, but I do remember she told me that I probably should never use the one my grandfather once said for some reason now lost to memory: “get me some of that nanner puddin’.” She thought it was funny as hell but didn’t think anyone would appreciate that in a moment of passion.
While we were together, I asked the girlfriend in question why she had such a problem with “eating pussy” and so forth, but she never gave me an answer and the very act of questioning it irritated her to no end. She had a very short temper and, at the risk of sounding incredibly condescending, I’m pretty sure she had a couple of sexual issues she was trying like hell to ignore. Apart from what’s mentioned, she didn’t have a problem at all with any sexual act and had an arguably stronger, more active libido than I did. She just didn’t like thinking about sex or about why so-and-so made her feel good and such-and-such didn’t or why she was attracted to who she was attracted to, especially me. Apparently, the attraction to the whole hell-raising vagabond hillbilly writer thing wore thin when she realized it wasn’t gonna change anytime soon.
At the time, I wasn’t mature enough to deal with that like I probably should have, but it was a frustrating existence for a while. It’d been dead in the water for a while but she pulled the trigger first, and I ain’t ashmed to admit now that it wounded my pride. She didn’t want me as a potential mate anymore, but she did want to keep having sex with me until the actual potential mate came along, and I told her to kiss my ass.
Mistake? Who knows, but that was all a long time ago.
Maybe the word ‘eating’ is subconsciously associated with teeth and chewing, plus it brings up associations of “piece of meat”.
…or bacon and Play-Doh…
Talk about objectifying. Sheesh.
It’s true that my peer group looked upon yodeling in the valley as “gay�, but in the way that meant you were basically a woman if you liked going down on your girl.
I have to admit, this construction always, always cracks me up. Having sex with your girlfriend is “gay,” but hanging out with your all-male buddies drinking beer and watching a bunch of men in tight pants play ball is 100% hetero.
Yes, yes, homosociality, et cetera, but you gotta admit — it’s still funny.
“Yeah, if anyone knows anything about Giger’s work, that Ace comment comes off really weird.”
Or funny. Weird is a kind of funny. Or can be.
Matt T., I’d like to thank you for contributing yodeling in the valley to my vocabulary. Thanks.
Just have to comment on Hava’s comment waaay upthread:
Or she might not need to see a therapist - she might just need to accept her asexuality. Not everyone who doesn’t like or isn’t interested in sex is “frigid” and in need of therapy, thanks.
A lot of men are pretty much happy to visit downtown all day long.
Even moreso if our parking gets validated.
Ahem. I hope I’m not being pompous or presumptuous in assuming that most here are familiar with the thing I wrote on Jeff G*ldste*n last year. I was going for the punchline in this post.
There’s the gay we’re all familiar with and love or at least tolerate. Then there’s a fascist sort of gay that is self-loathing and misogynist. Think of the philosophy and life of Yukio Mishima, or of the Theban Sacred Band and the Spartan Buddy System or even of the early days of the SS. Ultimately, *that’s* what all the wingnut love of 300 is all about. So very many warblogging wingnuts think themselves heirs to this tradition.
They are, to a point. But it’s mitigated by a few ironies.
One is that their worship of ‘manliness’, of ramrod strength and all that is beefcake and butch is itself a very homosexual thing (when homosexuality qua homosexuality is something they abhor to violent extremes).
Another is that this love of the butch is felt by the most pathetic male specimens imaginable: sexually-frustrated losers, wimps, doughy guys living in their mother’s basement and so on. They identify with what they are not — delusions of grandeur.
Still another is that while the classical world was more tolerant of homosexuality per se than ours, it too had some cultural contradictions in the sense that it placed too much value on the dominant/submissive dialectic. Ultimately, *this* tension, which is so often translated to sexuality and gender topics, explains the misogyny and attitude to homosexuality of the ancients as well as the wingnuts. In the ancient world, it was okay to be gay but to be a bottom or a catcher was frowned upon, relatively speaking — it was something for the second rate in society — women, boys, prostitutes, slaves. So much so that the punishement for adultery, which the Greeks took very seriously, was the insertion of a large radish into the ass of the offender — humiliation in the form of making a ‘bottom’ out of the offender. In this the wingnuts sort of follow in their beloved Greeks’ footsteps. But here’s the irony — when dominance/submission is instead translated to mentality — psychology, philosophy, politics — the historical analogy doesn’t hold because the submissives are the wingnuts who form a Cult of Bush, who are conformists and so fucking bed-wettingly scared of everything and so look to a fascistic father figure to save them, who are culturally and politically reactionary in such a knee-jerk fashion that it’s obvious fear and a sense of inadequacy are their prime motivators.
Wingnuts define themselves against what they loathe, against what they think they are not. They abhor submission and associate it with the ghey and women, not realizing or caring that dominance itself can be feminine and, especially, gay. They loathe weakness (’appeasement’! ‘dhimmitude!’) and associate it with women and teh ghey, not realizing or caring that they themselves are the (forgive the language) hugest pussies and chickenhawk cowards on the face of the planet, gender and sexual orientation being completely irrelevant to moral and physical courage.
[I’m still sorting the details and arguments for a massive post on the Wingnut Cult of Masculinity, so some of this is tenative, but at least you know where I’m coming from.]
There is, of course, a comfortable middle ground for most of us survivors of sexual violence between “giving and game” and not having a sexual relationship at all until the issues are worked though. It’s the ability to say things like, “I don’t do that.” Without being told that we are prudes, crazy, “freaked out,” conservative, or otherwise in the wrong for stating a preference as to what we like, and what we don’t like during sex.
And actually, some of my best sexual partners were people who considered oral sex and intercourse to be explicitly off-limits.
Retardo - sorry, HTMLM - may I suggest “Male Fantasies” by Theweleit (sp? some crazy kraut name like that). He makes the same critique you’re flailing towards, only he does it, you know, well.
- Wingnut ABD
HTMLM,
Check out The Wimp Factor by Steven Ducat:
The author of a new and timely book reveals how American politics is shaped by a cultural definition of masculinity that is based on disavowing all things feminine.
Yeah, comparisons between people who loathe oral sex out of misogyny and people laden with issues from sexual abuse are simply unfair. Again, a couple can work it out, but I do draw the line at guilt-tripping someone into giving up certain sexually fulfilling acts in a long-term way. It’s unethical to deprive someone else just because you have problems. Working through your issues through someone else pretty much doesn’t work anyway.
I’ve had the head-pushing thing done, but not for a long time, and I don’t consider it to have been that traumatizing.
I strongly dislike giving oral sex. Maybe the head-pushing thing is why, in a buried subconscious way, but at this point, it doesn’t feel like the impetus.
I’m open about it with my partner. My partner doesn’t freak out. There are lots of reasons why we’re together, and his desire for oral sex (relatively minimal anyway) isn’t a big enough reason to justify being apart.
I agree that people should be upfront about limits, and mature enough to accept that those limits can have consequences. But I also do think that the language deeming people who don’t like certain sex acts can get sort of judgmental.
Fulfilling sex lives can look all sorts of different ways. Including more vanilla than the average person’s.
Knemon,
Okay, A#1, retardo? Why don’t you just trip HTMLM and take his lunch money while you’re at it?
And did you really just compare an acknowledgedly tentative and provisional comment with a thoroughly researched, academic volume? I dunno, it seems to me that a blog comment and a published book just might be a tad different in kind, as forms of writing.
Inky,
Before he was HTMLM, his pseudonym was Retardo Montalban. Knmon wasn’t being quite that vicious.
And neither was Knemon.
Proofreading is good.
Ah. That was a little silly of me then. Sorry about that part.
As far as I’m concerned, they had to drag me away from my first vagina kicking and screaming, and that sorta set the tone for the rest of my life…
“I agree with Ace”
Oh, you mean that vajajays are scary? They sure are! Why, if it weren’t for the massive quantities of Valu-Rite vodka and hobo-killing sprees, we couldn’t even think about cooter.
Especially brown cooter, because brown people scare me almost as much as the V word…
Wow. I never thought at 50 I would hear sexual slang I didn’t know. “Yodeling in the valley?” Far out.
I can remember meeting women when I was younger who seemed reluctant to make their valley available for yodeling. I never understood this–my old man, bless his horny old fart of a soul, insisted that pleasing a woman without an Alpine hum was not possible. But I like it a lot, said so, and a bit of cajoling–sometimes in the shower–usually convinced them that I was serious. None complained about my singing voice, but they were probably just being nice.
As I’ve grown older, and chose lovers with more experience, this became less common–and some would meet me at the door with a pair of lederhosen and one of those little felt hats with the feather in it. People with experience tend to be more willing to say what they do and don’t like–something everyone of every age should learn to do.
Sex is about comfort and trust and feeling safe–even for men. We all have to feel that we can indulge ourselves–and our partners–desires without shame or fear. Tenderness and soft whispers will make the proprietor more likely to invite you to the valley. Permission to yodel is a bonus.
So it surprises me not a bit that Ace can’t keep a lover for more than a week. How could anyone feel safe and comfortable around a vitriolic prick like him? Even wingnuts who have bought into the “men own women” bullshit can’t let go around a whiny black-hearted dirtbag like him.
I didn’t know vaginas could kick and scream. =)
Why is this specifically about oral sex? Is it not just as reasonable to say that people who are not “giving and game” in regards to anal sex, BDSM, exhibitionism, group sex or golden showers should stop “inflicting” themselves on other people? We all have our squiks and kinks. This insistence that everyone should have one particular kink (oral sex) in order to have any kind of a sex life is baffling.
Yeah, you don’t think abuse survivors are equivalent to misogynists. But you still come off as profoundly unsympathetic by considering our sexual preferences to be problems. And it seems you are arguing against a “strawsurvivor” while most of us are quite able to have mutually satisfying sexual relationships by just being clear about what we will and will not do.
Yeah, I think this highlights what has really gone downhill about “sex positive” politics. At one point in time, it was “learn how to say yes to what you want, and no to what you don’t want.” Now it’s been turned into yet another show promoting a one-size-fits-all sexuality.
CBrachyrhynchos:
I don’t think you get the point about being “giving and game.” One part of it I suppose is a general open-mindedness - “well, dear, if this is something you’re interested in or something that’s important to you then of course I’ll try it”. But the broader point, which is backed up by what Amanda’s written in similar discussions before, isn’t about the necessity of performing or satisfying a particular sex act/kink/whatever, it’s about sexual compatibility. If A derives the most sexual pleasure from licking honey off of a partner’s body (or whatever) and B can’t stand having honey licked off of B’s self (sticky in all the wrong ways!) then A and B probably shouldn’t be in a sexual relationship with each other. They’d be better off finding people who, respectively, enjoy being licked off of and have no interest in licking off of. Obviously this also doesn’t mean that a couple should split at the first sign of sexual compatibility, but if I’m just absolutely unwilling to go down on a girlfriend and being gone down on is relatively important to her sexual…gestalt, or whatever…then we’re not (sexually) right for each other.
I can’t speak to whether Amanda’s writing about a “strawsurvivor” because I just really wouldn’t know. But Amanda isn’t arguing, in my reading, that it’s impossible for a survivor of abuse to have a fulfilling sexual relationship, just that when a person - even one whose sexuality has been affected in that way - has wills and won’ts that conflict with the desires of a sexual partner…then the desires conflict, and we refer to the above paragraph. The floating important variable here is the level of commitment to the relationship abstracted from the sexual arena, but dealing on a purely sexual level: there isn’t really a reason why someone should feel obliged to compromise their sexual pleasure to accomodate the effects of someone else’s (profoundly, unspeakably, etc., not diminishing the importance of, please believe me) negative history, any more than a person should be expected, on the nonsexual level, to as a matter of course submit themselves to the reality of partnership with a person who is suffering from severe depression or other mental health issues. If that’s something you’re willing or compelled or happy to do, then more power to you, but it’s a difficult situation and I wouldn’t fault a person for backing out of a relationship which had that characteristic, and I think the same fairly applies to the sexual aspect of a relationship. If I’m not going to be happy and fulfilled unless I’m getting head, then the reason a potential sex partner is just never going to be ok with giving me head doesn’t really matter except insofar as my feeling more or less sympathetic when I decide we’re not right for each other as sex partners.
CBrachyrhynchos:
I don’t think you get the point about being “giving and game.” One part of it I suppose is a general open-mindedness - “well, dear, if this is something you’re interested in or something that’s important to you then of course I’ll try it”. But the broader point, which is backed up by what Amanda’s written in similar discussions before, isn’t about the necessity of performing or satisfying a particular sex act/kink/whatever, it’s about sexual compatibility. If A derives the most sexual pleasure from licking honey off of a partner’s body (or whatever) and B can’t stand having honey licked off of B’s self (sticky in all the wrong ways!) then A and B probably shouldn’t be in a sexual relationship with each other. They’d be better off finding people who, respectively, enjoy being licked off of and have no interest in licking off of. Obviously this also doesn’t mean that a couple should split at the first sign of sexual compatibility, but if I’m just absolutely unwilling to go down on a girlfriend and being gone down on is relatively important to her sexual…gestalt, or whatever…then we’re not (sexually) right for each other.
I can’t speak to whether Amanda’s writing about a “strawsurvivor” because I just really wouldn’t know. But Amanda isn’t arguing, in my reading, that it’s impossible for a survivor of abuse to have a fulfilling sexual relationship, just that when a person - even one whose sexuality has been affected in that way - has wills and won’ts that conflict with the desires of a sexual partner…then the desires conflict, and we refer to the above paragraph. The floating important variable here is the level of commitment to the relationship abstracted from the sexual arena, but dealing on a purely sexual level: there isn’t really a reason why someone should feel obliged to compromise their sexual pleasure to accomodate the effects of someone else’s (profoundly, unspeakably, etc., not diminishing the importance of, please believe me) negative history, any more than a person should be expected, on the nonsexual level, to as a matter of course submit themselves to the reality of partnership with a person who is suffering from severe depression or other mental health issues. If that’s something you’re willing or compelled or happy to do, then more power to you, but it’s a difficult situation and I wouldn’t fault a person for backing out of a relationship which had that characteristic, and I think the same fairly applies to the sexual aspect of a relationship. If I’m not going to be happy and fulfilled unless I’m getting head, then the reason a potential sex partner is just never going to be ok with giving me head doesn’t really matter except insofar as my feeling more or less sympathetic when I decide we’re not right for each other as sex partners.
Ack! Don’t know how the double post happened, my apologies.
Amanda Marcotte: “…we are talking about the artist who got a Dead Kennedys’ album banned for this artwork in the album cover.”
Have to get picky here, since I own the Frankenchrist album (unless my brother stole it.) The art isn’t the cover, but is instead a poster inside with the record sleeve. And no, it never went on my wall.
Here’s a handy link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenchrist
I did hear that the cover they did use caused one of the Shriners in the tiny cars to sue.
Greatest moment in the guy’s life and he considers it an insult. I hope his lawyer screwed him.
Financially speaking, of course.
God, I need to pick a new username now.
I seriously hope that this guy hasn’t been laid as many or more times than me (no, it’s not a certainty.)
To Moira:
Thanks for the maroons link, I never knew about that before, though I did read about Harriet Tubman in class. That is so cool, that the ones that escaped have made a independent life for themselves with farming and hunting, AND went back for the other slaves, AND blended with the natives.
I just never knew, I only knew about stuff like The Colour of Purple where blacks were used to oppress blacks (kinda like how women were used to oppress women in The Handmaid’s Tale), I didn’t know about the ones who formed communities together once they escaped. With Harriet Tubman, there was a railway and they did organize, but they do so within their lawful lives in Canada instead of separatism.
Somebody needs to show Kenneth Eng that link.
…and have you heard of The Métis that owned Manitoba of Canada before somebody came along to sign it off to somebody else? The Métis Nation was formed by families of mixed heritages, aboriginal (Cree, Ojibway or Saulteaux) and French (sometimes Scots).
- MG
Okay, please don’t take this wrong, but it must be said: I’ve seen a picture of you, the Ace I like, and I’ve seen a picture of him, the Ace I also like (because he’s always been cordial to me, whatever other flaws he might have), but nonetheless worry about from time to time, like for example in this instance right here. I mean, Play-Doh? Bacon?
So I’m just saying: Oh yes it is too a certainty.
Really. I can prove it.
Hilzoy’s comment on this is unmissable.
Certainly this is one interpretation of what is going on here. But, Amanda has clearly chosen to frame this discussion around the idea that non liking something is a “(psychological) problem,” or “issue” that is “inflicted upon” or “unethical.” She hasn’t framed this as an issue of sexual compatibility. She’s framed it as a responsibility to put out.
And I’m getting sick and tired of hearing “open-minded” thrown into these discussions. I don’t feel the need to repeatedly bang my head against a brick wall hoping for some magical combination of circumstances when it becomes a turn-on. For me, the squiks involve non-monogamy, and BDSM rather than oral sex, but I think the same point applies.
Well, here is the other area in that I am a person who suffers from severe depression as well.
First of all, I would say that survivors have an equal right to not compromise their sexual pleasure in order to accommodate the psycho-sexual kinks of their partner.
Secondly, I think it’s up to the survivor to determine whether a dislike for this or that sexual act is a mental illness or not. I am really suspicious whenever sexual behavior and preferences are automatically treated as a pathology.
Well, I’m inclined to say, “your kink, your problem, not my problem.” If you have a D&S paraphilia, there are certainly more than enough people who can satisfy that. If you have an oral sex paraphilia, find someone who will orally worship you an hour a day.
oral sex is not, under any circumstances, a *kink*. it’s a basic, vanilla sex act that i don’t think anyone should feel bad for expecting to do with their sex partner, male or female.
Is it not just as reasonable to say that people who are not “giving and game� in regards to anal sex, BDSM, exhibitionism, group sex or golden showers should stop “inflicting� themselves on other people?
Yes, because there is absolutely no difference between kink and non-kink.
Actually, yes. If you are in a relationship with someone who desires golden showers and you won’t do it, instead of making them feel like a horrible person and guilt-tripping them, quit inflicting yourself on them.
The difference is that oral sex? Pretty much everyone does it, it’s standard. I’m surprised you didn’t write:
Is it not just as reasonable to say that people who are not “giving and game� in regards to kissing, cuddling after sex, holding hands, and being seen with you in public should stop “inflicting� themselves on other people?
If you can find someone compatible with your hatred of kissing or touching affectionately, Disco Ball be with you, but don’t inflict yourself on people who you will make unhappy with your unwillingness to participate in a satisfying relationship for them.
As a survivor of sexual assault, I’d hardly say that we’re “broken” and in fact resent the implication that being fucked up sexually is expected. Not that it’s wrong to be messed up after an assault—god knows I was in so many ways—but sometimes the broad brush that all rape victims are delicate flowers makes me insane. Trigger warnings alone make me want to take a shit, because I feel insulted, like I’m being coddled like a child. And I’m sick of the notion that you aren’t obligated to get better. Yes you are. You deserve to be better, since you are a human being. The “you don’t have to work on surviving if you don’t want to” thing promotes the notion that rape victims are and should be permanently broken, road kill we can point to. Maybe not immediately you don’t get over your issues, but for your own good, if you are a victim, you should work on it.
Yes, guilt trips are unethical. Making someone feel bad about having sexual needs is wrong. I have a general opposition to close-mindedness. I would not tolerate a man in my bed who would not go down, and being told that I’m a bully for it is irritating. I dislike it when people are picky eaters, won’t listen to new music, are scared to read books, and yes, that carries over to people who dismiss sexual experimentation out of hand and then get angry at the very idea that they aren’t entitled to have the sex partner of their choice who should have to tolerate their unwillingness to be a generous sex partner. Guilt tripping someone who has sexual desires and making them feel ashamed of something like wanting oral sex is repugnant to me. The only thing that’s pissed me off more from a guy is the whining about the condom.
For me, the squiks involve non-monogamy, and BDSM rather than oral sex, but I think the same point applies.
Then what’s your point? I don’t enjoy those either, so you know what? I don’t inflict my vanilla self on someone who does want those things. Luckily for me, the pool of people who are into non-BDSM and monogamy is much larger than people who don’t like oral sex, so I’m not in a sticky situation. Someone who wants to refrain from oral sex needs to be a grown-up and accept that limits their sex partner possibilities significantly and own up to that instead of doing things like making someone feel like a pervert, giving a guilt trip, or saying someone smells bad—all ways to weasel out of oral sex without losing the relationship that have been discussed here.
“Is it not just as reasonable to say that people who are not “giving and gameâ€? in regards to anal sex, BDSM, exhibitionism, group sex or golden showers should stop “inflictingâ€? themselves on other people?”
Pretty much. If your partner feels deeply unfulfilled in a relationship without ________, and you’re absolutely, flatly unwilling to indulge them in regards to _________, the ethical thing to do is be honest about that, allow them to make the informed choice about whether or not they want to stay in the relationship, and behave maturely if they want to leave. Conversely, the ethical thing for them to do is accept that you’re being honest with them and not continue the relationship with the expectation that they’ll eventually wear you down and get you to fulfill that need. If they won’t accept that you’re unwilling to indulge them and respect your boundaries, you have every right to leave the relationship and find someone who will. Sometimes it sucks and means that a relationship that you are perfectly happy with is going to end, but that doesn’t make it any less the right thing to do.
CBrachyrhynchos -
Perhaps you are or were just in a state of mind to be contrary / looking for an argument? Nothing I wrote contradicts this:
First of all, I would say that survivors have an equal right to not compromise their sexual pleasure in order to accommodate the psycho-sexual kinks of their partner
…
Well, I’m inclined to say, “your kink, your problem, not my problem.� If you have a D&S paraphilia, there are certainly more than enough people who can satisfy that. If you have an oral sex paraphilia, find someone who will orally worship you an hour a day.
In fact, what I wrote pretty much logically demands it. As to the stuff that goes more towards your discussion with Amanda, I think her most recent comment is of course a more capable answer than any interpreting I’d do of her position, but I do think you’re misreading (most of?) her intent here.
Um…unless that’s a joke, if you actually have seen a photo of me I’m a little scared…I’ve been very mum about as much as disclosing my name to anyone on here.
Alix, in response to my earlier post:
“Or she might not need to see a therapist - she might just need to accept her asexuality. Not everyone who doesn’t like or isn’t interested in sex is “frigidâ€? and in need of therapy, thanks.”
Yes, good point. I don’t know enough about asexuality to comment any more on that, but if the person in question doesn’t have any issues with the dislike and lack of interest, there’s then no need for any kind of healing or therapy.
Alix said “Or she might not need to see a therapist - she might just need to accept her asexuality. Not everyone who doesn’t like or isn’t interested in sex is “frigidâ€? and in need of therapy, thanks.
Absolutely true. But I’d be a lot happier of so many of them didn’t date or marry non-asexuals. But I’ll tell you who wouldn’t be happier: divorce lawyers.
“Making someone feel bad about having sexual needs is wrong.”
Short. Sweet. To the point. Wholly correct. Wholly inarguable. And a statement guaranteed to drive every single guilt-tripper swine out there (male or female, secular or religious, manipulative or oblivious) absolutely insane with rage. Making people feel bad about the need for sex is the the abso-boffo Best Thing Ever! for mental cruelty and good old fashioned fucking people up. It is thus, and needless to say, very popular.
Absolutely agree, six-oh-seven-nine. But let’s also add, “Making someone feel bad for not wanting to do a certain sexual thing is wrong.” (Note that breaking up with them because of it, if it’s a deal-breaker, is not wrong.)
“But let’s also add, “Making someone feel bad for not wanting to do a certain sexual thing is wrong.â€? (Note that breaking up with them because of it, if it’s a deal-breaker, is not wrong.)”
Agreed, and added to the list … {Makes a notation} as long as we add a caveat: I had a few files where the wife’s* definition of “a certain sexual thing” was, well, sex.
* - I can’t speak to husbands, because I never had such a file.
For the most part, you are arguing a straw man because no one has proposed that guilt-trips are good. or that you should be called a pervert for making oral sex a requirement for a relationship. If someone won’t do oral sex with you, you have every right to walk away from that relationship. No one has argued otherwise. (And I thought that this was exactly what I proposed.)
But thoughout this disucssion you have been publicly shaming people who want to refrain from oral sex. It is unethical for you to demand respect for your sexual needs, and not extend the same respect to people who don’t share your sexual needs.
I don’t know why this is under debate. My concern in this discussion is that it’s impossble to have respectful disucssions on this given the active distain expressed for those boundaries.
My goal in this disucssion is not to say that Amanda is a pervert for demanding oral sex. It’s to say that I’m deeply disturbed when sexual needs are compared to a mental illness that the person needs to get over.
“Making someone feel bad about having sexual needs is wrong.”
Except of course when that sexual need just happens to be not having oral sex. Then, saying that the person in question needs to get over it, is guilt-tripping, is unethical, is crazy, or is misogynists is fair game.
Cbrachyrhynchos: “For the most part, you are arguing a straw man because no one has proposed that guilt-trips are good. or that you should be called a pervert for making oral sex a requirement for a relationship. If someone won’t do oral sex with you, you have every right to walk away from that relationship. No one has argued otherwise….”
It doesn’t count as a straw man if it’s actually happening. A divorce practice is a wonderful place to learn about sexual browbeating, Cb, and I can tell you that there are lots of people out there who believe that sexual guilt trips are good, who believe that you are or can be called selfish or a pervert if you want something specific in sex (or want sex at all), or that you are a sick, selfish bastard/bitch if you walk away from a relationship where people are doing things like that to you.
Cbrachyrhynchos, no one’s saying that. The guilt tripping, etc., going on is when people who don’t want to have oral sex blame the other person (like they smell bad) or compare genitals to Giger paintings made out of Play-Doh and bacon, which in my mind, is a rather scary and bizarre way to insult and objectify someone.
If someone just doesn’t like oral sex and their partner is fine with that - after all, there are many ways to have sex - it’s all ok. If it’s an issue in the relationship, then you have sexual incompatability which needs to be dealt with in a way that isn’t demeaning or unfair to either person.
From where I stand, no one here is doing that. What they are saying is that people with sexual needs their partner won’t satisfy would be better off finding someone who is more sexually matched to them in the bedroom.
six-oh-seven-nine: There is quite a bit of sexual brow-beating and guilt-tripping going all ways, from people “withholding” sexual affection to guilt trips that fall under many definitions of rape. However, no one here is championing such dysfunctional behavior. I’m still trying to understand exactly was wrong with my original statement that there is a healthy middle ground between “giving and game” and “not inflicting one’s self on other people.” It’s called honest negotiation.
I think that the comparison from Amanda and Quartercian couldn’t be more explicit.
And, it seems that everyone here is in agreement that people should find compatible sexual partners. I don’t see much argument there, except that I feel that at least half of the responsibility falls on those who demand oral sex as a central part of their sexual lives. My concern is how do we get to that point where potential couples can openly talk about and reveal their preferences in such a way that it’s possible to find compatible sexual partners?
People who don’t engage in some sexual acts are placed in a cultural double-bind. If they reveal that they are just not into oral sex or intercourse, they are going to be stigmatized as frigid, mentally ill, prudes or conservative. If they grin and bear it, they become the scapegoats for the lack of sexual communication in the relationship.
Hava - Thanks for not taking my nitpicking the wrong way.
Six-oh-seven-nine -
Agreed, but I’d be a lot happier if society stopped denying my existence (or writing it off as something in need of a cure) and trying to pressure me into marriage. Maybe if more people (and I’m not referring to anyone here) realize that a lack of sexual interest or desire is perfectly fine, this will change.
But alas, the stereotype of the frigid woman who just needs to get over it and put out still pops up everywhere in this fucked-up culture of ours…
There is something else mildly vexing me about this comment thread, and I’m not sure I can say what it is. It’s tentative and unformed.
Something here struck me. (Remember, tentative and unformed thought, here.)
We’ve so tangled sex and romance that asexuals are practically forbidden from romantic relationships - unless we’re willing to compromise by putting out.
I am a hermit more than anything, but I could fall in love. I’ve had non-sexual crushes. If I come to love someone deeply, should I simply not pursue the possibility of a relationship because I wouldn’t have sex with him/her? If I’m honest and up-front about my asexuality, and he/she is okay with it, would pursuing a non-sexual romantic relationship then be okay?
Like I said, tentative and unformed here, and something of a tangent to boot.
We’ve so tangled sex and romance that asexuals are practically forbidden from romantic relationships - unless we’re willing to compromise by putting out.
This is the crux.
You just obviously need to go to the PTSD asexual dating site and stick to your own kind. Do you think celibates (as in, has sexual attractions, just doesn’t like/have sex) could be on the same site, or would they need their own as well?
My strikethrough didn’t show up. The PTSD is supposed to be struck through.
Alix, I think a problem is that many people don’t want to talk about what they like to do in bed unless they think of themselves as having a kink. Someone who assumes that since they’re not kinky, everything they like to do is normal, is also likely to be someone who will assume they don’t have to have that “What do you like?” conversation before the clothes come off.
Hets (my impression) tend to assume that their sexual partners will want intercourse. (Often, as Amanda demonstrates, they will also tend to assume that their sexual partners will want oral sex.)
LGBT people (my impression) tend to be better at not assuming - there’s no default option on the menu as there is for mixed-sex couples, so there’s more chance that they’ll ask rather than assume.
Maybe we should try to get het people to behave as if they were lesbians…
Yes, and I’m wondering why the heck our country under Bush II seems more puritanical in its assumptions than under Bush I? Sex-positive straights were not making these assumptions either when I was dating back in the early 90s because oral sex was still talked about as involving some level of risk. It wasn’t uncommon for partners to consent to mutual masturbation as a low-risk activity.