Posted by Pam Spaulding August 8, 2007 in Uncategorized, Republicans, Conservatives Sure Are Funny
Folks, when it rains it pours…the GOP sexual hypocrite parade continues in all its glory. I give you…
Glenn Murphy, Jr., the recently elected chairman of the Young Republican National Federation (also the RNC Chair for Clark County, Indiana and formerly the YRNF Secretary) has been accused of sexually assaulting a sleeping man. Immediately following the accusation, he came up with an unrelated reason to resign, and the YRNF cleansed their website of his name.Taking Down Words, an Indiana blog, has been following this guy for some time. And guess what? Apparently this isn’t the first time his mouth has ended up on someone’s privates while they were asleep. Glenn Murphy has a prior arrest for sexual battery. Here’s the 1998 Clark County police report. A snippet, for your entertainment.Allegedly, Murphy and another YR were drunk and crashing at Murphy’s sister’s house. The other man apparently awoke in the morning to find Murphy giving him a non-consensual blow job. The Clark County (Indiana) Sheriff’s Department is charging Murphy with “criminal deviate conduct”, a Class B felony.
More at Blue Indiana.
You can also check out the Google Cache of the Young Republicans site, which reveals the scrubbing of Murphy from their organization included the removal of recently created YouTube videos. If that link becomes dated, you can check out the screen shot here.
82 Responses to “Young Republican National Federation Chair accused of sexually assaulting sleeping man”
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>
schadenfreudelicious.
why can’t he just find someone who wants to consent? the wingnuts are going to excommunicate him either way, so we he might as well for a real relationship instead of assaulting folks who are just trying to get a little rest.
Not knowing much about the official particulars of gay men’s sexual preferences, I’m fascinated by the apparently very large number of gay guys who just really LOVE to suck dick.
Looking at the hetero oral sex act as a rough equivalent, I just don’t get it. I’ll put my face in there as enthusiastically as the next guy, but I can’t see paying somebody for the privilege, much less being so overcome by a sleeping woman’s clitoris that I had to put my tongue on it without her consent.
APS
I was going to make a snarky comment about how male victims of sexual assault are more likely to be believed than females, then I read the comments over at the Talking Down post. People are questioning why the victim was sleeping alone in a bedroom with the guy, why he went to see a lawyer so quickly, etc. Appalling.
Does “advised” have some alternate meaning that I’m not aware of because that police report seems to use it every third word.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll probably say it again, why can’t Republicans have some normal sex scandal?
Dems get caught cheating on their partners with some boring consensual adult affair. Rethugs get in a sex scandal and it’s always four-way ostrich sex or something equivalent.
Non-consensual, prostitutes, drugs, underage, etc. It’s like either they manage to maintain their total “biblical” sex life (i.e. none) or they go utterly insane. It does however explain why they insist on criminalizing everything. Other people can find a happy medium between abstinence and assaulting an underage squirrel and its sister, but conservatives can’t. So either you have the strongest imaginable strictures against all sex (with a grudging acceptance of procreative sex) or anything can happen.
I was wondering what “deviate sexual conduct” was and it’s basically defined in Indiana law the same way as rape is (both are class B felonies, class A in some circumstances) except that rape is defined as heterosexual PIV sex only, and “deviate sexual conduct” is everything else oral or anal or penetrative.
So basically, if you are not going to stick to the strict PIV defintion of rape, this guy has been accused of raping a sleeping friend.
I’m kind of shocked that the victim’s getting the same kind of invalidation you usually see for female rape and sexual assault victims. I mean, can’t other men put themselves in that situation — I mean, oh my god, SLEEPING ALONE IN A BEDROOM WITH ANOTHER MAN? You’ve got to be kidding. Seeking legal help after being raped by the president of the Young Republicans? I can’t imagine why. What creeps.
Well, don’t worry. Jeebus will forgive him and all will be right with the world.
And Col. BG, welcome to the wonderful world of police-report jargon. Those things can be as indeciperhable in their way as legal briefs (which makes a certain amount of sense, since they are, after all, legal documents). I would go bonkers trying to comprehend some of them when I was a police-beat reporter. I remember staring at this one report for 15 minutes before I finally realized what it was saying: A guy had a heart attack behind the wheel in his driveway, and his car rolled across the street and hit a lamppost.
Very telling. It seems, then, like the main reason for rape apologia is to be on team accused-rapist somehow, no matter who the victim is (though, of course, 99% of the time it’s a woman, so they can add 10 extra layers of bashing on top).
Ugh, the discussion at Talking Down is really horrifying. It actually makes me kind of nauseous.
It would appear that joining the Republicans is at least as good a way to hook up as going to P’Town. Duly noted.
I look forward to the day that homophobia nears the extinction point for so many reasons. But one major side effect will be getting all of us out from under the psychodramas of these closet cases who make the whole world pay for their inability to accept themselves. If they weren’t so vile and loathesome in the ways they try to control everyone else, because they can’t control themselves, I might feel a bit of pity for them. But, as they’re so fond of pointing out, it’s a choice. And when it comes to how they want to impose their dysfunctions on the rest of us, at least, they’re actually right about that.
Frankly, I don’t believe my marriage can survive this assault on decency.
Next up: men bugger waterfowl in the parking lot of Applebee’s. Damn those faggots and what they’ve done to my marriage!
Correction alert!
I looked at the pdf, and it is dated 8/3/07 and refers to events on 7/28/07, so this appears to be the most recent incident, and not the one from 1998, as stated in the post.
Where are the men’s rights trolls to tell us that if you don’t want to be sexually assaulted, you shouldn’t fall asleep?
My bad!
The 1998 incident report is on the very last page of the file - both incidents are included in the pdf.
Are all Republicans sexual predators? It seems a month cannot go by that we don’t find another bona fide Republican sexual hypocrite that manages to combine their fetish with a crime. So far this year we have this idiot Murphy, an accused rapist, the guy in Florida offering to pay to blow a police officer in a public restroom, Diaperman Vitter hiring prostitutes to change his diaper. Foley, Livingstone, Haggard et al. Heck, at least Gingrich cheating on and divorcing his cancer stricken wife wasn’t illegal, although I’ve got to say the most morally repugnant of the lot.
Geez what a gross and criminal bunch. The RNC should just disband out of shame.
naw, that’s just vanilla ice cream
At other websites, I’ve seen the old, Well, I’m straight and I’d love to wake up to find a strange woman I barely know giving me a blowjob, so what’s this guy complaining about?
First of all, no, you wouldn’t like it. It would freak you the fuck out to have a stranger touching you in a sexual way, and your first instinct would be to try and get away from the crazy person who thought you’d like it.
Second of all, you don’t get to decide what someone else likes, dickhead. That’s why sexual assault is illegal — because people get to decide who they have sex with for themselves. You don’t get to force yourself on people and say, Well, I would have liked it if you’d done it to me.
Anyone else have a sneaky feeling that this guy has done this multiple times between the 1998 incident and the current incident? Oddly enough, I think the fact that the guy he assaulted was openly gay was what got him caught. If he’d assaulted one of his closeted buddies, they would have stayed silent for fear of being outed, whereas a guy who’s already out would have no compunctions about turning his sorry ass over to the cops.
We all dream for the age of wine and Gingrich Spouses . . .
At other websites, I’ve seen the old, Well, I’m straight and I’d love to wake up to find a strange woman I barely know giving me a blowjob, so what’s this guy complaining about?
Right, because they’re automatically assuming it’s, say, Angelina Jolie. Or Obama Girl.
I’m not going to call anyone out as an example of someone archetypically unattractive, but if you change the equation and put a woman these people find repulsive in the fantasy, they’re not going to be cool with it.
More profoundly, they’re rewriting the scenario to assume consent, as they always do in rape cases.
Mr. Murphy takes the down-low to new lows.
Clark County? I live in Clark County!
*Trundles off to look up more stuff*
“I’m fascinated by the apparently very large number of gay guys who just really LOVE to suck dick” - Ape Man
wtf, dude. uncalled for. this guy is a sexual predator. his behavior has nothing to do with his sexual preference or gender for that matter.
How many guys, even Rethuglicans, would want to wake up to Ann Coulter giving them a BJ?
Mr. Murphy takes the down-low to new lows.
I wonder if they met at the Young Repugs Convention, portrayed here in Generation Chickenhawk. No war is too necessary for them not to fight! (They’re needed here, you see, to fill important roles plus the forms for them.)
First found at Talking Points Memo, see URL in my nick
when your political ideology is based on the notion that you are entitled to take or to do whatever you want because you are a white christian male, and the rest of the world’s population exists merely for the purpose of servicing you until they are all annihilated by armageddon, or world war 4, whichever comes first - it’s no surprise you’d think it was okay to sneak up on another guy while he’s asleep and try to slob on his knob without his permission.
i don’t care if it’s angelina jolie OR brad pitt OR BOTH doing the servicing. if it happens without my consent - it’s abuse.
I agree that this would be totally disturbing for any straight man to experience a homosexual situation against his will. I mean, your sexual reflexes are triggered and then they’re associated with the image of some dude performing oral sex on you.
There should be a further investigation of this man. Obviously, he gets off on controlling others and, it seems, he likes messing with young men he knows are straight, which is psychologically twisted.
In my previous post, I assumed the men assaulted (there was another previous charge) were straight considering it’s the GOP and all. I read about this story on another site and I believe it said the men were straight. Regardless, assault is assault.
“I’m fascinated by the apparently very large number of gay guys who just really LOVE to suck dick” - Ape Man
What, you haven’t found a very large number of straight women who just LOVE to suck your dick? Further comment ought to be unnecessary…
but what the hell. The flood of straight male comment after this and the last scandal are really harshing my schadenfreude buzz, man. Can somebody reassure me that all these guys who think it’s hilarious that someone would PAY to suck cock would never ever ask anyone to suck THEIR cock, seeing as how they’re positive it can’t be any fun?
I’m not sure if this is relevant, but on the YRNF website, you can’t view or search their news stories. Interesting.
So I guess if I, a gay man, woke up to this it should be less upsetting and less of a violation?
well, duh. obviously you would LOVE it becos gay men are all big pervies who love the cock so much they don’t care who it happens to be attached to, and they totally want to nail every guy even the really nasty ugly unkempt ones, actually, especially those ones, especially if theyre homophobes. afterall, being gay means you want to have the sex constantly with strangers all the damn time.
/snark
“So I guess if I, a gay man, woke up to this it should be less upsetting and less of a violation?”
Interesting question. I’ve had my dick in guys mouths more times than I can remember — if I were to wake up with some creep sucking on mine it would be an upsetting violation. If a straight guy woke up with some creep sucking on his, it would be an upsetting violation AND an affront to straight guy’s sexual identity. Does that make it worse? Arguably yes. Does that make it a worse crime, legally speaking? I don’t know if it does, or if it should.
Sophonsiba, in both this and the other story, I thought it was strange that these repressed Republicans wanted to suck someone’s dick. I didn’t say anything, because I didn’t want to respond to a story about a sexual assault with “Hey, this makes me curious about something!” (I’m also not able to get much schadenfreude from a story about a sexual assault.) But given that we’re already discussing it, I might as well say why I find it strange.
We live in a society in which, to put it in a gender-neutral and orientation-neutral (minus lesbians) fashion, performing orally on someone is considered performing a service on them. And more specifically, the bulk of America considers penetration in sex to be the better, dominant position, and being penetrated to be the inferior, subservient position. I’m not endorsing these views, but they’re (consciously or subconsciously) held by most Americans, and I assumed that they would be particularly held by conservative Republicans, even if they were repressed homosexuals. Or, to put it in a cruder terms, I always assumed that a repressed male homosexual, conservative Republican, would secretly desire to stick his penis in a different hole, not to have a penis stuck in one of his holes. Apparently I was wrong, but that’s what I assumed, and I still don’t understand it. I do not, however, assume that non-repressed Americans of any orientation or gender dislike havings things stuck in their various holes.
You’ve just validated the gay panic defense.
I never said an affront to one’s sexual identity was justification for a violent reaction. I haven’t validated anything.
When he was elected to his position, he said: “I will essentially be the mouthpiece…for the tens of thousands of Young Republicans.” Can’t say they weren’t warned.
And more specifically, the bulk of America considers penetration in sex to be the better, dominant position, and being penetrated to be the inferior, subservient position.
I am bewildered by the fact that you are able to articulate this so clearly and yet seem not to have heard of this thing we call “BDSM,” which trades on and eroticizes this dominance and subservience you speak of.
GIVEN repression, dirty shameful sex is better and hotter. THEREFORE symbolic subservience, being dirtier and more shameful, is SEXIER.
This is not a hard math problem.
Or, to put it in a cruder terms, I always assumed that a repressed male homosexual, conservative Republican, would secretly desire to stick his penis in a different hole,
Well, that makes no precisely no sense. Wanting to stick your dick in something to assert dominance over that something is not a desire that male Republicans feel the need to repress or keep secret. It is boring and vanilla and the cornerstone of their public sexuality. There’s nothing exciting or illicit about it. Anybody caught getting a blowjob could pull out the old “but the one on top’s not gay” line and expect to be believed by a good number of people.
And more specifically, the bulk of America considers penetration in sex to be the better, dominant position, and being penetrated to be the inferior, subservient position.
I am bewildered by the fact that you are able to articulate this so clearly and yet seem not to have heard of this thing we call “BDSM,” which trades on and eroticizes this dominance and subservience you speak of.
GIVEN repression, dirty shameful sex is better and hotter. THEREFORE symbolic subservience, being dirtier and more shameful, is SEXIER.
This is not a hard math problem.
Or, to put it in a cruder terms, I always assumed that a repressed male homosexual, conservative Republican, would secretly desire to stick his penis in a different hole,
Well, that makes no precisely no sense. Wanting to stick your dick in something to assert dominance over that something is not a desire that male Republicans feel the need to repress or keep secret. It is boring and vanilla and the cornerstone of their public sexuality. There’s nothing exciting or illicit about it. Anybody caught getting a blowjob could pull out the old “but the one on top’s not gay” line and expect to be believed by a good number of people.
We live in a society in which, to put it in a gender-neutral and orientation-neutral (minus lesbians) fashion, performing orally on someone is considered performing a service on them.
Huh?
Why “minus lesbians”?
Also, seriously, people with healthy attitudes towards sex don’t see oral as a service to be rendered, sorry. If you see oral as some kind of chore or transaction, you have fucking issues, in both senses of that expression.
Time for Pam’s secret decoder ring.
If a straight guy woke up with some creep sucking on his, it would be an upsetting violation AND an affront to straight guy’s sexual identity. Does that make it worse? Arguably yes. Does that make it a worse crime, legally speaking? I don’t know if it does, or if it should.
So, by your argument, a man who rapes a straight man should be punished more severely than a man who rapes a straight woman, because at least the rapist didn’t put the woman’s sexual identity at risk.
Dude, seriously, listen to yourself.
I wonder what Murphy Junior’s defense is?
I gotta tell you, though, GOP hypocrisy just keeps on rolling.
Well, our national anchorpeople should be exposing the GOP hypocrisy on our newscasts as Pamela and Pandagon can’t do it by ourselves and expect it to be aired nationwide.
Bitter Scribe-
“And Col. BG, welcome to the wonderful world of police-report jargon. Those things can be as indeciperhable in their way as legal briefs (which makes a certain amount of sense, since they are, after all, legal documents). I would go bonkers trying to comprehend some of them when I was a police-beat reporter. I remember staring at this one report for 15 minutes before I finally realized what it was saying: A guy had a heart attack behind the wheel in his driveway, and his car rolled across the street and hit a lamppost.”
Having been forced to write police reports during my tour of duty as a MP, I can say that the *intent* is to make it impossible for a lawyer to misinterpet what you wrote down.
As for the subject… I agree with histrogeek: why can’t Republicans just cheat on thier wives like normal political sex scandals?
As for waking up with someone providing oral sex, my problem would be the first reaction: “Ohmygawdsomethingisonmypenisgetitoff oh, hi darling, good morning!” Even if you wouldn’t have objected, it’s still a shock. And having be someone you wouldn’t want (for whatever reason) would make it worse.
That get my favorite post of the day award.
why can’t he just find someone who wants to consent?
Wingnuts don’t believe in the concept of “consent.” How can they? They don’t believe that anybody really and truly owns their own bodies; even white heterosexual male Christians’ bodies are owned in their eyes, either by their God, or else by whatever proxy they have for the State.
Because I went on to specifically refer to penetration. Agreed. But again, I wasn’t stating my beliefs about sex, but the attitudes I expected repressed conservatives to have.Sophonisba, I did think about BDSM and the attraction of being in the subservient position. But here we’re talking about a subservient sexual assault. It’s possible that I’m just being stupid, and that you understand the psychology of this much better than me; I’m just saying that I don’t. Actually, I regret posting in this particular thread at all, and am going to drop out now.
For sure it is sexual assault. No question. It doesn’t make it better or worse if the guy was straight, or gay, or really into blow jobs. But it is really hard for a lot of this country, especially the legal establishment, to imagine that a man (!) could get sexually assaulted. See some of the comments on other websites a la “if i woke up with another man’s mouth on my dick an ambulance would have to be called.” The fact that the 22-year old in question didn’t fight murphy off would suggest to a lot of people that the event was consensual to some degree. People are idiots.
Re the consent discussions upstream:
Non-consent actually seems desirable to these overlord wannabees aiming for a society where 1% is untouchable by law or even reproach and the rest have to eat it (and not in a fun way, so to speak.)
What these Reptilian Rethugs really hate in the hands of The Other — and which they Piratically steal, impede and scourge to distinguish themselves from the “depraved” groups undeserving of the inalienable rights — are:
consent
mobility
recourse
franchise.
It’s been so systematic during the Bush Dim Ages. Look at the trail of scorched earth human rights abuses the Republicult has left in its. They’ve created a Crony Constitution with a First Class where all sins are excused for their squatting selves and their BFFS, with servants’ and sycophants granted stuffy cramped quarters and access.
The rest have to settle for Coach Class, being forced by illegal means (like loudly thumped bibles) constantly to re-fight and re-beg for rights they already own. Of course they’re joined in the sub-class by the Republicult’s flying monkey squadrons, who are too psyched by the job of continually attacking their masters’ enemies to see that’s no fitting reward for shredding rights they might actually cherish once the smell of blood is out of their noses.
Other people can find a happy medium between abstinence and assaulting an underage squirrel and its sister, but conservatives can’t.
At least with the top 1% sex-for-me-not-for-thee overlord types, I think they specifically want to make sure other people aren’t having any fun. If anyone can cheat on his wife or have an orgy or suck another guy’s dick, it’s less special and fun when you do it. If you can’t make the peons afraid to have sex at all, you have to resort to assaulting squirrels, because you can’t get off on doing what ordinary people would think to do. It’s the same mindset that says you’re only rich if everyone else is poor.
MAJeff, the God of Biscuits,
No, I don’t think being gay would make it less of a violation. I posted “Regardless, assault is assault.”
Because I went on to specifically refer to penetration.
And?
Dude, lesbians penetrate.
opoponax, but the ‘giver’ on a female recipient isn’t being penetrated by the recipient’s genitals.
of course, I’ve never gone down on a woman, so I’m having to base this assessment on what it looks like/feels like as a recipient. so i may be full of shit.
Like Interrobang points out, wingnuts have no concept or practice of personal sovereignty or bodily autonomy. God owns everything and every one else attempts to replicate God.
They believe conversely that power, whether individual or group, confers ownership and likewise, ownership confers power. The more things or people one commands, the more respect they deserve.
Thus it is that when one of their sheep falters, he can claim his powerlessness to the forces of evil pulling on him/her. This often begets the tendency to blame the victim for acting on the offender with his/her wiley ways and tempting to the point of causing the turn of events.
In correct obeisance to the power at hand, the victim should then blame themselves for causing their superior to falter.
To make claim of abuse or wrong doing is to exercise an autonomy and sovereignty that goes against their core beliefs.
No doubt, like all the other wingnuts, Murphy has dismissed the travails of his victims as selfish grandstanding and a failure to feel sufficient pity for his inability to fight off temptation.
I’d really like to see how Murphy answers to these charges and how he attempts to skirt responsibility and blame the victim, which of course he will.
The comments on the other sites simply reflect how deep this type of religious ideology is entrenched in our culture.
This one isn’t as funny as the other one, this time, the perp isn’t the one who got worse. I feel bad for the victim.
…and is the Rep the new Catholic Church now? (I think they finally apologized, but that is totally not enough, I still don’t get why they would deliberately move pedo priests from parishes to parishes. If they didn’t want to draw attention to the scandal, the least they could have done was fire the priests but blame it on something like money laundering or something. The complete disregard, the /aiding and abetting/…)
So what did happened to what-his-name? That Rep who was messaging sexually suggestive messages to the boys on the congress floor, and molested one once (groping his ass), I forgot the names of the people involved.
Mark Foley. I don’t think he was ever prosecuted. He recently sold his Washington rowhouse and, presumably, moved back to Florida.What kills me about Foley is that, in between attempts at underage butt piracy, he railed about child porn on the Internet.
but the ‘giver’ on a female recipient isn’t being penetrated by the recipient’s genitals.
So? Isn’t that true of a great many sex acts?
All that proves is that this whole hierarchy of pitchers and catchers and who penetrates who is really stupid and makes no sense whatsoever, unless one assumes that “givers” as a rule don’t derive any pleasure from their actions, and that all sex is some emotionless transaction of one person getting to stick their cock in someone else. Which is ridiculous beyond belief.
Even the notion of a “giver” and a “taker” in sex is completely nonsensical from any but the most heteronormative and cock-worshiping standpoint.
opop, of course it’s true. my point is that the initial premise - that when it comes to the physics/logistics of oral sex, lesbians generally don’t have a penetrater and penetratee, which i assumed to be meant as trying to acknowledge the heteronormativity of the discussion in the first place - is factually accurate, again, in a strict physical sense.
i think you and the poster are agreeing on the concept, but the other poster just hasn’t been entirely clear - that in a system where everything revolves around penetrations of various kinds and imposes power meanings on those penetrations, and since rape is about domination and power, it does seem odd on the face of it that someone wanting to dominate an unwilling ‘partner’ would do so by having said ‘partner’ penetrate them.
that, and, i can understand recognizing that some people like sucking cock, and still being a bit puzzled by people paying someone to let them do it - it’s the fact that usually when people pay for sex acts, they spend the bucks on acts that are going to make the payer reach orgasm, and not many people are going to come just from going down. it seems counterintuitive - i mean, you don’t go to a restaurant and pay to serve the waitstaff food. it’s unfortunately commodified, but when you’re selling sex, it’s a logical angle to look at it from.
Huh? Have evidence for this?
assumption based on the more common ‘wiring’ for sex - admittedly, anectodal, but i’ve never heard of it outside of power games.
that is to say as well, i think most people would assume that it’s uncommon, and the key aspect here is what people think is the case, not what actually is true.
Wow, we are definitely running in different circles then.
i think you’re the first person i’ve ever spoken to personally who even knows someone who can reach orgasm just from going down on someone. that seems like it’d be a neat experience
Oh, we’re talking across each other…i was reading you as saying people don’t come from being gone down on, which is no problem for most of the people I know.
I guess, for some folks into certain forms of discipline/subservience the intensity of the experience itself might lead to an orgasm, but we were misreading each other (prob my fault)
but, actually, one of my fuckbuddies often stops me from even touching him during the act because he’s too close…..
that, and, i can understand recognizing that some people like sucking cock, and still being a bit puzzled by people paying someone to let them do it - it’s the fact that usually when people pay for sex acts, they spend the bucks on acts that are going to make the payer reach orgasm, and not many people are going to come just from going down.
Just read the report of what was going on a little more closely, use your imagination, and remember the old adage that 90% of sex takes place between your ears. I mean really, folks. Think outside of the box, no pun intended. Also, there are plenty of lesbians that have penetrative oral sex too.
I agree that our culture has some difficulties conceptualizing what Murphy did as sexual assault or rape, but that’s because of a really limited understanding of what oral sex is, what it means, how people get off, etc.
Which I guess is why the charge is “criminal deviant behavior.” It’s beyond the ken of “what makes sense” to the most limited understanding of why people do the sex that they do.
I’ve heard it said, that if you read between the lines of Sacher-Masoch (the man for whom “Masochism” is named) that is looks as if he was bullying the women in his life into topping him.
The philosopher is correct in pointing out that many people do frame sex in that way. But there certainly is plenty of diversity out there. Just my experience here. The guy who performed “deviate sexual conduct” on me was more into humiliating me than getting off. Although I find the whole “it’s not about sex, it’s about power” to be overly general, it certainly is true in some cases.
that when it comes to the physics/logistics of oral sex, lesbians generally don’t have a penetrater and penetratee
Well, really the more correct assertion would be that when it comes to the logistics of oral sex, penetration is neither here nor there. I don’t want to get too graphic about it, but actually penetration of both the giver and the receiver are possible, and in general here the whole question depends on what you think penetration really is. I love it when stupid straight people think that vulvas are, like, two dimensional or something.
i think you and the poster are agreeing on the concept, but the other poster just hasn’t been entirely clear - that in a system where everything revolves around penetrations of various kinds and imposes power meanings on those penetrations, and since rape is about domination and power, it does seem odd on the face of it that someone wanting to dominate an unwilling ‘partner’ would do so by having said ‘partner’ penetrate them.
If that’s what the original poster thinks, then no, we’re not in agreement at all. I really disagree that we live in a system where “everything revolves around penetrations of various kinds”. I’ve slept with exactly one person who seemed to feel that way, that he was the fucker and I was the fuckee, non-penetrative acts were inferior, and any act that involved mainly giving pleasure and not obviously receiving pleasure was some kind of vile chore. That relationship did not last long, and not only have I not been willing to stand for that shit ever since, but in the 7-8 years since then, I have never run across anyone else who seemed to feel that way.
that, and, i can understand recognizing that some people like sucking cock, and still being a bit puzzled by people paying someone to let them do it… it seems counterintuitive - i mean, you don’t go to a restaurant and pay to serve the waitstaff food.
This is just fucking gross. Sorry. When I sleep with someone, and I participate in a sex act where they’re going to reach orgasm, and the act of performing it is not going to, in itself, bring me to orgasm, I’m not your fucking waitress.
whoa, whoa, whoa. now we’re talking across one another. i agree with what you’re saying, i’m just saying that the popular cultural conception of sex is like that. so please don’t take it out on me.
also, i do happen to have a vulva attached, so i kind of understand the topography of mine, at least. the point was, this is what people assume.
also, holly, i wasn’t talking specifically about this case - i was referring to the question of paying someone to let you go down on them.
and majeff - that makes a bit more sense - i had always been told that being ‘wired’ that way was uncommon
popular cultural conception of sex is like that… this is what people assume.
I think framing it that way is extremely problematic, because, in my experience, this is not what most people’s conception of sex is like, and it’s not what people assume. And I think that what propogates this completely fictional idea is spreading around the
meta-narrative as if it is fact, as if “everyone” thinks it.
When, seriously, I’ve slept with my fair share of men and women, and had intimate talks with my fair share of close friends of both genders, and I’ve come across exactly one person who felt the way that supposedly “everyone” feels. And that one person was fucked up in a lot of other ways, too, leading me to believe not that “society” enforces a “system” that is like this, but that individuals who have really fucked up ideas about sex are like this.
It’s kind of like the way that “everyone” knows that a woman won’t respond to open and positive advances from a man, so you have to act disinterested and use negs to trick them into wanting you. This is an absolute fiction that we’ve repeated to ourselves so many times that a great many people now believe wholeheartedly that it’s true. The more we repeat that “society” has a “system” where “everyone knows” that sex is all about who penetrates who, the more people will accept that idea uncritically.
Personally, I’m happy that so far, out of everyone I’ve ever experienced sex with or talked to about sex, exactly one person (who was otherwise a complete wackjob) felt this way. I don’t really feel any need to enforce this particular heteronormative and patriarchal meta-narrative to the extent that it becomes the only socially acceptable way to think about sex. So let’s not, ok?
fine by me, i just didn’t want to get held responsible for other people’s shit
I think there is actually a pretty simple explanation of these guys wanting to give a blow job so bad that they are willing to pay someone/ violate another person for the pleasure.
The opportunity to give someone else a blow job is something they desire that would be pretty hard to fake in their relationships with women. They’ve presumably gotten blow jobs before from wives or girlfriends. It’s not that difficult to close your eyes and pretend that it’s some hot guy going down on you rather than your wife. But unless you can convince your female partner to do some pretty serious roleplay (something I seriously doubt is happening in their relationships or marriages) there is really no good way to fake the experience of giving a blow job. So it’s something they’ve been missing.
I think framing it that way is extremely problematic, because, in my experience, this is not what most people’s conception of sex is like, and it’s not what people assume. And I think that what propogates this completely fictional idea is spreading around the
meta-narrative as if it is fact, as if “everyone” thinks it.
Opo, I think this is where you and philosophizer are talking past one another. You’re talking about the actual people that you’ve discussed this with, and she’s talking about the movies and TV and magazines and radio deejays that propagate the narrative. That’s why it’s “popular culture” and not “popular opinion.” The way that the media frames things rarely has anything to do with people’s real lives, but it has a life of its own.
she’s talking about the movies and TV and magazines and radio deejays that propagate the narrative
Where did philosopher state that, exactly?
What I read was that s/he is saying that this is a “system” that “everyone” knows exists (which I assumed to mean exists for people in their actual sex lives, not exists in some aspects of pop culture). There’s a VAST difference between saying “the media often tries to tell us that…” and “socially, we are conditioned to think that…”.
For instance, it’s pretty obvious that the media tells us only thin people are attractive. But in real life when you look around, you notice that everybody has their fair share of admirers, thin or not. If you described this as a common media message, you’d be right. If you claimed that all Americans are socialized only to be attracted to thin people, and everyone knows fat people aren’t attractive, you’d be dead wrong, and in fact merely propogating the message you meant to criticize.
Where did philosopher state that, exactly?
When she used the phrase “popular culture.” Like right here:
If you claimed that all Americans are socialized only to be attracted to thin people, and everyone knows fat people aren’t attractive, you’d be dead wrong, and in fact merely propogating the message you meant to criticize.
Popular culture != real life experience
This may be the disconnect — I do think that Americans are socialized only to be attracted to thin people and that we get messages all the time that fat people aren’t attractive. You seem to be assuming that socialization is 100% effective. It’s not. People just ignore the disconnect between what they’re being told they “should” feel and what they actually feel. Which explains a lot about Republicans, if you think about it.
popular cultural conception of sex
this is getting silly, but I read that phrase differently. Not that she was talking about the messages in pop culture, but cultural messages that are popular, i.e. cover the vast majority of the populace. dissecting that, i realize how totally weird a reading it is. and if the whole disagreement hinges on it, well, yowsa. sorry.
You seem to be assuming that socialization is 100% effective. It’s not.
It’s not that I’m assuming socialization is 100% effective, but that I find it hard to believe that “we are socialized to think” X, when I’ve talked to quite a lot of people about this sort of thing in my time, and I’ve only ever come across one individual who had internalized that particular bit of socialization. And that one person was fucked up in a lot of other ways, too. You don’t find that, very often, for most things we can agree that “people are socialized to believe”.
For instance, most people in our culture are socialized to believe that caregiving roles are natural for women. While there is a small minority of enlightened people who question this, even those people have to work very hard to keep themselves from slipping and making assumptions about women and caregiving roles. THAT is socialization. Something most people haven’t internalized at all is probably not something we’ve really been socialized to think.
First, I want to agree with basically everything opoponox has stated… and gently suggest to philosophizer, although she seems to have conceded the point already, that she should not speculate until she has had direct experience of lesbian sex… or at least many, many graphic discussions with lesbian/bi friends. (Not trying to be mean!)
Second, I have as a woman twice had unwanted oral sex performed on me — both times the man was older (I was a teenager), he thought it was fine because he wasn’t penetrating me with his penis, and I was drunk and scared.
In the grand scheme of things I was unhurt and it could have been way worse, obviously. However, it was definitely icky and it took 10 years before I could enjoy oral sex again. Sexual abuse/assault is unwanted sexual contact, no matter what form it takes.
Blake, thank you!
I think there is actually a pretty simple explanation of these guys wanting to give a blow job so bad that they are willing to pay someone/ violate another person for the pleasure.
The opportunity to give someone else a blow job is something they desire that would be pretty hard to fake in their relationships with women.
I’ve been looking for a logical explanation for the ‘Drop and Give Me $20′ phenom, and you did it. Because no one who owns a penis would let Bob Allen’s mouth near it for free, that’s why. And similarly no one who owns a penis that he knows would be happy in another man’s mouth is going to let the Young Repub dude near that penis while he’s awake to prevent it.
And since these whackos want to suck a penis more than they want to live their repressed lives without committing crimes…damn. That’s just sad, to have structured your life so that you can’t give away oral sex in an open and aboveboard manner.
Oh, BTW, whoever thinks you have to be into BDSM to get off on getting your partner off–body parts notwithstanding, that was pretty much the statement: Get out more.
Just not anywhere I go, ‘kay?
don’t worry, PhoenixRising, I won’t get my stunted hateful can’t-come-by-giving-head cooties on you.