Author: has written 462 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

205 Responses

  1. Arianna
    Arianna June 16, 2006 at 12:04 pm |

    To be fair, Piny, she pretty much did all but say that she was trolling us for her own amusement.

    Also to be fair, I don’t think feminists should be tearing other feminists apart for their like/dislike/polemics about any particular practise. Especially because she didn’t say that no woman should ever give a blowjob, she just posited that no woman has ever enjoyed it.

    Furthering the spirit of fairness, I don’t think we came blame Twisty for the feminist-apart-tearing. The blame for that lies with the Patriarchy.

  2. Impulsivecompulsive
    Impulsivecompulsive June 16, 2006 at 12:06 pm |

    Hmmm. Personally, I think it’s bloody hilarious. And yes, Twisty uses a stacked, rather, well, twisted argument to which any debate following is going to come across as just silly, but hey, it’s her blog, and her home. She can decorate any way that tickle’s her fancy, and if her readers don’t like it, they don’t have to stay.

    It’s not like she’s walking down the street, poking random strangers with a bratworst while screaming, “C*cksucker!!”

    And it’s rather funny to see the level of debate that insues from people defending their rights to get/give blowjobs, versus posts on, say the oppression of women in developing nations.
    (Although that could be more because it’s nice to comment on something where you don’t feel like you have to have a degree in the subject before you’re qualified to have an opinion.)

  3. Renee
    Renee June 16, 2006 at 12:19 pm |

    I’m with you piny. It’s just plain hateful. Twisty has demostrated with great frequency her disgust for male genitalia, and if that’s how she feels then by all means, she should avoid them! But she doesn’t need to condemn all hetero women for their sexual activities, and that’s precisely what she’s doing. In fact, she seems to have a genuine fondness for condemning all hetero sex.

    I don’t like it at all when people condemn homosexuality, and I know that that’s become a mainstream passtime lately and hell yeah we need to do something about it! But I don’t think we’re going to achieve any inclusiveness for homosexuality by condemning heterosexuality.

    So yeah, her blog, her business. And if her goal is to alienate every single hetero feminist, she’s doing a damn good job of it.

  4. Esme
    Esme June 16, 2006 at 12:22 pm |

    I honestly do get frustrated with the tone of Twisty and her followers at times because Twisty often seems to find any relationship with men whatsoever and feminism to be completely incompatible. She’s often criticized heterosexual BDSM relationships, any kind of heterosexual marriage, etc., and while I recognize that at times she has a point, I often feel very alienated from the blog because of it. I mean, are we going the route of what many anti-feminists have so often accused Gloria Steinam of claiming, that a woman cannot, by definition, have a sexual relationship that is her choice?

  5. Natalie
    Natalie June 16, 2006 at 12:28 pm |

    Posts like that are why I stopped reading her blog. I don’t need any more hateful rhetoric in my life.

  6. the15th
    the15th June 16, 2006 at 12:29 pm |

    I totally disagree with Twisty, but it’s sort of refreshing to read someone who unapologetically takes positions that are guaranteed to be unpopular with her readership, and can be funny about it at the same time.

  7. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke June 16, 2006 at 12:30 pm |

    Twisty often seems to find any relationship with men whatsoever and feminism to be completely incompatible.

    I think it’s fair, as Piny has done here, to criticize Twisty’s use of hyperbole. But you can count me as an example of a Twisty-reader-with-penis to whom Twisty has never responded with anything but affectionate cordiality. I think she’s as cognizant of the importance of nuance as anyone.

  8. Sara
    Sara June 16, 2006 at 12:35 pm |

    Blow jobs are most definitely not a subject that Twisty can claim much authority on. It’d be like listening to gay, male, financially-well-off, Catholic Andrew Sullivan tell me not to have an abortion. I think I’m a little closer to the issue, thanks.

  9. zuzu
    zuzu June 16, 2006 at 12:40 pm | *

    Also…not to be mean, but…you’re a man.

    Oh. That’s low.

  10. Bitch |Lab
    Bitch |Lab June 16, 2006 at 12:48 pm |

    Confessing up front that you are engaged in trolling is a rhetorical tactic that people often use. It’s designed to authorize your speech by taking a defensive position and calling yourself a troll _before_ your critics do.

    As such, it’s a form of reverse baiting that begins as dishonest discourse in the first place. That is, it legitimates a dishonest discourse — tills the soil so to speak — that makes it ‘ok’ to attack the person, instead of the argument. After all, the conversation started out by Twisty calling herself a troll (trolling is a form of baiting)

  11. Linnaeus
    Linnaeus June 16, 2006 at 12:48 pm |

    You’ve pretty much illustrated why I don’t go to Twisty’s blog anymore. Stylistically, she’s one of the best writers I’ve read on line, and she is very funny. At the same time, I think she does too much deck-stacking, which is her choice, but makes her blog less appealing.

    No one says she has to give a blow job to anyone. I do think it’s a little presumptuous of her to say that no woman enjoys it even when (some) women themselves tell her they do.

  12. junk science
    junk science June 16, 2006 at 12:51 pm |

    it’s sort of refreshing to read someone who unapologetically takes positions that are guaranteed to be unpopular with her readership, and can be funny about it at the same time.

    I guess, but I don’t really see the difference between that and some immature clown spouting misogynist shit just to get a rise out of people. Yeah, one comes from the powerful side of the patriarchy and the other from the oppressed, but both of them are missing the point equally.

  13. Linnaeus
    Linnaeus June 16, 2006 at 12:54 pm |

    Confessing up front that you are engaged in trolling is a rhetorical tactic that people often use. It’s designed to authorize your speech by taking a defensive position and calling yourself a troll _before_ your critics do.

    As such, it’s a form of reverse baiting that begins as dishonest discourse in the first place. That is, it legitimates a dishonest discourse — tills the soil so to speak — that makes it ‘ok’ to attack the person, instead of the argument. After all, the conversation started out by Twisty calling herself a troll (trolling is a form of baiting)

    Nail, meet hammer. A case of Turtle Wax and a year’s supply of Rice-A-Roni for you!

  14. islmfaoscist
    islmfaoscist June 16, 2006 at 12:54 pm |

    blowjob :: “funk-filled bratwurst”

    as

    chaste :: “frigid”

  15. atrazine
    atrazine June 16, 2006 at 12:57 pm |

    So wingnuts aren’t the only ones who conflate their personal sense of disgust with objective reality. Who’d have thought?

    In all seriousness, there are plenty of perfectly legitimate issues re: blowjobs to discuss from a feminist perspective. The way that they’re portrayed in porn, the societal expectations attached to them, the way that women are expectedrequired to love giving them. That’s not what’s being said though.

  16. junk science
    junk science June 16, 2006 at 1:01 pm |

    Exactly, atrazine. In addition, there are enough stupid, childish hangups about blowjobs out there that you don’t have to go trying to spread your own around.

  17. Brooklynite
    Brooklynite June 16, 2006 at 1:03 pm |

    Also…not to be mean, but…you’re a man. Not a straight woman.

    Yup. I never noticed it before, but in every incident that I can think of in which Twisty’s said something that went way over the line, her targets were straight (or presumptively straight) women, not men.

  18. zuzu
    zuzu June 16, 2006 at 1:07 pm | *

    I didn’t mean it as, “Shut your stupid, stubbly, square-jawed face, Chris!” Just that, uhm, nuanced treatment in that area doesn’t necessarily lead to nuanced treatment of the subject here discussed. I respect Chris, and agree that Twisty’s never been unfair to him; I’m just not sure if that’s material.

    Dude. I was busting your chops.

    I gave up on Twisty’s commenters long ago; I enjoy her writing and find her entertaining. But I definitely agree that she is rigid in her way and generalizes from her personal experience.

  19. ACS
    ACS June 16, 2006 at 1:08 pm |

    Yup. I never noticed it before, but in every incident that I can think of in which Twisty’s said something that went way over the line, her targets were straight (or presumptively straight) women, not men.

    This may be true with regard to ideological heresy, but I think her description of the intrinsic vileness of the male body are pretty far over the line.

    – ACS

  20. raging red
    raging red June 16, 2006 at 1:16 pm |

    I think her description of the intrinsic vileness of the male body are pretty far over the line.

    Wasn’t there a post either here or on Pandagon a while back (sorry for not remembering where I read it) about misogyny among gay males and how sometimes when a bunch of gay men get together they can say some pretty vile things about women and their bodies?

  21. ACS
    ACS June 16, 2006 at 1:18 pm |

    But that “vileness” tends to be very firmly in the context of jumping their gross bones, which is something straight women do.

    Yeah, this is pretty much true. I just wanted to point out that she was passing through offending all penis-bearers on the way to offending all penis-touchers.

    – ACS

  22. Lis Riba
    Lis Riba June 16, 2006 at 1:20 pm |

    What really ticks me off about these threads is that it evokes responses like this one seen on Pandagon:

    I love Twisty and visit her several times a week but remain convinced that I could never be a “good enough” feminist

    I sometimes read complaints that women who say they were told they can’t be a feminist because of X (shaving legs, wearing makeup, whatever) are blaming strawfeminists, but how does this kind of trashtalking help the movement?

  23. Sifl
    Sifl June 16, 2006 at 1:22 pm |

    But that “vileness” tends to be very firmly in the context of jumping their gross bones, which is something straight women do.

    Exactly. I actually found the description of penis as “funk-filled bratwurst” pretty hilarious; I think I’m going to be calling my own that for at least the next week or so. The verbal assault the women in that thread are taking who simply questioned the original premise (which was that women cannot possibly enjoy blowjobs, nothing else) is the opposite of hilarious.

  24. junk science
    junk science June 16, 2006 at 1:24 pm |

    This may be true with regard to ideological heresy, but I think her description of the intrinsic vileness of the male body are pretty far over the line.

    And that “Men Hate You” thing she wrote a while back. I mean, it’s powerful and well-written and I get it, but I think it’s scraping out a healthy chunk of the brain as it works on the tumor. I don’t think men hate me, and I doubt she does either, since she seems to actually know some men. And where are we to think she draws the line between men as an undifferentiated mass and individual men? What are we supposed to take from her writing if we don’t know how much of it she expects us to think she believes?

  25. human
    human June 16, 2006 at 1:33 pm |

    I dont’ really get the drama. If Twisty thinks penises are gross and touching them is gross, that’s fine with me, and it’s also not going to stop me from doing whatever I want with any man I might have a relationship with.

  26. junk science
    junk science June 16, 2006 at 1:36 pm |

    human, Twisty would like to inform you that you are a deluded, soulless sexbot if you like sucking cock. If you don’t mind being directly insulted, then there’s no drama.

  27. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost June 16, 2006 at 1:36 pm |

    Shut up, Zuzu! You’re a man!

    Jeez, piny, you’re such a guy.

    I’ll be a total dick and make an unnecessary clarification. We’re not just talking about straight women — we’re talking about all women who perform jobs of blow, regardless of who their habitual sex partners (if any) may be. I’ve known many-a self-identified Lesbian who had sex with the occasional (cisgendered) dude. And I would presume that, because of the focus on biology, tranny-Bratwurst would be as repulsive-to-all-women-everywhere-ever as old-fashioned Man-Bratwurst.

    And it’s never ceased to amaze me how many Feminists/Progressives/whatevers can’t tell the difference between “doesn’t get me hot” and “somehow essentially bad and therefore to be condemned”.

    Frankly, I’m more worried that Twisty is making disingenuous inflammatory arguments is worse than I would be if she was just legitimately that oblivious. She makes the conscious choice to add bullshit to the world, and we don’t need more bullshit in the world any more than we need more patriarchy.

  28. Bitch |Lab
    Bitch |Lab June 16, 2006 at 1:38 pm |

    Twisty was married. She wrote about the guy and alluded to her negative attitudes toward AA. A search on AA will probably turn up the post.

    She may have given a few hummers. Or not. :)

  29. Bitch |Lab
    Bitch |Lab June 16, 2006 at 1:45 pm |

    Piny in #27

    LOL. My favorite one is to say, “Well, I could conclude by saying that you are a real slimy, good for nothing, ignorant fool. But I will refrain and stick to the standards of polite discourse.”

    heh.

    I’m always amazed that this one manages to slip right on by 9 times out of 10.

  30. human
    human June 16, 2006 at 1:47 pm |

    I don’t know, I guess I just didn’t think she was serious really. It’s like the arguments I have with my friends about food. I think tomato soup is delicious, while raw tomatos are completely gross. A good friend thinks the complete opposite. Yet if I tease him about how only a really stupid person would refuse tomato soup, and how completely disgusting it is to actually put a raw tomato in your mouth, he doesn’t get offended.

    And of course there are a lot more issues with penises and mouths than there are with tomatos and soup. I recognize that. Maybe it’s just that I’m far more inclined to give a woman a pass than a man. You can call me wrong for that if you want, but a lot more men have been dicks to me than women, so you know. *shrug*

    I’m not trying to be dense here but these fights that feminists have over sex and specific sex acts really confuse me.

  31. junk science
    junk science June 16, 2006 at 1:51 pm |

    I guess I just didn’t think she was serious really.

    She’s probably not, since she came out and said several times that she’s doing this to piss people off. Also, I don’t think it’s terribly sporting to encourage straight women to have even more issues with themselves and their sexual desires, whether you’re doing it to entertain yourself or because you really believe what you say.

  32. antiprincess
    antiprincess June 16, 2006 at 1:55 pm |

    I did not take the bait this time, except to say “hey, I’m not taking the bait.” I learned my lesson in March during the great BeeDeeEssEm debacle. There’s no point in commenting there unless you’re

    a) marching in the Twisty Army
    or
    b) a bigger masochist than me.

    not that there’s anything wrong with either of those things.

    I respect the Twisty Army, though I don’t march in it. What frustrates me, however, is the endless chorus of “nobody’s saying you can’t blow your boyfriend/wear lipstick/commit random-sin-of-the-week-against-the-sisterhood, it’s just that people who do blow their boyfriends/wear lipstick/commit random-sin-of-the-week-against-the-sisterhood are stupid oversexed perverts whom nice girls don’t want around stinking up the joint.

  33. Brooklynite
    Brooklynite June 16, 2006 at 1:56 pm |

    I just wanted to point out that she was passing through offending all penis-bearers on the way to offending all penis-touchers.

    Yeah, okay. The thing is, tho, that I don’t find it offensive — to me, personally — when a lesbian says penises are yucky. It’s kind of a “well, duh” moment.

    And as for the “Men Hate You” post, I didn’t find anything in it, or in her follow-up comments, that struck me as unambiguously intended as a whack at her male readers. If you don’t think that men — “as a class,” as Twisty said — hate women, you’re not paying attention.

  34. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost June 16, 2006 at 2:01 pm |

    I’m not trying to be dense here but these fights that feminists have over sex and specific sex acts really confuse me.

    You and me both, human.

    Ditto tranny-cocktail-weiners, given the additional focus on cultural construction. Although it might be a little harder to pretend that there’d be any unpleasantness inherent in contact with those genitals.

    They’re an interesting case. While they don’t, for most people, have any pre-formed opinions attached to them, they also can have the (potentially fatal to sexiness) “OMG WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT” factor. People generally don’t like surprises between the legs of potential sex parners. That’s a different issue entire from the “inherent grossness” argument, but there’s a great tendency for people to attach “inherent grossness” to things they don’t understand or aren’t familiar with.

  35. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost June 16, 2006 at 2:04 pm |

    Yeah, okay. The thing is, tho, that I don’t find it offensive — to me, personally — when a lesbian says penises are yucky. It’s kind of a “well, duh” moment.

    Consider the difference between “I think penises are yucky, and as a consequence don’t have sex with their bearers” (or, for that matter “I don’t have sex with penis-bearers, so I think penises are yucky”), and “I tihnk penises are yucky, and any woman who doesn’t agree is brainwashed by the patriarchy.” The first is entirely legitimate. The second is either ignorant or disingenuous.

  36. Mandos
    Mandos June 16, 2006 at 2:05 pm |

    Yours truly comments there regularly. I’m not sure if I count under the “Twisty Army” designation or the “masochist” designation, but seeing as I’m self-designated official scapegoat…

  37. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost June 16, 2006 at 2:05 pm |

    It doesn’t seem like feminists in general have much trouble attributing misogyny to transmen; that would extend to how we perform in bed, right?

    Hey, if you’re going to transition, might as well go all the way, right? ;)

  38. Linnaeus
    Linnaeus June 16, 2006 at 2:10 pm |

    LOL. My favorite one is to say, “Well, I could conclude by saying that you are a real slimy, good for nothing, ignorant fool. But I will refrain and stick to the standards of polite discourse.”

    There’s a name for this particular rhetorical device of pretended omission; it’s called “paraleipsis” or “praeteritio”.

    But you probably knew that.

  39. Sifl
    Sifl June 16, 2006 at 2:15 pm |

    Yeah, okay. The thing is, tho, that I don’t find it offensive — to me, personally — when a lesbian says penises are yucky. It’s kind of a “well, duh” moment.

    Agreed. The problem isn’t twisty calling penises “funk-filled bratwurst”, but saying that all women must see them solely as gross-disgusting objects, and if they don’t the are either lying to themselves or aren’t true feminists or something.

    I also thought her follow-up was even more irresponsible. The commenters she responds to were a mixture of a) I actually do enjoy the act of giving a blow job and b) I enjoy having my partner feel pleasure, 99% of which were extremely careful to point out that discussion of blowjobs in relation to patriarchy is extremely important in many relationships and aspects of society. Twisty proceeds to condescend to these commenters by completely ignoring there qualifications, and imply that they were arguing that blowjobs are never used as a patriarchal tool, and that all women need to do is have many blowjobs to overturn the patriarchy. As previous commenters here have pointed out, just because she does so in a jokey/troll-like manner doesn’t make her any less wrong.

  40. Twisty
    Twisty June 16, 2006 at 2:18 pm |

    “It’s a tiring dynamic.”

    You got that right, girl! I’m exhausted.

  41. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke June 16, 2006 at 2:42 pm |

    Also…not to be mean, but…you’re a man.

    How DARE you? And point taken.

  42. Rick DeMent
    Rick DeMent June 16, 2006 at 2:54 pm |

    OK so my question is where does this leave “Tasting the pink taco” in terms of the patriarchy? Is this good, will men who claim to enjoy this sex act get props for doing something that by objective standards could be said to be “gross” for the role reversal?

    I mean if blow-jobs are bad does that automatically make “tonguing the love fjord” somehow good? Also, would it be impossible for a guy to honestly say that “sucking the bud” is a pleasant activity?

    Help me out, the GF claims the feminist mantel (opps I should have said the hertel) and I need to know this stuff.

  43. Rick DeMent
    Rick DeMent June 16, 2006 at 2:59 pm |

    BTW anyone remember this quote:

    “After my divorce I scraped by with baby-sittings gigs and odd jobs… mostly the ones we call blow…”

  44. Thomas
    Thomas June 16, 2006 at 3:05 pm |

    You got that right, girl!

    Wow. I don’t know about anyone else here, but I would no sooner call a transman “girl,” even in jest, than I would call an adult black man “boy.” I famously have no sense of humor, but nobody else should have a sense of humor about that, either.

  45. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost June 16, 2006 at 3:10 pm |

    Help me out, the GF claims the feminist mantel (opps I should have said the hertel) and I need to know this stuff.

    My advice? Ask her.

    (And that’s Hedwig.)

    Thomas: And anyone who does have a sense of humour about that is a transphobia-and-racism brainwashed laugh-bot.

  46. norbizness
    norbizness June 16, 2006 at 3:19 pm |

    Mandos is a masochist; I’m just somebody who’s been hanging around long enough to get an exemption… you’ll have to forgive me, but the “LOOK at the WAY that PERSON is RUNNING their WEBSITE” discussions to be tedious; doubly so if you think that the person in question owed somebody something because of some area of agreement in the past.

  47. norbizness
    norbizness June 16, 2006 at 3:22 pm |

    And no, I don’t know the meaning of the words ‘irony’ or ‘hypocrisy.’

  48. Rick DeMent
    Rick DeMent June 16, 2006 at 3:25 pm |

    “My advice? Ask her”

    Well I have and she said she likes the spunk filled Brat so that means she is under the dreaded spell of the mind controlling patriarchy. She also likes getting her clam basted so again she may well be one of those women who “claim” to be feminist but are really just a tool of the oppressive patriarchy.

    (look I’m kidding around here … )

    And, of course, your right about Hedwig…

  49. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke June 16, 2006 at 3:29 pm |

    How about “syzygy”, Norbiz? Do you know the meaning of that? Because I keep forgetting.

    “Usufruct” is easy though, as in “you know, if you go into that thread and express your POV as a straight man who likes the occasional exchange of oral sex, usufruct it isn’t even funny.”

  50. Lauren
    Lauren June 16, 2006 at 3:33 pm |

    Waiter, I’d like a clam bake for two.

  51. the bewilderness
    the bewilderness June 16, 2006 at 3:57 pm |

    Twisty has clearly failed to live up to your expectations. Her commenters have also failed to live up to your expectations.

  52. norbizness
    norbizness June 16, 2006 at 4:38 pm |

    Chris: Neither of those things are words, and I suspect that “Clarke” is made up as well.

  53. Carpenter
    Carpenter June 16, 2006 at 4:46 pm |

    So here is the thing, did Twisty say there is no such thing as a non patriarchal blow job? Or more that many blowjobs, are not the ‘choice’ many women would choose if they weren’t slammed by the patriarchy? This would go for PIV sex, wearing heels, eating chocalate, etc. BTW I do believe in non patriarchal blow jobs and think the case for non patriarchal blow jobs is much better than the case for non patriarchal high heel wearing. I agree its assholy to bait and trap people, but I’m not sure she is seriously shitting all over all blowjobs anymore than anything else, there is the Matrix theory afterall.

  54. junk science
    junk science June 16, 2006 at 4:54 pm |

    So here is the thing, did Twisty say there is no such thing as a non patriarchal blow job? Or more that many blowjobs, are not the ‘choice’ many women would choose if they weren’t slammed by the patriarchy?

    I posit nevertheless that no woman, since the dawn of the patriarchal co-option of human sexuality, has ever actually enjoyed this submissive sexbot drudgery. There’s a reason that deep-throating a funk-filled bratwurst makes a person retch.*

    *Reason: It’s fucking gross.

    In other words, women do not like sucking cock. If they think they do, they have been brainwashed.

  55. kactus
    kactus June 16, 2006 at 4:55 pm |

    Chris: Neither of those things are words, and I suspect that “Clarke” is made up as well.

    Actually, they’re both real words–I looked ‘em up. Didn’t understand the definitions, but they defintiely exist.

  56. Carpenter
    Carpenter June 16, 2006 at 5:04 pm |

    I really don’t know Twisty that well. Perhaps she really thinks that perhaps she is just over stating the case to try to be be ‘fahnee’ or overstating it because she prefers the old ham tacos to the funky wursts. Gay men anoying joke about nasty fish but I doubt that they doubt that staight guys like to lick carpet.

    Though Twisty does think that BDSM is all out patriarchal so I dunno,
    anyone a regular Twistinista?

  57. Carpenter
    Carpenter June 16, 2006 at 5:16 pm |

    *syzygy”
    I had a friend that used this word in te title of a science journal article.

  58. ginmar
    ginmar June 16, 2006 at 5:22 pm |
    I sometimes read complaints that women who say they were told they can’t be a feminist because of X (shaving legs, wearing makeup, whatever) are blaming strawfeminists, but how does this kind of trashtalking help the movement?

    Funny how these women are just like trolls who whine that a feminist was mean to them, OMG, and they’re never going to be a feminist because of those awful bitches. Trashtalking? Is that like saying, “I’m a bad feminist because strawfeminist strawfeminist strawfeminist!“? The whole idiotic practice of claiming that some Ebil Feminist told one that one shouldn’t wear makeup, wear a bra, whatever, is a lot like the mythical liberals that Ann Coulter evokes all the fucking time. It’s just as tedious.

    If you’re concerned about trashtalking hurting the movement, first of all, stop doing so fucking much of it with your boasts about how you’re a bad feminist and second just be a feminist instead of somebody who USES feminism to make up strawfeminists. It’s pretty fucking disgusting.

  59. Amanda Marcotte
    Amanda Marcotte June 16, 2006 at 5:24 pm |

    Twisty is a devil’s advocate. She admits that up front. If she backed off outrageous yet completely arguable claims because it hurt people’s feelings, she would be a sucky devil’s advocate. I for am glad someone’s willing to do it, because I’ve not got the ovaries.

  60. R. Mildred
    R. Mildred June 16, 2006 at 5:38 pm |

    In other words, women do not like sucking cock. If they think they do, they have been brainwashed.

    To be fair, twisty is both gay and getting her concept of fellatio from porn movies.

    in that context she’s right., porn blowjobs are the work of the patriarchy.

  61. Mandos
    Mandos June 16, 2006 at 5:39 pm |

    Yes but Twisty is, frankly, objectively more funny than Amanda. No offense, Amanda.

  62. junk science
    junk science June 16, 2006 at 5:44 pm |

    It doesn’t hurt my feelings that someone thinks I’m a soulless sexbot for liking blowjobs. I just think it’s stupid.

    Yes but Twisty is, frankly, objectively more funny than Amanda. No offense, Amanda.

    That would mean a bit more if it came from someone who knew from funny.

  63. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke June 16, 2006 at 5:47 pm |

    objectively more funny

    My humorimeter says you’re the funniest of all, Mandos. IN fact, I use you to calibrate my laffoscope.

  64. Brooklynite
    Brooklynite June 16, 2006 at 5:47 pm |

    Twisty is a devil’s advocate. She admits that up front.

    But “no woman ever enjoyed giving a blowjob” isn’t a devil’s advocate position.

    Twisty’s position is that all relations in a patriarchal society are shaped by patricarchy, and that there are no safe spaces where patriarchy doesn’t reach. That’s a bracing position to be confronted with, and though she presents it in an intentionally provocative way, it’s not just a provocation.

    There are two places to go with that, though, when you start talking about heterosexuality. One is to say that sexism and oppression are never going to be banished entirely from het relationships, and that straight feminist women need to confront that fact. They need to fight against it, and also recognize that it’s a fight they’ll never entirely win.

    The other is to say that heterosexuality is fundamentally oppressive to women, and that nothing of value can be salvaged from them. Any woman who believes she’s in a worthwhile straight relationship is a dupe.

    I don’t think Twisty takes either position consistently. If she did, she’d piss off a lot fewer of her readers when she started talking about blowjobs.

  65. Bitch |Lab
    Bitch |Lab June 16, 2006 at 6:02 pm |

    Correction. T had a boyfriend, she mentioned it on a post on Oprah, May 9, 2006. She may well have experiences giving hummers.

  66. Bitch |Lab
    Bitch |Lab June 16, 2006 at 6:12 pm |

    @brookynite in #79

    Good point. Taking Devil’s Advocate position is usually done when you take the position that’s opposed to your own. Twisty simply took her own position. And now that I look at it again, I gotta disagree with piny. She wasn’t admitting up front that she wasa troll. She was warning the readers up front that she was planning on humiliating respondents for her own amusement. She did.

    How dare I presume to impugn the sanctity of a woman’s right to the blow job? I do so mostly on accounta I will get a big bang out of the impassioned arguments defending it.

    There is no argument there, not even an assertion, to answer the question, “What give syou the right?”

    Rather, she simply says she will take pleasure in watching you humiliate yourself. Getting a big bang out of it.

    I suppose everyone there is covered in icky female ejaculate now? LOL

  67. sophonisba
    sophonisba June 16, 2006 at 6:12 pm |

    But “no woman ever enjoyed giving a blowjob” isn’t a devil’s advocate position.

    Yeah. It’s actually a pretty standard sexist position. It’s hot because she doesn’t enjoy it. Which is a good way to make sure she doesn’t.

    I mean, there definitely is a patriarchally-approved pov that supposes women must like giving blowjobs, because if the cock-owner’s happy, everybody’s happy.

    But there’s a much creepier and more widespread patriarchal pov that says blowjobs are fucking disgusting, penises are fucking disgusting, men’s bodies are fucking disgusting: and therefore, any woman who likes cock is fucking disgusting. The male body cannot be an object of desire at any time, because women are the sex class. Women who think they lust after men must be lying or deluded, because active lust is what men direct on others, not what they receive. Men’s bodies cannot possibly be enticing or seductive or acted upon, because that’s unnatural – who (what man) would want to do that? Inspiring lust is what women’s bodies are for. And so on. So how could you be turned on by giving a blowjob? What kind of pervert likes cock? What, you think heterosexuality is reciprocal, or something?

    Twisty’s just having a bit of fun, maybe, but a couple of her commenters seem to really believe all that, which is creepy as fuck.

  68. Bertson
    Bertson June 16, 2006 at 6:18 pm |

    If the argument is, essentially, that a het woman who gets enjoyment out of pleasing her male partner is just a sexbot dupe, because the patriarchy wants women to think that pleasing men is what’s really important for them, doesn’t that mean that the only possibility for truly feminist hetero sex is a woman using a man’s body as an object to get herself off without any concern for him whatsoever?

  69. Bitch |Lab
    Bitch |Lab June 16, 2006 at 6:20 pm |

    @ Linnaeus

    No, I had not idea that was what it was called. And I’m thrilled for the year’s supply of anything. tx! I never win a damn thing. Maybe my luck will change now?

  70. junk science
    junk science June 16, 2006 at 6:25 pm |

    But there’s a much creepier and more widespread patriarchal pov that says blowjobs are fucking disgusting, penises are fucking disgusting, men’s bodies are fucking disgusting: and therefore, any woman who likes cock is fucking disgusting.

    Because if she likes cock, she might like someone else’s cock better than yours.

    What exactly do people like Twisty and her followers gain from telling heterosexual women they’re completely fucked when it comes to having happy sexual relationships? Seems like they’re trying to ride straight women as hard as the patriarchy does, but from the other direction. The patriarchy tells you you should shut up and be happy whether you like it or not, and Twisty tells you you’re never going to be happy even if you think you are. And to top it all off, she started this stupid fight because she gets a rise out of watching women humiliate themselves. Sounds kind of familiar.

  71. Bitch |Lab
    Bitch |Lab June 16, 2006 at 6:30 pm |

    @ piny and others re: “creepy POV about mens bodies”

    I completely agree with this one. when i used to teach courses on gender, marriage, and sociology of love, the het guys would go on and on and on about how it was only naturally they loved women. men’s bodies were gross and ugly. stinky.

    it’s heterosexist, though, i’d say. more part of hegemonic masculinity and maintaining boundaries of acceptable manhood. since it tends to come with the late twentieth century, that attitude, i definitiely think its more about policiing male heterosexuality than than anything else.

  72. sophonisba
    sophonisba June 16, 2006 at 6:34 pm |

    doesn’t that mean that the only possibility for truly feminist hetero sex is a woman using a man’s body as an object to get herself off without any concern for him whatsoever?

    Well, a little concern is in order. You want him to come back and let you do it again. But getting myself off is certainly what my feminist hetero sex is all about. Since I’m not a masochist, I only do things that cause me pleasure, not discomfort, and that works out just fine for both of us. Your suggestion is not some kind of far-fetched hypothetical.

    However, there is still the apparently horrible fact that for some women, “using using a man’s body as an object to get herself off” is going to involve a little cocksucking. Because by and large, hetero women like cock. Sad, but true!

  73. Carpenter
    Carpenter June 16, 2006 at 6:36 pm |

    See I can get behind ‘lots of girls ice blowjobs they dont really want to becuase they think the should, thereofr the institution of such blowjobing supports the patriarchy’.

    The ‘no woman likes cock enough to wanna look/touch/lick it” i just didn’t take seriously, I mean plenty of women like cocks. so I just thought it was overstatement.

    ‘Because if she likes cock, she might like someone else’s cock better than yours.’

    Yeah I totally agree wih this being the reason guys cant stand to have their cocks gazed at. To bad for them I love naked mens.
    bell hooks wrote a interestign article about this very thing.

    http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=2295

  74. Carpenter
    Carpenter June 16, 2006 at 6:48 pm |

    ahh horrible typing from me. Sorry I do math all day, words not so much.

  75. Bertson
    Bertson June 16, 2006 at 6:59 pm |

    sophonisba:

    I guess maybe I didn’t explain it well enough. Of course you should be concerned for your own pleasure.

    My point is that Twisty’s argument is essentially that if a woman enjoys sexually pleasing her male partner, that means she’s a dupe of the Patriarchy. Therefore, the natural extension of that is that if a het woman isn’t a dupe of the patriarchy, she’ll be utterly indifferent to whether he enjoys sex with her or not.

  76. sophonisba
    sophonisba June 16, 2006 at 7:18 pm |

    My point is that Twisty’s argument is essentially that if a woman enjoys sexually pleasing her male partner, that means she’s a dupe of the Patriarchy

    Well, of course enjoyment of sexually pleasing a man is hard to disconnect from patriarchal conditioning, right? Especially if you value your boyfriend’s pleasure over your own, which Twisty is quite right, many women do. Lots of women have that reflex, and it absolutely is partly a patriarchy-conditioned response, that’s not a controversial assertion at all. If all your pleasure from sex comes from being of service to a man’s orgasm, damn right you’re a dupe of the Patriarchy. Sure, it’s hard to separate that from the perfectly legitimate and admirable desire to voluntarily give sexual pleasure to a loved one, but that’s the point, isn’t it? Twisty’s not wrong about that at all.

    But Twisty went beyond that to claim that getting off on manipulating a cock just doesn’t happen, which is silly.
    Her assertion was more that if a woman claimed to get actual sexual pleasure from the act herself – not happiness all from giving sexual pleasure, sexual pleasure of her own – she was a dupe of the Patriarchy. That’s the part that’s not true.

  77. Carpenter
    Carpenter June 16, 2006 at 7:21 pm |

    Very interesting. I was thinking patriarchy has to have it both ways. It is not OK for women to objectify men therefore they are stinky and nasty and no one wants to look at them nekkid and mens bodies/cocks are repulsive ar at best ‘utilitarian’(cant tell you how many timess I heard that in a raging torrent of pseudo-sciene). At the same time,women must worship the alimighty cock and they can’t get enough of it. I suppose this is because as patriarchy wants it, every part of men is astheticaly repulsive including the cock, however the cock is a mighty tool that can make women beg for it. Thus the cock is separate from the man himself. How could a woman possible find it nice to look or touch when it is the the performance of the cock that matters. Hence objectifying it and sticking it back on the man as part of him is a big no-no.

  78. Bertson
    Bertson June 16, 2006 at 7:46 pm |

    If all your pleasure from sex comes from being of service to a man’s orgasm, damn right you’re a dupe of the Patriarchy. Sure, it’s hard to separate that from the perfectly legitimate and admirable desire to voluntarily give sexual pleasure to a loved one, but that’s the point, isn’t it? Twisty’s not wrong about that at all.

    I don’t see Twisty making that distinction. It seems to me that anyone who thinks she’s experiencing pleasure because of the latter is only fooling herself, and that it’s all the former. She seems to me to be saying that, in the patriarchy, women cannot legitimately get pleasure themselves from pleasing a man they care about.

  79. Sara
    Sara June 16, 2006 at 7:47 pm |

    If all your pleasure from sex comes from being of service to a man’s orgasm, damn right you’re a dupe of the Patriarchy.

    Well, yes. That’s a bit of a tautology, though. And furthermore, even if all your pleasure from sex comes from being of service to a man’s orgasm, you’re still gaining some kind of pleasure. That’s not an orgasm, but it’s not fooling yourself, either.

    What I find to be kind of absurd about this conversation (and I’ve seen it in other conversations about sex acts that don’t necessarily get a woman off) is the seeming working assumption on which Twisty’s argument is based – that if you’re in bed and not committing an act that will lead directly to your orgasm, you’re losing and he is winning. Luckily, sex is more interesting and fun, and less competitive than that in the real world.

  80. sophonisba
    sophonisba June 16, 2006 at 8:07 pm |

    Bertson, that depends what you mean by “legitimate” pleasure. Some women get a very visceral pleasure from doing all the housework themselves, because they believe it’s part of being a good wife and a good woman, and it impresses the neighbors. Is this pleasure real? Clearly it is. But is it “legitimate?” Well… legitimate is a very tricky word, so let’s just use Twisty’s terminology and say that it’s “gross.”

    You are probably correct that I am assuming more subtlety Twisty’s post than is actually there. She is clearly not stupid, so I am reluctant to suppose that she means stupid things.

    Sara:

    That’s not an orgasm, but it’s not fooling yourself, either.

    Yeah…but see above.

    I do agree with you about the competition thing.

  81. Amanda Marcotte
    Amanda Marcotte June 16, 2006 at 8:17 pm |

    She can’t take either position consistently because it’s not one or the other. Heterosexuality is both tainted by the patriarchy and generally forwards it.

    Twisty openly stated that she wanted to read the “not my Nigel” comments that were bound to come. I found it to be an interesting experiment, and brought it to my blog. People acted exactly as she probably expected they would. I was fascinated by the number of women who tried to argue that blow jobs can be empowering and eventually it got on my nerves, too. Which made me realize that it’s probably a shallow argument and spun my mind in a million directions and frankly I’m not sure that blogging it any other way would have worked as well.

  82. Anne
    Anne June 16, 2006 at 8:22 pm |

    I don’t know, what got on my nerves was the commenters talking about how disgusting it was and how it must be for every woman. If it’s all just a big joke and we’re fools for taking the bait, well, then… congratulations? She really showed us? What the fuck?

    In regard to the Ha ha, I was just trying to get people to make idiots of themselves! thing, for some reason I’m reminded of the Onion headline ‘Asshole Admits To Being Asshole in Supreme Asshole Move.’

  83. bitchphd
    bitchphd June 16, 2006 at 8:34 pm |

    I find this post and comment thread depressing.

    Look, the basic point that blowjobs are, in the present day and age, degrading, is pretty much true. As is the implicit point that the importance of the blow job as sex act (I mean, otherwise, why would we give a shit what people think about it) is absolutely central to the patriarchy.

    And there’s really nothing wrong with pointing out that enjoying blowjobs on occasion, or wearing high heels, or makeup, or practicing whatever other expected feminine act, may very well be something one enjoys, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t also a form of false consciousness. It probably is, or at least mostly is.

    But I’m really bugged by the undercurrent here of “Twisty is too shrill” or “Twisty is a dyke, what does she know about cock” or “well, that’s just her personal opinion” or the (pretty silly, really) argument that because one enjoys X, Y, or Z, that one is somehow completely able to separate one’s enjoyment from sexism. Come on. If sexism is as complicated as we think it is–if resolving the patriarchy isn’t just an issue of saying, “well, it’s illegal to discriminate!”–then the argument that not all prejudice is conscious and deliberate cuts both ways.

    That said, I think a few people in that thread were being pretty insulting on a personal level, which is not only counterproductive but pretty messed up from this feminist’s perspective. And I think really rather uncalled for. But, hey. We all get wound up sometimes.

  84. Brooklynite
    Brooklynite June 16, 2006 at 8:38 pm |

    I was fascinated by the number of women who tried to argue that blow jobs can be empowering and eventually it got on my nerves, too.

    How many women made that argument, tho? I just searched the thread for the word “power,” and I only found two women using it in the way you suggest.

    Ms. Kate said this:

    I find it erotic to work the joystick for power and control if nothing else. There are also scent and firmness and other response clues I enjoy.

    And Sly Civilian said this:

    [H]ow many women actually get to have a vagina dentata? There is the possibility to perceive power in the act of giving, trust/dependance in the act of receiving. All this, of course, depends on the dynamics of the rest of the relationship. Anything, even the awesomely good, can be taken to bad ends by the Patriarchy.

    That’s it. Maybe I missed some — I wasn’t going to re-read the whole thread — but still.

  85. zuzu
    zuzu June 16, 2006 at 8:41 pm | *

    @ piny and others re: “creepy POV about mens bodies”

    I completely agree with this one. when i used to teach courses on gender, marriage, and sociology of love, the het guys would go on and on and on about how it was only naturally they loved women. men’s bodies were gross and ugly. stinky.

    it’s heterosexist, though, i’d say. more part of hegemonic masculinity and maintaining boundaries of acceptable manhood. since it tends to come with the late twentieth century, that attitude, i definitiely think its more about policiing male heterosexuality than than anything else.

    And implicit in that POV is the idea that women don’t have sexual desires of their own.

  86. Brooklynite
    Brooklynite June 16, 2006 at 8:46 pm |

    AFAIK, Sly and Kate only adds up to one woman.

    Oopsie.

  87. Amanda Marcotte
    Amanda Marcotte June 16, 2006 at 9:05 pm |

    And there’s really nothing wrong with pointing out that enjoying blowjobs on occasion, or wearing high heels, or makeup, or practicing whatever other expected feminine act, may very well be something one enjoys, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t also a form of false consciousness. It probably is, or at least mostly is.

    I’m chiming in with bitchphd on this one. I think that one issue is that few of us are willing to admit that we’ve been conditioned to like things that we wouldn’t in some other, egalitarian society. I find that questionable at best. I know that when I put on make-up (as I’m actually doing now) I’m almost surely doing something I wouldn’t dream of otherwise. Blow jobs, at least the ones that apparently most people are giving, are like that. I like them, even think about them on occasion for my own amusement, but I can honestly say that sucking until someone comes is not as fun as just playing around and basically is only a huge favor. There’s a turning point about 2 minutes in where it’s tiring. (A friend of mine joked once that I’m fond of 3 minute blow job shoes–sexy high heels–and everyone laughed their asses off. This does not bespeak a strong love of sucking a cock for 15 minutes, I fear.) Having him pull out and come on your face, porn style, is absolutely not going to happen in my bedroom. I like cocks. I also like being comfortable and respected. Kneeling on the ground to give head is something I usually feel a bit weird about, too, since I’ve basically never seen it go the other way. Hair-pulling, head shoving, and otherwise trying to control the situation are other things guys have done to me that got the entire thing called off.

    I’m a churlish feminist, though, and so I have little patience with the “worship my cock” thing. Most women either aren’t thoughtful feminists and/or they think criticizing sexual practices is off-limits. And they’re probably getting semen shot in their eyes or their head pushed a lot more than I thought, prior to that thread.

  88. Bertson
    Bertson June 16, 2006 at 9:06 pm |

    Based on the quotes given above, it seems to me like Sly and Kate aren’t arguing that blowjobs are empowering in a political or social sense, but just that they can give one a feeling of power. It doesn’t seem like an attempt to portray blow jobs as being pro-feminist so much as an attempt to give a reason why someone might enjoy giving them, to counter Twisty’s assertion that there is no reason to enjoy it.

  89. Amanda Marcotte
    Amanda Marcotte June 16, 2006 at 9:08 pm |

    Oh, and I totally piss people off on my blog all the time by taking the devil’s advocate role but stating my own beliefs, sans caveats. Like when I take a piss on religion, which offends people even more than mocking blow jobs.

  90. ginmar
    ginmar June 16, 2006 at 9:10 pm |

    Wow, so a feminist did something or said something that’s fucked up, and it didn’t have the power to affect policy or anything and people got pissed off? Could it be that Twisty’s an individual and her own self and the whole subtext of, ‘she’s a dyke, what does she know?’ better get ignored.

    Anybody who thinks blowjobs happen in a vacuum is an idiot. It’s a rape culture where male sexuality gets glorified. So you think women might then have issues with an act that is glorified as being submissive and slave like?

    Jesus H. Christ, is there any context at all? What happens between people isn’t history free, and some people are aware of it. To add annoying anecdote here, I used to have a BF who thought blowjobs showed what a macho guy he was, and how in control over me he was. Yeah, that lasted. I also had a BF who just loved turning me on. Surprisingly enough, I loved returning the favor. What a SHOCK. That still doesn’t change the fact that in the culture the giver of a blowjob is a giver and the recipiean tis a taker, and Twisty casts a jaundiced eye at that kind of thing.

  91. Bertson
    Bertson June 16, 2006 at 9:19 pm |

    To add annoying anecdote here, I used to have a BF who thought blowjobs showed what a macho guy he was, and how in control over me he was. Yeah, that lasted. I also had a BF who just loved turning me on. Surprisingly enough, I loved returning the favor. What a SHOCK.

    I agree with everything you said, but speaking personally, what I have a problem with is her assertion that you CANNOT “lov[e] returning the favour”.

  92. Ledasmom
    Ledasmom June 16, 2006 at 9:24 pm |

    What really irritated me about the post in question and the subsequent ridiculous number o’comments was the assumption that performing fellatio cannot be in any way directly stimulating. If one’s sexual objects of desire are male, why wouldn’t one find the characteristic male parts desirable? If one may be turned on by observing nice male shoulders or buns, and even more by touching said male shoulders/buns, why couldn’t one be turned on by intimate contact with that most notable male part? The smell of male sweat can be arousing; there’s a characteristic smell even to a clean pubic region, which one would assume to be stimulating to those who like that particular sex.
    Seems that a lot of people have forgotten that our largest sex organ is our brain, though it’s quite hard to fit a condom over it and deep-throating is entirely out of the question.
    (Precautionary disclaimer: References to men and penises in this comment are not meant to imply that it is necessary to have a penis to be a man. Thank you and good night.)

  93. Carpenter
    Carpenter June 16, 2006 at 9:37 pm |

    *I’m chiming in with bitchphd on this one. I think that one issue is that few of us are willing to admit that we’ve been conditioned to like things that we wouldn’t in some other, egalitarian society. I know that when I put on make-up (as I’m actually doing now) I’m almost surely doing something I wouldn’t dream of otherwise. Blow jobs, at least the ones that apparently most people are giving, are like that.*

    See I think if we lived in an egalitarian society oral sex wouldn’t be that big of a deal, in fact lots of people might choose to muffdive/give blowjobs because oral sex would just be better (no gaging no power trip no nasty porn deep throating). I think in an elgalitarian society we’d be much less likly to cram our feet into stupid shoes that hurt.

    But otherwise I think there are lots of blowjobs that really do blow, and people would do well to reconsider them. In no way do I think sex acts are immune to feminst critique. Everyone should ask herself why it really is that she is giving that blowjob. I’d suspect out of all blowjobs half the time there really is no good reason, but ‘d guess the other half of the time would be AOK. Call me an optimist.

  94. Mandos
    Mandos June 16, 2006 at 9:47 pm |

    That would mean a bit more if it came from someone who knew from funny.

    See, if it is the case that I lack a sense of humour, then it must be the case that I am the ideal objective humorimeter.

  95. Anne
    Anne June 16, 2006 at 9:49 pm |

    But Gin, I don’t think anyone’s said that sex acts happen in a vacuum or that many women don’t have reason to be wary of certain sex acts. Readers of feminist blogs know the context of this stuff.

    What I think people are reacting to is this (as Hershele put it on the other thread) “You’re not happy, you just THINK you’re happy” thing. That really bugs me.

  96. bitchphd
    bitchphd June 16, 2006 at 10:10 pm |

    “cannot love,” “cannot like.” In a literal sense, this is true: you cannot love/like something for itself if your taste for it is so socially conditioned. Or, at least, you can’t say with certainty that you do.

    The “you’re not happy, you just think you are” thing does bug. Nonetheless, it’s something we shouldn’t just ignore, either. It’s pretty much a given that in a sexist society, women who aren’t raised under rocks are gonna internalize sexism. And if anything, the more feminist you are the more likely you are to resist the idea that you of all people have done that.

  97. bitchphd
    bitchphd June 16, 2006 at 10:33 pm |

    I think it’s borne out in this thread, no? A lot of people here and at Amanda’s seem to be saying pretty firmly that *they* genuinely like blow jobs, and that this doesn’t have anything to do with sexism for *them*.

    I appreciate you backing me up, I really do. Where I’m coming down on this is that I have enormous respect for Twisty, and even if/when she says something that I don’t like, I think she has earned the right to have me consider it seriously and try to check my initial rejection of what she’s saying.

    The other folks in that thread? Don’t know ‘em, don’t care.

  98. Elinor
    Elinor June 16, 2006 at 10:54 pm |

    I must say, this straight woman gets so much Cosmo-Maxim “do Sexual Act X, it’s empowering and also if you don’t do it no man will ever love you” shoved down her throat (so to speak) by the culture at large that Twisty’s post really did not alienate her.

  99. Carpenter
    Carpenter June 16, 2006 at 11:09 pm |

    bitchphd

    I think the question is just how much Twisty or whoever believes feminist posters when they say they really do like blowjobs. Or rather how much they feel like they are believed. Probably no one really enjoys every single blow job, but it could be that many of the posters who are used to emplying feminist critiques about choice really do enjoy blowjobs most of the time(but some feminists some of the time are probably kidding themselves). One should always maintain a healthy skepticism ‘choices’ sex included, I just think some people need feel that not every blowjob is self dillusion(not that you are saying that). Of course perhaps they doth protest too much but by that logic perhaps Twisty has a secret Rollerderby-BDSM dungeon where she sucks cock all day.

    Sorry for the rambling…too much penis. If you gave feminists some kind of probability that they weren’t kidding themselves say even say15% there probably wouldn’t be that much of an argument.

  100. Acephalous
    Acephalous June 17, 2006 at 1:02 am |

    “Fuck Act Theory”

    Seven times today people landed here searching for Fuck Act Theory. (The oh-so-apropos capitalization? Mine.) Let the masses concern themselves with hummer this and knob-polisher that. I choose to do these seven solid citizens a favor instead. No longe…

  101. Marksman2000
    Marksman2000 June 17, 2006 at 1:06 am |

    famously have no sense of humor, but nobody else should have a sense of humor about that, either.

    Live long and prosper, Thomas.

    Gawd, I’m good.

  102. Andreas
    Andreas June 17, 2006 at 1:13 am |

    I’m wondering how much anyone knows about blowjobs qua blowjobs. There’s a lot of assumptions being made based on the blowjobs that people have seen, blowjobs in porn, which seem, in general, contrary to the assumptions of people on the thread describing blowjobs they’ve given. The problem is that those blowjobs — the blowjobs that exist in places that can be viewed — are, by their nature, exceptions to the general nature of blowjobs. They’re on camera, they’re done for money, and they’re done for a third-party viewer, a male, a consumer of pornography..

    I think there’s an impetus, driven by pornography, to create an “everybody’s doing it” attitude toward uncommmon and uncomfortable sex acts. Though I think that there’s a substantial element of re-enactment going, but pornography is to sex as John Wayne movies are to war. Drawing conclusions about private acts based on public simulations of those acts seems sketchy to me.

    I’m not denigrating people’s personal experiences, but what I’m hearing from blowjob-givers are complaints about nagging, insistence, entitlement, and lack of consideration, not the intrinsic brutality or grossness of the act. The disconnect between given and viewed blowjobs, and the disconnect between blowjob-givers’ experience and what they think the “average” blowjob to be might be driven by the same forces.

    I’ve got neither an opinion or any better data on the subject, but I just wanted to throw that out.

    – ACS

  103. ginmar
    ginmar June 17, 2006 at 7:33 am |

    No, Piny, but it sure as hell seems like people are taking Twisty that way. And whoever said they get the whole Cosmo/Maxim rah rah rah this act will make your boyfriend wild thing shoved down their throat all the time…seems like the whole culture, when it comes down to it, is all about blowing men.

  104. Pony
    Pony June 17, 2006 at 8:50 am |

    I’m a straight woman who loves Twisty. She skewers it like no one else can.

    Bow down.

  105. Pony
    Pony June 17, 2006 at 9:08 am |

    How radical to the feminist cause is Twisty’s approach. Look what it’s done! Hundreds of posts discussing it. A couple dozen blogs tied up with it. Real people weighing what she says. It’s not just another masturbatory turgid tautology written to satisfy an academic requirement. A year from now, five years from now, who you gonna remember?

  106. Elinor
    Elinor June 17, 2006 at 9:49 am |

    I’m a straight woman who loves Twisty.

    Ditto.

    And frankly, while we’re objecting to generalizations, I’m a little miffed at whoever insisted that straight women as a group were going to be alienated by Twisty’s post. Okay, Twisty shouldn’t have told women that we all hate blowjobs, but I don’t appreciate being told that “every single hetero feminist” is offended by that statement, either.

    Because hey, who’s more likely to have had horrible experiences with blowjobs, women who sleep with men or women who don’t?

  107. That Girl
    That Girl June 17, 2006 at 9:53 am |

    I am a straight woman who loves Twisty. I am not immune to getting into a pre-planned argument for the amusement of someone else. Arguing can be fun.
    A lot of time, arguing brings out the true underbelly of beast so to speak – we can discover what we, or our neighbors REALLY think about things in a way that a purely intellectual discussion wont.
    I also can pretty much find humor in anything, and Twistys is the place I can always go to find a laugh – even when it’s a laugh at myself.

  108. Anne
    Anne June 17, 2006 at 11:15 am |

    Bow down.

    I’ll pass.

  109. raging red
    raging red June 17, 2006 at 11:52 am |

    I consider myself to be fairly new to feminism. I always called myself a feminist, but I didn’t really give feminist issues much thought, though most of my attitudes and natural inclinations were feminist, I think. Anyway, I have only really started exploring feminist issues in a more in-depth way since I started reading feminist blogs. I have only recently started commenting on them, so I am not a known commenter to anyone around these parts.

    I’m another straight woman who loves Twisty. It doesn’t matter to me a whit that she might be “more radical” than I am. I read her because she’s a damn good writer, she’s damn funny, and she always makes me think. I almost never read the comments. (That’s not a criticism of the comments, I just don’t have time to be involved in the comments of every blog I read.)

    Anyway, I say all of that because as a straight women and novice patriarchy blamer, Twisty’s post didn’t turn me off in the slightest. I was first directed to the post by Amanda’s post on Pandagon, and I read Twisty’s post, didn’t read the comments, then I left a quick, off-the-top-of-my-head comment on Amanda’s post about blowjobs.

    I won’t reproduce the comment here. If anyone cares (not that they should), they can go read it at Pandagon. All I did was give my immediate response to the question “do you really enjoy giving blowjobs?” It wasn’t a particularly insightful comment, I didn’t give a feminist analysis of my blowjob-giving, it wasn’t theoretical or academic in any way. I did remark that I thought the “funk-filled bratwurst” comment was kind of mean. But that didn’t make me mad. I wasn’t offended. I laughed at Twisty’s post like I do with all of her posts (hell, even her cancer posts are damn funny). I would just never refer to a cock that way.

    My long-winded point is that I’m definitely a novice when it comes to thinking about this stuff, but reading the posts and comments about Twisty’s post at Feministe and Pandagon has given me a lot to think about. I disagree with Twisty 100% that no woman has ever really enjoyed giving a blowjob, and sure, her post didn’t actually contain a real argument, as piny has been pointing out, but I’m not stupid. I think I know what Twisty was doing. I get why some people were offended, but I wasn’t. Even this novice patriarchy blamer was not turned off by it. It made me think about “false consciousness” – do I really enjoy giving blowjobs, like I think I do? Do I really have an egalitarian sexual relationship with my boyfriend? Do I have an egalitarian relationship with him in general, not just including the sex?

    If I were a more advanced patriarchy blamer, my comment about blowjobs would have been very similar to this one by Lindsay. When I give a blowjob, it’s not the head-pushing, hair-grabbing, deep throating, gagging, he’s-really-just-fucking-my-face variety. If I examine one particular blowjob that I give my boyfriend, in isolation, it could certainly appear to be “unfeminist.” There are times when my boyfriend sits or lays back and just receives a blowjob from me to completion, and that’s it. We’re done. Do I receive pleasure from that? Yes, but it’s mostly the pleasure of giving him pleasure. (I listed some of the other things I enjoy about it in my comment at Pandagon, and I can say that if I were with a guy who didn’t like blowjobs, I’d be disappointed.) Isn’t it unfeminist to do something for the almost sole purpose of pleasing a man? Well, one could say that, but again, I don’t think you can look at each act in a relationship (a sexual act or otherwise) in isolation. You have to look at the relationship as a whole.

    For every time I have given him a blowjob and that has been the end of it, there have been probably twice as many times that he has gone down on me until I’ve finished and that has been the end of it – nothing for him. So even if there’s no immediate quid pro quo when I blow him, when looking at our sex life as a whole, I’m getting more selfless oral sex than I’m giving. Of course, there are other times when one or the other of us gets oral sex and then we do other sexual things. Sometimes the oral is just foreplay. As I said, every so often I’ll just blow him or he’ll just go down on me, but usually when we have sex, it’s some combination of sex acts that gets us both off. I figure this is how most people have sex, but I guess I really don’t know.

    Bottom line – this whole multi-blog discussion has been interesting and illuminating to me. So, though I can’t be sure about precisely what Twisty’s motives were, and there’s a legitimate case to be made that she just wanted to point and laugh at people’s reactions, in my own case, the result of her post is a positive, because my first comment was a shallower answer to the question “do you enjoy giving blowjobs?” and now I’ve written this one, in which I’ve given the question more thought.

  110. belledame222
    belledame222 June 17, 2006 at 12:23 pm |

    You know, I never really liked Andy Kaufman either, brilliant and funny as he was; it’s one thing to show people their own human foibles from the POV of one who shares them (Lenny Bruce, say). It’s another to constantly pull the oneupsmanship. Sure, there’s a certain amount of hostility toward the audience in all performers, but…there’s only so much “haha, tricked you again, fuck you” I’m willing to accept.

    Well, we all have our own preferred methods of playing power games, I expect. I tend to like mine a bit more upfront and hands-on, but, horses for courses.

  111. Anthony Kennerson
    Anthony Kennerson June 17, 2006 at 12:53 pm |

    First off…there is only one Anthony Kennerson, and he (I) can defend his (my) own words.

    Some rebuttals of note:

    [Piny]No. I see a couple of people who don’t seem to get it here–the Anthony Kemmersons of the blogiverse–and a lot of people who are protesting that they do, too enjoy blowjobs. The latter, though, is in the context of the original post. Most people here are trying to draw the distinction between carefully considering sexism and the impact in your own life and…what it seems like Twisty’s doing. [/Piny]

    Now..can you please explain, Piny, how I don’t “get it”?? In my view, what Twisty is doing is merely attempting to embarrass and humiliate feminists and women who say that they like blowjobs out of the movement for being enablers of Teh Patriarchy, and projecting her disgust of bj’s onto other women….what’s not to “get” about that??? Regardless of whether she was just acting to get a debate going or whether she really believes this, the fact remains that women who disagreed with her analysis were effectively entrapped and humiliated.

    I never said of believe any such thing that sexism doesn’t exist and that it doesn’t affect one’s personal life…but there are such things as full choice where women take whatever pleasures they can in a world where choices are limited. To demonize a woman because she chooses to get pleasure in giving pleasure to her partner is hardly feminist scholarship…it is more in line with the Christian Right’s methods of regulating sexuality.

    Yes, it is perfectly understandable and certainly acceptable to have people challenge their beliefs….but to denigrate them for making choices merely because you don’t personally like them crosses the line from genuine consciousness raising into thought policing and manipulation. That is something better left to the “ex-gays” and the fundamentalists, not to a putatively progressive movement.

    And to Elinor and Ginmar (whom I have rumbled with before and often): Just because someone happens to be hetero (or bi) and has had a bad experience with blowjobs does not automatically make them a candidate for radical feminism…because merely accepting blowjobs is NOT merely a tool of patriarchy. Just because you choose to reject men on political grounds does not give you the unmitigated right to smear and distort those women who decide not to. Some men are indeed qute sexist and deserve to be called out for it; most men are simply doing their best to cope with the world they live in, just like most women.

    Regardless, I still feel that what Twisty did was just plain wrong, low-down, and deserves the utmost contempt….and I reserve my right as a supporter of feminism to say that. Those who don’t agree are perfectly free to do so. To each his or her own.

    Anthony

  112. tekanji
    tekanji June 17, 2006 at 12:54 pm |

    I want one month in the feminist blogsphere in which none of us attack each other because someone engages in an activity that we personally don’t like. I want one month in which feminists who have differing views on porn, BDSM, and other sexual practices can come together and have a civil conversation that examines the patriarchy’s role in all this instead of flinging shit at each other. I want one month in which we don’t privilege one set of oppression over another, but rather realize that the dynamics of oppression creates a complex and interconnecting web that needs to be tackled both as a whole as well as one thread at a time. I want one month in which the need to be the sole arbiter of Truth is less important than creating a community in which we listen to each other and realize that every person takes a different path to happiness. I want one month for us to celebrate our differences instead of using them to divide us.

    For one month. Just one. Fucking. Month. I want us to blame the patriarchy instead of blaming women.

    Why isn’t that possible?

  113. Reese
    Reese June 17, 2006 at 1:17 pm |

    Wow!

    I read Twisty as saying, “Wow. You people are pretty good at
    rejecting patriarchy when it comes to godbags and anti-abortions creeps, but when it comes to sex, you’ve kind of dropped the ball. you let your pleasure get in the way of seeing reality.”

    Well, what I’m seeing is that women who otherwise are very critical of radical feminism, can’t give up the orgasm they get every other day or so reading Twisty.

    Damn. That orgasm is so good. I can’t get enough. I worship at the feet of the orgasm provider. I don’t even agree with the orgasm provider on fundamental issues, but because I like to read her and i wish I could be like her, I am going to rethink everything I’ve thought to date or cut her slack because, afterall, we’re talking sex here and sex does make us crazy.

    Do you really all believe that women are oppressed as a class?
    that all oppression can be explained by women’s oppression?

    I don’t thinkyou do. Not when I read your blogs. But, here you are, because she’s attacked sexuality, you buy it. You will disagree with her about racism, but not about your own orgasms.

    If your argument is that you “like” her and that you cut her slack because she’s sick, you have no argument. You just like her, like you like a bowl of gazpacho and glass of white wine.

  114. evil_fizz
    evil_fizz June 17, 2006 at 1:39 pm |

    tekanji, you’re my hero.

  115. JJthonre
    JJthonre June 17, 2006 at 2:16 pm |

    I read Twisty and Biting Beaver and other feminist blogs with interest, however I seldom comment because the authors and posters tend to engage in what, if viewed objectively, is hate speech against people based not only on gender but also sexual practice.

    The moderators then allow the hate speech while deleting or changing the posts of people who argue against it. This becomes protected hate speech. While I am sure my comments are not missed by the moderators I still cannot participate in a discussion where hate speech is tolerated but dissent is not.

    While the argument that its not hate speech against men if you are a victim of the patriarchy may have merit the argument falls apart when you apply it to particular choices like BJs BDSM style of dress etc. If you find the hate speech hard to recognize just substitute Homosexuality for the practice in question and all will be made clear.

  116. Anthony Kennerson
    Anthony Kennerson June 17, 2006 at 2:40 pm |

    Some caveats for you, jjthonre:

    I’m not sure that I’d go so far as to characterice Twisty’s arguments as “feminist hate speech” (especially compared to the lunatic rantings of the Biting Beaver krewe); not all feminists (or even radical feminists) cross the line into sex hate as BB and Dim do, in my opinion. I may strongly disagree with her beliefs, but I wouldn’t go that far.

    And it should be noted that you were allowed to post your remarks here, as opposed to some radfem blogs like BB and Feminist First, who not only don’t allow critics to post responses to their blogs, but also reserve the right to alter their responses to fit their biases. (As is their right, being owners of their blogs.)

    So, be very, very careful about overgeneralizing feminists as promoting “hate speech”;not all of them stoop to that level.

    Anthony

  117. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke June 17, 2006 at 3:00 pm |

    Regardless, I still feel that what Twisty did was just plain wrong, low-down, and deserves the utmost contempt….and I reserve my right as a supporter of feminism to say that.

    How brave of you.

  118. Reese
    Reese June 17, 2006 at 3:20 pm |

    @ Chris Clarke #140

    Color me shocked. Chris Clarke spends his time defending the honor of the women he loves by criticizing male pro-feminists, because, after all, we couldn’t possibly criticize male pro-feminists on our own. Some days, I think your biggest fear is that you agree with Hugo far too much.

    Why don’t you make an argument for twisty instead of snide comments that do not address the guy’s argument. This Prince Charming on a Steed Act you have going is old.

  119. Reese
    Reese June 17, 2006 at 3:38 pm |

    Someone argued at Pandagon that the problem is that feminists forget they create their own ingroup. She means that we are a reference group for one another. So, when your reference group judges you, it’s more hurtful to you than when Rush Limbaugh calls you a feminazi.

    Now, all this ego stroking between the leaders of the feminist blogosophere looks suspciously like the dick stroking that goes on among Teh Patriarchy.

    And, I could point out to you, as Amanda tries to, that all you’re doing when you deny my criticism is refusing to look at something you personally take pride and pleasure in. You believe you are a leader of the Feminist Blogs because you are good and worthy and important and deserve it. Twisty’s critics aren’t giving her the due she deserves as Important Feminist.

    Well, I’m happy to see Shrub and Twisty now share the same fate: we should bow down before them because they are Important and other Important People Think So.

    Competition, creating cliques, supporting each other because you “like” them and they’re part of your old girls network looks a lot like the old boys networks and cliques that men use to control us.

    Don’t protest against that argument, btw, because protesting too much smells suspciously like you know you’re guilty.

    What kind of argument is that? It’s not an argument. It’s an attribution of a psychological state you don’t know anyone has. And you leave the person you criticize unable to get a word in edgewise because they have to prove to you their psychological state. And then you’ll just tell them they’re protesting to much.

    Well, thanks for leaving your allies looking like dipshits that you so obviously aren’t. Because you like someone. *rolls eyes*

    Oh, thanks. I’ll be heading over to IBTP soon so I can read the Blamer feeling sorry for herself again.

  120. ginmar
    ginmar June 17, 2006 at 3:48 pm |

    “Feminist hate speech.” Hah. When men stop hating us, we’ll stop calling them on it. Not until. Don’t like the weapon? Don’t pick it, then.

  121. zuzu
    zuzu June 17, 2006 at 3:56 pm | *

    Reese, that had to be one of the more bizarre and disjointed comments I’ve seen in a while.

    Bravo.

  122. Carpenter
    Carpenter June 17, 2006 at 4:23 pm |

    On seconf thought, while I did think Twisty’s post was very usefeul, she did seem to cotradict herself

    ‘Flame me if you will, but I posit nevertheless that no woman, since the dawn of the patriarchal co-option of human sexuality, has ever actually enjoyed this submissive sexbot drudgery.’

    The act itself is not enjoyable under the patriarchy

    then in the next post
    It is anti-feminist to point out the ideological problems with certain patriarchal sexbot traditions because so many women enjoy patriarchal sexbot traditions. It is, in fact, offensive to suggest that getting off has any untoward political ramifications at all. I mean, we’re talking about getting off. It’s the feminist nirvana. Anything goes as long as someone gets off, and besides, it’s none of my beeswax.

    The act itself is enjoyable but only becuse of false conciousness.

  123. JJthonre
    JJthonre June 17, 2006 at 4:31 pm |

    Its not that it is “feminist hate speech” it is that it is hate speech. Hate speech used in order to further a political agenda is wrong and I don’t pick it.. As good as the ‘men do it so feminists should do it too’ argument is, it is not my point.

    My point is that if you have a good argument, hate speech will not be a good “weapon” to use it will always (to flog the analogy to death) backfire on the user. It is unnecessary for a good argument and very revealing when used to support a bad argument. When you resort to this particular tactic

    When you use hate speech to other people who’s individual choices make you uncomfortable or that challenge your own choices you leave the side of the angels.

  124. Loosely Twisted
    Loosely Twisted June 17, 2006 at 5:16 pm |

    After reading the threads on Twisty’s comments from her post, and Zuzu’s comments I think, either I missed something, or I just don’t see the “war” here.

    Let’s see if I can articulate this like I see it. I doubt I can though.

    When I read Twisty’s original post, I didn’t interpret it as an assertion that included me. (being the subject of said post) Mostly I interpreted it as a global thought that could be interpreted to be applied and an assertion of that application. So, I made a post that basically said her assertion needed to be re-examined and posited that it was with in certain context that her assertion could definately be made but not a full general assertion.

    Such that, apparently I missed the point of the post, until now. Obviously I didn’t think Twisty was attacking anyone, but trying in a blatant way to help others question their motives, their learned replies to said practice.

    Which she DID make me think about the implications, and to separate them from the act. Which I did and I find that If my partner respects me as much as I respect him, then it doesn’t reflect the dynamic she asserted, regardless.

    Sex is between two individuals. No one can know what’s between them, and her assertions in my mind, were generalized to make you critically think about the subject. How else to stir your emotions and to objectively see them as a way to see how the patriarchy is permeated within all of us.

    And then again mayhaps I am still too new to the blogosphere to see the ‘war’.

  125. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke June 17, 2006 at 5:23 pm |

    Color me shocked. Chris Clarke spends his time defending the honor of the women he loves by criticizing male pro-feminists, because, after all, we couldn’t possibly criticize male pro-feminists on our own.

    There are, in fact, a number of male pro-feminists in this thread that I have somehow failed to abuse, Piny and Brooklynite and Andreas among them. But I guess my criticizing any male who applies the label “pro-feminist” to himself is a condescending act of chivalry.

    Why don’t you make an argument for twisty instead of snide comments that do not address the guy’s argument.

    Because, you incredible honking idiot, in this particular case I don’t agree with Twisty.

    This Prince Charming on a Steed Act you have going is old.

    Reese is DavidByron and I claim my five pounds.

  126. Natalia
    Natalia June 17, 2006 at 5:28 pm |

    But giving head can be so much fun! Especially if the guy’s got a funny look on his face! Ya’ll know what I’m talking about. Tee hee.

  127. ilyka
    ilyka June 17, 2006 at 6:57 pm |

    Reese, that had to be one of the more bizarre and disjointed comments I’ve seen in a while.

    If Feministe ever inaugurates a Comment Hall of Shame, Reese is a shoe-in for inclusion.

    So I don’t know why I feel compelled to salvage something from it, but I do:

    It’s not an argument. It’s an attribution of a psychological state you don’t know anyone has. And you leave the person you criticize unable to get a word in edgewise because they have to prove to you their psychological state. And then you’ll just tell them they’re protesting to much.

    That’s what I thought–correct me if I’m wrong!–piny kind of meant way up yonder, in the actual post, regarding the “tiring dynamic.” Because you could posit that maybe blowjobs are not inherently pleasurable for women, that you can’t separate the act from the context in patriarchy, in any number of other ways that didn’t force the women who disagreed into a defensive, Catch-22, prove-you’re-NOT-brainwashed position.

    It looks as though Amanda and Bitch Ph.D. and some others responded positively to the confrontational style employed by Twisty (btw, I agree that she wouldn’t have generated so many responses using a gentler style). It also looks as though many, many other women did not. I’m not sure it’s fair to put the blame on those who didn’t for not being self-aware enough to own their internalization of patriarchy, because I think Amanda got to the crux of my problem with that here:

    Twisty openly stated that she wanted to read the “not my Nigel” comments that were bound to come. I found it to be an interesting experiment, and brought it to my blog. People acted exactly as she probably expected they would.

    Experiment? I’m not gonna jump on the not-my-Nigelers for reacting poorly to being treated like lab rats. It’s hard to get more dehumanizing than that. “Let me press your buttons–oh, look! You responded just as predicted! I’ll make a note of that. Gee, you sure are predictable.” How is that not a recipe to encourage defensiveness?

    Speaking of defensive, what’s with all the people here bragging on how much they love Twisty and how their heterosexuality in no way impedes their fearsome affections Twistyward? I was taking it as given that everyone loves Twisty, number one, and number two, I didn’t see any of Twisty’s critics indicate even so much as the mildest distaste for Twisty. Disagreement with, sure. But that’s allowed, isn’t it?

  128. Pony
    Pony June 17, 2006 at 7:21 pm |

    The day a post on your blog gets a couple hundred hits because people who fanatically disagree with you, and people who thumpingly agree with you, and all the rest inbetween want to know not only what you’re saying but HOW you’re saying it…

    Is the day you can pass.

  129. ilyka
    ilyka June 17, 2006 at 7:47 pm |

    Is the day you can pass.

    Um, what?

  130. Brooklynite
    Brooklynite June 17, 2006 at 7:49 pm |

    The day a post on your blog gets a couple hundred hits because people who fanatically disagree with you, and people who thumpingly agree with you, and all the rest inbetween want to know not only what you’re saying but HOW you’re saying it…

    Is the day you can pass.

    Wow. Heather, is that you?

  131. zuzu
    zuzu June 17, 2006 at 8:54 pm | *

    Ah, worshipfulness.

  132. Lynn Gazis-Sax
    Lynn Gazis-Sax June 17, 2006 at 8:57 pm |

    You will disagree with her about racism, but not about your own orgasms.

    Women get orgasms from giving blowjobs? Wow, I must really not be doing it right.

    Seriously, though, it looks as if a ton of people disagree with Twisty (in this case including me).

  133. tekanji
    tekanji June 17, 2006 at 9:03 pm |

    tekanji, you’re my hero.

    I love you too, evil_fizz :)

  134. Elinor
    Elinor June 17, 2006 at 9:04 pm |

    Just because someone happens to be hetero (or bi) and has had a bad experience with blowjobs does not automatically make them a candidate for radical feminism…because merely accepting blowjobs is NOT merely a tool of patriarchy.

    Wow, that is so not the argument I was making that I don’t even know where to start. I argue that being a straight woman does not automatically mean you will be mortally offended at the suggestion that you don’t or shouldn’t like giving blowjobs, and you…”merely accepting blowjobs is NOT merely a tool of patriarchy”? What does that even mean?

    In my view, what Twisty is doing is merely attempting to embarrass and humiliate feminists and women who say that they like blowjobs out of the movement for being enablers of Teh Patriarchy, and projecting her disgust of bj’s onto other women….what’s not to “get” about that???

    Wow, you can discern not only her actions but also her precise motives. That’s cute.

    I should say, I think it was unfortunate that the women who claimed they enjoyed this act got smacked down the way they did; that wasn’t constructive at all. I didn’t, however, see that in the post itself. I figured she was being facetious. I see that a lot of people didn’t see it that way.

    I never said of believe any such thing that sexism doesn’t exist and that it doesn’t affect one’s personal life…but there are such things as full choice where women take whatever pleasures they can in a world where choices are limited.

    “I never said I didn’t believe in sexism…but there are realms (like sex, sex, and, well, sex) in which women have free and full choice and sexism is not in the picture and if you don’t think so you’re just like the Christian right.”

    To demonize a woman because she chooses to get pleasure in giving pleasure to her partner is hardly feminist scholarship.

    Point me to the demonization. Really. Or the drumming out of the movement, or the push to the back of the bus. There was criticism. Fine. It’s certainly no worse than what you dole out to radical feminists and their sympathizers.

    Yes, it is perfectly understandable and certainly acceptable to have people challenge their beliefs….but to denigrate them for making choices merely because you don’t personally like them crosses the line from genuine consciousness raising into thought policing and manipulation.

    Again, you openly assume that a political critique of fellatio has *no* validity *whatsoever* or at least that one has not been made in this discussion; rather that it’s all been about “mere” personal distaste. So I guess the beliefs it is understandable and acceptable to challenge have to do with unrelated topics, like, say, tax reform.

    Just because you choose to reject men on political grounds does not give you the unmitigated right to smear and distort those women who decide not to.

    As I said before, I’m straight. I do not choose to reject men on political grounds, or at all. And while I do think it’s wrong to smear and distort women, I don’t really give a crap if people say blowjobs aren’t fun. Sorry.

    Regardless, I still feel that what Twisty did was just plain wrong, low-down, and deserves the utmost contempt…

    The utmost contempt? She said some rude things about fellatio. Get a grip.

  135. belledame222
    belledame222 June 17, 2006 at 10:09 pm |

    >is the day you can pass

    Oh, you’re just saying that because you’re a fourteen year old Mormon boy typing from his mother’s basement, aren’t you.

  136. Lauren
    Lauren June 17, 2006 at 10:43 pm |

    That’s it. I’m advocating for a Pony the Cheerleader ban. Twisty doesn’t need defending — she clearly has the guff and the will to defend herself gracefully. Pony’s bullshit on every blog that bothered to post on this subject is ill-considered and oftentimes disgusting. More disgusting that putting a cock in your mouth, I’d say. Fuck off with the slut-shaming and sister-blaming.

  137. zuzu
    zuzu June 17, 2006 at 10:50 pm | *

    Done.

    Pony’s a big reason I don’t bother reading the comments at Twisty’s anymore.

  138. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke June 17, 2006 at 11:09 pm |

    ill-considered and oftentimes disgusting

    Hey, if you’re gonna raise the commenting bar to exclude that kinda stuff, where am I supposed to post?

  139. ilyka
    ilyka June 17, 2006 at 11:31 pm |

    Done.

    Ooh, does this gloating make my ass look fat?

  140. Lauren
    Lauren June 18, 2006 at 12:28 am |

    Wait, gloating or bloating?

    :P

  141. ilyka
    ilyka June 18, 2006 at 1:05 am |

    I don’t actually have to ask about the bloating–HEY! No fat-shaming!

  142. Lauren
    Lauren June 18, 2006 at 1:09 am |

    I shame the fatriarchy.

  143. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost June 18, 2006 at 4:37 am |

    Experiment? I’m not gonna jump on the not-my-Nigelers for reacting poorly to being treated like lab rats. It’s hard to get more dehumanizing than that. “Let me press your buttons–oh, look! You responded just as predicted! I’ll make a note of that. Gee, you sure are predictable.” How is that not a recipe to encourage defensiveness?

    In my brief tenure as a Psych undergrad, research methods courses emphasized the importances of not treating your human participants like lab rats (part of that involveds calling them “participants” instead of “subject”), for reasons that I think are fairly straightforward. A big part of it is that it tends to be…. What’s the word?

    Oh, yeah. Objectifying.

    Fuck off with the slut-shaming and sister-blaming.

    I once called Pony on, and I used the exact words, “slut-shaming” in Twisty’s comments. Pony responded in outrage and indignance at my having referred to women as sluts. Delightful. I definitely felts like I could have a meaningful conversation with her about it.

  144. ginmar
    ginmar June 18, 2006 at 8:02 am |

    Its not that it is “feminist hate speech” it is that it is hate speech. Hate speech used in order to further a political agenda is wrong and I don’t pick it.. As good as the ‘men do it so feminists should do it too’ argument is, it is not my point.

    My point is that if you have a good argument, hate speech will not be a good “weapon” to use it will always (to flog the analogy to death) backfire on the user. It is unnecessary for a good argument and very revealing when used to support a bad argument. When you resort to this particular tactic

    When you use hate speech to other people who’s individual choices make you uncomfortable or that challenge your own choices you leave the side of the angels

    Yeah, dude, like I need a lecture from some dipshit I never heard of before, spouting the same old shit. Get out of your fucking basement now and then, ‘kay?

    Anticipating another round of “OMG, I”M SO SENSITIVE!” Yeah, whatever.

  145. dharmadyke
    dharmadyke June 18, 2006 at 9:16 am |

    Hey, hey, I love all of you, evil fizz, Chris Clarke, tekanji, Twisty and our admirable hosts and arbiters of the blog.

    However, and I may be too late to the game to defend her successfully, but I also love ole Pony.

    Ole (that’s different from old) rough, negative, grim, Eeyorelike Pony. Pony bites, it’s true, but I suspect Pony’s hoofs are sore and Pony’s got sores, and Pony’s tired. Don’t ban ole fuzzy Pony, don’t! Pony’s an ole Appaloosa Cassandra. Don’t scapegoat ole Pony. She’s an ole grey mareI I’m almost an ole grey mare, although I plan to be an ole grey mule.

    Sure, she’s irritating, but here’s my Number One Rule of Etiquette: People are irritating! I am irritating, my girlfriend Karma June is irritating, Twisty is irritating, all of you all I just said I loved are irritating and yes, Pony can be irrititating. If you always remember the Number One Rule of Etiquette, though, we will all be more generous, tolerant, and less irritating, too.

    I beg you not to ban Pony.

    yrs, dharmadyke

  146. Mandos
    Mandos June 18, 2006 at 10:16 am |

    I think that the “pass” comment is what got her banned. Considering who writes this blog, it was kind of excessively mean-spirited.

  147. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke June 18, 2006 at 11:12 am |

    Pretty sure she meant “pass judgment.”

    But I’m a man.

    Also: who wouldn’t forgive a bit of irritating from a girlfriend named Karma June? That’s just so cute!

  148. dharmadyke
    dharmadyke June 18, 2006 at 11:14 am |

    I didn’t really understand the comment, and had thought it meant something like ‘you can take a pass on your turn to post,’ but now that it’s been pointed out, yes, I suppose it was a mean-spirited prejudiced dig at piny. And that’s not okay.

    But, I reiterate: ole Pony’s sore, ole Pony’s mean, old Pony’s hurting, I suspect. I know, I’m naive, foolish, and it’s not my blog. I’m not even sure why I’m defending ole Pony, but I am, although hopefully in a nuanced way. I plead you not ban, or shun, or throw her out of the community.

  149. dharmadyke
    dharmadyke June 18, 2006 at 11:20 am |

    Chris: Darn it, Karma June is cute! If I say so myself. yrs, B.– oops dharmadyke.

  150. Brooklynite
    Brooklynite June 18, 2006 at 11:57 am |

    Confidential to CC in CA: 127+131=153.

  151. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke June 18, 2006 at 12:09 pm |

    Brooklynite, you are one clever and observant denizen of a large megalopolitan subunit.

  152. Infighting keeps us honest  at  PunkAssBlog.com

    [...] cluding our own superstar) and commenters engaged in a heated exchange over what we do and how we act. Assumptions were questioned. Thoughts were provoked. Personal beliefs were c [...]

  153. Ron Sullivan
    Ron Sullivan June 18, 2006 at 2:51 pm |

    Jesus bloody fucking Christ.

    Here:

    Pony Says:
    June 17th, 2006 at 8:50 am

    I’m a straight woman who loves Twisty. She skewers it like no one else can.

    Bow down.

    131. Anne Says:
    June 17th, 2006 at 11:15 am

    Bow down.

    I’ll pass.

    Even I have that much short-term memory left.

    Misconstruing — misrepresenting! — that as a trans-slur is absolute horseshit, and not of the well-composted variety. What the hell’s so hard about running upthread to find out what that remark might be referring to, if one can’t take the time to read the whole thing before shooting off one’s keyboard?

    The amount of abuse going on here in the name of “opposing ‘sister-shaming’ ” is grimly hilarious, but then I’m in my own galled old warhorse state of mind lately. If you actually have a quarrel with Pony, or anyone else, let’s see you articulate it and be accurate. Accurate: what a concept.

  154. evil_fizz
    evil_fizz June 18, 2006 at 3:05 pm |

    Except, Ron, that it’s a reference to this comment by Pony:

    The day a post on your blog gets a couple hundred hits because people who fanatically disagree with you, and people who thumpingly agree with you, and all the rest inbetween want to know not only what you’re saying but HOW you’re saying it…

    Is the day you can pass.

    That sounds like a trans-slur to me, although maybe pass is a reference to dying? I dunno, but if it’s not meant to be offensive, it’s damn sloppy.

  155. dharmadyke
    dharmadyke June 18, 2006 at 3:07 pm |

    Ron Sullivan is completely right. Lots, me included, missed that it was a response to Anne. Again, please don’t ban Pony.

  156. Older
    Older June 18, 2006 at 3:43 pm |

    Twisty rules. (Old, heterosexual woman here.)

  157. evil_fizz
    evil_fizz June 18, 2006 at 3:58 pm |

    Okay, I revise my comment in 179, because the 100 degree heat is clearly searing my brain. It’s fucking stupid remark. 200 comments on an asinine post is not a reason to kow-tow to anybody.

  158. ilyka
    ilyka June 18, 2006 at 4:07 pm |

    That sounds like a trans-slur to me, although maybe pass is a reference to dying? I dunno, but if it’s not meant to be offensive, it’s damn sloppy.

    Nah, I think Ron’s probably right that it’s directly referencing Anne’s “I’ll pass” response earlier upthread. That hadn’t occurred to me originally (I read it as a truncated “is the day you can pass judgment,”), but it makes sense now Ron’s pointed that out. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

    That doesn’t change the fact that Pony’s comment essentially says no one may criticize Twisty until they are as brilliant and high-profile and beloved as Twisty, and hands up who wants to accept that hierarchy? Where the hell, further, does Pony get off trying to impose it?

    Twisty rules. (Old, heterosexual woman here.)

    For the last freakin’ time, no one’s saying Twisty DOESN’T RULE. Honestly, this whole thing’s reminding me of the old saw about “I don’t have a problem with Jesus; it’s his fan club I hate.”

  159. Catty
    Catty June 18, 2006 at 4:18 pm |

    You know, I’m probably just one of those annoying “can’t we all get along! (whimper)” types. But ys, I think criticism is a good thing overall within the community, so I think it’s important we all call each other when we slip.

    Anyhoo, I love Twisty and I’ve been a regular reader for a long time. As a het female feminist, I’ve never been offended by what she wrote, I’ve found her dark and often smart sense of dark humor to be my cup o’tea.

    On the other hand, I read all types of feminist blogs because it’s eye-opening and insightful to read commentary from different POVs within the femiblogsphere.

    My brain has been fried and I don’t have a whole lot of smart comments to add here. I gotta say though that I enjoy reading the comments as much as the actual post here, unlike a lot of blogs.

  160. Carpenter
    Carpenter June 18, 2006 at 6:21 pm |

    Oh man.
    You may think Pony is wrong, or is sucking up to Twisty or is annpying but Dude. Banning is nasty trolls screaming for attention and detracting from useful converstion and slurring. That’s not Pony, thats MRA assholes.

  161. Ron Sullivan
    Ron Sullivan June 18, 2006 at 7:29 pm |

    evil_fizz Says:
    Okay, I revise my comment in 179, because the 100 degree heat is clearly searing my brain. It’s fucking stupid remark. 200 comments on an asinine post is not a reason to kow-tow to anybody.

    Amd I, in turn, apologize for a good portion of the heat in my tone there, which you personally didn’t earn. It was largely in response to that ban, which frankly I still don’t quite get. Banning someone for unpleasantly (in a blog where someone else is called “that stupid, stupid woman” for what strikes me as rather a merely ditzy question*) defending someone who allegedly needs no defenders strikes me as just a tad unreasonable, not to mention illogical.

    And I’d disagree somewhat with your paraphrase of Pony’s statement there, but that’s a sub-sub-sub (counting on fingers)-sub-argument here, if I’m counting correctly.

    * — and if I supposed that someone’s reaction to a question, even a dumb one, were to want to punch me in the face, I’d avoid speaking with them at all, but that’s just me. If that’s the most dumb, “othering,” degrading, or even WTFing question Nubian has heard in the past week, she’s leading a more sheltered life than I am. No, people typically don’t know how human bodies work — including their own.

  162. JJthonre
    JJthonre June 18, 2006 at 8:03 pm |

    Ginmar:

    “Yeah, dude, like I need a lecture from some dipshit I never heard of before, spouting the same old shit. Get out of your fucking basement now and then, ‘kay?

    Anticipating another round of “OMG, I”M SO SENSITIVE!” Yeah, whatever. ”

    I am not sensitive enough to be bothered by this kind of response. I don’t think anyone is really.

  163. belledame222
    belledame222 June 18, 2006 at 10:31 pm |

    *snork*

  164. belledame222
    belledame222 June 18, 2006 at 10:34 pm |

    >How radical to the feminist cause is Twisty’s approach. Look what it’s done! Hundreds of posts discussing it. A couple dozen blogs tied up with it. Real people weighing what she says. It’s not just another masturbatory turgid tautology written to satisfy an academic requirement. A year from now, five years from now, who you gonna remember?>

    “But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

    –Carl Sagan

  165. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost June 19, 2006 at 12:41 am |

    I like to call that “the Eminem Effect”.

  166. vera
    vera June 19, 2006 at 1:36 am |

    (ilyka, the reason people keeping chiming in with “I’m a hetero woman who thinks Twisty rules,” is because way upstream, somewhere around comment #5, it was said that Twisty is alienating “every single hetero feminist.”)

    Hello, I’m a regular Twisty reader who has wandered over here via the fellatio thread.

    I don’t know Twisty’s true motive. Maybe she has no motive. Maybe she’s merely pretending to be a spinster aunt, and is actually a lunatic genius who just woke up one morning and felt like creating a blow job shit stir.

    Whatever she wishes to achieve, here’s what that bj thread does for me:

    I grew up during the 1960s. I was raised to be a good girl. This lesson was taught to me at a cellular level; I became a good girl down to my pores. I aimed to please, and I especially aimed to please men. If one of the men in my life was unhappy it was obviously my responsibility to do something about it.

    But it was, as I said, the sixties, and at some point I read The Feminine Mystique. I discovered Simone de Beauvoir and Robin Morgan and consciousness raising. I figured out that revolution starts inside, and that the most radical thing I could do was to address my own self-denying impulses.

    That was over thirty years ago, and guess what — the good girl is still in there, and I still must address on a daily basis my impulse to deny myself in order to please others. It’s my daily effort to be awake, conscious, and engaged in my own personal battle with the patriarchy and the dirty job it has done on my little soul.

    Certain things act as little jabbing reminders: “Wake up! Don’t go unconscious!” Twisty’s blog is one such jab. When she writes something outrageous, it wakes me up. It makes me examine my own beliefs and behavior. If that’s her intention, more power to her. If it’s not, more power to her anyway.

    Like Pony, I revere Twisty. She’s like medicine to me. Sorry if that’s irritating! (See, there I go trying to play nice. Maybe I need another jab.)

  167. Freeman
    Freeman June 19, 2006 at 3:45 am |

    I don’t personally dislike Twisty. I don’t know her. That said, I often find her methods crass. Her blurring of the objective and subjective; her polarity-baiting of fellow ideologues and sympathizers; her all-too-obvious willingness to resort to ad-hominem attacks against dissenters. It’s juvenile and petty.

    Sure, she’s funny as hell on occasion. Got a wit and command of language that even I envy. But I don’t think her dialectic approach merits a seat at the Big Kids’ table. She’s a radfem version of Coulter, and that shouldn’t be a compliment. She’s nasty, she’s vitriolic, and she lets her personal experiences color her arguments in such a way as to render their academic value null.

  168. zuzu
    zuzu June 19, 2006 at 9:06 am | *

    Banning is nasty trolls screaming for attention and detracting from useful converstion and slurring. That’s not Pony, thats MRA assholes.

    No, that’s pretty much Pony, too. Not here so much, since she’s only made a few comments, but I’ve seen enough of her work on Twisty’s blog and elsewhere to feel quite comfortable with banning her.

    We don’t need to give space to slut-shamers and sister-punishers here.

    As for the number of comments dictating the quality of a post or of the blogger, well, I’ve seen plenty of low-comment posts at very good blogs. But post on a controversial subject, like religion or sex or Real Dolls or Nice Guys or mail-order brides, and suddenly everyone comes out of the woodwork to comment. Amanda’s recent post about Nice Guys got over 400 posts, but that was largely due to trolling.

  169. Lynn Gazis-Sax
    Lynn Gazis-Sax June 19, 2006 at 9:37 am |

    Weirdly, my own most commented on post ever was one on Real Presence and the Eucharist. I don’t think it was my best post ever, but it sure brought me a lot of traffic for a little while, and got me on more blogrolls than probably any other post I made.

  170. dharmadyke
    dharmadyke June 19, 2006 at 9:50 am |

    Zuzu: I totally respect you guys, but with all due respect, Pony’s comments on IBTP are over there. And I’ve also seen Pony apologize for intemperate comments (re cancer and docters, and etc.). You’re banning her for comments over there? Or a pattern of comments? I think Ron’s metaphor of the “galled warhorse” is particularly apt re Pony. I totally abhor the slut-shamer and sister-punisher comments, but I make allowances for galled warhorses. But obviously it’s your call, and I might not have experienced all of this post/comment/intrablog dialectic enough to have a particularly educated viewpoint on the subject. Nontheless, I plead her pardon. She might not even give a shit about this, but I plead leniency for galled warhorses.

    yrs, a dharmadyke

  171. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke June 19, 2006 at 10:01 am |

    Zuzu: I totally respect you guys, but with all due respect, Pony’s comments on IBTP are over there.

    This is true. However — and I’m not taking a position on Pony, as we’ve worked out a cordial relationship from a rough start — previous behavior in other places is worth considering in general.

    Frinstance, I’d probably ban D*vidByr*n if he showed up at my place with an opinion on the best brand of cornflakes.

  172. Feministe » Feminist Politics of Blowjobs

    [...] unassailable. I think we can do better than this. Read more: Twisty (and a follow-up) Piny Amanda (and a follow-up) R. Mildred I know there are many more posts on this, but I&# [...]

  173. dharmadyke
    dharmadyke June 19, 2006 at 11:52 am |

    Chris, okay, fair enough, it’s true you might do well to consider someone’s words and behavior from other places. I’m now actually going to have to split my comment in two and put part on your blog and part here and maybe also go ask Ron Sullivan if I can steal her metaphor as a moniker. I’m quite enchanted by it. It would also make a great title for an essay.

    But, returning to the issue at hand, and leaving Pony completely aside, let’s consider “the galled warhorse,” a particularly useful metaphor, I think. What do we owe age and wounds acquired in the service of a war, especially when the warhorse is not always wise and sometimes bites? I’d like some toleration and generosity towards my age, my gall, my woundedness, if or rather when I am a galled old warhorse.

    yrs, dharmadyke

  174. Ron Sullivan
    Ron Sullivan June 19, 2006 at 11:55 am |

    We don’t need to give space to slut-shamers and sister-punishers here.

    Thus we punish our sister for sister-punishing. Pfui.

    (Yes, I’m familiar with the “You’re not tolerant of my intolerance!” whine. Nevertheless.)

    I’m not inclined to be lenient based on age, but maybe that’s because I’m near Pony’s age myself. I do cite the scars of experience, though, as something it might be worth paying attention to when someone shows them. And I’m not sure, that’s what Pony was showing anyway, rather than a sandpaper style — hardly unique in my experience.

    Frankly, it’s this blog’s loss, that banning.

  175. dharmadyke
    dharmadyke June 19, 2006 at 1:26 pm |

    Ron: Oh there you are, you saved my lazy ass a trip. I am enchanted by your metaphor. I lick your hoof.

    And now I toss my head. Well, I’m no spring colt myself. I do think we owe youth some tolerant room for learning and mistakes and we owe age some tolerance of woundedness and bitterness and service in the wars. I know, I know, this argument could be extended indefinately to require toleration of almost everyone, anywhere.

    “Thus we punish our sister for sister-punishing. Pfui.” I totally agree.

    Perhaps if we stand here and bray and nag and whinny, they’ll get tired of the noise, and rescind the ban?

  176. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke June 19, 2006 at 2:50 pm |

    Thus we punish our sister for sister-punishing. Pfui.

    Being kept from commenting on someone’s blog is punishment? It’s the blog owner’s prerogative to set standards of acceptable discourse, and banning is one of a very few tools a blog owner has at her disposal to do so.

    Zuzu and Piny and Jill are completely within their rights to ban anyone they want, for advocating genocide or using left-handed smileys instead of right-handed smilies. It looks as though this ban was prompted in part by a misunderstanding. But only in part. The context of a person’s past actions may not be allowable evidence in a court of law, but blogs are not courts of law. If the hosts here decide to take people’s behavior in other places into account in granting the privilege of access, that”s their right.

    Zuzu said:

    Pony’s a big reason I don’t bother reading the comments at Twisty’s anymore.

    That right there is completely sufficient reason for a ban, whether I agree with it or not.

    Which is not to say we can’t all complain about the ban until we’re told to stop. But it’s not “punishing” someone to be banned from a blog any more than it’s punishing someone to not be invited to a party because the host heard a rumor about how you acted at a previous party. Or because they stopped going to other people’s parties at which you were in attendance.

  177. dharmadyke
    dharmadyke June 19, 2006 at 3:25 pm |

    Okay, I see; the talk party metaphor works for me; blogs are kind of like on view parties (and hence public) in private spaces (and hence controlled by the host and subject to the host’s mood and desires). I’ve done my pleading.

  178. Ron Sullivan
    Ron Sullivan June 20, 2006 at 12:44 am |

    Being kept from commenting on someone’s blog is punishment?

    This dialogue:

    A/Banning is nasty trolls screaming for attention and detracting from useful converstion and slurring. That’s not Pony, thats MRA assholes. –
    B/ No, that’s pretty much Pony, too.

    is “punishment” as much as anything Pony’s done — which, like this, is words on a screen.

    Yeah, a blog’s a fine and private place. Hanging a sign over your front porch that says “Joe Bloe is banned here” is not so private an action, though. And this is more like a public accommodation* in that banning someone takes action rather than being a default thing, and saying you’re banning someone is a second action and calling that person a nasty troll is a direct insult. I have nothing against direct insults but I do prefer to name them accurately and judge them as such. Dharmadyke’s simile works fairly well for me, if I understand correctly what she means by “on view parties.” Which I might not.

    *What’s that sign over the soda fountain about reserving the right to refuse service to anyone? Doesn’t that ever make you wonder what’s up? Even on Telegraph Avenue?

  179. Patrick
    Patrick June 20, 2006 at 4:23 pm |

    First time reader, first time commenter.

    I will have to admit that I find claims that are based on non-falsifiable false consciousness to be quiet subject.

    Why would woman X enjoy giving head? Who knows? Maybe it is patriarchy? Maybe it is Marxian? Maybe Freudian oral fixation? Maybe it is cognitive dissonance (I don’t really enjoy it all that much, but my bf and I reciprocate etc), or maybe pleasuring the partner you love/like is the genuinely dominant reason?

    But who the hell knows? It doesn’t follow from the existence of sexism that all actions are done primarily from sexist motives (ditto for racism or any other ism).

    It seems that Twisty and company have two choices to make their argument even remotely plausible:

    1) Good empirical social science: you actually examine what motives people to perform blowjobs and determine that people are generally deceived or are in a poor epistemic position to understand why they do it as a matter of fact, and that the real motivation is sexual self-hatred or patriachal deception (and not other psychological mechanisms).

    2) Good normative philosophy: one could examine what the preconditions of maintaining one’s autonomy and dignity in a patriarchal society are, and then conclude that enjoying blowjobs (but not lesbian sex?) are simply incompatible with those preconditions….in all cases. Thus, anyone who enjoys performing fellatio does so wrongly.

    Since I don’t see Twisty or anyone else in this discussion doing any of those things, I see a lot of heat and very little light.

  180. Patrick
    Patrick June 20, 2006 at 4:24 pm |

    subject=suspect.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.