An End to the Feminist Sex-Wars: the Pornography Edition

I decided today that I see porn a lot like I see vegetarianism. The meat industry currently mistreats animals in a number of horrific ways, and produces an unhealthy product full of additives. Even if you don't think there's anything wrong with killing animals, these are issues that need to be dealt with and there are a number of personal choices one can make in order to make their relationship to this problematic industry more ethical. The meat eater can choose to stop eating meat, or to consume only free-range organic meat. The farmer can choose more ecologically sustainable and more humane ways to farm. In fact, every person at every level of the meat industry can do something to minimize the worst consequences of that industry.

Likewise, the porn industry is a problematic business in its current manifestation. The current mainstream porn industry puts out some pretty fucked up materials, IMO, and outside the mainstream porn industry there's still the problem of sex trafficking. These things are problematic even if you don't object to the basic idea of videotaping people having sex. And like the meat industry, people with all levels of involvement with the product of pornography can shape the way the industry operates.

We should all do what we can, from whatever our social location, to change the dynamics of the contemporary American pornography market. To the extent that it is possible, everyone should try to maximize enthusiastic consent and subvert the currently heteronormative and misogynistic themes of mainstream porn. In some cases this will mean working against the current industry; in other cases it might mean working with the people currently involved in the industry. (Notice the difference in phrasing - work AGAINST the INDUSTRY, but work WITH the PEOPLE involved in that industry.)

Performers: Consider your motives for being involved with porn, and how they relate to feminism (ie, the liberation of people currently being unfairly fucked over by society). Use this self-reflection to identify things in the industry that are screwed up, and things that rock. Discuss these issues with your fellow sex workers. Speak up when you can, so that those of us on the outside can listen, become less ignorant, and be better help to both you (the freely choosing sex worker) and those who are less fortunate (those who are trafficked or coerced, including by economic circumstances). If you have an interest, get involved in producing porn that's to your tastes and the tastes of others not currently represented. Refuse to work projects which make you feel uncomfortable or which you think contribute to negative representations of sexuality. Above all, make sure you are treated with respect, and that your work treats others with respect. We can't all always do these things, and as a non-sex worker I'm sure there are some things I'm way off about, but what I'm saying is - do what you can (just like we should all do what we can to make our own work environments better places!).

Directors/Producers: Go above and beyond to make sure you're responsive to your workers' needs and that your work environment is non-coercive. Compensate your workers fairly. Listen to them. Produce visions of sexuality which are erotic for their transformative power, appeal to markets traditionally less engaged in the porn industry, and which creatively break the script of misogynist and heteronormative traditional porn.

CEOs: Give your directors and producers the latitude to do those things. Make sure your company is in compliance with the relevant laws (for example, on child porn or access to porn for minors) AND with the spirit of those laws. Make donations to organizations that support the victims of sexual abuse.

Retail: Be a "feminist sex shop" that makes sure to sell a range of products, which means remembering women and LGBTs when thinking about what people might like to buy. Stock "feminist" porn, or at least only buy from companies who best fit your progressive standards.

Consumers: Evaluate your use of porn. If you can get your fix by writing erotic stories, daydreaming, drawing your own sexually explicit images, making your own porn videos, etc. do that instead of buying it! If you believe that your use of mass-produced porn is necessary or inevitable or whatever your reasons are, vote with your dollars. Vote for companies that respect their performers. Vote for films that are hot for reasons besides domination. Even if you also vote for some of the stuff that's around now, make the extra effort to seek out more progressive versions. Or better yet, pirate the objectionable porn and spend your money on the films you think contribute positively towards human sexuality.

Porn outsiders: Listen to the people inside the industry. Listen to porn users. Try to integrate those experiences into your analysis of porn. Do research. If you don't need or want to use porn, or think it's wrong to do so, then don't use it. Don't use the law or the weight of academia to further silence marginalized people. Promote the acceptance of healthy human sexuality through means other than porn, like in your own sex life and the way you talk to others about sex. Discuss porn with others and explain why you choose not to use it, or at least healthier ways of using it.

A crazy right-wing wacko crystallizes why abortion rights MUST be part of the feminist agenda

Can we all basically agree that feminism, however you may define it, must include the freedom to choose our sexual and romantic partners freely, the freedom structure ourrelationships according to how they work for us, and the freedom to decide whether or not we want to have children? Because, to me, the freedom to make those choices is so intimately tied with the meaning of feminism that calling a world where women's sexual/romantic partners are chosen without their consent, or where women are forced to have children they don't want, "feminist" is a mockery of the concept of women's liberation. I just can't see how you can be in a relationship arrangement you don't want and can't get out of, or subjected to a relationship dynamic you feel is oppressive, or forced to carry and bear children you actively object to having, and be "free."

Feminist pro-lifers will probably point out that those things are not a package deal; that adoption is sufficient to give women choice over whether or not they want to have children; that there is a humane, feminist agenda which protects both women and ensures almost all fetuses.

That's something I can respectfully disagree about in theory, but in practice those sorts of gray shades seem to evaporate before me. Practically speaking, the anti-choice movement pushes a strong norm of the traditional, nuclear family. They push conservative sexual norms, and a large faction pairs that with suspicion of condoms and other forms of birth control. It is really, really hard to figure out how to get along with people who want to force-fit everyone into such a small mold.

This is well-documented in Christina Page's How The Pro-Choice Movement Saved America. It's visible in every public political debate over abortion, reinforced by TV ads, news coverage, crisis pregnacy centers, conservative school districts...everywhere. But I had an "ah-ha" moment when I saw it written as in the plain, nasty language only a commenting web-troll is willing to use. FYI, this is what I see when I look at the pro-life movement in the United States.

The context was of a discussion of some jackass's remarks about how people should get married between 22 and 27, and how cohabitation is teh evilest thing ever. Some troll jumped in to suggest promoting the view that cohabitation is immoral in the interests of ultimately getting the government to break up cohabitating couples for the sake of teh children.

The "for the sake of the children" argument is itself problematic, because it carries the risk of marginalizing the worthiness and humanity of the mother (whose interests must be subordinated to her children, we are constantly reminded, or she is not a good mother). It also makes the ass-backwards assumption that the endpoint of all relationships is children, which is oppressive because it makes the choice to be a child-free, independent individual suddenly seem hostile to basic social life (even though, in reality, not all people make good parents, not all people want to be parents, and people who do not want to be parents often do not make as good of parents).

A Troll on Feministing will be our example. He says (emphasis mine):

"While I am more or less opposed to no-fault divorce, I don’t see it as being the big issue. If two people absolutely cannot get along, they should be able to break up. While I don’t think it should be a fast and easy process, it should not be made difficult by making the parents fight against each other. My problem is really more with remarriage after divorce; did you read the paper I linked to about the Cinderella effect? Besides, premarital cohabitation does not make couples less likely to divorce. I don’t think that the end of any romantic relationship is necessarily children. I would like to think that the end of any sexual relationship is. Things work out better when this is the case; the out-of-wedlock birth rate is extremely low, far more children are born in-wedlock and get to grow up with both parents, fewer children are put up for adoption, etc."

See how two people in a marriage automatically become parents in his mind? This erases couples for whom marriage is not about procreation (whether by choice or economic necessity or due to to heterosexist legal codes), and also, by elevating procreation to an imperative, contribute to dissapproval of family structures that don't abide by this rigid definition.

And that's a lot of people. Think about it. Every divorced parent, every remarried parent doubly so, every couple who chooses not to have children, every unmarried couple with children, every single parent. And implicitly, every gay parent (because the nuclear family requires a father and mother) and potentially any lower class or non-white parent (because the nuclear family is supposed to be middle class and located in suburbia - everyone knows those inner city minority kids have broken homes!).

Inevitably, people will arrange their lives in ways that don't fit this nuclear family model, and we can see that it's currently a whole fuckton of people. So what could they possibly propose to do about this grave problem of families that look different than the traditional American norm? You can see the clear logic of patriarchy: Control reproduction. How? By controlling sex (because birth control just lets people do what they want). But this seems impossible. How could you possibly enforce something done behind closed doors like sex? Well, if it's to be enforced, the population has to police itself. But how do you make people police sex? Well, everyone's got to be really fucking afraid of what's going on in everyone else's bedrooms, for one thing, which means amping up the scare tactics about STDs is a good place to start (bonus points if you can scare people out of using condoms, to ramp up STD rates and hopefully stop sex!). Except, it's hard to be really concerned about your neighbor's sex life unless it affects yours. So maybe we should start talking about the women in your life. And even better than just having you police women's sexuality, we should get women to police their own sexuality...

The dominoes start to fall. Calling women whores doesn't stop anyone, and it's becomming less effective since this obnoxious feminism thing. So, declare feminism dead. So, support rape apologist culture to teach women to fear all but their one special protector man. So, take away condoms and ostracize people with STIs. And then, make every instance of sex a possible instance of procreation, literally realize the agenda of sex-for-procreation-only by taking away all forms birth control. Condoms are already gone, so take hormonal birth control, take the morning after pill, take away abortion. Because what else could underpin this empire? What punishment could possibly be more extreme in the disincentive it places on women having sex than risking forced pregnancy for every sex act?

And then the picture starts to look really clear. 'Cuz it's all part of the same big picture. All those things are perpetual causes and symptoms of patriarchy, and of the controlling narrative of the American nuclear family. Abortion's not just a fragment of it. It's one of the biggest, baddest tools for controlling sexuality and the family, specifically demolishing women's freedom, and also marginalizing anyone else who doesn't fit the mold. But equally importantly, it is part of a system of oppression that reinforces existing societal power dynamics, at the expense of women. It makes the reduction of women to biological vessels possible, or rather it literally manifests the already-existing sexist narrative.

So what's a possible solution? I think things might get better if feminists shape the discourse on both sides. Pro-life feminists could push hard for contraception and comprehensive sex ed, lots of exceptions (for rape, for the mother's mental and physical health, for the mother's life) - and find ways to make these exceptions workable and accessible for those who need it, economic support to women financially unable to care for children (or heck, all women - if you're going to make us have them, why should we have to pay for them?), universal access to pre-natal and post-natal care for the mother and child, along with the whole rest of the feminist agenda. Because it will take a lot - a LOT - of work to rehabiliate the anti-choice narrative into a compassionate, wholesome, women-respecting movement, or even to make it just a bit better.

I'm willing to compromise with pro-life feminists, but the feminism had better be there in the pro-life part too, because if it doesn't I'm not budging. In order to create a feminist society, feminist pro-lifers have to get a hold on the pro-life movement's discourse and agenda, or us crazy leftys have to win on this issue. Because it's not just one issue - the debate over abortion reflects every facet of the feminist conflict with the patriarchy in a light to glaring for me, at least, to ignore.

Cross-Post: The Filthiest Book Report You’ll Ever Read, or My Artifact Selection: Grant Morrison's The Filth

Here's another cross-post from my lit class blog. In this short essay, I present research questions for cultural artifact I will study for the semester, and justify my choice of artifact.

-------------

Grant Morrison’s The Filth is a graphic novel that comes with a warning label. Covering nearly the entire back cover and the first two pages inside, The Filth’s warning is almost clinical in its rigorous coverage of the many reasons you might be better off if you opt to return this book to the shelf. Although the book’s warning is more mocking than genuine, it is still a text any sensible censor would strike from a reading list intended for polite society. With its grungy artwork, repulsive characters, and sadistic plotlines, at first glance The Filth might seem to be a low-culture artifact with no redeeming qualities. However, a more thorough reading turns up questions deserving of further inquiry.

For instance, why is it that the most cherished fantasy the protagonist can dream up for himself is the life of a lonely old man named Greg Feely, who spends his days feeding his beloved cat and masturbating to hardcore pornography? And even if this rehabilitation of the despised archetype of the neighborhood sex offender is for good reason, why is it so important as to merit the novel’s opening panels? From this inauspicious beginning, The Filth continues to wade further into the muck. Rather than complementing Greg Feely with more noble characters, it highlights people like Anders Klimakks, the pornstar famous for shooting black sperm, and Tex Porneau, the wealthy hardcore director who engineers giant sperm monsters for his latest flick. A sex scene is never more than a chapter away, and neither is graphically illustrated violence.

Yet, although The Filth glorifies its own power to provoke disgust in the unsuspecting reader, it is also fascinating. Each sub-plot is carefully constructed to reveal an insight about human nature or the society we have built. The unattractive Greg Feely somehow moves from pathetic to likeable as he grapples with his identity as an agent of the sketchy organization known as the Hand, whose mission is to preserve the Status Q. Even the novel itself is a subject in its far-reaching critique, with an entire storyline premised on drawing attention to the eerie realness of absorbing comic book worlds by repeatedly breaking the fourth wall.

For me, The Filth is interesting because of the complex ideas woven into the words and images that make up the graphic novel. Although the “filthy” subject matter may be titillating, the elusive hypotheticals posed by each of the book’s chapters are far more worthy of study. The first time I flipped through The Filth, I was both appalled and fascinated, unable to look away until I had devoured the entire graphic novel. Subsequent re-readings have not yet failed to uncover new material to ponder, and the opportunity to investigate the text for a class allows me to delve further into these questions.

Although The Filth is not widely recognized by anyone besides comic book aficionados, it is still relevant. Its medium, the graphic novel, is a cornerstone of mass communication. It was published in late 2002, and its commentary actively engages and responds to contemporary society and mainstream culture, if only to subvert them. The author, Grant Morrison, has worked with both DC and Marvel, writing issues of classic series like Spider-Man, X-Men, and Batman. For these reasons, The Filth qualifies as pop culture.

Covering issues as blurry as the nature of reality, the role of authority, and the sanity of our collective desires and anxieties, The Filth presents a surreal study of the way we have designed our world. By choosing this book as my artifact, I hope to shed light on a text I find extraordinarily challenging and appealing. From the first few lines of its warning label to the last panel of the last page, The Filth is a puzzle waiting to be unraveled.

Cross-Post:: Pop Culture Favorites

I'm currently maintaining a blog about interpreting pop culture for my literature blog. I'll be cross-posting everything I write for that class here, since I think it's mostly pretty interesting stuff.

This first one is just a warm-up analyzing elements of pop culture I like and interact with often. These favorites were picked off the top of my head in class, so they're not necessarily my all-time favorites, just stuff I like.

-----------

Favorite Movie: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

What attracts me to this movie is that there is so much detail and so many strange situations to analyze. The more one watches it, the more there is to see. It made the list because it's a movie I've watched several times recently, so it was fresher in my mind than Fight Club, which is the other movie I was considering. It influences me because I think the representation of gonzo journalism is interesting, which probably makes me more inclined to like other movies about crazy countercultural figures.

Favorite Music: Fiona Apple

I'm attracted to Fiona Apple's music because her voice is beautiful and her lyrics are expressive. I can feel the rhythmic pulse of her music, and I love the way her clear, deep voice cuts through the rest of the music and stays with me. It influences me because it influences my other musical tastes - almost anyone who makes music which is similar to who is likely to be someone like. Lily Allen and Tori Amos are good examples of this, because they are talented female singer-songwriters who remind me of Fiona Apple in some ways.

Favorite TV Show: Law and Order

I like Law and Order because it's a serial crime drama that I can have on in the background while I'm doing other things, but also because it poses some interesting questions about society. The original Law and Order creates many scenarios where what was originally a criminal trial becomes a political show trial, or where police action falls in a gray area constitutionally. I like pondering these situations, because it gives me an opportunity to test out what I think.

Favorite Ad: Freecreditreport.com sing-alongs

I love this commercial! It's so catchy. The lyrics are extremely clever, the music is simple but stays in my head all day. There's also something about a sad bicyclist singing about how a credit report could have gotten him a car, or a depressed waiter dressed like a pirate mourning his dead-end economic situation, that catches my attention when it comes on TV. This commerical influences me because it's effective, and I spend the rest of the day with "F to the R to the E to the E to the C to the E-D-I-T. Re- to the -port to the dot to the com, baby" stuck in my head.

Favorite Comic: Dilbert

I used to read this in the Sunday paper every day. I like how it mocks corporate culture, and demonstrates the sheer meaninglessness of many requirements of work. Although I don't have an office job like Dilbert, I do go to school. While college is much better than high school, sometimes activities and classes still seem like they won't be relevant to daily life, and sometimes dealing with administrative people is annoying and time-consuming. Dilbert is a fun outlet for these feelings, pointing out the absurdity of official bureaucracies and mindless assignments.

The List Overall:

I'm not struck by any major commonalities between the things I chose, but there are some slight trends. I chose to interact with all of these pieces of media because the resonate with some experience I've had, or because they are unique enough to fascinate me. Sometimes I read or watch things simply because they are readily available, which is definitely the case with Dilbert, Law and Order, the Freecreditreport.com commericals, and even Fear and Loathing (because we own the DVD, so it is cheaper and easier than renting a movie).

Just when I was beginning to stray from radical feminism...

...I stumbled upon this really, really creepy site, and all of the justifications for kink started to look a whole lot like equivocation (I hope they're not...). I'll go through just one article, highlighting the most offensive and problematic parts, and maybe you'll see what I mean.

The subject of this article is "submission spanking." That doesn't sound too bad (standard kink, right?) until you read what it is:

At....times...an HOH [Head of Household] will decide to spank his woman "just because." A "just because" spanking is more accurately known as a submission spanking. A submission spanking can be administered to the woman at any time. But she is not given a submission spanking because she has misbehaved. Therefore it is not a punishment spanking. A submission spanking is also not part of the woman's regular Maintenance Discipline spanking. Nor is it a scheduled maintenance spanking that the woman receives on a regular basis. A submission spanking can be given at any time, not only when the woman is scheduled for her maintenance or reminder spanking. Therefore a submission spanking is not maintenance. Nor is a submission spanking the same thing as a Preemptive Discipline. It is not given in advance of a scenario where the woman has previously demonstrated her tendency to misbehavior. It can be given at any time but it is not connected to a specific future situation for the woman.

There are a number of problems with these two paragraphs that should be immediately evident. First, the "Head of Household" gets the male pronoun while the person being disciplined is explicitly and specifically a woman. Moreover, she is not just a woman, but "his" woman. The possessive term seems to be intended in all it's traditional, sexist glory, depicting a woman who is an adjunct to her male partner rather than an individual human being in her own right. The obvious implication of this language is that there are no male bottoms and no female tops, just men and women falling into neat, traditional sex roles. The other obvious implication of this language is the complete erasure of same-sex desire and genderqueerness - for this author, there are only men and women in heterosexual relationships. GLBTs don't even get a passing reference as some sort of misguided deviation or evil scourge - they literally do not exist in this narrative, a possibility that is not even present enough to be thought.

But that's just language, right? Who cares about a few pronouns? Language is fluid, and we can always read queerness and feminism into this submission spanking idea, right? Maybe this is just a particular man's description of what gets him and his wife off, with some linguistic blinders on.

Well, let's keep going. Surely the article will all be uphill from here.

Why therefore should a woman ever be given a submission spanking? It might seem at best, unfair and at worst, random and cruel. Yet many women receive submission spankings and many women benefit greatly from them. A submission spanking is administered to a woman whenever her HOH wants to remind her of her submission. There is no specific reason for the spanking. It is not given for misbehavior nor for maintenance nor for preemptive reasons.

Hear that? It's not random or cruel, it's just done for no reason and to remind her of her submission! It's even for her own benefit. Why, you ask? I'm sure if we read on they will give us a perfectly reasonable explanation, right?

Often an HOH will administer a submission spanking to his woman based on his masculine instincts. He will instinctively sense that his woman needs a firm reminder of her submission to his authority, or a firm reminder of the need to be obedient, respectful and honest in her behavior. Rather than waiting until the next scheduled Maintenance Discipline spanking, he instead decides to give her a sound submission spanking. The most important aspect of a submission spanking is that it teaches the woman submission...a submission spanking will help to improve her submission...Submission lies at the heart of the Loving Domestic Discipline lifestyle because submission is the key to a woman's femininity.

Oh. He really did just say that, didn't he? He said that men administer submission based on their "masculine instincts" and that submission is "key to a woman's femininity." I guess he really does think that men and women are static, monolithic categories with pre-defined traits. That's pretty bad, but when you consider the implications of assuming that sex roles are based on some kind of fact, it becomes clear that this guy is implying that having a penis makes you "masculine," which means "dominant," while having a vagina makes you "feminine," which means "submissive." That would mean that penises are inheretly instruments of domination and that vaginas are passive receivers of male domination, making all heterosexual sex an act of men dominating women (and you thought Dworkin was crazy for suggesting as much).

But, whew, at least he didn't actually say that part! That would have been really bad! Let's keep reading.

Any woman who values her own femininity will understand the role that submission plays for a woman. Submission is the central fact of femininity because a woman's experience of sex is based on simple submission. During sexual intercourse, the woman is passive, not active. She is submissive, not dominant. She parts her thighs to enable her man to penetrate her sexually. Without her submission, there is no sexual intercourse, there is no pleasure and there is no love.

So...if you get penetrated, you're feminine, which equates to being passive (not active) and submissive (not dominant). Being active and dominant is for men, not women, and that simple fact is rooted in biological truth and is the foundation for any kind of pleasure. Because both men and women get lots of pleasure when the woman just lays there with her legs open while the man does his stuff, obviously. It's not like having an active, engaged sex partner results in creative or mutually satisfying sex, or anything...

But more important than the lousy sex this guy is pitching is the fact that he says there cannot be love between men and women unless the woman submits to a man sexually. Well, fuck. And here I was thinking love was about mutual respect and equality, and appreciating the unique human being that you are supposedly in love with. I wonder what the outcome of this mind-boggling image of love in which the woman is the adored, passive object and the man is the active subject is. Don't we have a word for people who think men are in charge of initiating sex, and the woman has to agree just because he says so, because he's the boss and she has to do what he says?

...oh yeah. The word is "rapists."

It can't get any worse than that, can it? An ideology which comes dangerously close to (perversely) requiring rape as the sole possible foundation of love. There's nothing else that can be said after the articulation of such an ideology, is there? He can't have anything more to say, because he's already reached gold-medal sexist asshole status.

Wait, you mean there's more??

All heterosexual sex depends on the woman's submission to the man. A woman cannot penetrate a man. Penetration is an active process. Being penetrated is a passive one. Being penetrated is inherently submissive. When the woman submits sexually to her man, she is affirming her own femininity and fulfilling her role as a woman. Unless she obtains a sex change operation, there is no other genuine role for a woman except submission. The only valid role for a woman who is true to her own femininity is a submissive one. Denying her submission means denying her femininity. Even more importantly, it means denying her womanhood.

So not only is this required submission (rape) the foundation of femininity, but a woman who does not subscribe to these notions is denying her womanhood, and a woman who does not submit sexually is not a true woman. Moreover, submission through penetration is a woman's "only valid role" - and here I thought women could be doctors, lawyers, police officers, firefighters, soliders, senators, CEOs, friends, sisters, WalMart employees, and a host of other important roles in the public sphere. Guess I was wrong, and the most important role Hillary Clinton has is not Secretary of State, but rather owner of a passive, penetrable vagina. In fact, apparently she isn't even a "valid" Secretary of State - it's just a distraction from her true role as the extra skin around a vagina.

And did you note that interesting aside about how a woman can't penetrate a man? He seems curiously ignorant of strap-ons, and if he hasn't heard of that one, I'm willing to bet he's never heard of the many other sex toys designed to give men pleasure through anal stimulation of the prostate glad. Apparently, the only way this article could even allude (however vaguely) to gay sex and transexual operations, is in the context of reinforcing the universality of the idea that penetration = submission.

But we've gotten off topic with all of this business about women's proper sex roles. That was just a summation of what you should already know about men and women (after all, it's only natural!). The point of this article is why you ought to start giving your wife submission spankings (remember, the ones for no reason except to remind her of her inherent need to submit and obey?).

Let us return to the topic of submission spankings. The purpose of a submission spanking is to remind the woman of her submission. It is a technique that validates her womanhood by reminding her of her submissive nature. An HOH can give his woman a submission spanking whenever he feels that it would be beneficial for her to be reminded of her submission. So although a submission spanking might seem like a random, "just because" kind of punishment, it is actually quite targeted and purposeful. It is not an exercise in random cruelty because it is administered with a specific goal in mind. The primary goal is to improve the woman's submission. For a woman, this is a matter of deep importance. Anything that helps her submission also helps her as a woman.

So, the spanking really isn't random, after all. It has a targeted, purposeful, specific goal: to improve a woman's submission. It's to remind her that her Head of Household (how progressive, that it can be her boyfriend or live-in male partner, and not just her husband!) can do whatever he wants to her whenever he feels like it (especially inflict physical pain by hitting her). That's not domestic violence or spousal abuse, though. It's Loving Domestic Discipline, because it's good for women if you routinely hit them for no other reason than to remind them that you can.

An important part of female submission is feminine obedience. Obedience forms a natural and central part of a woman's relationship to her HOH. It is a traditional woman's marriage vow to promise to obey her husband. Women obey their husbands because they accept that there can be only one leader in a marriage and in a family. It is like a plane - even though there is a pilot and his copilot, only one of them can fly the plane at once. If they both struggle to force the plane in different directions, the plane will eventually crash. Therefore the pilot is given greater authority, which means that his decisions will always override those of the copilot. When an HOH feels that his woman is having problems with her obedience, he may decide to administer a submission spanking. This spanking will help his woman to return to a more obedient mode of behavior, so that unnecessary friction is reduced and so that progress is enhanced. Obedience benefits the woman greatly. It also benefits the relationship and, by logical extension, the entire family.

In case you had any lingering doubts, maybe thinking that it's possible to have a more equitable relationship than the one described here, the author has taken it upon himself to explain why it just doesn't work if you treat women like they're equal to men. If you treat your woman like she is capable of making decisions, your marriage will crash and burn! Your family will fall apart! Because, you see, instead of a marriage being about the joining of two individuals who love each other, it's really about making women more obedient. 'Cuz it's just too messy when you have to actually take someone else's will into account. Much simpler if 51% of all human beings become property instead of people. (Remember, that's a family value, folks!)

(Keep reading, we're not finished yet...)

Naturally, if the woman is guilty of blatant disobedience, she deserves a fully fledged punishment spanking so that she can be punished for her offense.

Naturally.

But not all disobedience is severe enough to require a punishment spanking. Some women exhibit minor disobedience, or the early signs of nascent disobedience. It is for her own good that her HOH will decide to give her a submission spanking. This spanking will remind her not only of her submission but also of her obedience. It will remind her that obedience is required from her at all times, not just when she feels like it.

So in case you were wondering, this is not just some fucked up consensual roleplay of a backwards mideval nightmare. Obedience is required from your woman at all times, not just when she consents to play the game. This isn't a game, after all, it's a biologically required natural order. Women's feelings are not important here.

It is also valid for an HOH to administer a submission spanking to his woman even when she has not displayed any signs of disobedience. She does not need to exhibit any disobedient behavior, even the most subtle, for her HOH to justly and rightfully administer a submission spanking. He has the right to remind his woman of her obedience. If she is already behaving in an obedient manner, a submission spanking will help to reinforce her obedience. It is not a punishment for behaving well. It is a reinforcement of her obedience.

Yeah, beating your wife into submission is your right! It's totally just! She doesn't even have to display even the most subtle sign of rebellion, she just has to have a vagina. (Gee, this is starting to make the 50s look like a feminist utopia, isn't it? At least back then a woman had to actually do something wrong to get hit, and you were an asshole if you didn't give a shit about your wife's feelings.)

Another important reason why a submission spanking can be useful is because it reminds the woman of her HOH's authority. It reminds her that she is subject to his authority at all times and in all places. It is the HOH's authority that gives him the right to discipline his woman as he sees fit, for her own good. It is the HOH's authority that facilitates his leadership. It is the HOH's authority that protects and cares for his woman and his family.

If, at any time, a woman shows signs of forgetting that she is subject to her HOH's authority, she may benefit greatly from a submission spanking. This will teach her that she is subject to his authority because she is a woman and because she owes him her submission.

Note that a woman does not have to even be aware of the fact that she is forgetting her HOH's authority. Sometimes it can be an unconscious act on her part that betrays her lax attitude to her HOH's authority. This does not excuse her and should not prevent her receiving a submission spanking for her own good. The loving HOH will always administer a submission spanking whenever he feels that it is in his woman's best interests to receive one. As the leader, he is responsible for his woman's behavior and for his family's wellbeing. He can administer a submission spanking to reinforce his woman's awareness that she is subject to his authority. This is a positive affirmation that he is in charge and will act for the best interests of everyone.

Yeah! Beating your wife is good for the family's well-being! Remind that bitch who's in charge! We can't have her accidentally thinking for herself or believing that there might be some time or place where she can escape her husband's authority and be her own person for half of a second. That would be too lax, and it's all for her own good that you're being strict, right? RIGHT!

Why is a submission spanking not cruel? Some people might believe that a woman should only receive punishment spankings for her misbehavior. They believe that no other types of spankings are acceptable. Other people accept the need for Maintenance Discipline on a regular basis to help build the woman's submission, obedience, respect, honesty and femininity. Many people understand that Disobedience Discipline spankings are necessary to ensure a safe and effective disciplinary process. Even though she may not like it, a woman will generally realize that disobedience during discipline cannot be tolerated and must be punished. Some people think that a Preemptive Discipline is like punishing the woman before she has committed the offense, which therefore means they will not practice Preemptive Discipline spankings. Others understand that the woman truly benefits by having her misbehavior prevented before it can happen, which is the goal of Preemptive Discipline.

But not everyone understands the need for submission spankings. Since they can be applied at any time, by unilateral decision of the HOH, submission spankings may seem unreasonable to some people.

And they would be cruel, if one thing were not true: that a woman always benefits from a submission spanking. She always makes positive gains in her submission, her obedience and her respect for her HOH's authority. She is given a direct and profound experience of her own femininity every time she is disciplined by her HOH. This is not a negative outcome. It is a highly positive one.

So, some people (I think we call them "feminists" or "halfway decent human beings" or something) think all that's cruel. I know some of them may punish the adult human beings that they're married to (err, I mean the passive vaginas-waiting-to-be-penetrated that we call wives) by hitting them when they do something wrong, but this guy is here to tell you that they're morons and softies. Being hit by your HOH just to reinforce his dominance over you is good for you, and it's a highly positive experience! After all, it might prevent you from misbehaving later.

Sometimes a woman will be given a submission spanking but will subsequently misbehave. Often she will attribute this misbehavior to a sense of rebellion or injustice at being subjected to a submission spanking even though she had not committed any feminine misbehavior.

Is this an indication that the submission spanking has failed in its goal? Does it suggest that, instead of building her submission, the submission spanking has instead stimulated her rebellion? No, not at all. The feminine misbehavior that might follow a submission spanking is the result of a deeper issue she may have around submission. The submission spanking has revealed a deeper problem that needs to be addressed via a punishment spanking or a Maintenance Discipline.

Feminine misbehavior following discipline should never be viewed as a failure of the disciplinary technique or of the HOH's approach. It is simply a sign that the woman needs further discipline to help bring her to a more submissive frame of mind, to return her heart to its natural, loving and submissive state.

That's right, you heard him - you women may think it's natural to feel like you've suffered an injustice if you get spanked for no reason, but that's just because you're not in your naturl, submissive, loving frame of mind. In fact, feeling like there's something wrong with this whole situation is just an indication that you need to be punished more harshly - after all, it has been revealed that you have an unreasonable, deep-seated aversion to being hit arbitrarily by someone who's supposed to love you. You must have been brainwashed by all those feminazis who told you that you deserved to be treated like a person instead of a dumb animal. (Although, really, this treatment is worse than what we do to animals - hopefully you don't, for instance, rape your or spontaneously beat your dogs.)

So, now that we know what you (the man) are supposed to do for your woman, we should probably talk about how to decide between a long, hard spanking, and a shorter, lighter one.

How should a submission spanking be administered to a woman? This varies from HOH to HOH. It also varies from situation to situation, so there is no particular technique that is cast in stone. There is no single technique from which you should never deviate. There are many different ways of administering a submission spanking. The choice of which technique to use will depend on the HOH's assessment of his woman's needs at a particular point in time. As always, the ultimate decision is his alone. He knows his woman best and he knows what is best for her. That is why he has the right to discipline her for her own good at any time...As a general rule, of course, a longer spanking is always better for a woman than a shorter one. A longer spanking has a lasting effect on her. It is more likely to bring her to tears. It is more likely to teach her the lesson in submission that she needs to learn or of which she needs to be reminded. It will leave her with a sore bottom that reminds her of how important it is for her to always submit to her HOH.Therefore, many HOH's prefer to administer a long submission spanking to their woman. They want to leave her with an effective, lasting reminder of her submission. They want to be sure that the woman learns her lesson.

I don't get it. If it's better for your woman to be beaten to tears and left in pain that continues even after you stop hitting her (so that she's reminded to submit to your authority all the time), why would you ever administer a shorter spanking?

At other times, however, an HOH may prefer to administer a shorter submission spanking. A short submission spanking is good for a brief reminder discipline that does not take too long. The HOH may not have much time available. Giving his woman a short submission spanking will make use of whatever time he does have, so that she can benefit in her submission.

Oh. Sorry, I forgot that men get to have real lives in this circus. Of course it's reasonable that men may too busy to thoroughly spank their woman to tears ever time they hit her. Don't worry, though, busy men - you may still be able to make your wife cry in a short amount of time if you try real hard and practice hitting her often (and if it doesn't work, it's because she's not submitting well enough):

In some cases, the HOH will be effective enough in the way he disciplines his woman that he will be able to bring her to tears, even with a submission spanking of short duration. This is obviously a highly positive outcome for her as a woman. The more obedient and submissive the woman is, the more likely she will be brought to tears by a relatively short submission spanking. So it is a combination of the HOH's disciplinary skill and the woman's submission that determines her ability to be brought to tears, as a general principle.

And there you have it folks...a perfectly reasonable, modern take on spanking!

(Now, do I mean to imply that all BDSM is as fucked up as this? 'Course not. I'm sure there are plenty of people who really are safe, sane, and consensual about something as relatively tame as spankings. It's a pretty mainstream fetish these days, and at any rate consent makes a big, big, big difference. But aren't there are some eerie parallels between this and, say, Second Life Goreans? Or lifestyle BSDMers? After reading this, do you really still think all the radical feminists are out to get you when they implore that you investigate your kinks? Isn't it more likely that they see this kind of thing and fear that maybe society's obsession with spanking shares some of the same elements of titillation as this crap? Isn't it possible that at least one of the kinksters you know is just the teensiest bit turned on by this abuse, even if they proclaim their disgust for it and would never actually go about doing it? If you're still not buying it, go read the comments...this article is not some elaborate joke, it's something that people are actually doing...)

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go puke my guts out.

Radical feminism vs. Sex-positive feminism

There are two factions often presented as directly opposing within the blogosphere, and even though I have personally witnessed many attempts by both groups to understand where the other group is coming from, it is clear that they have firm ideological differences over a number of issues. And yet, both of those streams of feminist thought are important to understanding and creating a feminist sexuality.

Sex-positive feminism is great for saying what women can do. It's a response to the old conservative culture which demands that women be virginal, sexless, passive, and traditionally beautiful. It's the freedom to say "yes" to anything.

For women coming from really repressed families, churches, and schools, it can be very liberating to be told that they're allowed to do whatever they want to sexually. Even for women with relatively liberal parents, it's likely that they were told to only have sex with people they really care about, or with their boyfriends/girlfriends. That mantra can also get old, and it's natural for women to respond with "Who are you to tell me when I should give my consent? I can do whatever I want, and to prove it, I'm going to do it!" Sex-positive feminism backs these women up. It assures them that it is okay to make whatever sexual choices they want to make. It opens up the entire spectrum of sexuality to women, saying that all options are on the table and that they're welcome to choose any of them without fear of repraisal. It frees us from the oppression of rigid standards and lack of choices.

Sex-positive feminism is better at dealing with queer sexuality than radical feminism. I'm not sure if this is because queers are usually far more oppressed by conservative sexuality than porn sexuality, or because there are more queers in the sex-positive movement, or simply because sex-positive ideology is founded upon radical openness and therefore more receptive to ALL non-traditional sexual identities. Regardless, sex-positive feminists are among the first to point out when an analysis of sexuality fails to consider the queer perspective, and they often challenge radical feminists to apply their analysis to queer couples (or trios, or four-somes, or...).

Sex positive feminism initiated important discussions of consent, and has acheived gains like spreading the notion that whenever a woman doesn't want sex and says "no," regardless of the situation. They helped create the idea that there is such a thing as marital rape, and provide grounds to argue that a woman has the right to say no to sex even if it has already started (ie, you can say "stop" and he has to stop). Radical feminism further developes these discussions of consent raised by talking about situations in which women technically consent, but in which their choices are not quite so clear.

It's also great at arguing the pro-choice position. I don't think I need to explain this in too much detail - they both share a focus on choice and increasing women's sexual options. Sex-positive feminism is definitely doing good work in terms of women's right to choose abortion, availability of contraception (including Plan B), etc.

On the flip side, it's not as good at critiquing classism and individualism. A critique which uses "choice" as a cornerstone implicitly accepts the notion of the free and autonomous rational individual as also a cornerstone. That concept is based on the masculine philosophical tradition, and it implies that the way to combat patriarchy is simply for men and women to make different choices. It undermines our ability to critique culture, because culture is seen as only a conglomeration of individual choices. Although sex-positive feminists can critique ways in which capitalism limits choice (therefore providing ground to argue for things like the Hyde ammendment), it is hard for it to dispute capitalism as a system since they share philosophical groundings.

The guiding principle of sex-positive feminism is "if you like it, and you're not hurting anyone, go for it!" It's sexual libertarianism. It breaks down the double standard by saying women should be able to have sex on their terms, even if that means casual sex or rough sex, or anything else that's customarily forbidden or considered "gross." It's about women's sexual freedom, any time, any where, and in any way women say they want it.

Radical feminism, on the other hand, is great for examining what we should or shouldn't do. It's a response to the postmodern porn culture in which women must be lascivious, kinky, uninhibited to the point of being willing to do anything men demand, porn-star look-likes, and always sexually available. It's the freedom to say "no" to anything.

Radical feminism responds to a world that sex-positive feminism unintentionally created. Cultural patriarchy has warped sex-positive feminism's message of "women can do anything" into "women have to do anything, or they're prudish stick-in-the-muds." Now that we're all allowed to do anything, it's become acceptable to ask for anything and expect to receive it. If sexuality is okay on any terms as long as women consent, then porn must be okay; stripping must be okay; sex work (prostitution) must be okay; BDSM must be okay; etc. The women involved in those activities chose to do so, and questioning their choices is taboo.

The problem is, this often glosses over the context in which those choices are made. Radical feminism asks the questions sex positive feminism considers inappropriate to ask: Why do women want to do this? Are these choices good for women? How do these choices operate differently in the real patriarchal world compared to the theoretical feminist world? How might we change these choices and the way these acts are practiced to make women happier and the world more equitable?

Radical feminism enables critiques of sexual objectification, because it says that treating women as objects is not good and not ethical even if the woman says it's okay. It enables critiques of BDSM, pointing out that beating women until they're bloody is probably a bad way to express desire even if the women say they're into it.  It helps us criticize porn, strip clubs, and prostitution, by wondering how sexuality can be free if our choices are dictated by a want or need for money, and by wondering how catering to what men are willing to pay for could possibly be a healthy way to express one's sexuality. These modes of critique are opened because radical feminism looks at the effects of our choices instead of simply our right to make them.

Some of these critiques are very important. Mainstream porn pretty obviously objectifies and subordinates women. It captures only contrived moments of sex, not the contextual relationship dynamics or the way that the distinct and fully human people engage in sexual acts together. We ought to ask ourselves, is this a healthy way to view sexuality, as if it's in some kind of bubble isolated from the rest of life? Radical feminism says probably not, and definitely not if this kind of sexuality involves images of men hurting or humiliating women, because that creates a culture of violence. Sex-positive feminists do a reasonably good job of saying why porn ought to be legal, but radical feminists address questions like "Should we watch porn?" and "What types of porn are probably bad for our sexuality even when they're consensual?" They argue that the solution to the bad porn that exists now is not just "make feminist porn" but also "stop watching sexist porn." Some even argue that it's dumb or bad to watch porn at all, which is definitely compelling in light of the trash that's out there right now. They point out how the porn industry coerces women, how pornography creates anti-woman environments, how trading money for sex cheapens sex, how porn creates a continuum of "interesting/kinky sex vs. boring/vanilla sex" that pressures women to do things they don't want to do and cuts off more creative ways of seeing "interesting vs. boring" sex.

Radical feminism also helps us sort through all of the choices we're given by sex-positive feminism. It can be confusing to know what you want out of a relationship if you're free to do anything. It can be exhausting to navigate the dating world when there are no longer any rules. It's hard to know where to set your personal standards. Radical feminism can offer guidance, suggesting ways of relating to one another that are equitable and suggesting standards that might help you find fulfilling relationships.

It also allows us to radically reject capitalism and masculine philosophy. We can critique the traditional familial organization not just on the grounds that women weren't asked whether or not they wanted to be home-makers, but also on the grounds that our economic system disadvantages stay-at-home women. We can talk about the value of different kinds of labor, and talk about why some women make their economic choices, and use those answers to critique the overall economic system. If women choose to stay home because they want to spend more time with their kids, doesn't that suggest that our work system demands too much of our time and is too exclusionary of family concerns for the middle class? If women choose to work long hours because their families can't survive otherwise, doesn't that also suggest that our work system demands too much of families straddling the poverty line? The critique applies to those without families, too. Perhaps workaholism manifests because of the structure of the workplace and the family.

In essence, radical feminism goes beyond questions of choice to ask why people make the choices they do. It allows us to examine the ways in which sexuality is warped by the cultural environment in which we grow to sexual maturity, and points to areas in which "choice" oversimplifies. It breaks down the double standard by demanding everyone be responsible for their sexuality, and by saying that not every woman who chooses not to engage in certain sexual acts is doing it because she's inhibited. It frees us from the oppression of having too many loaded choices.

The sex-positive critique often misses the point when it response to the radical feminist critique, because it reads radical feminism with the same lens as it reads 1950s conservativism. The two modes of feminist critique are responsive to different sides of the virgin/whore sexual double standard (with sex-positivism critiquing the identities available to "good girls"/virgins and radicalism critiquing the identities available to "bad girls"/whores). We need both sides to open ourselves up to authentic sexuality, because both aspects oppress us. Because some people feel the constraints of one side of the double standard more strongly, they identify with one mode of critique more strongly. 

Ultimately, we need a sex-positive radical feminism. So here's to hoping we can combine the two!

I'm SO EXCITED for the Obama administration!

Both Obama and his administration seem to promise some serious changes in domestic and foreign policy. Thus Bush years are finally over. So far, it looks like "change" wasn't just a campaign slogan. While we will definitely be disappointed in our new president at some ventures, he was definitely the best possible choice and I am PSYCHED about having him and his cabinet in office.

Here are some highlights in the administrative nominees:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - I wasn't originally that excited about Clinton, but she does have a pretty solid human rights record (particularly in terms of women's rights and gay rights), and she's promising that issues like human trafficking are going to get the attention they deserve. Does this mean we might get a more humane US foreign policy? YAY!

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis - Supports labor unions, green collar jobs, workers' rights and more, and has a personal background that indicates that this support is sincere. She also has a history of supporting right to work and fair trade.

Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Tom Daschle - healthcare

Head of the Office of Legal Counsel Dawn Johnson - After Bush's abuse of the OLC through John Yoo, this is a position that needs to be filled by a progressive legal scholar. And Dawn Johnson is exactly that! In fact, she's "widely known as a fierce advocate for human rights and accountability, a defender of constitutional limits on executive power, a vocal critic of the Bush Administration's opinions on torture, and also a strong pro-choice advocate." THREE CHEERS FOR THIS NEARLY PERFECT NOMINEE!

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack - Vilsack's not perfect, but he is for cutting subsidies and GM labelling.

Middle East Envoy Daniel Kurtzer - An experienced diplomat and former ambassador to both Egypt and Israel, Kurtzer also has a quality rare in American officials - he has a balanced view of the Middle East peace process, looking at both Israeli and Palestinian concerns. Though the crazed American right may paint him as an evil Israel-hater, I find his history of neutrality is pretty compelling. I mean, listen to the guy. He sounds pretty smart to me.

And, even more thrilling, Obama is working on finding ways to overturn some of the worst Bush policies. Some things Obama's got in the pipeline right now:

• Making the repeal of DADT a priority even if might wait to tackle it until later in his term...
• Repealing the Global Gag Rule
• Fixing environmental policy
• Undoing the new HHS abortion rule
  

Overall? THRILLING!