What women (don't) want.

[gary1979666]

Maybe the thread has gone a little off piste?

[feral chile]

Right, back to sensible mode now.

[LondonTom]

I wonder if those sexlines still exist, what with internet porn? I suppose they do, as actually speaking to a real live girl rather than viewing them on screen is quite the thrill.

seems like a more innocent way to pull your pudding

Surely its more web cams these days? You get ads all the time for them and I always have random bots adding me on Skype/MSN "Hi Honey, click this link to see me in a little thong". (I've added a couple just to see if I could work out if it was the woman doing the show or a bot )

You also still get Babe Station channels on Sky.....which is the oddest as they don't seem to be doing anything that filthy.

[feral chile]

Surely its more web cams these days? You get ads all the time for them and I always have random bots adding me on Skype/MSN "Hi Honey, click this link to see me in a little thong". (I've added a couple just to see if I could work out if it was the woman doing the show or a bot )

You also still get Babe Station channels on Sky.....which is the oddest as they don't seem to be doing anything that filthy.

I think it was Babe Channel that was filming by us, I mentioned in another thread that 2 models came into our local supermarket dressed in skin tight hotpants and high heels, and it was hilarious to see all the men queued in their particular aisle like a bunch of tomcats.

And these girls looked to be genuinely ignoring them, not in an actively ignoring way, but seemingly genuinely oblivious - I suppose they were used to it.

Edited February 5, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

That'll do....back in 5!

Ironically, I had wandered off to potter around the house - much like the real ladies on the chat lines, I suspect

[midnight]

But not many men would let a woman get away with gentle taking the piss out of them.

Yes, I have noticed that on a number of occasions. We live and learn.

[midnight]

It did start a whole new train of thought for me, that never really took off in that thread. If Page 3 is not in any way an expression of female sexuality so much as female subjugation to male sexuality -

What would free (non-conditioned) expression of female sexuality be like? And what then, would male sexuality be like?

Would it mean men would have to learn NOT to be attracted by women's breasts?

Would t mean that we would live in a world where women didn't feel subjugated or intimidated by men being attracted to breasts?

What I'm most afraid of, is that whichever way women choose to express themselves, it will be assumed to be conditioned by patriarchy, and in that respect we're making patriarchy omnipotent and eternal, by forever giving it credit and power.

See response below - I've messed the first one up (not sure how I managed to quote myself - that's a new one!)

Edited February 6, 2015 by midnight

[midnight]

We can fantasise away about what that female sexuality would be like in any way we wish, it would probably be amusing and entertaining, but it would be just that - a fantasy. It doesn't really make much difference to me whether men are fascinated by breasts or not, they migt as well be. And even Andrea Dworkin conceeded that intercourse will probably not die out (well, we all would if it did).

I think I'm properly confused about what people mean when they talk about "expressing their sexuality". Getting naked for instance isn't much of an expression of it to me, it is just nakedness. It only gets interesting and sexual in a certain context - say, if I were to take my clothes off because I wanted to get intimate with someone, and I want it to have the desired (heh!) effect. If I were to climb onto a stage in Glastonbury next June and take all my clothes off, I'd perhaps be motivated by a desire to shock, or raise a laugh, or to win a bet, but I'd never consider it an expression of my sexuality. Don't panic, btw, I won't do it. I promise.

I think from going over the last few dozen posts (in response to Tony's query on why he was made fun of for mentioning intellect in the page 3 discussion), it can now be deducted that page 3 is considered by many as a kind of w*nking aid. Which is ok, but also makes it very clear to me that it isn't the woman expressing herself, I mean what is in it for me if a guy I'll never know does that sort of thing over a grainy newspaper print of my breasts? Certainly nothing sexual for me at all. Maybe a bit of a power trip (look what I can make him do!). Probably some money, which is the best bit, because I strongly believe the one thing women can do at the moment to improve their situation is work. Be financially independent, even on a small scale (we can't/won't all have fab careers, that's where the middle-class feminism goes off the rails). It certainly has enabled me to extract myself successfully from some very difficult situations. I didn't have to stay when things got really bad, because I always had this independence.

Patriarchy is there, it is in the structure and fabric of society, it won't go away because I say I don't want to pander to it, or I don't believe in it. But I can work on it.

PS Tony, I think one of the reasons why Katster's comment produced a more reasonable response is that women are often expected to prioritise intellect over looks in their partners, we are supposed to look for something "deeper" in our men. And we shall keep on looking, it is an endless triumph of hope over experience.

[philipsteak]

I read an article about a year ago saying that sex chatlines and direct one - one webcams had a massive surge in usage in February from single guys wanting the girlfriend experience while jacking off. When you look at it that way it feels far more sad.

I remember a stripper I used to know saying that valentines was one of, if not the, busiest nights of the year. And she could make as much if not more from sitting and talking to them as she could from taking her clothes off.

[russycarps]

I remember a stripper I used to know saying that valentines was one of, if not the, busiest nights of the year. And she could make as much if not more from sitting and talking to them as she could from taking her clothes off.

did she charge you more on valentines night?

[russycarps]

in response to midnight's post, I dont think page 3 is meant to be a "w*nking aid". It's different from that. I think it is designed to be glanced at, to think "oh thats nice" and move on. I suspect the number of men that use these images as a masturbatory aid is microscopic.

I googled page 3 images during the course of the previous debate, and contrary to what some people claimed NONE of them were in overtly sexual or provocative poses. Without exception they were just sat there with bare breasts with a big smile on their face. I just dont think this can be considered porn. It's different. It's "bawdy". It's like barbara windsor in that carry on film where her top flew off. That was not designed to be w*nked over.

Whether this makes it better or worse, or just the same, I dont know really.

[feral chile]

regarding people who adhere to patriarchy, the reason I asked that rhetorical question, was that I'm confused as to where the hope lies.

What the vision of the alternative is. There's something tautological about it, because every move a woman makes to get free of it, gets subsumed into the ideology. 'Ah, that's not a free expression, you're conditioned by patriarchy'.

It's a bit like determinists, stating that everything is caused. So when you argue for free will, they look back and say, yes, but that reason for your action was determined by everything that you've experienced, and everything that's gone before to bring about your response. So therefore it's caused, and free will is an illusion'.

Of course, if you see the world like this, it's likely to be true (taking aside quantum mechanics, which apparently disproves causation, but I don't really understand it, so I can't really comment).

My argument has always been, however, that free will is our awareness of ourselves as causal agents, so although we're part of causation, it's not all about us being acted upon, but as us acting upon the world, as well. So free will is not only real, our belief in it, and the fact that we react based on our belief in it, affects the very causation that determinists adhere to. If we were passive, and just allowed events to wash over us as if we were rocks, causation, and the future, would be different.

And this is my objection to the patriarchy argument, because there feels like there's almost a fatalistic attitude towards it.

It feels to me like the God concept - if we had scientific evidence that an alien terraformed our planet, and we could start to understand it, you'd have believers denying that was God, and that the alien must be working through God somehow. And the atheists would argue that it proved God didn't exist. Because God is defined as indefinable. You can't point to something and say 'that's God, right there'. I think the God concept itself disallows any physical evidence for the existence of God, since God is outside physical laws. therefore neither side could accept an observable or measurable entity as proof of God. I don't think there would ever be a way to prove or disprove God, because the concept is spiritual, and not open to empiricism. Faith relies on not having proof.

Patriarchy feels like that - a concept that will be made to fit everything, because we can't see a way out of the patriarchal bubble.

And yet, by the unanimous disapproval of patriarchy displayed throughout this debate, there's clearly at least wiggle room.

I know I'm not being very articulate here, it's more a feeling that we've trapped ourselves within the ideology. It's not a denial that historically, men have held the power and controlled concepts, so that masculine values are given higher status.

it's just, I've heard feminists denounce science or scientific discourse for being masculine. And while I can appreciate the objection that there's more men than women working within, isn't that actually perpetuating the perception that science is for men?

I feel something similar is going on with human sexuality. It feels at the moment as if people are arguing that sexuality is for men.

And it has further ramifications - if we perceive that we live in a patriarchal society what's to encourage women to think they have the power, or the place in society, to change it? And what would be accepted as a genuine change, and not just a patriarchy-conditioned perpetuation? It's like we're saying society is really for men. And everything women do is really for men. And of more concern, that everything women can (ever?) do is for men.

I won't accept that.

Edited February 6, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

What do people think of this topic?

http://humanrights.4hermaphrodites2.org/

I've genuinely often thought we'd all do better as hermaphrodites, and have always felt uncomfortable of gender correction surgery.

Without having a scientific or medical background, I've worried that we're interfering with evolution, and possibly altering it in ways we don't recognise, in our obsession with 'the norm'.

But, on the other hand, I can understand the hell that a person would experience if they lived in society as it is at the moment.

But what right do we have to tell these people that there's something wrong with them?

[feral chile]

I personally find this quite liberating:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/05/reasons-your-vagina-is-a-total-boss_n_6607722.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

[russycarps]

I personally find this quite liberating:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/05/reasons-your-vagina-is-a-total-boss_n_6607722.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

what a peculiar article.

[russycarps]

why?

just curious as to why you find it peculiar

I just dont see the point in it. The vagina is no more or less incredible than a liver, a heart, a brain etc. The human body is miraculous, why dedicate an article to just the vagina?

Unless this is just one article in a series based on parts of the human body. Perhaps it is.

[russycarps]

no more unusual than an article on any part of the body then?

I think in part it's been brought up by Gwyneth's suggestion that women should steam their vagina, and this is a response to that

Personally I found it interesting. The fact that the clitoris is only for pleasure for one. I think it's a delicate important part of a woman's body. And for a man who might want a relationship with a woman, it's all good to know.

how many articles on that website are there on other body parts? None.

just seems peculiar that a womans body part should be "celebrated" in such a manner. I have read and am still baffled by the purpose of the article.

I think the days of men not knowing about the clitoris are surely over. In many cases I suspect a man not pleasuring a woman is not out of ignorance, but out of laziness.

[feral chile]

I saw it as a metaphor.

Women's sexuality doesn't need sanitizing. it's already clean. and for women's pleasure, not men's.

the clitoris is female liberation. proof that women didn't evolve merely to pleasure men.

Edited February 6, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

each to his own. I found nothing odd about it

I think you'd be surprised

Just do a google on mistaking the urethra for the vagina. Or clitoris.

Edited February 6, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Foe anyone struggling to understand why the vagina is such a strong symbol of female autonomy:

http://www.un.org/en/events/femalegenitalmutilationday/

Today is International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation.

THIS is patriarchy at its most extreme. And this is what needs to be opposed.

We're a long way from this in the UK, and we should be using our freedom to help others who aren't free to express their sexuality, in a much more literal sense.

Edited February 6, 2015 by feral chile

[russycarps]

I think you'd be surprised

Fair enough, I hope the article was of some use to you.

[feral chile]

Fair enough, I hope the article was of some use to you.

^^^^^^

posts above explaining why the clitoris is a symbol of liberation.

We're privileged in the UK. Some women aren't so lucky.

Edited February 6, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

oh wise one...

My guess is that now, as much, if not more than ever, because of the way a lot of boys are getting their sex education (easily accessible porn) these type of articles are very useful. Boys thinking that girls get off on guys ejaculating over their face or on their tits for example

Quite,

But also because women are being mutilated precisely so that they don't receive any sexual gratification. So it's literally a symbol of liberation.

[russycarps]

oh wise one...

My guess is that now, as much, if not more than ever, because of the way a lot of boys are getting their sex education (easily accessible porn) these type of articles are very useful. Boys thinking that girls get off on guys ejaculating over their face or on their tits for example

I disagree. I learnt about the clitoris in seconds when a girl demanded "lick it there". I'm sure most men learn about it in exactly the same way now, if they didnt already know

Besides, it was not just an article about the clitoris, it was about the vagina.

^^^^^^

posts above explaining why the clitoris is a symbol of liberation.

We're privilege the UK. Some women aren't so lucky.

if the article was about the clitoris maybe it would make more sense. As it was I cannot really fathom what the purpose of the article was. A lighthearted look at the vagina? I just found it peculiar.

Edited February 6, 2015 by russycarps

[feral chile]

I disagree. I learnt about the clitoris in seconds when a girl demanded "lick it there"

Besides, it was not just an article about the clitoris, it was about the vagina.

if the article was about the clitoris maybe it would make more sense. As it was I cannot really fathom what the purpose of the article was. A lighthearted look at the vagina? I just found it peculiar.

I've no idea what the original purpose of the article was. I just know what it meant to me personally. (which is why I used the word personally when I posted it).

The title of it appealed to me, given the focus on patriarchy and the service of the penis, that we've had in the debate so far.

And it's apt, given what day it is today.

Edited February 6, 2015 by feral chile