Tag Archives: patriarchy

My vagina is mine to sell.

27 Aug

Isn’t it very anti-feminist to encourage free female promiscuity, but discourage women from gaining profit from it? Slut walks for free female sexuality are cool – they are in my book – but all the so-called feminists come rushing out screeching that you’re raping yourself when you bill your partner for the same damn thing plus, perhaps, prioritizing his desires as a customer to the degree you are comfortable with. But isn’t accommodating a partner to the extent of your comfort, the basis for any consensual fuck?

What prompted this? Well, I just found an image pop up on my newsfeed from an anti-rape apologist page. The image read:

“Sex doesn’t sell. Erosion of female self-esteem does. The feeling of superiority over women does. Turning women into things to be studied, scrutinized, judged, and then calling it ‘sex’, does. Objectification sells.”

Uh, well, no, I disagree as I disagree with “Dogs bark” – some do indeed, and some do so much that they need a good gob smack. Fuck, I hate noisy dogs. But many also do not. My dogs do not bark unless there is someone at the door or the dog who attacked us repeatedly, walks by the house. The above is a blanket statement, a gross generalization, and those never benefit anyone.

First of all, this is made exclusively about female sex appeal. Then why do male escorts, porn actors, and strippers make good money, too? And are they not objectified? And is there a globally valid and proven difference in how a man values his sexuality as opposed to a woman? Do fuck-happy cishet men always overstate their importance, while fuck-happy cishet females always meekly bow to male desire? Cishet males are just the biggest market for the sex industry because they’re the loudest about their desires. I bet if women weren’t as meek about our desires, we would have more porn produced to our taste, because it’s all about money, and money is where there is demand. Yes, our sexuality is judged more harshly than cishet males’, but no, in the West, we are not stopped from living it. Our sexuality is treated unfairly, but it is still ours to practice, and many things we do sexually, are of our own desire.
Back to objectification of women and men… Let’s be honest here, do all women really get wet for his personality, never for the nice ass? “Sex sells” when I replay Game of Thrones episodes for the scenes of Ser Loras and whoever he had in bed (other MEN). Sex sells when I watch any kind of porn. Hell, I objectify men all the time. I have half a dozen numbers in my phone whose messages I ignore unless I want them over for Netflix & Chill. I won’t even answer when they’re worried about me if I’m not currently falling apart with lust. I remember their parts better than their faces, and I get annoyed when their lips are moving rather than their hips. First thing I care about at a new workplace, is if the men are worth flirting with, and if they’re not, I find myself pissed at having to work at all. I might actually have been objectified by males in my entourage less than the other way around.
The only difference is that as women, we have not established the social and physical power to enforce our views of men and shape sex culture accordingly. But are we any more “deep” about how we view men, than vice-versa? PLEASE! The power dynamic is the only thing that makes female objectification more powerful and damaging than male objectification, but it does NOT define us as women, and our self-esteem does NOT depend on whether or not we willingly partake in objectification in order to get our libido or wallet satiated. I actually hold myself in too high esteem as to willingly work 48 hours of a boring job for minimum wage when I can work 10 hours for as much as others earn in a month and get laid in the process. And I mean, is selling your body for physical labour such as scrubbing toilets or building walls, not objectification? Simply of the non-sexual kind? We are all whores, we are all exploited, and we are all objectified, as long as our money depends on someone else’s satisfaction, be it with our typing skills or paving work, or sex. Making sex a special case, is only right on the condition that it be applied exclusively to those individuals who feel that way. Objectively speaking, there is no valid reason why everyone of us would feel the same. I get to view my cunt as a toy, as a temple, or as a golden goose. It is my cunt. And I am no victim if I happen to enjoy a man enjoying himself more than a man making a joke of himself trying way too hard to give me an orgasm.
And making the commodification of sex about flaws of a woman’s character (low self-esteem etc.) is also unfair and degrades women more than any porn flick they willingly signed up for, because it denies us agency. I can say Nope to a degrading script, I can’t say Nope to reading that I have low self-esteem for being commercially promiscuous. The statement is basically slut-shaming because it links character flaws to sex. But what about our hands when we’re dish washers at restaurants, or our feet when we deliver mail? But yet, there’s a distinction between that and our genitalia, and we’re all supposed to feel the same about it? Isn’t that an oppressive notion? Except victims of crime, we can choose whether or not to work in the sex industry, but we can’t choose what is said about us, and this pic quoted above says things many of us rightly take offense in. This statement turns all women who commodify sex, into a commodity, into victims with no say in their sexuality. It dictates an aspect of our sexuality on our behalf by making blanket assumptions about our self-image vs. our sexual behaviour – and to that, I say fuck you. We have a say. This isn’t an issue of self-esteem, it doesn’t need to be an issue bigger than what to order at Starbuck’s, depending on the individual’s attitude. To some women, sex is sacred, to some women, any sex not prioritizing the female pleasure is rape, and to some women, sex is a sport, a hobby, or a currency – and none of that has to have anything to do with our self-esteem, and none of it necessarily determines our roles as victims or agents.
Yes, objectification both exists and sells, and yes, we are helplessly objectified and sexualized because we cannot dictate how someone else sees us, but as long as no action is imposed on us, we are still the bosses of what we do with our sexuality or how to deal with objectification, consequences notwithstanding.
The statement could be wonderfully correct if it weren’t presumed dependant on low self-esteem and exclusive victimization of women. As yes, sex and objectification can overlap and sell. But in reality, there are confident, proud women who happily commodify their sexuality, and they should not be demeaned into victim roles by blanket statements such as this. Not all women who respect themselves consider sex something sacred. Personally, I consider it a sport, and I feel stupid every time I play without getting paid when I could, even though I enjoy it. I’m basically just another athlete who sucks at marketing, the only reason I’m not going pro.
“Sex sells” only inherently victimizes women if the assumption is true that all women and their sexuality is something they have no say over, and is linked in one way only to self-esteem: the more liberal and accommodating the sexuality, the lower the self-esteem. But many of us do willingly sign up for sex work, do willingly indulge in promiscuity, do willingly submit to male desires because it happens to turn us on to please, we do not all throw our sexuality around just because we feel we owe it to the patriarchy. Some of us do because it’s fun or good money, and we have no problem with it. Declaring us victims through blanket statements just because the statements are true in some or even many cases, is inherently violent.
Isn’t it basically very anti-feminist to encourage free female promiscuity, but discourage women from gaining profit from it? Liberating female sexuality includes losing the assumption that something has to be wrong with us (such as low self-esteem) or that we are victims (the opposite of people with agency and authority) for us to commodify our vaginas the way other people commodify their feet to toss news papers over fences. Liberating female sexuality means accepting and supporting that some women enjoy themselves in the sex industry and act of their own accord.
Feminism means to shout “Yay for prudes” as loudly as “Yay for whores”. It means to let us be individual about our bodies and sex, not collective.

Merkel is the real Martyr

15 Jan

“Including a picture of a woman into something so sacred, as far as we are concerned, it can desecrate the memory of the martyrs and not the other way around,”

-Binyamin Lipkin, editor of HaMevaser

So editing out all women from the Paris March because they “desecrate the memory of the martyrs” is freedom of speech now… We desecrate the memory of people for being women, like having a massive poop-eating and pig-fucking orgy in a church, desecrates the House of God? Okay. Gotcha.

If it’s freedom of speech to wage a blatant war on women, deleting our image as if we’re a disease that needs to be wiped, and slandering us as a stain on peoples’ memory for our sex, then the next acceptable thing, I guess, is to caption pictures of the victims of police brutality with “This nigger got what he had coming, shoulda picked the cotton and be quiet” or make the Westboro Baptist’s slogans the next source for headlines. Or how about “This kyke right here, should have been gassed before he got on TV”.
Yeah, not so cool suddenly.

And Angela Merkel, deleted by Israelis, of all things? Who has been supplying Israel with weapons, warships, endless money, and two blind eyes upon the mess we are making, the crimes we are committing, such as the construction of settlements which is illegal as per the Geneva Convention, signed by Israel, just saying… Who has been a relentlessly reliable ally to the country that houses, feeds, and clothes the people who have now deleted their benefactor? Binyamin Lipkin, the editor of HaMevaser, the hate paper (if you delete women, you are no less of a hate group than are the Westboro Baptists) that published the anti-women image, should be licking Merkel’s rear end because her contribution is part of the reason why his estimated 45 welfare-mooching, unworldly children have clothes on their backs and an army to shield them from the reality that the likes of their father is perpetuating.

The comment about the eight-year-old makes me cringe. The eight-year-old should be encouraged to look at women in an appreciative way and worship us – after all, that kid came out of a brave woman’s bleeding, agonized vagina, and every time a woman gives birth, she risks her life. Only to dedicate all of it to that kid once it’s out. The eight-year-old should not be shielded from the (undistorted) sight of us. On the contrary. See women everywhere to be reminded why you’re in this world, and who changed your diapers, who feeds you, who loves you unconditionally, who cries for you, who would happily die for you. Look at us, you little shit. Same goes for your dad, the big shit.
Deleting women from the public image is no better than saying we should actually, literally, disappear. You don’t systematically delete something from view if you respect, much less value it. Deleting someone to protect “the children!” or the memory of martyrs, is a gesture of shame and disgust.
This IS a war on women, it is NOT just religion, it has nothing to do with a religion that dictates such oppression in no way. People screeching that this is free speech, miss the fact that this deletion of women represents an attitude that women have to suffer in real life. It is really no different than forcing a burqa on a Muslim woman. They want us invisible. They make us invisible. And we just have to suck it up? This oppressive behavior is not the only one in a series of legal – some now illegal – crimes perpetrated in various forms and by all kinds of entities against the female collective and to reduce it to free speech, “no harm done”, is insane and dangerous.

Somehow, tolerance for sexism and gender-based oppression is a lot higher than it would be for racism or anti-semitism, and this I do not understand. Had a black man been edited out because “his presence tarnishes the memory of the martyrs and an eight-year-old shouldn’t see such a thing in public”, no one would play the free-speech-card. Except the unfortunate few who would see their addresses published for lynchings. Why do we need to tolerate our deletion from the public eye, but telling a black person to sit in the back of the bus is a hate crime? Why is it okay to treat us women like either property to subject to man’s standards and demands (even if ever so subtly by distorting our bodies or telling us to hate and change them painfully in order to be more pleasing to penises), or like something that should not even exist, or at least not have its existence acknowledged and treated as equally valuable as that of men?

Why does this seem okay?