not sure what to title this but it's to do with ejaculation

Shoopaloop, porn myths make me sick.

Mostly because they are not myths. They are real acts being inflicted on real women.

"I don't actually think we could safely explore this issue any further into a direction that upholds men's right to jizz on a woman's face, tbh"

But what about the direction that upholds women's rights to have jizz on their face should they wish to have it so? (Cue political vs personal thing ad nauseam et infinitum - not getting us anywhere)

Good for you, shoop

There has been too much worship-of-the-jizz on this thread, tbh

Have you never wanted to play around with, and subvert, the porn myths, though?

In porn the woman is a compliant vessel. In RL, this is not my experience of sex.

What I find problematic is that it is often ME that is leading the more deviant sexual acts (I cant even be arsed to namechange), not the men. I like pushing sex to its limits. I don't feel I 'readily accept' anything. I have analysed my sexuality until it bores me to tears, and I honestly do not think its roots lie in porn or male expectations. I have been this way from a young age.

i know this is only my experience, and I am not negating what other women feel. But it does perplex me...

Thank you AnyFucker.

I'm not like against jizz. Some of my best friends jizz.

I just appreciate the thought .

I always give my thoughts.

I like to think that I'm a pretty transparent poster.

I just happen to think that there is a discussion to be had about why the porn rooted act (an act that is clearly defined in porn, by people who think porn is awesome, as being misogynistic) has been so readily accepted by many women (and men).

Call me pernickety. (Just don't arse about with the prude/women don't like sex bullshit. Please.)

I don't actually think we could safely explore this issue any further into a direction that upholds men's right to jizz on a woman's face, tbh

we would certainly need some physical protection

< passes the jizz helmets around >

I also think it is similar to spitting, a partner once spat on my clitoris once and I found that very very disgusting and disrespectful. I would not like a man to cum on my face either, other parts of my body yes and could be turned on by. but not my face. However I do get turned on by other power/ submissive acts that others would find hard to accept or enjoy.

I seem to inadvertently have posted before I was finished without noticing. Weird that.

Also "I find it despairing that the status quo being questioned on a feminist board creates all this aggression."

I don't like the aggression either, but I think it doesn't only come from my side. Plus I don't think feminism is a homogenous movement but a quite wide spectrum. We seem to be on opposing ends, and that's cool. I've no problem with you questioning my ideas and opinions.

I just get annoyed when instead of questioning and giving your thoughts I only get "that's too adverse"/"that's the patriarchy"/"that's intellectually lazy"/"silencing" etc. It just feels like I'm being told off for daring to disagree on the feminist board of all places. (And please don't give me a "if you find it patronising then it's your response and your problem")

Eh?

I've nothing against questioning the status quo, quite the opposite. But why are you so opposed to question the feminist frame of reference at the same time? It both belongs together. Both need to be continuously questioned.

Is it not explorational to ask whether a particular feminist analysis stands up to scrutiny? I've brought up a few points, (e.g. dominance being ingrained in humans even in an ungendered context, due to humans being social animals) which have not been picked up at all. Why is it not worth exploring the question whether the concept of patriarchy is possibly sometimes overstretched?

If you want to be truly explorational, you should be open to explore into more than one direction, instead of calling alternative viewpoints simply "adversiaral"

Gosh.

I haven't been on MN in a while so I'm obviously out of the loop.

Last time I had a feminist discussion on here, in the feminist section, it was a lot more explorational, and a whole bunch less adversarial. Yunno, in a rocking the status quo, feminist kind of way.

That you disagree with me is one thing. To paint me as illogical or extremest is quite another (particularly through potentially offensive references to people who question vaccination, etc).

I find it despairing that the status quo being questioned on a feminist board creates all this aggression.

I think it is a disrespect thing, similar to spitting on someones face, except the woman is expected to take it. It can't be very pleasant and must be so awkward, like what are you supposed to do, just stare lovingly into their eyes as they jizz on your face???

I suspect that everyone struggles with the political vs the personal to an extent. Eroticism and why we find things erotic can be difficult to explain even to ourselves, because our sexual responses feel involuntary. I think it's worth questioning ourselves though - and our partners, even if it's as basic as 'Does this actually arouse me or is it something I think should turn me on? If it's the latter, where does that expectation come from?'

For me, it is problematical if a man or woman feels constrained by the boxes they are strait-jacketed into by society, because this is often the enemy of individual sexual expression. Which is why it is hugely ironic that people continue to conflate feminism with a desire to repress human sexuality.

Any length of time spent on the Relationships board tends to open your eyes to this. We see posts all the time from women who are partnered with lazy men and wonder where their sex drive has gone, or from women in sexless relationships complaining that they feel 'less womanly' because their husband doesn't want sex (because men want sex all the time, right?) or from women who have desperately tried to be 'cool' about their partners' use of porn, for fear of appearing oppressive or jealous.

That doesn't sound to me like freedom to be a sexual being.....

beachcomber - have you ever stopped to think about whether the statement "this is a silencing term" not actually is a silencing term?

I wouldn't call anyone illogical just because they disagree with me. I have even said "I don't agree with you, but can see where you're coming from/follow your logic" a few times in recent discussions on this board.

But calling something which is illogical, illogical, is not intellectually lazy or cliched. But just pointing out that there's a breakdown in logic. It's nothing personal.

And WidowWadmen - I have to ask.

Have you been around feminist discussions in a way that has let you know that accusing a woman of shouting/being illogical, just because you don't agree with her, is a bit shoddy/intellectually lazy/clichéd/boorish/silencing/bullying/adversarial/rude?

Genuine question.

WidowWadman, don't go. Are you a feminist? If so, stay!

I think its really important to listen to all feminist voices.

Widow - why should sex be unproblematic? Being aware that there's a debate to be had about relations between men and women, and that heterosexual sex is part of that, doesn't stop anyone from having good sex, does it?

I hadn't been snarky. I was asking questions. But it seems that it's only ok to question the patriarchy, but not feminist ideas ever.

Anyway, I think it's time for me to disengage from this discussion. It has come to the point where it gets as enlightening as discussing measles with an antivaxxer or avogadro's number with a homeopath. Shame really.

Oh and WidowWadman - the reason you will find that most feminists will happily admit that they don't know what things will be like, should patriarchy ever end, is testament to patriarchy's force, pervasion and insidious nature.

A real force to be reckoned with, and not underestimated, if you like.

Snarking about women being honest enough to explore the notion that they find it difficult to see beyond patriarchy (but not for lack of wanting), is hardly progressive.

Quite the opposite.

"I don't really dig that kind of discussion between women."

I for one don't give a fig whether someone I'm discussing with is man or woman. And since I've not gone at hominem but am still discussing at rem I think that's not really warranted.

Personally to me the kind of feminist analysis which has been outlined on this thread over and over again doesn't read very objective to me. And without any counterproposal, not very useful either.

..oh and I am not ignorant of feminist theory. My mum is a feminist academic

Nope.

I'm engaging in feminist analysis. (And of a kind which has been around for ages and can be easily accessed by reading a bit, be it feminist internet spaces or written works. There are quite a lot of women who have given up substantial time and brain space to these issues - they are worth reading IMO).

And I'm not shouting either.

A leetle finesse is what we need now for this discussion to be of value. Otherwise it will just be adversarial, and I don't really dig that kind of discussion between women.