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

[YuleingFanjo]

and in particular a man ejaculating on a woman's face. Sorry - I feel awful writing it down.

I was talking to a friend last night, she is much nore sexually adventurous than I am and she was saying that she thought it was part of normal sexual behaviour, that most men found it a turn on and most people she knew thought it was normal.

I argued that it was something that came from porn, was not what I would call normal and there was no equivilant sexual 'thing' for a woman to do to a man. She said that women can 'gush' (I have never done this, maybe I am abnormal) or piss or poo (!) which I pointed out was a totally different thing. But is it?

I was trying to discuss it with her and point out that her sexual encounters are out of the norm, definitely aren't encounters within a loving relationship, and that ejaculating in someones's face is surely more about disrespect than anything else?

or am I wrong. I just find it really horrible and if anyone asked me to let them do so I would show them the door.

Soory - I hope I don't sound like some hairy trucker trying to get off on the whole thing, and I am not asking for personal experiences (I would prefer not to read them thanks) but more to discuss if I am right about the power/porn/disrespect thing...

Yes, Beachcomber has distilled it all very neatly in that post above.

There will be no agreement on this so long as some people see porn as a tool of patriarchy and source of harm for women and children and others see porn as a completely benign form of entertainment.

Ahh VictorGollanz, I wish you would. You have a way with words about you. You too KRITIQ.

Thank you though. Thanks to everyone else for an interesting discussion.

"There will be no agreement on this so long as some people see porn as a tool of patriarchy and source of harm for women and children and others see porn as a completely benign form of entertainment."

But the above only applies if all porn was the same. I mean, where in your definition starts porn, or stripping for that matter?

But all porn is the same. There is a spectrum of violence, the acts and the people being filmed vary, but it is essentially all the same thing.

When I talk about porn, I mean porn. Films intended to arouse and to be used as a masturbation facilitator (or in some cases to be introduced into one's private relations with a partner).

Same for stripping. Stripping is taking one's clothes off and displaying one's body for the entertainment (and or titillation) of an audience. Again there are variations of what sort of clothes are taken off and how body parts are displayed but it is all the same thing.

(And I include burlesque, porn made by women, etc in the above - they are all the same thing. The sexism and the binary gendered power dynamic and/or sub/dom patriarchal dynamic, is always the same.)

I completely disagree that porn is always the same.

Lots of people do yellowraincoat.

I don't mean it is all the same as in the scenarios are all the same.

I mean it is all an expression of patriarchal paradigms of sexuality.

Yes I got what you mean.

So would porn also include nude paintings, actors involved in erotic scenes, wood carvings or stone carvings?

Also if we are talking about taking off clothing for the titillation of others, female wrestlers, boxers gymnasts? Dancers of most kinds wear less clothing specificley for the purpose of showing more flesh.. Now yes all of these are objectification and all are wrong, however what my point is saying that if you want to impose those kind of restrictions your looking at much more than films. OMG looking was so not what I should have said sorry peeps.

Yes, sorry I said films because so much of modern porn is filmed. I should have said media (magazines for example).

Some posters might find the following interesting. Gail Dines on the history of pornography - which in the commercial sense began in the 50s with Playboy.

I'm not sure why you think that pornography started with Playboy. Is the problem you (and Gail Dines) have is that people make money from it?

The whole conference presentation is brilliant actually so here are the rest of the links.

OK the modern patriarcialcapitalist genre of pornography if you prefer.

The one that has gone viral.

Dirty postcards and the witterings of the Marquis de Sade are of course older and also pornographic. They are part of a different genre. And an extremely different distribution process. And a different impact.

Gail Dines does actually explain where she is coming from if you bother to watch.

I have seen it already Beachcomber, so I don't need to "bother" to watch and you don't have to get all humpty because some people don't want to watch an hour long presentation.

I see where she and you are coming from, but I'm not buying it.

I don't think you can take all modern pornography and lump it together. Where does that leave gay pornography? Feminist-made pornography? Pornography where men are used?

I think it's a simplistic way of looking at things.

Oh well I'm surprised you asked your above question then - it gave the impression that you were criticizing something you hadn't seen, because the question you asked is answered in the presentation.

I'm off out so I don't have time to discuss different niches of pornography. I already said what I think. They are variations of the same thing.

It's far from simplistic. It's holistic.

It is however simply disingenuous to seek comparisons with porn where gay men abuse other men, when women pretend that the porn they make empowers other women (yet still includes degradation and violence towards them) or when women commit sexual violence towards men......

......when we don't have a society where the degrader group has the power and where it isn't the type of porn demanded and consumed by the vast majority of users.

Patriarchy and porn go hand-in-hand. The latter wouldn't exist without the former.

AyeRobot Thu 16-Feb-12 19:27:01

Just like the "Is PIV powerful?" thread, this one is almost all about the women. In some cases of feminist analysis, the what about the men question is valid. Do men think that j izzing on the face is degrading?

And after frequenting various male dominated forums and partaking in a fair amount of eavesdropping, I think lots of them do. Or at least, they give that impression in their "banter". And that's not just words, no matter how jokey it is. I don't even mean that they truly feel it, necessarily, but the casual acceptance of that attitude is a is problem.

Well, yes I do think it is degrading. I have read this thread and have to say in all honesty I have had one partner whose face I have come over on purpose; this was because she asked me to. I did feel, and still do feel, uneasy. This was from 1999-2004, and we never watched porn together. She also introduced me to anal, but she had lived in Greece for 5 years.

Having said that, my biggest turn on is when a woman ejaculates on my face. I was discusssing this with a couple of my lesbian friends a bit back, and apparently it's the same for them.

Amongst my male friends, none of them have experienced female ejaculation, and only one likes to come on his partners face.

While I'm sure there's probably some lesbian porn out there featuring honest-to-goodness lesbians, there's the small matter that most 'lesbian' pornography is made for men to watch. And I don't see anything to be celebrated about gay men (who also suffer in a patriarchy) adopting the position of women.

As far as this thread goes, the popular representation of men coming on women's faces (as in, outside of our bedrooms) that have been cited are the Marquis de Sade and contemporary pornography. This does not strike me as particularly weighty evidence that it is not a misogynistic practice.

Patriarchies like penises (that is, after all, the point of them). The pornographic depiction of coming on a woman's face allows the viewer to witness a close-up of an ejaculating cock, with the recipient in a submissive position.

The recipient might well be on their knees, recieving the sacred offering of a powerful individual. Now, where do I know that pose from?

It's hardly a gigantic leap of faith to presume that this act, depicted over and over again in pornography, reinforces male power over women.

The recipient might well be on their knees, recieving the sacred offering of a powerful individual. Now, where do I know that pose from?

Ah, I'm glad you said it VictorGollanz.

It does seem fairly, em, obvious really.

In the bright morning of a new day, I'd like to point out that no, my post of last night does not mean that I am criticising anyone for being the recipient.

Trying to make an analysis of broad sexual practices line up with what goes on in individual bedrooms seems to me like trying to square a particularly pointless circle.

You have to ask yourself why men want to cum on a woman's face and see their ejaculate there. The answer isn't a good one, however much people go on about "women choose it".

Also I think if you google porn facials you'll probably get a good idea of the misogyny of the practice.

Arguing against the idea that ejaculating on a woman's face isn't about degrading women, is a bit like arguing that nailing a cross to a black person's garden in the US deep south has got nothing to do with racism.

Oh and the bit about men claiming that facial shows that a woman "accepts" them and their semen, is a massive piece of manipulation. Along with the claim that if you swallow sperm it's good for your skin.

Never understood why so many women fell for that one, and christ knows why women think that the guy who is busy spraying his semen on her face cares about her or her wellbeing. He's using her as a porn fetish.

Semen has never had the stigma of menstrual blood.

If we're talking acceptance of the other, men should be going around with bloodied faces once a month. It wouldn't be degrading as what people get up to in their own bedrooms is impossible to analyse.

Start with the guys in advertising who think it's blue.