Semen Facials Are Like Weddings
Last week, The Frisky writer Jessica Wakeman stood up in defense of the facial. Wakeman argued that the old porn standby—whereby a man ejaculates onto a woman’s face—isn’t inherently demeaning, as long the woman wants it. “In some porn films, the facial is played up to emphasize his humiliation of and domination of her, but in other porn flicks, the money shot is just something the actors do,” she wrote. “In real life, I suspect facials happen more for pleasure than for humiliation, seeing as women have a little thing called self-respect.”
But Wakeman errs in her either/or assumption about the sex act: that facials are either grounded in mutual respect, and elicit pleasure, or are grounded in degradation, and elicit humiliation. In fact, facials can imply all of these things, though we rarely analyze it all in the moment. Plenty of sex acts made popular in mainstream pornography, like facials, are based on achieving male pleasure. Under this model, the female’s pleasure is derived by successfully pleasing the male—and in the process, allowing herself to be degraded. As Amanda Marcotte writes, “our culture constructs sex as something women do for men, and men do for fun.” That model of sexuality is undoubtedly objectifying for women. But it nevertheless—voilà!—conjures up an idea of “pleasure” for both sex partners.
Interestingly, Wakeman concedes that the facial is an act loaded with objectification and subjugation—in porn. When this act is removed from the context of pornography and placed into the bedroom of a Man and Woman Who Love Each Other Very Much, however, those demeaning undertones disappear for Wakeman. I can understand that: actually thinking about the implications of why we like jizz on our face tends to put a damper on the whole mutual-attraction-to-degradation thing. So what do we do? We compartmentalize. When porn stars do it, it’s degrading; when we do it, it’s respectful:
I think leaving facials up to the porn stars—actors who are making the facial appear to humiliate the woman—is what keeps it looking demeaning. Certainly some facials are depicted in porn as humiliating or degrading, but not every man who wants to give a facial wants it to degrade and humiliate just like it looks onscreen. Many do love and respect their partners, and know, to varying degrees, that porn isn’t real. Likewise, some of those female partners enjoy the act as well.
When Wakeman liberates the facial from the demeaning clutches of the porn industry, she performs a useful little trick for us feminists—she separates her sex life from her personal philosophy. We all perform this function in our daily lives—detesting cruelty to animals while eating meat, denouncing philanderers while cheating on our wives, denouncing corporate America while smoking cigarettes. But it’s a particularly common move when it comes to sex. Why? Because getting off is very necessary, very much informed by a tradition of male dominance over women, and can be very, very hard to accomplish if you only allow yourself to get off progressively. Of course, that doesn’t mean that enjoying performing or receiving facials means that you hate women, or that you have no self-respect, or that you’re a bad feminist. It just means that the patriarchy affects a lot of the things that we perform and enjoy on a daily basis, and it’s good to remember that our attempts to recast these acts as “empowering” isn’t so much transgressive as it is convenient.
See, facials are like weddings. We all know that the institution of marriage is one of the patriarchy’s all-time greatest hits, in which women are sold into sexual slavery from father to husband in exchange for livestock. And yet, who derives the greatest joy from weddings? Women! It’s the craziest thing. But even though we all know that weddings were clearly institutionalized to facilitate the willing subjugation of women, feminists figure out a way to do it anyway. Why? Probably because even though we all know it’s sexist as fuck, weddings—like facial ejaculation—still make some people happy. And feminists deserve to be happy, too. But that doesn’t mean we should forget about the sexist tropes that sometimes inform our happiness (and our sex lives).
Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.
Blogs Linking to this Article
-
Linked From: August 28th, 2009The Week’s Most Popular Blog Post - The Sexist - Washington City Paper
4:01 pm[...] prostitutes’ hygiene habits are too gross for television. 1. Semen Facials Are Like Weddings. Less expensive, [...]
-
Linked From: August 31st, 2009Sexist Comments of the Week: Semen Facials Edition - The Sexist - Washington City Paper
10:56 am[...] week, “Semen Facials Are Like Weddings” was the perfect storm of Sexist comments. The facial ejaculation rant drew comments from [...]
-
Linked From: September 21st, 2009Name That Consent Porn! - The Sexist - Washington City Paper
9:38 am[...] But more than pornography’s peculiar sexual obsessions—group sex, mandatory facials, and “porn-star trim” vaginas—I’m worried about what mainstream Internet [...]
2:07 pm
I wholeheartedly disagree.
You’re essentially condemning particular sexual acts as non-progressive, regardless of the attitudes of the people involved. I find that to be a really sex negative rabbit hole. Is the man being on top also counter to feminist ideals? Biting/spanking/oral sex? What if it’s a same-sex couple – is a power differential possible there? And let’s not forget about female ejaculation – is that similarly degrading to the recipient?
Rather than labeling specific sex acts as progressive or non-progressive, it seems more productive to develop a progressive attitude about sex, heralding things like:
- Enthusiastic consent: consent should not merely be assumed from the absence of the word “no”, but a desiring “yes” from both partners
- Communication/negotiation: partners should feel free to communicate what they like and don’t like, and do their best to accommodate their partner’s sexual desires while maintaining their own personal boundaries.
- Sex is about BOTH pleasing and being pleased. It’s your responsibility to make sure both you and your partner get off in a way that’s pleasing to both of you. I don’t think it’s non-feminist of me to want to give my partner (be it a he or she) pleasure. There’s nothing wrong with women giving men pleasure (be it via a facial or however), so long as the women get their just desserts as well (however they may want it).
It’s not good for feminists to play sexual thought police, or to instill guilt in someone who likes to do someone else might find degrading. Isn’t it more progressive and feminist to say, “This is how *I* want to get off”, than to shame women by saying the things they desire sexually are anti-feminist? Shouldn’t we allow for some diversity? Different strokes, as they say.
3:13 pm
Okay. What does this do for those of us (and yes, I admit, I am talking about myself here) who, for some reason, LOVE being humiliated in bed? I mean, I can’t help it that I get turned on when I am spanked, slapped, and jizzed on! I really love the abuse, and (as long as its with someone who knows my limits) it makes sex SO MUCH BETTER!
Am I anti-feminist? I don’t think so. I’m reading “Yes Means Yes” right now to further attempt to understand/justify/get down with my kink.
3:42 pm
jules — Stacey May Fowles’ essay on “The Fantasy of Acceptable ‘Non-Consent’” in that book is amazing! One of the best points she makes is that the BDSM community often spends the MOST time dissecting, talking through, and ensuring total and free consent to whatever sex acts they’re into. Mainstream porn, not so much. And I’d argue that a lot of sexual relationships end up inheriting those sex acts from porn without the thought that BDSM often lends to the underlying issues. It’s an interesting issue, because while gender roles (and yes, sexual roles) have everything to do with feminism, I think that feminism is also grounded in the idea that a woman’s sex acts (and wedding vows) should be hers to choose and consent to, right. But I do think that it’s still important to also be aware of where this stuff might be coming from, why we like it, etc.
3:44 pm
I think, for all our talk about sex being something men do for fun, a hefty chunk care just as much about being wanted by and pleasing to women. When I’ve been fortunate enough to receive facials from a few Very Nice Boys, I think they’ve gotten off more on the notion of their semen getting me off as anything else.
7:38 pm
I’m a man, so I realize that some readers will disagree with me on principle, but here’s my two cents.
Giving a facial is something I enjoy. I’m not going to try and sugarcoat it, I love the feeling of standing over my wife after she has taken care of my needs and depositing the fruits of her labor all over her face.
Does it happen often? No. My wife isn’t into cleaning cum out of her nose/eyes/hair/ears very much, so it’s not often. But, sometimes, when it’s hot and raunchy and she WANTS to give me that bit of extra pleasure, then she gets me off on her face.
I don’t think there’s anything in any of that that conflicts with feminism. I don’t demand it of her, but I let my desire be known to her, and she decides if she’s in the mood to do it.
8:14 pm
The politics of external ejaculation are… interestingly complex.
On the one hand it’s, seriously, not nearly as physically enjoyable for men to ejaculate outside their own partner. On the other hand there’s this business where men are supposed to enjoy the psychological aspect of “marking” their partner with their semen. On the one hand it’s more “natural” for the man to ejaculate inside his partner’s body. On the other hand external ejaculation drastically minimizes risks of pregnancy and STI transmission. On the one hand so-called “money shots” can be constructed as masturbatory conclusion to sex-with-a-partner-as-porn self-stimulation. On the other hand a very large number of women require manual stimulation to have orgasms when “sex” is defined as intercourse. And on the one hand women are perceived to be the passive recipient of external ejaculation. On the other hand women are very often directly rather than passively involved in the stimulation leading to ejaculation. On the one hand people (men and women) are criticized for being overly fastidious about women’s bodily fluids. On the other hand people are criticized for not being sufficiently fastidious about men’s bodily fluids. On the one hand many women are either unable to register male ejaculation (vaginal intercourse) or to find its taste or texture disagreeable. On the other hand droplets of body-temperature liquid landing on the body is easily felt and, depending on the circumstances, pleasant. (For instance warm oil dripped on the back, face, legs, or torso during a massage is uncommon but feels heavenly.) On the one hand internal ejaculation is just about as (Biblically) Patriarchal as it gets. On the other hand external ejaculation violates virtually every principle of traditional Patriarchal heterosexuality. On the one hand it’s supposed to be very bad for semen to land on a woman’s body. On the other hand during masturbation semen routinely lands on men’s bodies.
All these different hands leave aside entirely the very real and not necessarily contradictory notions that external ejaculation is demeaning and/or empowering.
My point is that by combing through the very broad range of reactions and responses one can produce (a.k.a. construct) meanings towards which one is predisposed. If one is disposed against it one misses quite a few interesting patriarchy-subverting and risk-mitigating possibilities. If one is disposed in favor one must overlook some deep (lower-case p) patriarchal elements.
If I may sound deeply cynical, if you really object to external ejaculation of any sort, especially in porn, the best way to reverse the trend is to advocate strongly feminist constructions of it. To the extent porn is reflexively anti-feminist that ought to sharply reverse the trend. :-(
As for the porn thing: given that everything in the kind of porn you’re talking about, including use of the words “and” and “the” are presented as subjugating of women I’m unpersuaded by arguments that facials are uniquely degrading because they appear in porn. To give up everything that happens in porn, and that’s presented as subjugating, would be to give up everything. Including elevator rides, pizza deliveries, and masturbation at home alone. That doesn’t mean that porn is hunky dory. It’s very often the opposite. It does mean that just as one shouldn’t rely on porn as a model for appropriate sexuality one also shouldn’t use it as the basis for one’s approval or disapproval.
figleaf
8:45 pm
I completely agree with Katie about the danger of labeling consensual sex acts as “unfeminist” because of how they are exploited by the porn industry or the media. To think about it, most sexual acts can be (and have been) used in some way to degrade women. Take “girl on girl” sex, for instance. If a woman who normally has sex with men wants to try sex with a woman, are you gonna question her motifs and say she is only doing so because because that would play into a pornographic male fantasy? I think establishing a blanket definition of specific consensual sex acts as “degrading to women” and implying that the women who engage in those acts are “brainwashed” by patriarchy is insulting to those women who do not associate their (and their partner’s) pleasure, sperm, their face and any combination of the above with being “unfeminist.”
9:21 pm
I love, love, love giving facials, but only, only, only when the girl I am with wants one. I love giving facials because they make me feel hot, and I love licking my own cum off the girl’s face and kissing her with cum on both of our lips – so when I give a facial, the girl isn’t the only one ending up with the cum on her face – so much for domination.
And I love it when a girl squirts on my face, too, because it makes her feel hot and it makes me feel soaked in sex, just like when a girl soaks my balls with her cum, which I like, too, and also like licking hot chicks’ asses – not just rimming but actually fucking their asses with my tongue – so who’s dominating who?
I only purposely give a facial when the girl has clearly indicated that she wants one, and have known several girls that insist that I cum on their faces even when I am ready to blow my load somewhere else. The first time I came on a girl’s face, she had been motioning and verbally hinting for me to do it for months, and soon thereafter, she would position herself when I was about to cum to make sure she got every drop even when I was clearly content to cum elsewhere. Another girl I dated like to swap my cum, including with other girls whose faces I was cumming on in threesomes or foursomes, but one of those other girls, during a foursome at a swinger’s club, would not position herself next to my girlfriend and insisted she get all of my cum, a request which I obliged. While I was about to unload, my girlfriend was fingering this girl’s ass, something, in combination with the facial I administered, which caused the girl to squirting all over me while the scene was going down, and I had another girlfriend who, like clockwork, simultaneously released whenever I would cum on her. Since I like cumming on a girl’s face because it makes me feel hot, I do not want to cum on a girl’s face unless she wants me to.
I have better orgasms when I cum on a girl’s face since I know I am free to blow my load to my heart’s content, whereas when a girl asks me to cum on her tits but not on her face, I am always worried that I might not have the best aim and will end up cumming on her face, too. Since this often happens, I hold back when I cum on tits and don’t cum with as much force and often feel like, and still actually have, another load in me waiting to imminently come out. Simply put, when I cum on tits, I don’t feel nearly as finished as when I cum on a face or when a girl wants me to cum in her mouth. And I feel genuinely badly when I cum in a girl’s eye because it stings so badly.
That having been said, that brings up weddings. As much as I like cumming on girls’ faces, I would give it up forever – and never once cum on another girl’s face – in exchange for a ban on opposite sex marriage. An opposite sex marriage ban is one of the precepts of Guyinism, of which I am Founder.
So much for the patriarchy theory. Sorry, but with the up-front exchange of livestock out of the equation, opposite sex marriage just doesn’t work anymore. It gets in the way of hot sex. Without the specter of marriage and all its complications, even the semen-facial loving bisexual girls I know seem to get down and dirty more casually with fellow girls.
Silly girls – in the 21st century, except for guys who are lucky to have anyone at all, weddings are for girls. And so are a damn lot of semen facials. Stop thinking so much, and lets just have fun.
9:31 pm
Hey, guys? Um, Amanda isn’t really taking a stand on whether facials are feminist/empowering or degrading/humiliating. She’s talking about Wakeman’s rhetorical move that makes facials okay despite Wakeman’s assessment of facials as rooted in degradation. In fact, Amanda seems to support this rhetorical move — compartmentalizing politics away from one’s personal/sex life — because it helps feminists keep their sanity and their libido. The point is that we shouldn’t compartmentalize the politics part so far away that it disappears.
9:38 pm
This is a porn generated sex act. It didn’t even exist (except as an accident) a couple of years ago.
Blowing a load on a woman’s (or a man’s) face is inherently demeaning. That’s why its in porn in the first place, to demean and degrade.
If some women want to pretend there’s anything else to it, so be it. They’re only fooling themselves.
9:54 pm
Facials are best compared to spitting in someone’s face. That’s how they function in porn. The woman has been sexually available, and therefore is degraded, and so after getting off with her body, a man should reaffirm the patriarchal loathing of the sexual female by showing his contempt for a woman by spitting in her face. With his cock. In some porn, the facial became too obscure because of eager rationalizations, so instead they literally spit in a woman’s face or fling money at her while kicking her to the curb. The main thing is making sure the message is sent—a woman who fucks is scum and should be treated as such.
Thus it’s not “anti-sex” to criticize the facial. The facial is anti-sex. The facial says that women who have sex deserve to have men spit in their faces. Fuck that.
10:39 pm
Amanda,
Earth to Amanda Marcotte: most of us guys in this country under about, oh, age 90 or so, love girls that have lots of sex and that have hot sex.
I love facials – giving, watching, and if a girl can squirt, getting facials, too – but I don’t at all get this spitting thing. Under your theory, as a facial-lover, I should love the spitting – I don’t, and I turn off a video as soon as I see spitting – yet I comb the internet looking for cum shot after cum shot. “Fuck the preliminaries,” I say much of the time – “show me the money shot.” Go figure.
I have a theory the spitting actually caters to guys who really want to be spitting on the faces of women who are anti-sex, and/or women who won’t have sex with them. But who would watch a video of a guy just spitting on womens’ faces if the video didn’t involve sex? And the type of women whose faces a lot of guys would want to see spit on are the same type of women who would never agree to do such a video.
Personally, I think spitting is disgusting. I don’t want to see anyone get spit upon. Well, maybe Bernie Madoff, but you know what I mean.
10:47 pm
Gayle, I don’t follow your “Blowing a load on a woman’s (or a man’s) face is inherently demeaning. That’s why its in porn in the first place, to demean and degrade” logic. Why is it inherently demeaning? What about something being in porn with the sole purpose of demeaning and degrading – how do you know that? What about other sexual acts in porn – aren’t any of them meant to demean and degrade? And if sex is used in porn to demean/degrade, should we now stop having it?
To Amanda Marcotte – I just wanted to question the validity of your spitting/ejaculation comparison. Granted, both are acts of expelling fluid from the body, but it seems to me that that is where the similarity ends. At least I hope it does – spitting, after all, is a socially constructed concept, which is how it acquires its negative meaning. Who would advocate for ejaculation to have a negative meaning? When a man ejaculates into a woman’s vagina no one considers it “spitting” at her vagina. Or, is it more “ok” to “spit” at/in a woman’s vagina than her face? Because the face is so much more “proper” than a vagina, therefore “spitting” at a face is not ok but spitting at the vile dirty vagina is?
I don’t mean any disrespect with my comments, just trying to get across how I believe these to be negatively constructed concepts that do not necessarily need to be so – kind of feels that the whole uproar about facials arises mostly from the face+ejaculate concept, as if one part of someone’s body (the face) is inherently “better” than someone else’s body fluid…for all I care, people can sh*t in p*ss in each other faces, if they both get off on it, more power to them.
3:55 am
Good rules to live by:
1) If your partner isn’t into roses, don’t bring her roses. Not even if you’ve seen them in 10,000 romance movies. Not even if your last 12 partners loved them. No matter how much you enjoy giving roses.
2) If your partner isn’t into cleaning cum out of her nose/eyes/hair/ears very much, don’t ejaculate in her nose/eyes/hair/ears. Not even if you’ve seen it in 10,000 porn clips. Not even if your last 12 partners thought it was hawtt. No matter how much you enjoy doing it.
And here’s why. It’s not because it’s annoying or aggravating, though it might be. It’s not because it’s disrespectful, though it certainly is. It’s because for your partner to tolerate it he or she must condescend to you… to see you as less than her equal. As someone she might need, and even care for, but not particularly want the way we tend to be wanted by our partners. And, trolling through Cosmo for “to be fairs,” “to be fair” the same can be said for women who check their partner’s email or phone logs or who throw out their partner’s clothes they don’t like. Those activities, like, unwanted facials or roses, or lawn-mowers for birthdays men might give their partners, are not only disrespectful they trigger disrespect. One can “indulge” one’s children, pets, or annoying acquaintances but with indulgence comes lack of respect for the individual indulged.
So there: have I said you shouldn’t come in a reluctant partner’s face because it’s bad, wrong, immoral, or porn-inspired? Not at all. You can continue to defend it on those grounds as passionately as you wish and I won’t dispute you at all. Instead I’ve tidily sidestepped that entirely by pointing out that to do so and be tolerated is to be (deservedly) condescended to. And possibly mocked or otherwise diminished behind one’s back by those most likely to have leverage on your reputation with future partners sexual or otherwise.
figleaf
7:02 am
YB, Is beating someone up inherently wrong? How about stealing from someone? Is murder a bad thing or are we just conditioned to think so?? I mean who’s to say? It’s all so arbitrary!
*eyeroll*
It’s a hoot reading all the men here who have used this post as an excuse to tell us how they just LOOOVE to splooge on faces. And all the “ink” they waste defending it! It’s their most favorite thing to do EVA! No need for them (or us) to think about why.
Since you’re all so into it, why don’t you just jizz all over each other? I don’t see why you need to involve us women in it– at all. You certainly don’t need a vagina or any other piece of female anatomy to do it. Just whack off on each other’s faces and splooge away! Take turns, have a blast.
Then buy each other a beer. Watch a game together while your facials dry. Tell each other there’s nothing inherently degrading about it.
Just leave us out of it.
8:49 am
Gayle:
Very cutting assertion that men = gay.
Did you notice that every man on this thread who has defended facials has made the explicit point that they only engage in said practice when it is -consensual-? That means, when their partner wants it, asks for it, gets off on it?
As if it matters: I’m a guy who’s not even into facials. Neither giving nor receiving. But you seem to want to enforce your own sexual morality code against every other individual’s personal sexual life. Even when two people come together to consent to a harmless act that they both enjoy, they should first have to call up Ms. Gayle and ask her permission to indulge themselves a little. To check that it’s okay with her personal world view.
You’re welcome to apply whatever sexual moral standards to your own life that you like. You want to sleep around? Fantastic. You’d rather be a prude? Great!
Just leave everyone else out of it.
8:53 am
And before anyone thinks they can make themselves look clever by pointing out an implicit Madonna/Whore complex in my post:
I was referring to the two extremes ’sleep around? Fantastic’ and ‘prude? Great!’ in a defence of sexual autonomy. I fully recognise the thousand shades of grey so don’t even go there.
9:08 am
So, Gayle, what are you saying: facials should be against the law unless they are only between guys? If a woman asks me to give her one, I should decline, and if I don’t, she can call the cops?
The inherent problem here is that woman have organized groups and crackpot academicians concocting all sorts of theories about why guys are evil and how everything we do is evil and about power. Of course, almost none of it is. We’re not as devious and calculating as you give us credit for – we’re not as devious and calculating as so many of you.
Which brings me to a related discussion – what is the real sex-reversed equivalent of a facial, given that sex to guys is what money is to women. Back in the 80s, when women chipped in for dates, women almost invariably ordered inexpensive salad. Once things switched back such that guys were expected to pay for the entire date again, women almost universally began ordering expensive filet mignon and ordering dessert. Therefore, I posit that when a woman orders the almost-obligatory filet mignon, she is often, in effect, subjugating the guy with a female facial, though she might also be just ordering filet mignon because she likes it.
Of course, that’s just one example. A couple of weeks ago, a girl I was dating brought me to a store and asked me to buy her some outfits. She asked how many I was willing to buy, and, knowing she had to pee, the store was closing, and figuring she would keep it within reason, I told her to buy as many as she wanted, figuring that meant only 3 or 4. Instead, she went to the register with 16 and assorted pieces of jewelry. In effect, when she asked how many she could buy, I had meant that she could, in effect, cum on my tits. By buying 16 outfits and jewelry, she in effect violated my request and came on my face.
So, if as you propose, we are going to make male-administered facials illegal, lets make all female-administered facials illegal. For instance, lets make it illegal for women to order filet mignon when guys are paying for it.
Anyway, chew on that (no pun intended).
9:23 am
“L”, if you don’t mind, I’m going to re-post your comment because you appear to be the only person with a brain:
Hey, guys? Um, Amanda isn’t really taking a stand on whether facials are feminist/empowering or degrading/humiliating. She’s talking about Wakeman’s rhetorical move that makes facials okay despite Wakeman’s assessment of facials as rooted in degradation. In fact, Amanda seems to support this rhetorical move — compartmentalizing politics away from one’s personal/sex life — because it helps feminists keep their sanity and their libido. The point is that we shouldn’t compartmentalize the politics part so far away that it disappears.
9:29 am
Just to add a little “fact check”, I believe the external shot was originally added to movies more as an indication of the ending of a scene. Think about it, as a viewer, what else is there? a bunch of panting, sweating and grunting. I suspect they started this external shot to prove more that the guy was actually getting off. Granted, now it has been used in a number of different ways.
11:03 am
Holy crap, Gayle. A thing that is not inherently HARMFUL is not inherently demeaning. You’re just full of circular arguments. Nothing is just demeaning or just wrong. There has to be a reason. And “because it’s offensive to me” doesn’t count. What are some concrete reasons that facials are inherently demeaning? Unlike the actual hamful acts you compared them to, I’m pretty sure you can’t think of a single actual reason. And if you think facials were invented by porn, you are delusional.
Do you know what IS inherently demeaning? Telling me that I’m fooling myself if I like cum on my face. Thanks, Gayle, for taking ownership of my pleasure and agency. Thank you for dehumanizing me and reducing me to the level of an ignorant child who needs to be told what I am allowed to do in my own bedroom. Everything you’ve said about sex acts I enjoy is a million times more soul-crushing than having the bodily fluid of someone I love all over me.
11:29 am
Amanda Hess said what I was going to about the difference between facials in porn and facials in a relationship. You can have enthusiastic consent in a relationship, not so much in porn. You can talk about power and implications in a relationship, not in porn. These are pretty fundamental differences.
11:41 am
Thank you for expressing a reality I was just pondering in the context of religion and sexism. Because sex, like religion, provide something women need, many of us find ways to talk ourselves out of what we know to be the sexist foundations of it. We know better, but for right now, we’re content to ignore the problems on behalf of immediate pleasure (or, in the case of religion, comfort).
That in itself of course doesn’t mean such a woman cannot still be a stalwart warrior against sexism – just that we’re all hypocrites, in some ways.
11:50 am
Terrils…is that really true? That if we like male dominated sex we’re hypocrites? I don’t disagree, but that’s tough to swallow…haha.
Maybe some of us like submitting control because we never get to do it in our real lives? Day to day I’m a tough, loud mouthed, empowered lady. Giving that up for a few hours is absolutely thrilling, its like taking on another identity.
11:52 am
Gayle, please define “a couple of years ago.” I mean, “a couple” (7 or 8) years ago, I vividly remember having a conversation with one of my friends about this very subject. It was about the stinging eyes problem. It’s something I never realized was a problem, because I have worn glasses since the dawn of time (and am so blind I can’t even see my partner clearly without them, and I LIKE to see my partner). Interesting how we were having this conversation a couple of years ago about an act that we had been performing for a couple more years before that, given that it didn’t even exist “a couple of years ago.”
While we all have our topic that we would LIKE to be the thought/act police on (14 babies (okay, even 4 babies)…you’re banished to Mars!…tee hee, that’s mine), it’s best that we refrain. We can debate the merits of the act, practice, or topic with those participating, try to get them to see our point of view, but at the end of the day each person must pick their own path, in everything. Only when the particular topic begins to have serious affects on others/society at large is legal intervention appropriate. On this topic, the naysayers have provided little in the way of convincing argument that when this act is performed between two consenting partners, it’s inherently harmful to the receiver. And sex is one of those special topics where a “whatever floats your boat, so long as it’s consensual” approach is especially important. After all, so long as both (all) parties are of sound mind, legal age, and consenting, the act is almost always harmless to others (and yes, I realize that “sound mind,” “legal age,” and “consent” are all debatable concepts, let’s take them in this context to mean aware of the likely consequences of the act on themselves and their partner(s), not committing or the victim of a legal crime defined by chronological age in completing the act, and affirmatively stating a desire for the act in question to take place).
Personally, if this act was incorporated into porn for the purposes of degrading the woman, I believe that doing it and enjoying it is a powerful statement akin to taking back demeaning terms for minorities. But do whatever floats your boat and I’ll do the same.
12:04 pm
Jules, you’re not a hypocrite. Clearly, you understand the sociological history of the preferences you find so thrilling. Given that, you’re supporting a system that allows people to choose between what was, and whatever else they might dream up, in whatever combination they choose. It’s not submission like the sociologically constructed submission, because you CHOOSE it. Submitting to someone who understands that your submission is a CHOICE is the icing on the cake. You would never be with someone who demanded someone who didn’t want to submit do so, right? Heck, I doubt you’d be with someone who demanded you submit in a way or area of your life that you weren’t comfortable submitting.
CHOICE is the key, that’s what defines freedom. What you choose matters less than having the choice. My analogy is a woman who is raised by strict, religious parents who homeschool her, never expose her to anything other than the home and church culture, and arrange her life for her until a husband takes over the duties of ordering her around. They had no choice, that choice was taken away by the parents/church. Someone with knowledge of other options (even if they don’t always view them as such), with the opportunity to break away from that life (regardless of how hard it might be, think of the time the Amish send their kids out to see what the outside world is like with the opportunity to leave the community at this time), had a choice. Someone fully exposed to society, with the means to make a decision of their choosing, has freedom of choice. You have freedom of choice, and that’s what’s crucial, not what the ultimate choice is.
12:16 pm
wow, dirkjohansen. are you 14? money is like sex for women? i can’t even comprehend the level of misogyny it takes to write that statement seriously. i feel very sorry for any woman unfortunate enough to have sex with someone who believes she’s only in it for the money, not for her own enjoyment. makes it remarkably easy to disregard her pleasure, doesn’t it, if women really like money, and not sex.
also, note to doodz commenting on this post: NO ONE IS INTERESTED IN THE DETAILS OF YOUR SEX LIVES. i know this is hard to understand when all of western culture is devoted to glorifying the masculine sex drive, but seriously, cut it out. your privilege is showing.
as for facials: amanda hess hits it right on the head. did the originate in an anti-woman place? undoubtedly. does that mean that enjoying them means you are anti-woman? no. it’s not very hard to acknowledge patriarchal roots and still find a way to enjoy something personally. it is just important to remember that just because YOU enjoy it, doesn’t mean all women should.
1:19 pm
RE: L and Match:
I think that Amanda oversimplifies Jessica’s argument. Her estimation of what Jessica says is, “Facials = bad in porn, but OK in relationships”. What she’s saying, I think, is that relationships where consent, consideration, and communication come into play, allow that sexual act to be something that is engaged in such that the parties continue to mutually respect each other. I think it preposterous that a sexual encounter should be defined by a single act that was engaged in (presumably they did other things too, right?). Why does a facial make the entire encounter about a “women taking pleasure from pleasing a man”? And what exactly is demeaning about that? Half the fun of sex is pleasing your partner, isn’t it?
All in all, I disagree with Amanda’s thesis, and I think that, in making it, she strongly insinuates that a facial is a degrading act. Why can’t we reclaim the facial, as Jessica suggests? I don’t follow Amanda’s contention that we’re setting aside our morals if we draw a distinction between sex that happens in one’s personal life and sex that happens in pornography. Wouldn’t you say the contexts are different?
I also take issue with the contention that porn is, by its nature, degrading to women, having known a number of sex workers who are smart and well adjusted. But that’s another issue.
1:42 pm
“Giving a facial is something I enjoy. I’m not going to try and sugarcoat it…”
You’ve got your comment of the week right there.
2:16 pm
Dave: How would you sugarcoat that statement anyway? I don’t know if that statement could be sugarcoated, even if the author wished to do so. Thoughts?
2:55 pm
Dear Gayle, I still don’t see what murder, theft and assault have to do with consensual sexual acts – the only “facials” I’ve been talking about are the ones the woman consents to – in fact, I am primarily defending women who willingly engage in this practice as not necessarily “unfeminist.” What makes murder, theft and assault different is that the person being murdered, robbed or assaulted is not consenting to it. I have a hard time imagining all of those things with consent – consensual murder would probably be euthanasia, consensual theft would be a gift, and consensual assault would probably be some sort of S&M activity. Bottom line is, murder, assault and theft presume the unwillingness of the party onto whom all of these things are done. Ejaculating onto a woman’s face does not presume that.
So my thought on your comparison of murder assault and theft to consensual sexual activity (only when it is consensual, of course).
Also, I would really appreciate it if instead of rolling eyes you addressed my points as I have yours, instead of dismissing them. What about my point regarding how if ejaculating onto someone’s face is hardly different from ejaculating onto(into) the vagina or any other body part? Once again, I think the reason why facials are perceived in such a negative way – indeed, the reason they may be used in porn as a “humiliation” technique – is that people inherently believe ejaculate to be “disgusting” or otherwise unseemly in some way. Incidentally, vagina is also considered an inferior body part, so when disgusting sperm meets eeky vagina its ok. When disgusting sperm meets pretty, “respectable” face, it is a humiliation.
Now, I think its perfectly fine if people don’t like sperm, they have the right to find it disgusting if they want. I find sh*t disgusting, and therefore would consider it offensive is someone were to sh*t on me. But there are those people, for instance, who recognize poop as a natural aspect of one’s physical being (an idea I mentally understand though emotionally can’t get behind), and they therefore have no problem with incorporating poop in sex play.
Similarly, I believe ejaculate to be a natural and welcome part of male sexuality, and my vagina as legitimate a body part as my face. So, if something is “good enough” for my vagina, its “good enough” for my face as well.
I think this attitude does not originate from any sort of patriarchal brainwashing on my part, but I would welcome anyone’s logical and respectful deconstruction of my argument. Just sayin’
6:20 pm
Nic,
I think you’re comment shows more where your head is at than it does mine. You misquote me – I didn’t say women are ONLY in it for the money for anything like that. I just said “sex to guys is what money is to women.” I did not state or imply that guys are into women only for the money. Thus, in order for my statement to be consistent with your accusation, you would have to believe that guys are only in it for the sex. Thus, it is not misogyny by me, but rather your misandry in believing that guys are only into women for sex, that has come to the fore.
The fact of the matter is, guys are not only into women for the sex – we are also into women since we need women to cook and to clean up after us (this last sentence is a joke).
7:40 pm
With all due respect Dirk, what exactly do you mean by “sex to guys is what money is to women?” Here I though sex to (most heterosexual) guys was the same as to (most heterosexual) women, and money is, well, the same for just about everyone, with individual exceptions of course. Are you implying that men and women have inherently different attitude/need for sex and money?
As for women not paying for their own food or stuffing on fillet mignon for the reason of it being free, I doubt there will be many people here to assert that this is a feminist attitude – unfortunately, however, not all women are feminists or are aware of these issues, just like not all men are. I am not surprised by the fact that you have an issue with such behavior – my personal, unsolicited suggestion is to stop dating women who demand a financial investment from their date – after all, it seems to me that dating is about finding someone who shares your beliefs, not directly contradicts them, w.e they say about opposite attraction. I know I would never date a man who believed that women belong in the kitchen.
4:15 pm
you fucking fail at life. this is so illogical, and you expect us to accept hypocrisy because it’s convenient.
10:21 pm
YB,
First, thank you for your excellent posts.
I cannot answer your question with certainty as to whether guys and women have inherently different attitudes/need for sex and money, other than to say, yes, I have no doubt that, at least to some extent, I’m pretty sure there are differences. I’m sure whole books have already been written about the issue, and I’m confident that their conclusion is not that guys and women have 100% identical attitudes and needs for sex and money. Then again, we live in an advanced society, quite far from the caveperson’s jungle, where what is inherent would be a lot easier to discern. Personally, I strongly believe, like most species, our inherent state is that the alpha males mate with large numbers of females – that dynamic alone would by definition mean that we have inherently different attitudes and needs for sex and money.
I can more specifically answer, however, what, in reality, guys and women display, irrespective of what is inherent. And, in reality, guys clearly display that they value attractiveness, a proxy for sex, as primary, and women clearly display that they value money as an important, possibly the single most important, quality in a guy. That doesn’t necessarily mean that women aren’t as into sex as guys, nor does it mean women don’t take into account physical features of a guy (especially height), nor does it mean that guys don’t want to win the lottery as badly as women, or that guys don’t consider whether a woman has children from other guys that he would be expected to support – but it doesn’t mean we are identical, either.
The clearest way to observe reality is through the conduct of the people that have the most mate choices. Wealthy and famous guys almost universally select unusually attractive women – one does not see, for instance, a professional athlete or a movie star with a woman who is overweight. In moments of candor, I am confident the vast majority of guys will affirm that what motivates them to go out and work hard and be successful is to attract desirable women, or a particular desirable woman, or that one of our dreams, or that one of our dreams we already have.
Turning to women, one frequently sees wealthy supermodels and actresses with much older and not particularly well-kept billionaires. Even though wealthy supermodels and actresses don’t need the money, they almost never end up marrying just some good-looking guy they met in the supermarket.
Of course, there are always going to be exceptions.
1:28 am
dirkjohansen. You realize that when you equated a woman receiving a facial to having to shell out for an overpriced dinner that you essentially admitted that it was demeaning act? Thanks!
1:39 am
Yeah, Dirk, exceptions like people who value people as people and not objects. Sure, we can analyze the 1% of the population who are models or actresses, or billionaires, or we can look at real, actual people, who make up 99% of the population.
Your observation about height has some merit. I always felt awkward dating men shorter than me, back in the day. Considering that I’m 5′5, and society dictates that men should be taller than women, that’s not terribly surprising (oh, and that the average man is 5′10, which is 5 full inches taller than me, so there’s plenty of room for below-average-height men…my husband is 5′8, so, while below average, he is taller than me).
So outside of the height thing…it was always the men who were disturbed that I made more than them. Seriously, it became an obsession of me and my girlfriends to decide how to break the bad news to men that we made the same or more than them (the favorite method at first was to casually leave a paycheck stub or employment contract out where they could grab it as soon as we excused ourselves to go to the restroom). Or that we had the same or more advanced degrees, that sucked too. And you know what the end result of that was for me and my girlfriends? Those of us who came to grips with our success and just let it be (no more conveniently located paycheck stubs) met wonderful men (some who made more than us, some the same, and some less), and those who continued to obsess over WOMEN SHOULDN’T MAKE MORE THAN MEN!!! continued to be single and miserable.
The world *has* changed a lot. Maybe you’re dating the wrong women. I know when I first moved to DC, it was a huge issue for me. I mean, I was making the same as my boyfriend at the time, but, thankfully, he was really egalitarian and was cool when after the first date I grabbed the check and paid it. Since then, I have dated men on all parts of the spectrum…those who were offended that I had money of my own, those who were relieved I had money of my own, and those who could care less what money was involved, so long as we were spending time together. I married the guy who brought over a bottle of wine and suggested we drink it sitting in front of the Capitol while perfecting our photography, laughing at tourists, and debating the state of the American political system. Outside of the $10 he spent on the wine, that date was free. And now, he’s not even offended that *I* bought the condo we are about to live in.
If you would like to meet some attractive, successful, empowered, independent women, I know plenty. We’re out at bars that you don’t have to stand in line to get into every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night. I can’t say we won’t laugh at lame pickup lines, but come at us with something a little more material, and we’re really quite friendly. That’s actually a tip…my DH randomly met me on a street corner, and one of his first observations was that upon seeing me, he thought that I would be some powerful, man-hating bitch, but after saying hello, was surprised that I was really friendly as soon as a decent conversation topic was introduced (some well-known legislation that was being debated in Congress…we were on Penn and could see the Capitol…the line was “it looks so beautiful on the outside, how can it be so skeezy inside…is that really what the founders intended?”). That chick in the suit might just be the ticket to something a little more meaningful! :)
4:18 am
I’m a guy that likes giving facials & absolutly loves recieving facials, especially when it’s multiple facials @ once. =-D
9:07 am
TeriSaw
Excellent point. I had realized the flaw my post just after I submitted it, but it was too late to edit it and I figured I’d let it go. I wrote that post in a hurry and I had meant to make a more balanced post.
There are surely facials that are meant to be demeaning, and there are facials that are not meant to be demeaning. When I give a facial, it is never meant to be demeaning, but there are all sorts of porn websites which clearly evince that there are no shortage of guys into demeaning woman via a facial. The overpriced dinner scenario was meant to be an analogy to that type of demeaning facial, especially when the dinner is not appreciated but merely a test of how much money I will spend, such as (just one example) when my date puts her cigarette out in the filet after taking two bites (this has happened with one girl I dated, who makes this a habit with other guys she has dated, too), rendering it unsuitable even for leftovers. Another example is when, a few weeks, ago, after I left a $15 tip on an approximately 85 dinner tab of largely-uneaten food she kept ordering, my date threatened to never see me again unless I left an additional $20, making it a $35 tip on an $85 meal. Another demeaning facial.
On the other hand, there are plenty of times when it is my pleasure to spend a lot on someone – most notably, when I sense that it is appreciated, and/or when I am especially into someone. Those scenarios would be an examples of the non-demeaning facial – I am truly happy to please my date, and derive pleasure from her spending my money, as well. That situation is analogous to the types of semen facials I give.
8:51 pm
“Very cutting assertion that men = gay.
Did you notice that every man on this thread who has defended facials has made the explicit point that they only engage in said practice when it is -consensual-?”
You silly! Never said anything about it being gay. I love the gays. I said they should make it a hetero guy thing. You know, something to do before the big game!
I don’t like the porn addled men on this thread, however. And yes, I know how the porn sick love to say they want it to be consensual. That gives them a free pass!!
See that’s the 800 pound gorilla in the middle of this debate that no one wants to acknowledge: The face jizz is a product of a women hating industry. Many of you want to pretend you didn’t learn this from porn, but you did. It didn’t exist before porn. Hell, it didn’t exist before recent porn. See how easily programmed you are? So malleable!
YM: The obtuse act doesn’t work with me. Don’t sit there and say you don’t understand how “facials” are inherently demeaning and not expect to be called on it.
“But you seem to want to enforce your own sexual morality code against every other individual’s personal sexual life.”
See I give a shit about women and think they should be treated like human beings, even during sex. Your code, I mean your “personal sexual life,” has been created by capitalist assholes with cameras. Bully for you!
1:21 am
To DirkJohanson:
I think I did not phrase my sentiment correctly. In fact, I have to agree with you that for many women money is more important in a relationship than sex, and sex is more important for many guys than money. More specifically, my issue was the fact that to me it seemed that your comment reinforced this social construct as something inherent. The fact that money (or their equivalent) is still chiefly important to many women is the vestige of the times when women were not able to make a(n) (adequate) living on their own. By the virtue of a biological coincidence, human females bear an proportionate reproductive burden – pregnancy and initial child rearing (breast feeding) is not exactly budding or laying eggs. This made (frequently pregnant) human females less able to defend themselves early in human history, whereas men were never really reproductively burdened in the same way. This is why already in cave times, I guess, women sought males who could provide the today’s equivalent of money – defense and similar support. As history went on, this trend became socially reinforced, and socially cemented.
Which brings me to my point about the “true” value of sex and money to both genders. The fact that women were forced by necessity to seek “well-to-do” men does not prove that money or its equivalent has a greater intrinsic value to them, but rather that it is necessary for their and their offspring’s survival. Figuratively speaking, for all we know a woman may be willing to eat at McDonalds for the rest of her life for sex, but if she has no way of providing that McDonalds meal for herself and her dependents she will seek someone who is doing well enough to be guaranteed to do that for her.
It is no longer the case today that women can not support themselves and their dependents – but it has been so up until very very recently, our grand or great-grandmothers’ times, and is still the case in many parts of the world, so, should I say, old habits die hard? But habits, not inherent preferences, nonetheless.
As for men preferring sex over money, it is generally historically true that they never had to make the choice. If for some reason men were not able to support themselves (or, to go back in history, often and for long periods of time unable to defend themselves and the children for whom only they could care thru their first years of life), I have no doubt today we would see a great deal of men for whom money would be much more ‘important’ than sex.
Today, while women still face many obstacles in the workplace and pay inequity is a sad fact even in a progressive country like the United States, women can generally support themselves and their dependents. And even though this “working girl” concept has existed for a very brief amount of time, we already see a huge shift in our view of female (and male) sexuality – from “women cant have orgasms” type stuff to women who are proud of their sexuality and freely engage in as many sexual relationships as they want. Give it another 100 yrs or so, I’m sure the instances that may invalidate your “sex to men is what money is to women” statement will be obsolete. So, anyway, why would you pay for someone’s dinner??
to Gayle -
YB, first of all, not YM, since I assume this was addressed to me:
I find it ironic that someone who champions respecting women would so disrespectfully ignore my arguments and dismiss my opinion by accusing me of acting dumb, put more bluntly. If I had understood and agreed with you on how facials are inherently demeaning, I would not be arguing otherwise – I have no problem admitting I am wrong, if I am convinced that I was, and if I “understood” your statements about facials being inherently demeaning I would say so and publicly agree with you.
Although I no longer expect any reply from you that would actually (and respectfully) discuss the issue and the points that I am making (as I have discussed yours), I want to assure you I did not make any of my comments because I am on some sort of a crusade against those who think facials are demeaning. I think it is a completely valid perspective I do not share. I will spare you the time it would take for you to rephrase, once again, that you think “facials” are inherently demeaning. You made it very clear what your position is on the issue, I only wish you stated it with at least half the respect I tried to give you.
11:24 am
Gayle, please inform us of the history of the facial and its popularity in film and personal acts (with citations to something other than your own experience). Did a porn director really dream it up, or maybe it was something that people had been doing and they decided it would be a good fit for their movie. Option 2 sounds a lot more likely to me. Even if its not, corporations dictate much of our daily activities, through both direct involvement and indirect persuasion. Some of the stuff they make us do is bad, some is good, and some could go both ways. The facial can go both ways. Plain and simple, everyone has a right to do (pretty much, within the bounds of law and informed consent) what they want in their sex lives. So long as the person WANTS it, regardless of the source of that desire, it shouldn’t harm them. No one is forcing women to do this. If you’re with a man who wants you to do and you don’t want to, then you don’t have to (and if he insists, or whines, or withholds because you won’t, or just goes ahead and does it anyway, then we have a very different situation that IS a problem). I disagree with your statement (it’s not really an argument) that facials are inherently demeaning, but even if they were that’s okay. You know why? Some people like to be demeaned during sex…it makes them happy (I believe Jules hit on that earlier). No one should take that happiness away. If you really cared about people being happy and complete, you wouldn’t compare this act to rape or murder, suggesting that people who do it be thrown in jail, because you are actually, then, making people who do enjoy it (in a demeaning way or not) UNHAPPY. You are SHAMING people who enjoy this act. That’s exactly the same tactic the religious right uses on issues like abortion and homosexuality. They are inherently bad for you, and you should be ashamed of yourself for them. So I say to you what I say to them…KEEP YOUR “MORALS” OFF MY BODY AND OUT OF MY (AND EVERYONE ELSE’S) BEDROOM!
12:03 am
I’ve avoided this discussion because I don’t have much to add, aside form personal opinion on the subject, and no one really cares about whether or not I like to jizz on my girlfriend’s face.
I do need to chime in about Gail’s 800 pound gorilla. It is absolutely absurd to think that new sex acts have been created in recent history. It’s all been done long before any of us were ever born.
6:18 pm
I’m not a big fan of the facial myself but will indulge my partner on occasion if only for the simple fact that he enjoys it. I get no physical pleasure from pegging him, but will on occasion because he enjoys it. I don’t think he experiences pleasure from giving me oral sex, but he will because I enjoy it. Does this make both of us bad feminists? I really don’t think so. I don’t believe any sex act is inherently demeaning or misogynitic. It all depends on the intent, context, and attitide of the participants. So what if an imbalance of power, actual or perceived, is present, as long as it remains situational and consensual? Most interactions, sexual and otherwise, may not be equally rewarding for both participants but that does not mean we should eliminate them. We consider those who disregard the wants and needs of others and do only those things beneficial to themselves to be selfish people.
3:19 pm
YB – First, to answer your question, I pay for womens’ dinners because for the past 15 years or so, they have made it quite clear they damn well expect me to. If I don’t pay for them (except in an isolated situation, such as my birthday), the relationship, or chance of a relationship, is over – something women have warned guys about ad nauseum. Five years after the fact, one girl I know even continued throwing up to me that I took her up on her offer to pay for a cheap breakfast. Ironically, if I were wealthy and no more presentable, I would have an endless supply of women to choose from should one particular woman refuse to date me again for not paying. I’m not wealthy, so like most guys, I have to put up with it. Of course, I don’t always put up with it. My Friday night date asked me to take her to the mall Saturday for a shopping spree – I politely refused, and I’m confident that I will see her again, anyway.
Anyway, you talk about things like womens’ relatively higher childbearing burden as if it is a historical relic. It isn’t, and to the extent that ever changes, it will only change due to technology, which means any such change will not be reflective of what’s inherent.
Mrs. D – was it really the coming to grips with your success that made the difference, or just canning the conveniently located paycheck thing? First of all, that could easily be interpreted as a woman dropping a hint to a guy that she believes she is above him because she makes more money – whether she really feels this way (as most women do) or not. Moreover, it seems to me that conveniently leaving paychecks is the equivalent of getting back to a guy’s place after a nice evening out on a typical vanilla first or second date (spent talking about such things as pending legislation) and having him surreptitiously whip out an album of pictures of him having sex with many other women. I’m sure a lot of women would be put off by that, not because they don’t like sex, and perhaps not even because those pictures aren’t something that in the right situation they might want to see and even be in, but because of the sheer boorishness of it.
Finally, as much as I disagree with just about everything Gayle has written (actually, I might disagree with everything, but I just don’t feel like giving her every word such detailed scrutiny), there is a case that she is affected by what happens in other people’s bedrooms or in porn since she refuses to do something that other women are quite willing and often eager to. Presumably, her facial-less milkshake doesn’t bring as many boys to the yard. Gayle, is there something you want to cum clean to us about (no pun intended)?
1:02 pm
Yes, Dirk, it was about coming to grips with that. I maintain that you’re going after the wrong women. Myself and almost all of my successful female friends were indoctrinated into thinking that there was something “wrong” about having our own money. We were literally in this mindset that we had to hide it. We employed tricks to cover it up, like if he complimented the apartment, talk about what a good deal it was, if he complimented the jewelry, say it was a gift. But, inevitably, he figures out that you’re financially stable. Each of us had a war story about some guy who freaked out at this discovery. So the paycheck thing wasn’t showing off, it was a devious way to let him “discover” our financial situation without “showing it off.”
Why did they freak out at the discovery? I know I personally had at least one guy who admitted that he was afraid he couldn’t meet my financial expectations. He was unwilling to go into debt to make me happy. He was concerned that if this became something serious, I would be badgering him to sign onto a lease or mortgage he couldn’t even afford a fourth of in his wildest dreams. Or worse, expect him to have his OWN stuff that met my expectations, like really expensive suits, cars, homes, and other sundry items, which he couldn’t afford. That was actually the best one of these “moments,” because I had the opportunity to let him know that wasn’t the case. I have also had guys who, after that discovery, suddenly started trying to spend more money on me, regardless of whether they could afford it. And others who became indignant about every penny they spent because, I assume, in the back of their mind they were saying “SHE could afford this dinner/drink/whatever…why am *I* paying for it.”
Those of us who just stopped all the nonsense and lived how we wanted and learned to take a compliment – and not focus on money because that wasn’t what was important – became very happy. We had fewer, but better, dates. We stopped lying about our good jewelry and started just saying “thanks” when complimented on it. We stopped saying what a good deal our place was and started talking about how we just liked living there when the topic was mentioned, no mention of how much it cost because that’s not what was important. In short, rather than obsessing about making him feel like he had the financial upper hand, regardless of the situation, we just cut money out of the equation…it wasn’t what was important to us in a relationship, so it wasn’t what we discussed, at all.
We previously had not been obsessed with having our own money as a matter of being better than our dates, but rather because we were told that men don’t want women who are financially independent. It’s clear that you and I have very different views on what actions mean and what dating priorities are. The hard-wired to find a provider line is BS for progressive, successful women. I’d rather have a guy who can provide me a good conversation than a steak any day, and when I stopped caring that I could provide my own steak…oh no, how would that make him feeeeeeeeeel (!), and started focusing on the good conversation, things got a lot easier.
1:34 am
Gayle,
According to wikipedia:
Predating the modern age of pornography, facials were also described in literature. As an example, the French aristocrat Marquis de Sade wrote about performing facials in his work The 120 Days of Sodom, written in 1785. One passage of the novel reads “… I show them my prick, then what do you suppose I do? I squirt the fuck in their face… That’s my passion my child, I have no other… and you’re about to behold it.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_(sex_act)
Porn is guilty of plenty of stuff, but creating the facial isn’t one of them. When puritanical repression isn’t present, humans get quite creative in their sex play. I would date the facial at 10,000 BCE, when humans started to climb Maslow’s Hierarchy (which is not a perfect theory, but very sound for the most part).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow’s_hierarchy_of_needs
11:21 am
Interesting debate … It’s only porn because the sexual act(s) are filmed for the sole purpose of extracting money out of the millions of people who watch it!!
3:39 am
You know i honestly expected this site to be rampant with misandry and consisted of only and entirely a one way conversation between women JUST from the way it looked (having come from several websites that claimed to offer equal discussion between men and women but did not)
Feministing anyone?
It just proves the saying: You cant judge a book by it’s cover.
I think the foolish people in this thread have been exposed thoroughly by both men and women which i was delighted to see
Agreed with
jules
YB
MRS D
and dirk even with the uneeded and unwanted details of his sex life.
Was worth the loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong read
11:29 pm
Hey Creepy —
Good job reading only the concern-troll posts.
I’m glad your comment-policing didn’t find any ”misandry.” I’m going to go back to living in a world where men rape women all the time and assert that they don’t like sex, just money, so I need to perform like a porn star. But put more clothes on because I am a whore. Except not that much clothing because now I am killing their boners.
In summary — FAIL.
12:14 pm
When I get female juice all over my face, I don’t see people protesting the act as demeaning to men. I like my partners juice on me, and I put it there because I am turned on by my partner and the female body. Men like to ejaculate on a woman not out of domination but for the way it makes them feel loved and sexy when his partner wants his juices on her face. I’ve never ejaculated on a face that seemed less than 100% willing. You will always find sociopaths that are exceptions to the rule, but most men are not out to humiliate women in bed.
3:54 am
Why waste the man’s jizz all over her face. Just give her respect and jizz IN her mouth, then there is no mess for her to clean up.
9:33 am
Jules,
If you ever in Orlando, I would like to accommodate you in your fetishes. itgoesinya2@hotmail.com
12:58 am
I think it’s ludicrous that people see the facial as being akin to spitting on women, a way of showing disrespect or degradation directly from the porn industry.
Frankly, you’re giving the creators of modern pornography far too much credit. I think few of them would have even begun to think of their products as vehicles for or metaphors for sexist thoughts.
8:14 pm
:o
4:16 pm
Reading through these blogs makes me very happy and fortunate to be a gay man and not worry about the politics of sex that straight folk seem obsessed with. My boyfriend and I love giving each other facials and dont view it as demeaning at all. It only is demeaning if one partner feels that way. What happenend to simply enjoying sex? Why does there need to be some hidden agenda behind each act?
5:26 pm
I think in the end it comes down the people involved. If the woman doesn’t like it then by all means its face and she can tell the men she has sex with that the facial is off limits and thats the end of it. If she is into it then let her and her guy be.
Honestly I think this is a matter of people trying to condemn the act as ammunition to use against men in general and/or take agency away from women to make them look more like victims than they really are.
Trying to liken porn to rape (unless the content in question is rape being passed off as porn which is different story) is a dirty tactic.
1:17 am
At least half the fun in sex is pleasing your partner. A lot of women get turned on by playing in their man’s cum.(on the hands, breasts, face). most men want their woman to WANT their cum. That is the turn on not a girl who is upset by it. Adult entertainment in general is violent and demeaning for all of the players(men/women/animals) involved. It caters to their core audience not the 90% of the rest of the population(who also like forms of pornography). Everyone talks about how huge the Porn business is but it only amounts to a few billion dollars a year. It sounds like a lot but the 5 biggest mainstream(Avatar is already at 750 million and its only half way through its run) movies bring in the same revenue as the entire adult industry so it is actually a much smaller and marginalized audience than is claimed.