I once watched a show on cable that talked about porn. One take away that I got was when a very powerful woman in the porn industry stated that regardless off the freak, there is someone out there who gets off on it and a porn flick that is suited for that freak. That being the case why is it expected that facials are misogynistic/degrading/or disrespectful. It might be better to say that some are feminists (one group), with man issues (another group) who have sexual hang ups (yet another group) and an issue with sexual fluids (still another group of many not mentioned).

Feminists, in my experience, are much like any other group: Some have sexual hang ups that have been perpetuated by mothers, and other females of authority, and family. Too often they cry that there are double standards "Men can sleep with X number of girls or do X act and he is a hero, but if a girl sleeps with X number or enjoys X act she is a slut or a hoe!" You complain about this while simultaneously telling your daughters, nieces, friends and students that "nice girls don’t..." Want equality? Start a dialogue that allows women to enjoy sex. As long as she is safe, with her husband, or a stranger but consenting, whatever...She is ALLOWED to enjoy herself. If she is feeling subjugated or disrespected, or demeaned, I ask in front of whom? Is she performing exhibitionism as well? No woman has to do anything she doesn't want to do. That SHOULD be feminism. No woman should be DISALLOWED to perform in a matter she finds pleasurable-EVEN if the feminist have a problem with her. THAT'S Feminism. Or is that Individualism which we should all subscribe to. But that’s a different argument.

Just my $0.02.

I myself consider myself a feminist (have the tattoo to prove it hehe). I've thought about this subject a lot and believe that if a woman wants a guy to jizz on her face, and the guy is down w/ it, then have at it! Consent is key, and that goes for facials, spanking, dirty talk, bondage,squirting in his face, etc.

PERIOD.

As for the porn part of this...much more complex. I wonder how many 13 year old boys and girls are watching porn and thinking that all girls like getting their faces jizzed, that all girls like anal sex, you get the idea. It's sad, but from my own experiences, kids don't get much sexual education so porn is 2 things: arousing and informative.

I wish porn would also show more girls getting eaten out! It's all about the blow job and that's not fair. Also more hot dudes (and I want to see his face, goddamnit, not just the chick w/ too much makeup on lol).

"But guys don't dig that!" I can hear the porn industry saying. Well a good amount of chicks do. So start making porn for more for both genders! Straight, gay, lesbian, whatever. fuuccckkk.

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.

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.

If you ever in Orlando, I would like to accommodate you in your fetishes. itgoesinya2@hotmail.com

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.

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

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

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.

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)?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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! :)

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.

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.

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).

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'

You've got your comment of the week right there.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.