Warning: "Language" is sexist and dangerous to a woman's health

[Guest]

Pure, you're growing on me; well, at least you're making me grin more than otherwise. I admit it, I just don't get you, which is OK. Well, I don't think we get each other, also OK.

I put in the def. of esoteric to show that you're misusing the term; I thought derisively but now I think only ignorantly (that's not an insult; genuine ignorance is me most of the time).

I would not call Irigaray (I love her work) esoteric. She and the other french-femmies are part of a long line following *and* breaking off from Derrida and Lacan; how the hell do you judge that esoteric?

Twats notwithstanding, I have a profound interest in gender studies and the genderless (though it's only a technical term, amidst humans I think there's no such thing). "The twat which is not one", wonderful. I'd like to print that on a tee-shirt (will cite you of course.)

Interesting item re. Irigaray's theory and maths.

Take this in: I work as an administrator at a university; it's a job, not a career. I have a B.A. in English. I read a lot, I think a lot, I write often enough to help myself think more clearly. I am NOT an academic. I chose NOT to be one. So feel free to be vituperatively argumentative with me as an ordinary person, or twat.

I did not 'invite' you to look anything up, it was an obviously ineffectually sarcastic way of telling you I had not made these very non-esoteric theories up. It was not a "tactic", just me and my style. Stop with the judgmental slurs, please. You're calling yourself 'hopelessly inadequate', not me. Besides the exassperated name calling I am not judging you (and forgodssakes don't go citing me again on this; whatever I've said I'm telling you now I can't judge you on a personal or even esoterically academic fuckall level).

"Perhaps, sometime, in a kinder gentle setting, the meeting of paradoxes, twat nose and prickly mouth can be arranged."

Nicest thing you've ever said to me, and I got a rose too. But, luv, I think the AH is as kind and gentle a plane as we'll ever meet on. I'm willing to deal.

anon, anon, Perdita

 

[Pure]

Perd said,

I would not call Irigaray (I love her work) esoteric. She and the other french-femmies are part of a long line following *and* breaking off from Derrida and Lacan; how the hell do you judge that esoteric?

I judge that anyone who understands Derrida and Lacan enough to attempt to write books giving reasons for 'breaking' with them, is writing for a *very* small crowd--hence 'esoteric'. No doubt the elite group who peruse Derrida--with increasing boredom--over coffee in the morning is over-represented among the brilliant, if explosive, women of this thread. The rest of us, of hyervulvar rhinopathy and colpectasically afflicted, can only defer, in admiration.

 

[SlickTony]

I didn't really want to reply here--I just wanted to get logged in. I had to reinstall every last thing so my registration came unstuck and I had to put in my name and password again. Anybody suffer from the worm? Carry on.

 

[Never]

My only studying of Derrida is his interpretation of Plato’s Phaedrus but, in my opinion, his deconstructionist method is a simple, practical method of exploring texts. I didn't find it all that difficult to understand. I think many have taken his works and run with them, so to speak, and all the work they've done has also been labeled 'deconstructionist'.

As for Derrida being esoteric, I'd say most people with a college education has head of, if not read, him.

I think Lacan was sort of caught up on this Freudian idea of a baby of some sort of blob with need that somehow experienced undiluted reality. I'd say you can't experience without some sort of understanding and that, as you can't have complete understanding, once you understand you've tainted your experience. I think that work with AI has given some validity to his belief that there's nothing that signifiers ultimately refers to (...A = B = C = x = ! = 0 = 5...) but the problem with making correlations between a computer and human mind is that, for humans, the mind is an extension of body. If, like a computer, you have no eyes, then it's rather obvious that 'red' can never mean anything. I think that if/when we ever develop a self-aware artificial system (I prefer this terminology to "computer") it will only be when we can reflect the 'hard-coding' that occurs in living creatures.

 

[Guest]

Ha, ha ha! This time I laughed outloud. Pure, I say to you that 'very small' crowds is relative. I have a dyke English prof. friend who teaches 'fem-thought' and well influences a few dozen young minds each term (m&f and mixes thereof) who could do a service by joining Lit. and this thread. I don't get half a rat's arse what Derrida means but I love the way he writes. The "pleasure of the text" is prime with me.

Anecdote: My last husband was given the newly published Lacan's Female Sexuality for a birthday present (he'd requested it), and his earthy Greek mum said, "Honey, don't you know enough about that subject yet?" (Turns out he didn't.)

"Colpectasically" has me in need of the OED, but I'll savor my ignorance a while more.

Dare I? What the hell,

Perd

Edit: looked it up; it's cholestasically I believe you meant, and not very nice. I have no bile for you, Pure, just impatience and a general flummoxing.

 

[Guest]

Slick Tony, you're puss was like a real life breath of fresh air. Welcome back.

Perdita

 

[oggbashan]

Re: Ogg:

p.s. has the wedding taken place? was your speech a success?

This Saturday. Speech(es) still being revised. My only scripted words are "I do" when asked "Who gives this woman ..."

I have been given strict instructions not to vary those two words for phrases such as "Too right mate" or "At last".

Report back next week

Og.

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Dude, no.

Nobody say "yoni". EVER. No "yoni", no "secret place of Her mysteries", no "goddess-head".

Eesh. If there is an evil to be found in certain annals of feminism, it's the earthy pussy monikers.

Only men who make their own granola and shun deodorant for the "natural erotic cassolette" of the male armpit ever coo to you about respectfully worshipping your yoni- preferably with a stick of nag champa and some soy nuts, or maybe a little tempeh. Or tofurkey.

These men do not "score".

Well, at least not as much as the guys on a Wargamers' forum! [lithping uncontrollably]

[go Leslie!]

Senorita Maudlin Chalk

 

[Guest]

Blue Chalk:

Banned the yoni; whipped it upside its curried pussyhead with my nine-iron, stuck it full of tees, rolled it in bubblewrap and put it in my recycling bin.

Good catch, Blue. Phew!

Shame on (im)Pure! Shame, shame.

Perdita

 

[SlickTony]

like a real life breath of fresh air. Welcome back.

Thanks. It's nice to be back.

 

[Pure]

Colpectasia

colpectasia-- distention of the vagina;

so afflicted, in lay terms,

I remain,

overstuffed twat.




PS:

Mlles: do remember that a half-literate male simulacrum turns up here occasionally.

 

[Guest]

Re: Colpectasia

colpectasia-- distention of the vagina

Greatly relieved.

Twat tweakingly,

Perdita

 

[Never]

MlledeLaPlumeBleu:

"Nobody say "yoni". EVER. No "yoni", no "secret place of Her mysteries", no "goddess-head".

<snip>

Only men who make their own granola and shun deodorant for the "natural erotic cassolette" of the male armpit ever coo to you about respectfully worshipping your yoni- preferably with a stick of nag champa and some soy nuts, or maybe a little tempeh. Or tofurkey.

These men do not "score"."

Why I don't get any: reason 258.

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Mlles: do remember that a half-literate male simulacrum turns up here occasionally.

Gosh, Pure. Aren't you being a little hard on yourself?

 

[Pure]

Hi Mlle,

Just curious about your remark

I'm an expert at loving unlovable things...Bret Easton Ellis, for example.

I personally had a lot of trouble with the violence of _American Psycho_. For a time, when it came out, I agreed with women (mostly) here who didn't want it displayed at booksellers. There was actually enough kerfuffel that some sellers did place it behind/under the counter.

Time passes, however, and now it's out on the regular shelves and apparently BEE's other stories, of which I've seen a couple, have redeemed him. I guess he's thought to be otherwise literary enough so that the violence of AP can be viewed as a literary manifestation.

Still, another line of yours comes to mind

fetishizing the brutalization and violation of a woman.

applied to another author of course, but those are my views and feelings about the violent scenes in AP (I read a couple, but not the whole story.)

Here's where a kind of paradox comes into play; mightn't the MORE literary descriptions of slash, gash, gore, brutalize and snuff be MORE potent in their antisocial effects, in their incitement of that dangerous .1% of males who are going to get into actually bringing about their violent and sadistic fantasies?

There is, further, for _American Psycho_ this bit of info, iirc (can't document it, this moment). A local, vicious serial killer of two teen girls had the book by his bedside and --since we're on the topic--had rented a couple of the more graphic of (commercially distributed, mainsteam) rape-story videos. Iow, if this is true, there's your demonstration of antisocial (contributory, of course) effect. Though of course, thousands of other males--and some females, no doubt-- read it without acting it. So far as we know.

Yet there is the argument about 'desensitization' which you brought up. Are you disturbed at the thought that, after the controversy, lots of males--and some females--are reading it and saying "ho hum.... yeah, violence, gore, but heck 'Freddie' had that too and was a lot more fun."

For Perd, some further thought of mine: That book was a close as I've come in a couple decades to wanting something suppressed. You know the old Vatican or French Biblioteque trick of assigning it to the nether regions accessible only to pre-approved scholars. Later, calmer, more cerebral thoughts kicked in and I concluded that all the violent stuff---esp. the really good, artistic stuff-- had some 'redemption' for that reason. Further, if you've read SC cases, there's no way to let by the 'literary' stuff and suppress the crappily written/produced stuff with the same content.

So I'm left with the conclusion that violent stuff is just going to have to be allowed; its one in a thousand violent consequences be damned (and the poor sucker meeting them). The rationalization, of course, is that the government, and society generally simply cannot get into the business of legislating against all evils (Calvin style; early Massachusetts style, where the 10 commandnents were among the criminal laws of the community), and trying to punish all evildoers (as GWB would phrase it). After all, the man who leaves his wife and five kids to starve doesn't face any realistic penalties in almost all cases.

On a historical note, it's said that "Werther" led to a number of suicides. Yet it's not a bad story. It's available and I'm glad. I guess that's the same point: literary value 'trumps' the one in thousand caused incidents of violence: the 'punch' of lit, esp. good lit. is such that that happens. Tant pis for the one in a thousand, but hey ain't 'art' great?

There you have it mlles, friends, countrymen and women.

Best,

J.

PS While I don't personally get off on AP, I do 'enjoy' if that's the word, sometimes watching a movie like "Ms .45" (I believe it's called).
There, violent rape is followed by violent homicide and somehow the cosmic scales of justice seem more in balance. Yet of course some of the men killed were not rapists, but _tant pis_.

{Added: A more recent film of similar ilk: _Baise Moi_, a couple years ago.}

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Oh, I so wish I had time to reply right now. I'm going to enjoy it, though.

 

[Guest]

Oh, I so wish I had time to reply right now. I'm going to enjoy it, though.

Lauren, you've got me all a flutter.

Perdita

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

So, let me summarize, so I can return later and write something more definitive.

You're comparing the pre-emminent satirist of our generation to a wank-site hack who vomits a sub-literate exposition-less screed about revenge raping and beating a bitch in an SUV?

Intent. Once again, lest I spotaneously combust from the mild fires of my own internal frustration.

It's actually a wonderful illustration of intent. Here you have the dichotomy.

For the "macro" challenged:

Both are first-person POV.
One is a full-length novel about a variety of occurences and multi-dimensional themes. One is a brief vignette about one theme- beating and raping a cunt in an SUV.
One is written from an established character perspective [Ellis separates himself as author]. AD's is written from an anonymous, unchacterized voyeuristic perpective- basically, an author proxy.

Both contain violence toward women- Ellis's character has no emotions, so the scenes are rendered incapable of exploitation, and are basically descriptions of fact. They are not charged- emotionally or otherwise.

AD's story is blatantly posted as "erotica", shows the "rapist's" obvious delight-reveling in the degradation and tiniest details of the victim's suffering and description, and offers nothing else. What message is the intended one?

Anyone who thinks "American Psycho" was about serial killing probably thinks "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is about the lamentable social conditions that create a henley-wearing, razor-clawed pedophile.

The character of Patrick Bateman is a metaphor for a lot of things: greed, the 80's collective sociopathic mindset, the vicious predatory nature of corporate America. The parallel Ellis is effectively drawing is that of socially sanctioned sociopathic behavior and socially condemned sociopathic behavior. Patrick Bateman is a vicious homocidal predator- and his mindset isn't that different from your average 80's stock broker.

Because of your baseless characterization, I find it doubtful you actually read the book- even in part.

The book is narrated absolutely flat affect- it's not sensationalized in the least. The casual, deadpan descriptions of torture and murder make it all the more arresting- to great literary effect. They aren't intended to titillate. They're intended to shock. Also, the violent scenes are not the crux of the story. Ninety percent of the book is about Evian, business cards and hair gel, obsessions with restaurants- social sociopathy.

This book would be a waste of time to anyone looking for a sadistic validation trip- for one thing, Ellis's language is dense and circuitous, and his relentless [intentional] laundry-listing immediately puts off anyone looking for instant gratifictation of the lurid sort. He's no Clive Cussler.

When I saw the movie, there were a bunch of kids in the audience who booed afterwards; they had been led to expect a slasher flick, not an erudite social commentary on the antisocial nature of American business.

If you would ban Ellis and laud AD, well, what can I say. You haven't been paying attention.

Ellis is condemning- not only violence, but apathy and inhumanity.

AD is celebrating it, under a sky-blue banner of free speech- which he is entitled to- but I'll tell you what he isn't entitled to- impassioned intellectual defense of his motives.

He should always be able to post his stories [preferably, I maintain, in Extreme]- but I don't want to hear a bunch of inflection-challenged pseudo-erudition about how *valid* his work is.

By the way- I fucking love violence. I watch more slasher and horror flicks than you could hit with a dead prarie dog. I laugh at female stereotypes. I laugh at all kinds of shit that people find appalling. But I don't laugh at AD's story.

It isn't about blatant violence, or even offensive images. It's about basic intent.

Go ahead and defend it's right to be in "non-consent" if you want, but don't mischaracterize AD's furious pissings as "art".

 

[Pure]

Mlle said at the beginning.

//[t]You're comparing the pre-emminent satirist of our generation to a wank-site hack who vomits a sub-literate exposition-less screed about revenge raping and beating a bitch in an SUV?[/i]//

Well, my posting didn't mention AD or make an comparison of Ellis and AD; or of the AP story and the SUV story. Even some postings elsewhere stated I was not addressing the merits of the AD work, but the inferences about the author's criminality.

So I wonder how off scale-IQ and literary background lead to such a bizarre response to a fairly sincere and direct posting about reactions to one certain book (and no remarks about its author), and some of the issues involved re social policy and violent literature.

Where, for instance, is the following coming from?

I don't want to hear a bunch of inflection-challenged pseudo-erudition about how *valid* his work is.

I don't believe I commented on the 'validity' or merits of AD's work, except for the awful poety. Please quote what statements of mine (or someone else?) are referred to.

I can't speculate what set you off, Mlle. I could try the Quaaludes line you used previously, but I'd rather not. Should there be a response to what I actually said about American Psycho, I'll certainly address it.

{Added:} I believe it's the case that *even if* you were right about the literary merits of AP, and even if Ellis is Jonathan Swift, Emile Zola and HL Mencken all rolled into one [and not everyone agrees with you on that], my points stand: You have simply not addressed them. The violent content of AP and its effects on people can still be discussed. "It's art" does not preclude all discussions of social policy.

Best,

J.

PS Hey perd, I tried. I really did. This simply ain't a gentle place.

 

[Pure]

Could someone lend a helping hand (quotation)

I don't have a copy of American Psycho handy, but could Mlle or someone please post say a couple hundred words from one of the more violent (slice rape murder) passages, so that readers can see what's being discussed? (Other passages deemed relevant, also, of course.)

Thanks.

J.

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

This is a pointless conversation.

 

[destinie21]

Weird Harold said,


/Violence against women is WRONG; there is absolutely no question about that. However, violence against children, jews, native americans, blacks, the homeless, or anyone else is equally wrong. The problem is violence in real life, no matter who it is directed against.

Violence in fiction is another matter entirely. Without violence, racism, religious intolerance, drugs and other "bad things" that people want to ban from fiction, there can be no villians and damn little conflict. Without villians and conflict, Fiction is boring and unrealistic./

======
Well said, WH. Recent comments on violence in a particular story seem unable to comprehend the basic distinction between seeing a violent act, and reading about an imagined violent act, and between erotic response to the former and to the latter. I have raised similar points in the thread, "is someone here talking about me?"

I'd only take exception to the word 'unrealistic'. Substitute 'emotionally flat.' Fiction, esp. here does not necessarily aim for or achieve a mirroring of reality.

Unfortunately, the language police have problem about the connection between violent words in fiction and violent acts:

[Perd:]
I merely thought it would be significant if an Erotica site, or at least its populace, took a positive stand against the pervasiveness of violence to women in our society, and the 'arts'.


Here taking a 'positive stand' against violence to women is equated to denouncing a *story* about violence to a woman, and labelling the author of the story of a sociopath as himslef sociopathic; and claiming the author is about to engage in violence against women, because that what a character in his story does.

PC folks always think that in eliminating a 'sign' of something you do something toward eliminating the something; if you eliminate talk of 'dwarves' you help eliminate the real problems of actual 'small people.' If you eliminate talk of the 'blind', you're helping the lives of the 'visually challenged.'

It's a effortless way to publicly call attention to one's own virtue and benevolence by pointing out that one's *language* has been pruned of words that directly indicate unseemly things; to imply that in calling for others to purge their language one is inducing them to behave in a more humane way.

J.

PS. In relation to the dialogue of the oh-so-clever Robyn and her idiot boy friend and foil: it's typical of the sloppiness of argument in certain quarters that the passage is not even correctly labelled or attributed; "Chandler", mentioned, is NOT the author and the correct author is not indicated in any way: From _Nice Work_ by David Lodge.

I don't even know where to begin...

okay here goes. What I want to ask is To those who feel that language and images don't ultimately affect you why then do companies rate video games and movies and the like? Secondly since we're beating a dead horse I might as well throw in a few kicks. As far as the AD story no I didn't like it and I can't really explain anymore than I already have that the "feeling" behind the story or more accurately the "feeling" that I got from the story was bad. It seemed to close to reality for comfort. Also I have to say that you're mistaken if you think that "taking a 'positive stand' against violence to women is equated to denouncing a *story* about violence to a woman, and labelling the author of the story of a sociopath as himslef". Fiirst off I had alot to say on those thread(S), and I never once labeled AD. The positive stand would have been denouncing the brutality in the story which I did. Had the story had anything aside from the brutality it should have been able to stand on it's own w/o the presence of violence. But alas the core of the story was the Brutal beating and defiling of this woman. Also I read in another thread where AD himself said that he thought non-consent was just role playing. I can tell you as a woman I've never engaged in any sort of role playing that resulted in the most savage beating of my life.(and if the situation ever arises where I am beaten in such a way I wont be "playing" or getting off on it.). Moving on as an artist I have to say that a image can say more than a slogan ever could. I do agree that the fabric in the Silk Cut ad did bring to mind images of the vagina. I'm not even going to touch the other issues now, becauseI'm far to tired to delve into the physce of the advertising agent.

 

[Pure]

Evidence for Mlle's statements

Well, mlle, you're getting far out on a limb with statements that have no apparent base.

I'll just (re) mention a couple earlier ones before proceeding to the newest gaggle.

[Mlle:]
He [american demon]sees brutalization and rape as a justified means of leveling the playing field.

Cite evidence

This man's body of work presents the picture of an individual well on the path to raping or even murdering someone.

Cite evidence that american demon is on the path to raping

====
New stuff:

[Mlle:]
You're [pure is] comparing the pre-emminent satirist of our generation to a wank-site hack

Show where this comparison is made; quote me. Quote where I say anything about Ellis's stature.

Anyone who thinks "American Psycho" was about serial killing probably thinks "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is about the lamentable social conditions that create a henley-wearing, razor-clawed pedophile.

Who, here, said AP was about serial killing? quote them or me.

Because of your baseless characterization, I find it doubtful you actually read the book- even in part.

Quote the baseless characterization.

The casual, deadpan descriptions of torture and murder make it all the more arresting- to great literary effect. They aren't intended to titillate. They're intended to shock.

And you know this intention, how? Cite evidence.

If you would ban Ellis and laud AD, well, what can I say. You haven't been paying attention.

Quote where I called for Ellis to be banned. Quote where I lauded AD.

but I don't want to hear a bunch of inflection-challenged pseudo-erudition about how *valid* his work is.

Quote a piece of this pseudo erudition about the validity of AD's work.

don't mischaracterize AD's furious pissings as "art"

Quote where I characterize AD's writings as 'art.'

-----

{edited: I'm interested in your reply}

 

[Guest]

nevermind...

 

[Pure]

Hi Destinie,

Thanks for your thoughts. There are quite a number of them, and some of the issues have been talked about a fair bit, since you're quoting from a couple days ago at least.

I'll pick a couple, however,

As far as the AD story no I didn't like it and I can't really explain anymore than I already have that the "feeling" behind the story or more accurately the "feeling" that I got from the story was bad. It seemed to close to reality for comfort.

A number of us got bad feelings from reading of the events in the story. I'm not sure if it was 'close to reality' since the author was probably not seeking to convey 'reality' and his tools were limited.
Certainly, of course, there have been brutal rapes; that's not in question.



Also I have to say that you're mistaken if you think that "taking a 'positive stand' against violence to women is equated to denouncing a *story* about violence to a woman, and labelling the author of the story of a sociopath as himslef". Fiirst off I had alot to say on those thread(S), and I never once labeled AD.

The remarks about 'positive stand' were not made with you, esp. in mind. More perdita; but the phrasing was rather inflammatory. I should have focussed narrowly on the statements of persons in this forum.

It was, of course, Mlledelaplume who labelled american demon a sociopath and incipient rapist; a couple folks seemed to agree, and no one but me has objected to the lack of evidence. I don't recall what you said on this issue.


The positive stand would have been denouncing the brutality in the story which I did. Had the story had anything aside from the brutality it should have been able to stand on it's own w/o the presence of violence. But alas the core of the story was the Brutal beating and defiling of this woman.

The story did contain mostly sadism and brutality, though as was pointed out by KillerM, the woman was represented as 'coming.'
Apparently in Laurel's book, that is/was enough to technically qualify as a 'nonconsent' story.**

Mlle and some other have said it belongs in 'extreme' and ultimately I don't have an objection to that; there can be 'gray' cases--esp. re bdsm--and their category doesn't ultimately interest me.

My only quarrel or puzzlement is when those same people--Mlle being one-- go on about this {Added: type of} story causing men to become rapists: since, if that's true, why does putting it {Added: and others like it} in 'extreme' prevent this evil, assuming ftsoa the story has that effect? Indeed a ten year old can access 'extreme.'

I'd ask you the same question: if it's agreed that certain depictions make guys--say one in a hundred-- do violent things, why is 'segregation' and 'categorization' the answer?

Further, the problem exists in other categories than non-consent; there are a number of stories at literotica main area that have brutality and 'sadism'; some of those in 'bdsm' for instance.

So here's the problem; see the example at the end: in several stories the woman(or man) is beaten almost to the point of bleeding. she's turned on. then maybe her flogger fucks her and it's a great fuck for both.

Now for many people that's just not going to do it for them, either in reality or just in reading about it. Some may even say they feel nauseated at such a story.

So, do any seriously violent stories belong at literotica? This is not an idle question as several literary 'erotic' sites and magazines (e.g. Yellow Silk) simply say 'no violence.' IF you open the door, where do you draw the line?

Overall I'm not sure we disagree a great deal, but your large single para makes it hard to see. Maybe you can clarify, should you respond.

Best,
J.

**To the argument that her coming was not plausible: Well, I'd say in 2/3 of literotica stories--like porn stories and movies in general--, esp. those by men, the coming is rather too easy; too readily accomplished by strangers, and too earthquake-like. Hence one can see a reason Laurel may not want to get into the secondary question, 'was the coming plausible?'


----
Here is a mild example

http://www.literotica.com:81/stories/showstory.php?id=11385


Debbie's Slave Ch 2

It was a heavy-looking wooden paddle with a rounded profile, about eighteen inches long and maybe six inches wide at the broadest point. "I got this specially when I knew you were flying over to me. I've never used one before, but I thought that you might need it. Looks like I was right."

The paddle disappeared from my field of vision, presumably into your right hand. Then you swiftly seized my handcuffs in your left and pulled them high into the air, preventing me from defending my rear, which was now even more exposed and still glowing from your previous attentions. Suddenly I felt a flash of blue-white pain as the paddle in your right hand hit home. The scream that it forced from me died as a high pitched bubbling in my throat. The gag was certainly effective, and very necessary. The police would have been round in an instant if they could have heard me. You alternated the strokes, one cheek and then the other, one thigh and then the other. The blows on my still-tender ass were the worst, but spanking my thighs as well spread the flames of pain still wider. I desperately tried to keep count so I would know when the ordeal would end but soon I lost control and began to weep openly.

You must have seen my tears splashing onto the floor because you paused for breath and said in a triumphant-sounding voice, "Yes, it hurts doesn't it, boy? Now you know what happens to disobedient, disrespectful boys." Then the thrashing resumed and I screamed against my gag once more. As the pain built up I felt more and more helpless and humiliated. No one had ever inflicted pain like this on me. I was powerless and totally unable to control myself as I wept and tried to scream.