To The Feminists

[Light Ice]

This whole thread seems to be based on the notion that those things can't coexist, which is false.

No, and if it seems that way then that's unintentional. I'm not addressing kink or preference or anything other than many of the threads where women are clearly degraded by the male authors (either intentionally or unintentionally) in a way that doesn't identify with a "kink".

 

[Light Ice]

And, again, I guess I'm not asking this clearly enough.

I am not addressing kinks. I'm not interested in kinks. Those are wholly individual and a different issue entirely.

I am asking, strictly, if some of the threads on Literotica contain content offensive to those that identify themselves as feminist. I'm not asking this question to then debate -why- those threads are offensive. I'm asking that question to hear answers and then listen to them.

The answer that I seem to have gotten are is as follows:

There -are- threads here that contain offensive material. I don't particularly get offended because this is a porn board and there are better places to focus my energies.

So, now:




My follow up question is this:

What particular things in these threads (that you see often) are particularly offensive to you? Is it something that the male authors project or is it something in the way the female authors behave? Is it both?

 

[Light Ice]

Here's the problem...while the content here is more explicit, at its core it really isn't significantly different than anywhere else.
The subtext is so much media is that women are objects to be controlled and treated like property.
The fact that there's explicit sex and rape here is really sort of the only difference.
Watch commercials. The implied lack of consent is pretty common. Watch TV, the nature of women being less-than-men is a normal theme.
Its hard to get too pissed when talentless hacks write the same stuff on a message board.

I don't know how I missed this response.

I'm going to actually pay attention to some TV tonight and think about what you've said.

 

[Drunken_Angel]

And, again, I guess I'm not asking this clearly enough.

I am not addressing kinks. I'm not interested in kinks. Those are wholly individual and a different issue entirely.

I am asking, strictly, if some of the threads on Literotica contain content offensive to those that identify themselves as feminist. I'm not asking this question to then debate -why- those threads are offensive. I'm asking that question to hear answers and then listen to them.

The answer that I seem to have gotten are is as follows:

There -are- threads here that contain offensive material. I don't particularly get offended because this is a porn board and there are better places to focus my energies.

So, now:




My follow up question is this:

What particular things in these threads (that you see often) are particularly offensive to you? Is it something that the male authors project or is it something in the way the female authors behave? Is it both?

The thing is, LI, that you the threads you mention, on this board -are- threads where kink is a strong component. Honestly, I could have simply answered your question with a "Yes" and called it good, but where's the fun in that? I can see where you'd want to keep the conversation going in a particular direction, but beware of introducing simplification as you do so.

In fact, your followup question requires going into the nature of kink and sexual dynamics. Otherwise there wont be enough context to answer in a meaningful way.

 

[thestruggle]

I've been trying to come up with a better way to put all this, but work is a demon, and my brains is fried so a slightly more thoughtful answer...or simply more long-winded.

I'd like to start by breaking down threads into a couple of categories:
1. Public threads: 'If The Shoe Fits', 'Size Positive Hotness', etc.
2. SRPs

Many of group 1 are, in fact, concerning from a feminist perspective in that they do, in fact, objectify women, and have no other goals.
The lingerie thread comes to mind.
(Note: I'm as guilty as anyone...I post there myself, sometimes)
I'd say the size-positive thread has a goal outside of objectifying women, but it does contribute (however, it can't be taken out of context
of a society that both requires women to be 'hot' and fit into a body shape that simply isn't possible for them...it gets complicated).
There are endless numbers of these threads that, for all the supposed class and style, are simply soft-core porn and using women as objects.

Group 2, the SRPs, also need to be broken down some.
Before I start, this isn't about any particular lust or kink or what-have-you. You have to assume that most SRPs are just private fantasies made
public and whatever your private fantasies are, you get to have them.

There's porn and erotica.
In this case, I mean "stories meant to get you off as quickly and efficiently as possible" and "stories that at least attempt, y'know, story".
There's nothing wrong with either or them, I suppose.
In some ways, the former, porn, is less objectionable. As a rule, there's nothing there except a bunch of dirty words. The males are no more
real than the females.
I'm actually more troubled by the latter. Too many of these seem to fail at what one might call a Literotica Bechdel Test.
Or, basically, the male characters are real, and have depth, and the female characters are, utlimately, nothing but a thing to fuck, but with slightly better
dialog than porn. But its that attempt at realism that makes it all so sad. Few people think that women are like they are in porn stories. But in the attempts
at erotica, the pretext is that people really are like this, and that women really are that one-dimensional.
Does any of this make sense?

To put it another way...the threads aren't a problem. They are simply symptomatic.

These are all really good points. I'd like to add that I agree about the Size Positive Thread - it has really good aims, but also is problematic because women should obviously be able to choose where/how their bodies are celebrated (by this I mean individual women and pictures). There's also a mass misinterpretation of what the point of the thread actually is, which of course is not the fault of the women that are participating in it... I mean, part of the enormous problem that feminism - especially intersectional feminism - faces is that the problem exists in layers and layers of things. If marginalized groups were to cut out everything that was problematic, there would be nothing left. That's why it's important to be able to say, "I really love this, but I wish it wasn't _______ (racist/cissexist/bigoted in whatever way.)

And it's all of these small things that contribute, these microaggressions, to the pervasive nature of institutionalized -isms and phobias today. And what Vail addresses here, and what DA/Vivi have also stated, is that microaggressions are so damn PRESENT all the time that you do have to pick your battles very carefully. It's also important to remember that you should always feel safe, and it's severely underestimated just how unsafe most of the world is for the groups I've mentioned.

Edited to amend that microaggressions are both symptomatic and also contribute to the patriarchy. So it really feels like an endless cycle.

 

[prettyserpentine]

*applauds Vail*

 

[thestruggle]

Exactly, the microaggressions are what throw so many people off. They don't understand why, for example, a woman might have an issue with beauty pageants...because such things aren't a big deal. Except in context. And if you focus on just the particular, you'll never understand anything.

Yes, this. ^^^

 

[Light Ice]

I've been trying to come up with a better way to put all this, but work is a demon, and my brains is fried so a slightly more thoughtful answer...or simply more long-winded.

I'd like to start by breaking down threads into a couple of categories:
1. Public threads: 'If The Shoe Fits', 'Size Positive Hotness', etc.
2. SRPs

Many of group 1 are, in fact, concerning from a feminist perspective in that they do, in fact, objectify women, and have no other goals.
The lingerie thread comes to mind.
(Note: I'm as guilty as anyone...I post there myself, sometimes)
I'd say the size-positive thread has a goal outside of objectifying women, but it does contribute (however, it can't be taken out of context
of a society that both requires women to be 'hot' and fit into a body shape that simply isn't possible for them...it gets complicated).
There are endless numbers of these threads that, for all the supposed class and style, are simply soft-core porn and using women as objects.

Group 2, the SRPs, also need to be broken down some.
Before I start, this isn't about any particular lust or kink or what-have-you. You have to assume that most SRPs are just private fantasies made
public and whatever your private fantasies are, you get to have them.

There's porn and erotica.
In this case, I mean "stories meant to get you off as quickly and efficiently as possible" and "stories that at least attempt, y'know, story".
There's nothing wrong with either or them, I suppose.
In some ways, the former, porn, is less objectionable. As a rule, there's nothing there except a bunch of dirty words. The males are no more
real than the females.
I'm actually more troubled by the latter. Too many of these seem to fail at what one might call a Literotica Bechdel Test.
Or, basically, the male characters are real, and have depth, and the female characters are, utlimately, nothing but a thing to fuck, but with slightly better
dialog than porn. But its that attempt at realism that makes it all so sad. Few people think that women are like they are in porn stories. But in the attempts
at erotica, the pretext is that people really are like this, and that women really are that one-dimensional.
Does any of this make sense?

To put it another way...the threads aren't a problem. They are simply symptomatic.

Vail,

Thanks for this. It was more or less the type of insight that I was actually after. I'm fairly certain after reading this that I haven't asked my questions in the way they should have been asked. Or, maybe worse, I wasn't asking the right questions.

I agree entirely that threads are symptomatic.

Appreciate the time you took.

 

[Light Ice]

A few people wrote PMs to answer this. Thanks to those.

My next question is more of a reply to something DA mentioned up above about having to get into the nature of kinks in order to unpack the offensive material present in some of the threads.

That's interesting to me.

Still, it's not the discussion I really want to have here. I think that discussion might be a new thread at some point because that issue, I think, has its own massive stretch of landscape to cover.

I really liked the term microaggressions. That's similar to what struck me as potentially offensive in many of the threads. Or, maybe offensive isn't the right word. Oppressive seems to fit better.

Still, I was more concerned with how the female authors presented their characters. That was, more or less, what really focused this conversation for me. I saw what Vail saw. Threads upon threads full of Mary Janes. And, most of these female characters, were playing to a set roll where the script could be expected to run as such -

1. Guy meets girl / buys girl / captures girl / etc.
2. Guy is broody / charming / witty.
3. Guy has an axe to grind / vendetta / struggle / obstacle.
4. Girl wants to support guy / appease guy / placate guy.
5. Guy fucks girl.
6. Guy proceeds on crusade.

Now, in itself, I have absolutely nothing against this particularly architecture. It's only when I realized that nearly every single thread followed the archetype that I began to form my question to the feminists. And, really, I could have said women but "To The Women" seemed more like a thread in the personal section than something of a discussion.

I know that, personally, I try and play second banana in my threads. It isn't that I don't like to carry the bulk of the work. - I put in a lot of time when it comes to conceptualizing my story.

It's only that I have always been attracted to powerful women. And, in fiction, the best way to immediately establish a character as powerful is to immediately assign them a primary role (such as the protagonist or lead) and then run through behind them.

My characters have their own things to struggle with and overcome. But I've always written my stories with the idea that the GOAL of the story is in exploring my female cowriter.

Are there any other measures in the writing, besides the one that Vail brings up and I kind of expanded on, that draw particular ire or eyebrows raised when you move over them?

 

[Fish_Tales]

I'm white and a guy and...well, I've not never suffered from microaggressions or otherwise that I know of (unless getting punched in the line of work is microaggressions!), but I've come on for once and seen a Vail post and also an LI post, so why not say what I think?

I'm aware enough to know that it's different between men and women (and many other minority groups, but we'll focus on this). I like the beauty pageant example. It's a classic one where people say, "But it's not hurting anyone." If one thinks of it like that, I guess they're right in isolation, but they're wrong in the wider context of all the incremental effect. The people who compete in a beauty pageant are looking to win something, but with what? Is it a skill they've built up and developed over years? Is from study? Now I know some people will say that competing in beauty pageants requires some skill and knowing what the judges look for and such...blah blah blah...but really, it's all about looking good, isn't it? Let's admit it. And even that "looking good" is defined by others. *shrugs* I'm not like some raging intellectual on feminism, but even I can see that's a "microaggression". (I like that term now).

People do things that they are "allowed" to do or where they know they fit. How many middle class white boys have grown up to be world boxing champions? Not many because at a young age they had other options. If you're a poor kid, black, white, Hispanic, Asian....whatever....the options are fewer and boxing is "respectable." I see boxing as almost like a beauty pageant. There's a lot more work, but it's filled by people who see it as an option, whereas someone like my son or anyone who's grown up comfortably would think you'd be a little misguided to pursue that as a serious career (as opposed to the exercise and boxercise people do for fitness these days).

It's all the little things that build up and shape a discourse in how we view things. Now, being a jock, I can use examples from sport. Quite often in tennis, there is this debate as to why women will get the same prizemoney as the men in some grandslam tournaments (and I can proudly say Australia pays them the same!). The argument is that women play only best of 3 sets whereas the mean play best of 5 sets. Now really? Over their training and the like, they probably train the same. They fly around the world just the same and they have all the media stuff just the same (maybe more, because they're "glamour girls" remember.) They probably even sell more stuff based on their sex appeal!!! (another microaggression). So even if one were to base it on time played and contributed to the sport, they're as close as shit is to swearing in doing the same work and earning the same revenue in marketing and otherwise, so why bother working it out to deny them less based on the fact their actual matches are shorter? (By the way....guys really only play best of 5 at grandslams and Davis Cup, so really, they do fuck-all extra over the course of a year).

Conversely, back to the exclusive world of men, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that it's a shame that the world champion marathon runner or triathlete doesn't make as much money as Usain Bolt. Like really, if it's going to be about effort, then surely the guy that runs 42km in an event should be more rich and famous than the guy that runs 100m. No, we reward them on what we judge is more interesting and on how much revenue they earn in terms of attraction and the like, not on their effort. Honestly, we just do and say things to suit ourselves and then say everyone else doesn't get it or over-reacts *shrugs*

Now, back to LI's question: I don't read many threads, but I've read a few that disturbed me or at least made me cringe. I have different predilections and interests to many people, so that doesn't surprise me and I rarely comment because I figured I opened it and read it, so it's my problem. Thing is, I'm not the one who's ever felt uncomfortable or objectified or marginalised (or at least I never felt it), so maybe it's easier for me? I did read one that didn't offend me as a guy, but it offended me as to its premise. I know, free speech yada yada, but it might have been best left to email or private writing. I tried to make light of it by making a bit of fun of it, but the fact that someone felt comfortable writing in a public forum the-thread-that-I-dare-not-mention-it's-name disturbed me a little. There were many, as you say, microaggressions in that.

For the record, I think the OP asked an interesting question, it's just it is very very difficult to look at in isolation, otherwise my answer would have been:

No, none have offended me as a male, but I've read some that I thought would offend females, but then I'm not a female so didn't comment.

 

[Fish_Tales]

Sorry LI - you reframed the question, but I'd already posted! I'll think about your new question as I often see ones where I think "oh", but will need to recollect specific examples.

 

[thestruggle]

I'm white and a guy and...well, I've not never suffered from microaggressions or otherwise that I know of (unless getting punched in the line of work is microaggressions!), but I've come on for once and seen a Vail post and also an LI post, so why not say what I think?

I'm aware enough to know that it's different between men and women (and many other minority groups, but we'll focus on this). I like the beauty pageant example. It's a classic one where people say, "But it's not hurting anyone." If one thinks of it like that, I guess they're right in isolation, but they're wrong in the wider context of all the incremental effect. The people who compete in a beauty pageant are looking to win something, but with what? Is it a skill they've built up and developed over years? Is from study? Now I know some people will say that competing in beauty pageants requires some skill and knowing what the judges look for and such...blah blah blah...but really, it's all about looking good, isn't it? Let's admit it. And even that "looking good" is defined by others. *shrugs* I'm not like some raging intellectual on feminism, but even I can see that's a "microaggression". (I like that term now).

People do things that they are "allowed" to do or where they know they fit. How many middle class white boys have grown up to be world boxing champions? Not many because at a young age they had other options. If you're a poor kid, black, white, Hispanic, Asian....whatever....the options are fewer and boxing is "respectable." I see boxing as almost like a beauty pageant. There's a lot more work, but it's filled by people who see it as an option, whereas someone like my son or anyone who's grown up comfortably would think you'd be a little misguided to pursue that as a serious career (as opposed to the exercise and boxercise people do for fitness these days).

It's all the little things that build up and shape a discourse in how we view things. Now, being a jock, I can use examples from sport. Quite often in tennis, there is this debate as to why women will get the same prizemoney as the men in some grandslam tournaments (and I can proudly say Australia pays them the same!). The argument is that women play only best of 3 sets whereas the mean play best of 5 sets. Now really? Over their training and the like, they probably train the same. They fly around the world just the same and they have all the media stuff just the same (maybe more, because they're "glamour girls" remember.) They probably even sell more stuff based on their sex appeal!!! (another microaggression). So even if one were to base it on time played and contributed to the sport, they're as close as shit is to swearing in doing the same work and earning the same revenue in marketing and otherwise, so why bother working it out to deny them less based on the fact their actual matches are shorter? (By the way....guys really only play best of 5 at grandslams and Davis Cup, so really, they do fuck-all extra over the course of a year).

Conversely, back to the exclusive world of men, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that it's a shame that the world champion marathon runner or triathlete doesn't make as much money as Usain Bolt. Like really, if it's going to be about effort, then surely the guy that runs 42km in an event should be more rich and famous than the guy that runs 100m. No, we reward them on what we judge is more interesting and on how much revenue they earn in terms of attraction and the like, not on their effort. Honestly, we just do and say things to suit ourselves and then say everyone else doesn't get it or over-reacts *shrugs*

Now, back to LI's question: I don't read many threads, but I've read a few that disturbed me or at least made me cringe. I have different predilections and interests to many people, so that doesn't surprise me and I rarely comment because I figured I opened it and read it, so it's my problem. Thing is, I'm not the one who's ever felt uncomfortable or objectified or marginalised (or at least I never felt it), so maybe it's easier for me? I did read one that didn't offend me as a guy, but it offended me as to its premise. I know, free speech yada yada, but it might have been best left to email or private writing. I tried to make light of it by making a bit of fun of it, but the fact that someone felt comfortable writing in a public forum the-thread-that-I-dare-not-mention-it's-name disturbed me a little. There were many, as you say, microaggressions in that.

For the record, I think the OP asked an interesting question, it's just it is very very difficult to look at in isolation, otherwise my answer would have been:

No, none have offended me as a male, but I've read some that I thought would offend females, but then I'm not a female so didn't comment.

This was a really fantastic answer, thanks for posting that.

The original comment was a placeholder, because I wanted you to know that it was a good one! And then to respond, so...

The last point you make is very important, because it can be difficult to know where the "line" is by terms of what's offensive for a particular group. Like, if I'm in a room full of black women, I'm not going to tell them what black womanhood is. I'm not going to tell them what feminism means to them. However, if I'm outside of that environment and I see someone being not only sexist but racist as well, I'm going to call them on both things. The problem with a lot of radical feminism is the exclusion of particular groups, but that's another huge issue. So basically, on a forum like this, I'm not really sure what the answer is. I think if you see something happening and think it should be addressed, then you can do what LI has done and raise the issue that it's problematic. This then gives women the opportunity to voice their opinions if they choose to, in a way that isn't going to degrade into a shitstorm (which it probably would if they tried to do it elsewhere).

Additionally, that's a big part about how to be engaged in intersectionality. Giving other groups a voice, giving them safe spaces, helping them to establish/protect their spaces, etc. And once they have them, understanding that it's not your space, and respecting that. And by "you" in all this I've meant the general, not you in particular, Sir Fish!

 

[Fish_Tales]

This was a really fantastic answer, thanks for posting that.

The original comment was a placeholder, because I wanted you to know that it was a good one! And then to respond, so...

The last point you make is very important, because it can be difficult to know where the "line" is by terms of what's offensive for a particular group. Like, if I'm in a room full of black women, I'm not going to tell them what black womanhood is. I'm not going to tell them what feminism means to them. However, if I'm outside of that environment and I see someone being not only sexist but racist as well, I'm going to call them on both things. The problem with a lot of radical feminism is the exclusion of particular groups, but that's another huge issue. So basically, on a forum like this, I'm not really sure what the answer is. I think if you see something happening and think it should be addressed, then you can do what LI has done and raise the issue that it's problematic. This then gives women the opportunity to voice their opinions if they choose to, in a way that isn't going to degrade into a shitstorm (which it probably would if they tried to do it elsewhere).

Additionally, that's a big part about how to be engaged in intersectionality. Giving other groups a voice, giving them safe spaces, helping them to establish/protect their spaces, etc. And once they have them, understanding that it's not your space, and respecting that. And by "you" in all this I've meant the general, not you in particular, Sir Fish!

My pleasure. I understand that there are some areas in which it's difficult to place myself with any credibility, but it doesn't mean I can't think intelligently about them and try to get a handle on them.

 

[thestruggle]

The thing is, LI, that you the threads you mention, on this board -are- threads where kink is a strong component. Honestly, I could have simply answered your question with a "Yes" and called it good, but where's the fun in that? I can see where you'd want to keep the conversation going in a particular direction, but beware of introducing simplification as you do so.

In fact, your followup question requires going into the nature of kink and sexual dynamics. Otherwise there wont be enough context to answer in a meaningful way.

I meant to say something about this as well, but got distracted. Sorry, DA! I think this point is really important, because it's necessary to remember that as microaggressions are symptoms the answers are accordingly going to be quite large. So, asking questions about particular issues in writing can be very difficult to address without showing their structural place. I mean, I'd probably go so far as to say it's impossible to not address the larger problem.

My pleasure. I understand that there are some areas in which it's difficult to place myself with any credibility, but it doesn't mean I can't think intelligently about them and try to get a handle on them.

So true! It's all anyone can do, really.

 

[Light Ice]

I meant to say something about this as well, but got distracted. Sorry, DA! I think this point is really important, because it's necessary to remember that as microaggressions are symptoms the answers are accordingly going to be quite large. So, asking questions about particular issues in writing can be very difficult to address without showing their structural place. I mean, I'd probably go so far as to say it's impossible to not address the larger problem.



So true! It's all anyone can do, really.

I suppose, maybe, that for the sake of condensing an otherwise massive conversation - I'd much rather keep the conversation pointed on instances. The conversation on the particulars of kink has importance but given the specificity of what I'm asking - I don't really think that importance is in this conversation.

For instance - I'm not asking for answers or solutions. I'm asking very direct and pointed questions designed to produce insights from people who don't necessarily have the same viewpoints that I do.

I suppose, if it can be kept brief, exploring the dynamics that are at play in the various kinks on display here is alright.

I just don't really want a post about the finer points of BDSM and how it relates to feminism or the women's lib perspective taking flight into a conversation on its own.

I'm not saying it isn't important. I'm simply saying that it isn't what I'm focusing on and hoping that by acknowledging the importance of that conversation, and being direct that I don't want to have it, I can offer a bit more clarity as to what I'm looking for without unintentionally shouting down someone.

So, while it isn't a simple topic with simple answers, it'd be most constructive for the conversation to keep things as focused as possible.