I respectuflly disagree that we don’t see much torture of men. Of course, there are two levels: the one in the James Bond movie just reference, and then the kind of thing that’s not as harmful (especially when it’s consensual) — spanking, and whatnot. But both of these, it seems to me, are far more common with the woman as giver and man as taker (or whatever the terminology is), at least as far as Hollywood is concerned. Again, no first-hand experience here…

One quite recent example of the former is that new show about “Chuck and his secret” on NBC. Our hapless hero is shown in the teaser, sitting on a chair as a woman throws knives dangerously close to his groin. We’re still supposed to root for him and not her, I think, but our reaction is expected to be “whoa, that was close, heh-heh.” And such scenes have become so common that we’re expected to laugh for a few seconds and then forget about it. No one would be laughing or forgetting about it, though, were it a man throwing knives near a woman’s crotch.

“Female violence toward men is very often treated as slapstick in our culture–it’s not like those silly girls could ever really hurt a man, therefore it’s funny, like a little kid beating up an adult in the Full House movies. It’s rarely seen as anything like a serious threat. Women just don’t *do* that. /eyeroll”

That’s a point I’ve made before: that the attitude of “women hitting men isn’t a big deal, because they’re ‘only’ women” is about as insulting to woman as it is unfair to men. Not exactly woman-positive to dismiss everything she does as harmless…

And I hate the HOME ALONE movies (I assume that’s what you meant), even if they’re the “bad guys” and he’s “just a little boy.” I really don’t like to see anyone experiencing pain. Guess I’m “not normal” that way…

boy genteel

And yes, female violence against men is treated a bit wierdly, cant make out what that means myself.

Have you seen the latest Bond film? The scene where Daniel Craig is tied naked and beautiful to a chair and then tortured by having his genitalia pelted is pretty much undeniably sexualised violence against a man, but by a man. This scene was really shocking and unusual.

Female violence toward men is very often treated as slapstick in our culture–it’s not like those silly girls could ever really hurt a man, therefore it’s funny, like a little kid beating up an adult in the Full House movies. It’s rarely seen as anything like a serious threat. Women just don’t *do* that. /eyeroll

I don’t think Roth is being entirely honest, bluntly. Seeing women tortured is par for the course in horror.

I have often thought along the same lines as pisaquari, that BDSM was a kind of human psycho - sexual equivelent of being stuck on a hamster wheel, only possibly more fun. So I took the route of dealing with my issues and did not get involved, although the scene did seem appealing to me when I was younger.

But you and your contributors talk of such depth of caring, trust, tenderness and thoughtfulness. I have no desire to dominate or be dominated in any significant way, but these other qualities in sex can so often be lacking - maybe we could all learn from BDSM.

And I guess we all take our own paths.

1) That people who participate in BDSM are either engaged in something which is damaging to themselves or engaged in something which is damaging overall and

2) That BDSM has some connection to the patriarchy and/or sex work and/or female oppression and/or the ideas behind female oppression.

Both as far as I can understand fall into the “and so what?” catagory. People are damaged and are not, as far as I can find, perfect in all aspects. Often people do not know why they find what works for them sexually does so. I do not have any experience in BDSM but those who have explained their attraction to it have given reasons which I consider sensible and liberating for them individually. And the parts I don’t get fall generally into the same catagory as things like people who like to collect shoes - It’s not my game but so what? Admittedly most of my experience is with leatherdykes and queer BDSM and the question of how this effects “the patriarchy” is up there with “will no one think of the ducks and other wildlife?” There may be a connection but no one in the room can figure it out exactly.

But then again, I have never considered that I have to ask anyone to surrender thier present life for the sake of someone’s future feminism. They get to choose what salad dressing they want and if they want informed and considered BDSM with a consentual and informed partner…….so what? Any idea that BDSM is “bad” sex implies that the speaker knows what good sex is - if so, please provide a list because both the Joy of Sex and the Joy of lesbian sex list consentual bondage sex - I guess I didn’t find the Joy of Patriarchy-Free Feminist Sex - is a volume coming out soon?

Elaine, in all fairness, listing these multiple uses of a tube of lipstick is not really consistent with the original example you and I discussed: someone using lipstick as makeup with knowledge of the social implications. I am a bit interested, however, in how you justify someone using lipstick to get a job promotion/fit into society, as some undoing of the patriarchy.

“If lipstick has such a variety or uses/ meanings/ interpretations/ forms and if some feminists are capable of using lipstick to undo (some of) the patriarchy, then why should we assume all lipstick is all bad all the time?”

I didn’t say, and don’t mean to imply that, *all possible* uses of lipstick are downright oppressing. One could dismantle a stripper pole to pull a drowning person out of the water. Use gonzo porn tapes to build a table leg. But this is tangential if we are going to discuss the sex industry and what is socially salvageable for feminism.
Lipstick being worn to color lips will do nothing to undo patriarchy/further feminism. I’d much rather be black and white on this than go so gray we never get anything done.

for the sake of feminism and its progression and future women not having to make such distressing negoatiations we should not celebrate those concessions. We should not call them liberating. We should not indulge them with praise. We should call them by name. They are compromises, trade-offs. Wear lipstick but call it a construct. Get off on your domination/submission but don’t tell people you are free. Get a boob job but don’t go on Dr. Phil announcing your new found confidence. Have the courtesy to let people know when you make those concessions. Have the decency to give someone else they key to the exit door.

I think that’s a little too black and white.

Sticking with the lipstick analogy: Lipstick is not just about a feminine social construct, it’s also an art, and it’s also a symbol. Lipstick is used in a wide variety of ways and contexts. It can be used to get the job promotion, to seal a love letter, to fit into societal norms, to graffiti a subway advertisement, to keep your lips from getting chapped, to purposefully stain clothing, to pass, to become a character in a play or movie… And vibrators and pipes now come in the shape of a lipstick tube, subverting the original meaning of lipstick.

If lipstick has such a variety or uses/ meanings/ interpretations/ forms and if some feminists are capable of using lipstick to undo (some of) the patriarchy, then why should we assume all lipstick is all bad all the time?

I really do think that it’s a fair analogy.

Bingo, Mythago. The key word there is “horror.” The torture of women by men is seen as a horror movie, whereas the torture of men by women is seen as sitcom-worthy. In fact, Eli Roth was quoted in a magazine as saying that in HOSTEL II he had to ratchet up the horror a notch, and that’s why the sequel had mostly women as the victims (whereas the original had mostly men being tortured). He explained that “seeing women being tortured is inherently worse,” which means, of course, that, conversely, he believes that seeing men being abducted, tortured, and killed isn’t so bad. Yup.

“If patriarchy is the root from which all oppression flows, then how can you not mention the patriarchy?”

-My point was that patriarchy does not have to be “mentioned” to understand what can be so troublesome about “the continued indulgence in past abuses/conditioning rooted in violations.”

“If there is no clear demarcation such as sex, race, etc. to mark who is “supposed to” dominate whom, is that really a situation where one person is an oppressor?”

-Please quote the exact phrase/sentence where I have said/implied there is no “clear demarcation such as sex, race, etc…” At that point I can (hopefully) better answer this question.

“And if domination is the problem, would SM be OK if there is no domination involved?”

-Sexualizing domination is as troublesome to me as sexualizing submission. SM I still find to be rooted in unhealthy pasts experiences. Engaging these unhealthy pasts I do not find to be “OK.”