BDSM, Discomfort and Learning

Stephanie points to a post at Vagina Dentata that in turn points to a post at another blog I rather like (though rarely make it over to read), Spanked, not Silenced. I am not really going to discuss the post at SnS, which you should really go read anyways. Suffice to say that I am appalled and would like to encourage any of my readers who is a gamer to avoid EA games and to possibly write them and tell them why you think they fucking suck ass. I have done so, but as a total non-gamer, it is a rather pointless gesture...

What I would love to get into here, is Naomi's very interesting reaction to Pandora's post. You would do well to stop now, open her post in another tab and comeback after you read what she has to say about it.

Now I’ve read a couple of blogs by sexually submissive feminists (such as the very good Girl With a One Track Mind) and it’s something I’m really trying to get my head around. It seems counter-intuitive to me because my instinct is to encourage women to be powerful and assertive against a historical backdrop of oppression. But this blogger dresses up in chool uniforms and other costumes, and is spanked, dominated, tied-up and sexually submissive.

Assuming you have read her post, you will understand that she addresses her discomfort - a discomfort that I would argue is really quite healthy. I think we need to be uncomfortable when we are challenged. Not because it is fun, but because working through that discomfort is always a good teacher.

What I don't think that Naomi really addresses to a strong degree, is that women being powerful and assertive while also being sexually submissive are not mutually exclusive. First of all, submissive does not equal powerless. To the contrary, subs have very strict control over their situation (there are extremists who forgo safeties, but they are exceptional in BDSM and usually are men). They have an equal say in the rules before the fact and they have absolute control over the situation. I would even go as far as to say that subs actually have rather more control than your average sexual partner. The rules are generally very firmly established beforehand in a way that few casual couplings would even think about and in a way that few enough established couples ever really discuss. For most couples the preferences of their partners are learned as they go and often enough there are things that never really get established.

What is definitely unfeminist, is a feminist telling another woman how to have sex and what she can and can’t get her kicks out of. I want my feminism to include, for example, those women who have a gendered analysis of the world, they campaign for women’s rights, they challenge people’s everyday sexism and yet they're also down with consensual arse-slapping.

Sexuality is way too easy a target for some people. Growing up in U.S. culture makes it really easy for folks to have a visceral reaction to kink that doesn't happen to be their kink. The thing that a thoughtful person has to keep in mind, is that one's sexuality is not generally reflective of their identity outside the context of sex. I have all sorts of fetishes - though I am pretty vanilla for the most part. The thing is, my kink really isn't relevant outside the context of my sex life and sometimes discussions about sex. That someone might happen to like to be spanked, smacked around, disparaged horribly or otherwise abused, does not make them somehow less of a man or women. It just happens to be something that gets them off and probably also has some psychotherapeutic value.

If you are still having some difficulty wrapping your head around the idea that women who are sexually submissive, can also be strong feminist voices, consider the following questions. Would you ever even think about questioning the right of a women to call herself a feminist, simply because she is a heterosexual? Or because she prefers other women? How about because is just totally nuts over her sex toy collection? Can she be a feminist if she just really doesn't like sex at all, alone or with a partner? How about if she really likes sex in the great outdoors? I think that there are very few people indeed, who would argue that anything on that list could preclude a women from being a feminist and those who would are fringe loons. So why then would you consider it unfeminist for a women to have a sexual preference for being dominated?

The counter argument is: these women are perpetuating rape myths, they’re playing out their own internalised misogyny and they are making it harder for other women who are fighting against patriarchy. I simply do not think that this is true.

In this specific context, I cannot give a large enough and resounding enough call of BullShit! Not to Naomi's response, but to the expressed sentiment. What makes it harder for other women is paternalistic maternalistic busybodies, who want to tell everyone what to do and how to act. How exactly is this any different than any other misogynist telling women how they should be acting and where their place is? How is this any different than the extra scrutiny that still happens in many workplaces, because the work is being produced by a women? This is an example of becoming the object of contention, to fight the object of contention. "We'll never get anywhere, if we act like that" just puts us right back where we started.

Moreover, this is a major sticky issue with identity politics across the board. Blaming a member of the out group, for being a bad representative of that group. Or even worse, being a member of the outgroup and judging every single thing you do, in terms of the implications as a representative of that group. This is not to say there may not be contexts in which this position is valid. But it is absolutely absurd to act like any one person can be held responsible for how they make that group look. I'm a caucasian male. Is anybody going to seriously claim that when I was a rather extreme substance abuser, that my substance abuse reflected poorly on white dudes? Is anybody going to say with a straight face, that my rather extreme philandering when I was a tad younger makes beige guys look bad?

Oh wait, there are very similar pressures exerted on men too. There are people who would claim that I have reflected poorly on other men - maybe not because of the philandering, that is after all, an archetypal masculine ideal. And I am sure that the substance abuse wouldn't be a problem - at least if I would just shut the fuck up about my addiction issues already. But I have committed some cardinal sins of man. I have questioned and probed into social conceptions of gender. I have no problem whatever, telling my male friends that I love them, if the situation call for such intimate validations. I am not the least squicked out about homosexuality - I have even experimented myself. And I have been known to wear clothes that usually only women wear - like skirts and stuff.

There are several other flavors of folks who would judge men, in relation to my personal actions. Or who would just be horrified that I do things that reflect poorly on them. I think I will just wander to the other end of the spectrum. Guys who are horrified that I would be the least bit critical of women - especially self styled feminists. It is, after all, none of my fucking business. Men who are horrified by the idea that I regularly hold doors for women (and other men often enough) or that I quite often will open the passenger door for my lovely girlfriend. Men who whimper at the notion that I have on occasion, been a bit of a pugilist. How could I be such an insensitive and brutish bastard?

So fuck all, I guess that it actually does count if you're a white male. Just not quite the same way it does if you happen to be sporting a uterus. And not even close to the same way it does if you are the member of an out group, say non-beige, queer, a damned foreigner...

Naomi has a lot more to talk about, so if you haven't stopped over there, do it NOW!!!!

Misogyny, Misandry and What Lies Beneath

DuWayne has been very, very bad. We're talking horribly evile and possibly even stoopid. Recently, I had the gall to use the term misogyny, while totally failing to counterpoint it with accusations of misandry after being attacked with an apparent attempt at misandrist rhetoric. Worse, it was then noted that in all my posts about gender, I have only mentioned misogyny once and never mention misandry. Apparently it didn't matter that the time I posted about misogyny, it was to chastise someone who made a flagrantly bullshit accusation of misogyny. No, what matters is that I have completely ignored misandry.

Evile I tell you, I am totally evile...

Or am I?

There is a reason that I haven't really discussed misogyny and misandry. While I definitely do not approve of either, I am far more interested in writing about the roots of misogyny and misandry. Rather than focusing on specific incidents of M&M, I want to focus on why I think these are persistent problems in society and the evidence that suggests that I'm correct in my perception of the underlying problems. And while there are plenty of folks discussing specific incidents of M or M, there aren't so many discussing how to deal with the root causes.

While I am not one to shy from illustrative anecdotes, I tend to be a rather abstract thinker. I am more interested in the why than I am in the specific whats. The why is important, because until we understand the why, we can't deal with the whats and ultimately we'll just be stuck in a reactionary mode that will never accomplish anything.

But I think there are some very important points to be made about M&M. Accusations of M or M tend to fly way too freely. Like many other sorts of accusations, the overuse of M&M has gotten to the point that both words, especially misogyny, have been rendered virtually meaningless. Like the post I wrote about misogyny - accusing someone who is criticizing someone else of misogyny, simply because the person being criticized happens to be a women is absolutely absurd on it's face. Likewise, taking the lying gameplaying insult at Greg's blog and assuming that it exemplifies misandry is absurd. It was a personal insult leveled at me and men who share some similarities with me - it was far from a generalized statement of man hating.

These should be very powerful words, yet like many powerful words they are rapidly becoming useless. When I was a child, bigot was a word of similar power and while it is still a relatively nasty word, one can't assume that a person being accused of bigotry has said or done really horrible things. It has gotten to the point where we just use too many damned power words in inappropriate places. We just destroy the potency that such words should have and render them useless when it is appropriate. And I say we because unfortunately, I am occasionally guilty of it as well.

What's really rather ironic, is that I didn't really think that the original post that fostered this discussion (warning: there are rather nasty trolls on this thread, do not read scroll down that thread if you have bloodpressure problems) was showing something that is inherently misogynistic. Rather, the very old childrens book pictured perpetuates gender roles that lend themselves to misogyny and destructive gender role conflicts. That book and the bullshit it perpetuated is definitely worthy of discussion and I plan on writing about it at some point. But even that is not worthy of accusations of misogyny. Rather, it is worthy of fostering a discussion of what lies beneath misogynistic attitudes and ultimately misandrist attitudes that were fostered in the backlash of the social gender constructs that book fosters.

But even beyond the discussion of M&M, it would really behoove us to quit acting like complete and utter fucking morons and use power words sparingly, so that they can retain their power.

Mood Disorders in Men: My New Paper

For the full document, including cover, abstract, references and appendix, click here. The following is the body of the paper.

Mood Disorders in Men 3

Mood Disorders in Men:

Gender Constructs and Diagnostic/Treatment Failures

There is no question that women are diagnosed with affective mood disorders at much higher rates than men. Granted the absolute rates of depression in women are a source of contention, but multiple studies show that women are diagnosed with major depression and dysthemia at rates double those of men. A great deal of study has gone into investigating the reasons for this, from biology to oppression and other social conditions, even certain personality factors. Yet the causes of these higher rates of depression and mood disorders have continued to elude researchers (Blehar & Oren, 1997, p.2). It is not unreasonable to assume, based on these findings, that there simply must be something unique to women, causing this disparity.

Very few psychologists and fewer researchers have considered the idea that rather than being a women's issue, this disparity might just be a men's issue. It would seem rather difficult to figure out just what's fueling this disparity, without looking at why men aren't diagnosed with depression at nearly the rates women are. It would be incredibly hard to find the causal relationship that explains higher rates of depression in women, if the base assumptions driving that research are mistaken in the first place. But given the disparate focus of most gender studies on women and women's issues, it's unsurprising that this seemingly obvious avenue of investigation is mostly lost in the mix.

The Gender Gap Fallacy

The sentiments expressed by Drs. Blehar and Oren are very consistent with the assumptions of mainstream, modern psychology and women's studies. In their 2003 paper, The Depression Gender Gap, Ronald Immerman and Wade Mackey actually claim that there is a consistent evolutionary history at work in these higher rates of depression in women. Because they found that the median ratio of depression between men and women, in several countries was close to 2:1, they claim this is just a part

Mood Disorders in Men 4

of what it means to be human. Yet when we look at their own table, we see that while the figures do come to that median, the ratio is far from consistent.

Figure 1. Site of survey and female to male ratio of prevalence of depression across nations and communities. Note that three communities listed are expatriate communities in the UK. Note. From Immerman, R. S., & Mackey, W. C. (2003, February). The depression gender gap: a view through a biocultural filter. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 129(1), 5-35. Retrieved March 8^th, 2009 from the Michigan E-Library, http://mel.org/

Avoiding the obvious logical fallacies that drive the entire notion of evolutionary psychology that Immerman and Mackey dive into, there remains the important question of how men fit into this equation. Because the underlying assumption that women experience depression at such significantly higher rates than men, is called into question by Berger, Levant, McMillan, Kelleher and Sellers (2005), finding that “ men who score higher on measures of gender role conflict and traditional masculinity

Mood Disorders in Men 5

ideology tend to have more negative attitudes toward psychological help seeking.” This is probably due the higher rates of alexythima (difficulty experiencing, thinking about and expressing emotions) in men with high rates of gender role conflict (A. R. Fischer & Good, 1997). When the population of comparison, in this case men, are unlikely to seek help for or even recognize that they have a problem, they are also unlikely to be diagnosed with affective mood disorders. While these papers don't indicate rates of depression in men, they certainly call into question the disparity in the rates of depression between women and men.

The Problem of Help Seeking and Diagnosis

More disturbing than the tangential impact these papers have on the question of gender disparity and mood disorders, are the implications for men and help seeking. The evidence indicates that there is a substantial segment of the population that has serious problems even recognizing they might have psychological problems, much less seeking help. The problem is further complicated by generalized diagnostic criteria which are predicated on the understanding that the patient can identify and describe their various emotional states. Without compensating for undiagnosed alexythima, or gender conflict induced emotional disassociation, patients with potentially serious mood disorders will inevitably be misdiagnosed, undiagnosed or the severity of the diagnosis may be seriously understated.

Mariola Magovcevic and Michael E. Addis , of Clark University have taken the initial steps in the development of a masculine depressive index (appendix) to help diagnose depression in men who tend to adhere closely to masculine norms (2008). The methodology is a significant improvement over that of previous studies because the subjects were screened in for a recent (last three months) depressogenic events, but the authors are also very clear about the limitations of this study. There is a great deal more work to be done to develop a coherent and comprehensive diagnostic criteria for depression in men and this study didn't look at any other affective mood disorders.

Mood Disorders in Men 6

The obvious isn't always so obvious and therein lies a great deal of trouble when it comes to dealing with the problems of encouraging help seeking, improving diagnostic criteria and treatment protocols – this is very new territory. While traditionally the ratio of depression from men to women has been assumed to be about 2:1, the ratio of bipolar diagnosis, for example, has been fairly even ( Blehar & Oren, 1997, p.2). The implications of higher rates of unipolar depression in men than previously thought, would imply that the rates of bipolar disorder are also higher than previously thought. Yet none of the articles cited in this paper and few of the articles read while preparing to write this paper discuss the possibility of higher rates of any affective disorders besides depression.

The Gender Gap in Gender Studies

Though there have been several solid studies that have indicated these higher rates of depression in men, there has been very little popular discussion of the findings. The assumption that women experience significantly higher rates of depression than men is still a fundamental premise of most women's studies programs. Not because the studies indicating otherwise are flawed, or because they are being willfully ignored. Rather, they just haven't been noticed. This really shouldn't come as any surprise to those involved in gender studies, especially men's studies. While virtually every college with a psychology department has a women's studies program, there are very few that have a specific men's studies program and there are no graduate men's studies programs in the U.S. An exhaustive web search for men's studies texts, yields less than a dozen academic journals. In contrast, a cursory web search turns up more than fifty core women's studies journals.

The most important implication of this evidence is the critical need for more focus on men's studies for the sake of the mental health of a large segment of society. But there is a secondary implication here. The findings discussed here have significant relevance to the study of depression in women. First, it provides evidence that the disparity in diagnosis is considerably different than

Mood Disorders in Men 7

traditionally considered. Second, this research points to the importance of gender specific diagnostic and treatment models for depression and other affective mood disorders. It also makes a reasonable argument for investigating whether gender specific approaches might be appropriate for other neurological issues.

Men's Studies and Society

There is a broader social implication to the studies discussed here. Archetypal male gender constructs and gender role conflicts are just as abusive to men, as they often are to women. They foster emotional repression, health care problems, obsession with achievement and power, problems with sexual and affectionate behaviors, and homophobia. GRCs often create an outright fear of anything that could be mistaken as feminine in nature ( Magovcevic & Addis, 2008, p118; Blazina, Settle & Eddins, 2008, p70). Aside from the impact of archetypal male gender constructs and GRCs on the mental health and wellbeing of some men, there is also the impact on the rest of society to consider.

Yet while there are a great number of women studying female gender constructs and developing methods for women to transcend archetypal female gender constructs, very few men are studying masculine gender constructs. There are unfortunately, more women involved in men's studies than there are men. This is not to speak poorly of the women who are working in the fields of men's studies or to disparage their work. It ultimately speaks poorly of men for not stepping up and dealing with problems of masculinity and men.

The same gender conflicts that drive many men to emotional disassociation are probably largely responsible for this gender gap in men's studies. It is important to recognize that the underlying archetypal male gender constructs are a continuum, not a dichotomy (Tremblay & L'Heureux, 2005, p56). Even though most men avoid the extremes of GRCs, most men still fall somewhere along that spectrum and experience to some degree many of the problems discussed above. This means that while

Mood Disorders in Men 8

the manifestation may not be as extreme as those discussed above, they are often prohibitive nonetheless.

Deconstructing Gender

Women's studies are very important and the focus of gender studies on women's studies is understandable – most of the people involved in gender studies are women. But it is important to recognize that the lack of focus on men's studies affects women and even impacts feminine gender constructs and the socialization of women. The ramifications of masculine gender constructs have a profound affect on everyone, as do gender constructs across the spectrum. From the health and mental wellbeing of men, to the impact of GRCs and even the average masculine norms on society as a whole. The time has long since passed for an increased focus on male gender constructs that goes beyond looking at whats wrong and focuses on how to make it right.

Male Gender: Ripping People Out of Their Comfort Zones

Addendum; Focusing on the memories of this experience was a rather intense experience and things became rather convoluted at the end. Writing at two in the morning probably contributed. So I have cleaned up the end of the post.

Ok. I just couldn't really fit this into a comment. JLK has been writing a series on gender, that will encompass several parts. She's on men, chapter three now and my response to this in particular, is a very good introduction to how DuWayne became interested in gender issues. The whole sub-series on men (part one) has been fantastic and fostered some really interesting discussions. I feel kind of bad dragging my butt back here, but I realized that one, I had more than can reasonably be shoved into a comment on someone else's blog and two, it really does describe my first awareness of gender, outside the context of physiology.

Be forewarned, this post is a very frank discussion of sexuality and contains rather graphic descriptives.

But manhood is not something that, once reached, is permanent. It can be taken away at any point - through the loss of a job or income, lack of a significant other (or one who leaves), loss of hair, sexual impotence or infertility, expressing emotion in public. and myriad other things. A "real man" is always in control of himself, his family, and his emotions. A "real man" doesn't have those problems.

More...The first time I wore a skirt, I was bumming about, having just come back into town after a year on the road. I was hanging out with a bi-women, who was definitely inclined towards the "prefers girls" end of the spectrum. Having since met the other three men she had ever been with at that point since, I was struck by the fact that we were all rather pretty boys. So I'm hanging out with this women, Kaylee (she was "less than" thirty, I was nineteen) about thirty hours after I wandered into town and she was washing all my clothes (I had been in the woods for a week or so before I took four days to hitch home - basically on a whim). We were hanging out in her living room naked, after she had spent a good forty minutes scrubbing off the road grime in the shower. She lived very close to the coffee shop and we were both really in the mood for a coffee, but of course my clothes were all in the laundry. She got this almost menacing grin on her face and said she could probably find something for me to put on (keeping in mind I was a sight bigger than she). She ran upstairs for a few minutes and came back down with clothes on, carrying a fucking hippie shirt and a bright yellow, long and light hippie skirt - also wearing a massive, shit-eating grin.

I shrugged, put it on and was forever hooked. It was the most comfortable thing I had ever worn. And when we strutted into the coffee shop, there wasn't a single person in the place that failed to look. At least half the people there knew me and many of them weren't even subtle about their disbelief (more than the skirt, most of them hadn't seen me in over a year). To make matters more shocking, one of my closest friends ran up and gave me a hug, lifting me off the ground in the process. Then, a spur of the moment thing, he kissed me full on the lips - even slipped some tongue. We all sat down, Kaylee sitting close and doing naughty things under the table, when she whispered in my ear that I was causing her to get a lot of dirty looks from some of the women around us. Long story short, when we headed back to her place, a couple of girls went with us, along with my rather voraciously welcoming friend Chris. Fun was had by all.

Now seeing a guy in a skirt walk into a coffee shop with a hot woman and get kissed by a guy friend, was fairly shocking in Kalamazoo, MI, midwest U.S. in 1995 - don't get me wrong. But to explain the extreme of that shock to many who witnessed it, I have to backtrack by several years.

I was such a boy growing up.

I loved playing with toy guns, watching westerns, reading adventure novels - I was bent on the idea of becoming a bounty hunter/private detective until I was eight. With severe ADHD, I had the impulse control of shark in bloody water. I was a boys boy. Because of the attention of a couple of awesome men in my life, I learned to become intimate with nature. I learned about the plants and bugs that would keep me alive if necessary. I also learned to read tracks. I managed my first kill at eleven, taking a 'coon out of a tree with my fucking BB gun, dogs finishing it for me. I carried a buck knife with me everywhere, when I wasn't in school (sometimes when I was). And as most of my friends were the "losers," because they made the most loyal friends, I was extremely introverted and utterly clueless to the notion I was pretty hot - I had to kick some ass on occasion. I did not like people picking on my friends.

I bought my first shotgun when I was twelve, after making top score in marksmanship and weapon safety in the hunter's safety course. I bagged my first buck that winter. After tracking it for an hour and slitting it's throat with my knife - tears in my eyes, I decided to never concern myself with the fucking trophy head again. I never had to track a deer I shot again - if I couldn't get a clean kill, I didn't shoot.

And then there was sex. After I became dejected by the intense hypocrisy of my church, other concerns really got me.

Thinking there was something wrong with me, when all the guys were bragging about sexing their gals, I started sexing some of their gals - though mostly girls I met at the college library, researching for debate (that was my "sport," along with solo and ensemble). I developed a reputation as the goto guy for first timers. (girls who really didn't like me, would recommend me to their virgin friends - like me or not, I was rather fond of them:) I was decidedly not into relationships (probably why some of the girls really didn't like me), preferring to stay open and free to play with a variety of girls. And while I was generally pretty low key about my adventures, the girls weren't always - excepting the ones who had BF's.

So now you have some grasp of why DuWayne walking into the coffee shop wearing a skirt and being kissed by a boy was extra-especially shocking. I didn't exactly have a reputation for being effeminate. Rather the opposite, according to some old school friend/acquaintances, for some I was one of the measures they used for their own masculinity - an ideal as it were. And most of my friends knew that I had been gone for over a year, hitchhiking around the U.S.

What the Fuck!?!

About a month to six weeks after the infamous yellow skirt, kissing boy incident (I have friends who still bring it up) I was on a whole lot of acid, having a more sensual, than sexual encounter with a few friends, when it suddenly clicked. I was a fucking outlaw. I had broken sacred, fundamental rules of masculinity and worse, social labeling.

I won't lie and say that I didn't derive a great deal of pleasure from the shock value. I most certainly did. I was (and in some ways am) a radical. But for the most part I liked wearing these skirts because they were really comfortable. Also, I had discovered that if the person you're with is also wearing a skirt and no unders, you can easily get away with public sex, as long as no one gets too loud. I hadn't begun to consider the social implications of a man's man like myself breaking the conventions I was breaking. Mostly I just figured it kind of fucked with the older folks (most anyone over thirty) and close minded neanderthals.

Suddenly, as I was laying there, my head against the breasts of one friend, my fingers tracing the contours of another friend's torso, it blasted me like trainwreck (this was not an uncommon occurrence when I was on lots of LSD). I am a man. Yet I was doing things that men just don't do. And I wasn't being sneaky about it, hiding in my bedroom (not that I had a bedroom, or a home per say). I wasn't ashamed and really and truly didn't give a fuck what anyone else thought about it. My masculinity wasn't defined by the clothes I wore, my compassion and empathy or my exceedingly rare, but cold rage and even more rarely expressed ability for righteous, unflinching violence. My sexuality wasn't defined by the pleasure I took from the bodies of many girls and a few women, nor was it defined by my complete comfort with the notion of sucking the cock of another boy who might be a part of a particular sexual encounter.

My manhood was not defined by my cock and lack of uterus, nor by any social conditioning.

My manhood is simply - me. My sexuality is mine and mine alone.

This experience set the foundation for the first interaction I had with a male born women. While it was certainly a new concept for me, it was easy to extrapolate my own experience with gender identity onto that of someone else.

Human Sexuality: Puritanical Feminism and the Religious Right

Be forewarned, the following post contains adult content, a very frank discussion about sexuality and probably TMI about yours truly. Though remarkably, I managed to keep the naughty language to a minimum.

I also wish to clarify that while I firmly embrace sex positivity, I also embrace personal choices. Just as I abhor sexual repression, I also abhor the pressure that is applied to people who have made a choice to abstain. Human sexuality is a beautiful, wonderful expression. But it is all too often made ugly and painful by the choices people allow others to make for them. People should never feel that there is something wrong with them because they happen to want to wait or forgo the sexual experience altogether. Just as I believe there is nothing wrong with casual sex, there is nothing at all wrong with no sex.More...

I like Teh Sex. Back when I was a little younger, a whole lot prettier and had a band, I proved it by having a whole lot of it. Casual sex managed the balance between using a whole lot of drugs and playing music all the time. Not one for romantic entanglements, I rarely delved into the world of significant others. Like who I'd play music with, I had standards when it came to sexual partners, but they were really more of a loose set of guidelines, than a firm set of rules. Basically I wanted to sex people who were fairly literate and interesting conversationalists. I preferred women who met certain aesthetic standards as well, though mine have always been rather wide ranging aesthetic standards. And I preferred to have sex with women, as I just don't find men sexually stimulating. But ultimately, none of those standards were fast and solid. If a women was particularly intellectually stimulating, I could look past potential failures to meet my aesthetic standards. Likewise, if a women managed to hit my aesthetic idealism, I might look past her inability to meet my intellectual standards. And if a boy met a certain aesthetic ideal, coupled with an emotional/intellectual attraction, I could enjoy time spent providing them sexual pleasure - not to say that I wouldn't get some enjoyment as well, but as I said, it's really never been my thing.

I wish that I could say that I never played women, never lied to them for sex. But unfortunately I have. My only defense is that I never lied to a women about my feelings, when I wasn't also lying to myself. For the most part, I sought women who wanted the very same thing I was after - casual sex. And on a couple of occasions, I even got burned by women who were playing me. One of them, I believe was deluding herself as much as she was deluding me. The other was just straight up lying to me. But I figure it's all ok, because in neither case was I doing anything but lying to myself about my own feelings. The fact is that hurting others and being hurt is part of growing up. Trying to minimize the damage is about all anyone can ever do.

For a few months, when I was eighteen, I worked as a stripper. The club I worked was mainly a female audience two nights a week and a mainly male audience three nights. I absolutely hated the ladies nights. They were really obnoxious and didn't tip nearly as well as the horny, greasy old men. The men had their drawbacks, one being that many of them expected something more after the show, but they tipped well (often with large bills that had phone numbers written on) and the worse any of them might do is play with themselves while they watched. I can honestly say that getting a bunch of cash from people watching me dance rather poorly, but in the buff, fed my narcissism in a big way. I would even go as far as to say it was somewhat empowering. But mostly, it was just a fairly easy way to make good money, something I just didn't manage very well at that time of my life.

I also managed a fairly short stint as a gigolo. I mainly did it for the experience of it, to have the opportunity to live in pretty extreme luxury and hob-knob with people of pornographic levels of wealth. Being young, sexy, highly literate and very well spoken, I was well received when I worked as an escort for a very wealthy, very attractive women more than twice my age. I fulfilled her need to satiate social expectations, fulfilled other, more personal needs and was absolutely discreet about fulfilling my own more personal needs. In turn she took very good care of me, providing an apartment that was luxury I understood existed, but never knew existed.

According to the religious right, I am an abomination on a great many levels. Even though I am pretty tame, here in my early thirties, abstaining from sex and drugs, I make no apologies for who I have been. Not only making no apologies, but embracing who I was, taking ownership of it. Though I am abstinent, I still identify myself as a philanderer, a whore. The years that separate me from that lifestyle, do not change the basic fact: There is nothing inherently wrong with casual sex, selling one's sex or otherwise profiting from one's sexuality. So to the religious right, I'm downright evile.

But that's not where the persecution of people who, like me, embrace their sexuality ends. Oh no. Because there is a fairly sizable contingent of feminists who embrace the same puritanical repression of the religious right. Only instead of believing that open sexuality is a sin against their gods, puritanical feminists believe that pornography and profiting from one's sexuality inherently supports the patriarchy. Porn and sex work, by their very nature are inherently oppressive to women - both those directly involved and by extension, all women.

I grew up in the church. Mostly in pretty right wing churches. I was preached to about sexuality for many years. I heard it from Promise Keepers and many other evangelical organizations. The truly frightening thing in all this, is that the message that puritanical feminism pushes, is almost identical to that of the religious right. People who firmly believe themselves to be progressive, to be sticking it to the patriarchy are instead embracing the fundamental idealism of the patriarchy.Hardline repression is hardline repression, no matter who's pushing it. And there is little that more firmly represents the very worse abuses of the patriarchy, than the sexual repression and oppression.

Like I put it on a very old thread at Renegade Evolution;

Puritanical bullshit that sounds little different than something the American Family Ass, or Concerned Women for America would come out with seems more like sucking patriarchal cock, than getting paid to blow a rich white guy is.