Saturday, 16 March 2013

Why all the how to have good sex advice we get is often Toxic:

Warnings for discussion of sexually explicit nature.

I'm going with this example: Coincidentally me pointing out the problematic elements of this caused a bout of discrimination on the part of a feminist. More on that later.

Primarily the issue here is that it presents itself as the definitive guide to what gets a woman's rocks off. Women being defined as cis gendered and straight by default. Most supposed guides on how to have great sex for women do this. They however often only perpetuate stereotypes and certainly ignore a lot of what we know about female bodies.

Firstly it basically claims that women as a default do not like rough sex. I know quite a few women who would explicitly disagree. It also basically insists the woman be the passive recipient only, not an active participant, to this person, sex is something done to women, not done with them.

Then it goes into "women like a gentle touch" crap. Women are not made of glass.

Then there's the assumption that only the breasts and genitals are erogenous zones. There's an entire body there, and some women's boobs are not sensitive and touching them basically does nothing for the woman.

Then it's straight to the clitoris/genitals, guess kissing, cuddling or exploring elsewhere isn't on the cards.

Then we hit the whole "all women orgasm through penetration" which is total bullshit btw, for many women penetration does nothing what so ever. For other's it's nice but it won't give them an orgasm no matter how long you go on.

If the stereotypes and erasure of GLBTQ women/people with female bodies weren't bad enough, it then goes into kink shaming. Apparently kink is okay unless it's too kinky, then it's bad.

The basic message is all women are cis, straight, have the same erogenous zones and like sex one way, orgasm from penetration, are passive objects who sex is done to rather than living participants, oh and kink is bad and not normal.

This is typical for a "sex advice" column or article. A one size fits all stereotypical erasure session.

As for how a so-called feminist reacted when I pointed out it was problematic and why it was problematic? She lost her rag because it worked for her and zomg, I was being hostile and mean. She tried to argue that she had degrees (Degrees are an always right voucher don'tcha know?) tried guilt tripping me by announcing she was a survivor (Because her past is so relevant to the fact that article is problematic) and basically dismissed the idea that anyone was allowed to have a different opinion before banning me from because saying I feel erased as a gender queer female bodied person by an article that is problematic is hostile. Saying that I did not appreciate it due to the shaming of women who are not in the narrow group it's applicable to, that's hostile. In short, disagreeing with a cis straight privileged feminist is hostile.

Welcome to why people have such problems with white straight cis feminists.

No comments:

Post a Comment