It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone’s fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I’m one of Us. I must be. I’ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We’re always one of Us. It’s Them that do the bad things. – Terry Pratchett
When people are confronted with information which challenges their views or contradicts their preconceptions, their first (and all too often, only) response is usually to deny it; as Maier’s Law states, “If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.” Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the less people know about important, complex issues, and the more helpless they feel about them, the less they want to know about them:
…In one study, participants who felt most affected by the economic recession avoided information challenging the government’s ability to manage the economy…[but] did not avoid positive information…co-author Aaron C. Kay [said]…“people tend to respond by psychologically ‘outsourcing’ the issue to the government, which in turn causes them to trust and feel more dependent on the government. Ultimately, they avoid learning about the issue because that could shatter their faith in the government”…
Of course, it isn’t only governments that people delegate their moral and intellectual responsibilities to in this fashion; any “authority” will do, and countless individuals rely on religion (including secular religions like feminism and Marxism) to do the hard thinking for them. When such a person is confronted by a difficult issue, he falls into a defensive psychological posture and holds up whatever fragment of dogma he needs to shield his psyche from the disturbing truth. And he will continue to repeat it, and to deny the facts directly before his eyes, until the disturbing thought can be entirely banished or buried.
When the offending concept or phenomenon is something remote, something which only affects other (preferably faraway or very different) people, the parroting of catechism is very effective. As long as those who are hurt by one’s beliefs and policies can be rationalized as “not like us”, it’s easy to justify almost any degree of barbarism, and if they can be demonized as a threat to Our Treasured Way of Life, any number of atrocities is acceptable to neutralize the existential threat. But when the messenger is of the in-group a more potent remedy becomes necessary if the comfortable state of ignorance is to be maintained: he must be ostracized from the group, excised like a tumor, lest in-group defensiveness shield him from criticism and thereby allow his ideas to be heard. There was an example of this recently in a new comment on an older column; a reader took exception to this statement:
Feminists are fond of equating all rape with aggravated rape, but as one who has experienced both I can tell you that simply isn’t true; aggravated rape is terrifying because of the possibility of death or disfigurement, but “date rape” – in other words, unwanted sex which occurs in the context of a voluntarily-entered sexual situation – isn’t nearly as bad. It’s highly unpleasant and may even be painful, but it’s not the worst thing that can happen to a woman.
Nobody who read that in a year found it controversial enough to respond to, but when one finally did she found herself in a cognitive dilemma: as a woman and a rape “survivor” I am member of a member of two of her “us” groups, yet here I was uttering blasphemy; she therefore had to either deeply consider my statement, or else expel me from her notion of “us”:
Sometimes I wonder if the author of this blog is a real woman – maybe this “Maggie” person is a guy masquerading as a woman, because we woman [sic] know that date rape really is as bad as rape by a stranger. And that guy you’ve known *could* turn violent – you just never know. Whether it’s being raped by a stranger or a guy you’ve known and trusted, it’s all hideous. I should know: I’ve experienced both.
Obviously, she chose the latter, and the possibility that there might be all sorts of evidence of the absurdity of her accusation never entered her mind. More accurately, it couldn’t enter her mind; this kind of rejection is an emotional process rather than an intellectual one, and thus is not subject to interruption by the possibility that it might make one look like an ignoramus. It’s an extremely common phenomenon; every day we hear or read people rejecting the idea that so-and-so is a “real” member of whatever group, because no “real” whatever would say such a thing. This isn’t to say that such conclusions are never true; the first clues to “Alexa di Carlo” being a fake were the numerous things “she” said that real escorts simply couldn’t believe were coming from a real escort. But the exposure of “Alexa” was an intellectual process involving considerable time and detective work, not a ridiculous assertion reflexively made to protect a cherished belief. The most common (and most foolish) example is probably the term “pseudo-intellectual”, which is generally used to imply that one so labeled can’t really be an intellectual because he disagrees with the one doing the labeling.
Usually, the person questioning another’s group identification is himself a member of the group, but that isn’t always the case; when it is otherwise, the attempt at excision is less an automatic defense mechanism and more a calculated strategy (often by a group acting in concert). Sometimes the “defended” group is one for which they feel sympathy, and the person they wish to exclude somehow jeopardizes that sympathy; for example, witness the clique of journalists and the cabal of politicians who want to refuse Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden the honorable title of “whistleblower” on the spurious grounds that they blew the whistle on abuse and corruption the politicians didn’t want exposed. At other times, the group is one the denouncers wish to cast into a particular role in order to advance their agenda, and the individual member is perceived as an obstacle to selling that stereotype to the general public; I’ve written about prohibitionists who wish to deny that sex worker advocates are “representative” sex workers (or even vilify us as “pimps”) because we vocally and actively refute their myth that all sex workers are broken dolls who don’t know what we’re doing and need the prohibitionists to speak for us. But the practice isn’t restricted to oppressors; as Chi Mgbako pointed out, even well-meaning people do it:
When many people think of…victims of human rights abuse, they often conjure up stereotypical images of passive and powerless people…waiting to be saved. The biases underlying these notions can lead some human rights advocates to favor “perfect victims” in advocacy and publicity campaigns, and…to disregard injustices faced by other marginalized individuals who may inspire more ambivalent and complicated responses from the public. The privileging of “perfect victimhood” is misguided because all people have human rights regardless of subjective determinations of “worthiness”…the danger of the…construct is illustrated by…society’s failure to view economically disenfranchised black men as victims of the devastating “war on drugs”…
No matter what the motive, and whether the process is conscious or unconscious, the attempt to forcibly reassign an individual from one “box” to another in the minds of others is not only offensive to the truth and potentially injurious to the reputations of others; it also tends to make the denouncer look like a fool at best and a manipulative liar at worst, and may in the long run damage whatever cause he’s attempting to promote.
Red Umbrella proves otherwise!!! Definitely some nice female parts!
Well then … wouldn’t a guy picking you up for a date be just as unpleasant as aggravated rape? Hey, he *could* get you in the car and turn violent – you just never know.
There’s a lot of things in life you “just never know” about.
Yikes. I thought Silkyvelvet was cool… guess not.
I’ve never been raped but I have been molested: while on holiday in Jamaica as a teenager, a hotel employee came up to me by the pool and offered me a massage. Not knowing better, I said yes. As his massage got closer to my pelvis, he started rubbing my genitals through and then underneath my swimsuit. I was frozen with uncertainty and could not move until he stopped. When he did, he offered further services. I declined and ran back to my room, and avoided the pool for the next four days.
Had I gone to an authority, or a counselor, or goddess forbid a rape crisis center, it is entirely likely that this (admittedly unpleasant) event would have turned into The Worst Thing That Ever Happened To Me, and I would have been feminist-brainwashed into letting it ruin the rest of my life. Writing this comment is the first time it has entered my mind in years…because I refused to allow it to inform my male-female relationships. Did it suck? Of course. But I dealt with it and moved forward.
That would be interpreted as proof-positive that you have repressed your true feelings and emotions on the matter and that Patriarchy demanded that you continue to have heterosexual relationships, which, of course, are perfect mimicries of the original assault.
Have you considered a career in espionage? You could infiltrate a feminist coven easily. You sound JUST. LIKE. THEM. 😉
I just refused to believe that a man can ruin my life with his dick (or in this case, fingers). Any feminist who doesn’t see that that is the most misogynist and patriarchal stance imaginable needs to work on her self-reflection.
I’d be a horrible spy! Within a week I’d blurt out, “What the fuck is WRONG with you broads?!”
Yeah, it’s amazing how delicate women are regarded by these feminists who otherwise yell about “grrrl power!'” every chance they get.
I simply get turned off by what seems like insensitivity towards women who have been raped. Of course, it’s psychologically healthier to move on after something as traumatizing as rape; I’m not suggesting that one should live in the past – and I never stated that crimes such as rape and sexual molestation can ruin the rest of one’s life. Some people who have been raped find it more difficult to put the past behind them. and some bounce back almost right away; the healing process is different for each one of us.
Silky, I don’t think *anybody*, least of all Maggie, is being insensitive toward rape victims. And certainly you are entitled to move through your recovery at your own pace. I actually don’t think you two disagree about much. Nobody is saying that getting raped does not suck. It does, unequivocally. But some circumstances of rape are worse and more traumatizing than others. I think that is the point here.
I’ve had a little experience in working with rape survivors in a community based restorative justice context and definitely concur with what you are saying. In fact I was quite disturbed to discover the depth and extent of trauma suffered by some survivors of non-consensual but non-violent sex with current or former partners.
However I have also seen at least one case in which the survivor seemed to be recovering reasonably well until the ‘sisters’ rallied around her to insist not only that she had been violated far more seriously than she had imagined herself to be but that anyone suggesting otherwise was part of the patriarchal rape culture that had led to her assault in the first place.
As a result the admittedly already shaky restorative justice process broke down completely and a fairly nasty, mostly gender based split developed in what had previously been a very harmonious inner city anarchist community.
BTW, it was the completely inappropriate response of her violator to some of the provisions of what was meant to be a consensus based process that caused the women involved to become so defensive and militant, but I’m confident the result for the victim and everyone else involved would have been far better had hard line feminist rape ideology been kept out of the picture.
Go to the head of the class!
It’s always annoying when someone refuses to halt their own ill-informed hysteria for a nanosecond to actually -think-. Hell, most of the time I wouldn’t mind agreeing to disagree – if people would just stop being so goddamn stupid about everything.
I wonder if it’s really all about wanting to delegate mental or emotional responsibility.
I’ve run across some otherwise pretty strongly independent people who seem to need some sort of infallible outside authority – a god, a philosophy, an institution – just so they can hang onto the belief that there really is some sort of justice in the universe, or there would be if only everyone else would believe like them.
I mean us good guys always win in the end, right?
Unless we’ve been white-anted by fifth columnists of course.
Been thinking about it some more.
Maybe it’s not justice people need.
It’s justification.
People need something external to judge themselves against.
If it’s not a god or secular authority or ‘the Joneses’ it’ll be an ideology or ubermensch or abstraction of ‘the righteous man/woman’.
I wonder how much I do that myself.
The usual problem with this is of course that it opens you up to manipulation. I find that the only authority that I can trust not to want to sell me something (usually) is myself and a few close friends.
Boy, I wish I could trust myself that much.
Some people seem unable to wrap their minds around the fact that we are not all the same, and do not all react as they do. all of us react according to our basic biological set up, the chemistry of our brains, our culture and upbringing.
Example: I was raised by proper middle class British grandparents, born near the end of the Edwardian era. Very much stiff upper lip. I’m still sometimes boggled by the American confessional culture. I’ve noted over the years that how I express my reactions are different.
Thus, my undramatic approach to things might give those who didn’t know me an entirely wrong idea of my true feelings.
We do this as cultures. Our way is just so obviously right and natural as breathing air, that anyone else’s way must be wrong.
And we accept what isn’t at all natural as natural, and alterable necessity. Government and economy are two prime examples of that. We often act as if the economy is like the weather, something there’s no controlling and that we fall victim to. But the economy is a human construct, and therefore under our control. The fact that we allow it to function only to the benefit of a few is a choice.
As for sex workers and rape- One cannot do sex work professionally and maintain the load of romantic codswallop that our society promotes. Thus the reaction of a professional to unwanted sex will be different. Not less, but expressed differently.
That made me smile because it reminded me of Pink Floyd …
Roger Waters wrote the line because he thought it best summed up English character. It was also his “hat tip” to Thoreau, who wrote …
“Sometimes I wonder if the author of this blog is a real woman – maybe this “Maggie” person is a guy masquerading as a woman”
I’ve wondered that you haven’t had this kind of comment more often. I am happy to have had the opportunity to hear you speak in person, and don’t have to entertain this idea.
With respect to this topic, how we individually respond to potentially traumatic events is highly varied, so what has modest effects on one may send another into full retreat. But hearing repeatedly that something is supposed to be highly traumatic would seem like to magnify and aggravate any victim’s response to real events.
I’ve had it a few times, but not really often; I think that’s because most of the readers I attract realize that it’s actually incredibly misogynistic in addition to being just plain stupid.
But actually, I’m in good company; just about any woman who writes anonymously about sex in a frank and sensible manner is going to be accused of “really” being a man by those who think all women are fluffy little airheads whose brains are so polluted with romantic illusions we can’t think clearly about the subject. Pauline Réage and Belle de Jour, for example, were repeatedly accused of being male, and in fact Brooke Magnanti (the real woman behind “Belle”) is right now defending herself from a lawsuit by an ex who bizarrely claims she was never a call girl, and was just making it all up. It’s really the same mindset as those who insist that all sex workers are “forced” into it by “pimps” and “johns”; these people just refuse to admit that the average woman is actually far more pragmatic about sex than the average man, and would rather believe we’re all sexless Victorian china dolls.
Regarding the quality of the post instead of the content, your vocabulary was excellent. More and more, the material I read is written at a lower level.
I think it is perhaps due to so many more people putting content online. Maybe well written articles have been hidden amongst a sea of monosyllable musings.
Regardless, your blog is consistently well-written and I wanted you to know that it is/has been appreciated.
Thank you! Believe it or not, some have criticized me for it; apparently they think I should dumb my style down so as not to stand out.
Hmmm … I’ve always admired your writings PRECISELY because you are able to articulate complex thoughts to the masses … which requires that you write at a level that they can understand. I usually have no problem understanding what you’re saying … though I do have to resort to a dictionary every now and then.
Don’t take it as an offense – but to me, you write in plain language 90 percent of the time.
It’s totally possible to write extremely well AND be able to communicate to the masses. I really hate it when a guy goes out of his way to OBVIOUSLY “amp-up” his vocabulary in order to look smart – or so that only five people in the world can understand what he’s saying. That’s worthless for an activist.
Those critics obviously don’t realize that nothing undermines the prohibitionist narrative more than the reality that sex workers are individuals with varied styles, personalities, experiences and ideas.
Never dumb down things you do well! As long as you do not use it to elevate yourself above others, there is no problem. Those with closed minds will not appreciate what you can do either way.
No True Scotsman would ever write a column like this! So … I’m pretty sure Maggie is not a True Scotsman!
I’m pretty sure anybody fool enough to ask “Is anything worn under your kilt?” would get a definitive answer.
That is a very interesting question with a very interesting answer. That will be $300.
Love your reply! If Maggie had “likes”, I’d definitely have licked it.
err…..”liked it” not “licked it”
Jeez it can be hard to keep my Freudian tendencies at bay when I read the comments in this blog. Even though I think Freud was a bit of a prat.
If I knew that the way to deal with data that didn’t fit was to ignore them, I didn’t know this was called Maier’s Law — thanks for that.
And if you don’t want to ignore the data, you can just apply Procrustes’ Principle — make the data fit your mindset.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes
And if that doesn’t work for a mathematical equation, don’t worry; simply use Fineagle’s Constant; unusually this constant (“fk”) being Irish is variable.
And in the long run, if you’re seeking a paradigm change, remember Planck’s Response when asked what happened for his ideas to be accepted: “they all died”.
I forgot Burt’s Method, apologies.
Sir Cyril Burt was an educational psychologist whose evidence-based theories about IQ are still used in N Ireland where kids are tested at 11+ to determine their educational aptitudes.
Burt’s Method? If the data are insufficient, make them up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Burt
And there it is, the human condition in all its ugliness. Well described! This is basically the root of all evil.
Maggie, I must confess that I, too, am sometimes tempted to wonder if you are really a woman. Not only because you are so sympathetic to men, but because you seem to be so unsympathetic to female sexual dysfunction. In more than one survey two-thirds of women have reported some form of sexual dysfunction. If I were a woman I would be mad as hell about that, and yet you (like many women) seem to have very little to say about it. Is it some kind of mental block?
Granted, in the Third World it is women who physically castrate their daughters, and here in the “modern” West it is usually women (as early childhood educators) who mentally castrate little girls. But how can any woman not notice that male sexual dysfunction receives much more serious attention, e.g. by the medical community, even though it is relatively rare compared to female sexual dysfunction, the latter usually being trivialized or even treated as a joke. (Search the web for the keywords: Mental Castration of the Clitoris.)
I think it’s spectacularly useless to define female sexual function in terms of male, which is how most “female dysfunction” is defined; because it’s normal for MEN to feel sex drive all the time, the assumption is that if women don’t it’s “dysfunction”. Poppycock. I rarely feel anything like what men think of as normal lust, and I think that’s friggin’ fantastic; if I felt anything like the kind of near-constant desire men feel, I’d ask my gynecologist if there was anything we could do about it without ruining my looks.
So if you want me (and a lot of other women) to get all “sympathetic” to the concept of “female dysfunction”, you’re going to need to do two things: 1) Define it in a way that reflects actual female experience instead of some pie-in-the-sky bullshit that would only benefit men (i.e. women as horny as men so y’all could get it for free much more often than you do); and 2) Explain a LOT better than women’s magazines and other “sex-positive” feminist stuff why conforming to some textbook notion of “healthy” or “proper” sexual function is better than just being myself.
I mean, look at your own first paragraph. You say, “if I were a woman you’d be mad as hell about that.” No, you wouldn’t, because if you were a woman you would BE a woman, not just a dude with a female body. And as you yourself point out in the very next clause, most women don’t think it’s a big deal: MEN think it is.
Ah yes, but that is a problem too.
Not to worry, I’m sure the drug companies are working diligently at it and women will soon be able to take a pill to cure not only their sexual dysfunction but their perception they don’t have it.
That’s what marketing mental illness is all about.
Exactly. In fact, I’ll be turning my reply into a full column by adding exactly that point.
Indeed. The things men do to deal with that constant sex-drive are fascinating, in particular when they have been taught that masturbation is “bad”. (Which is a transparent attempt by religions to force their followers to reproduce. Might also explain why religions do not like prostitutes, as prostitutes of any reasonable degree of competence understand how to control reproduction. This gives men a way for sex without reproduction or said prostitutes may even give the knowledge to “good” girls. Does apply less so today, but with what passes for “sex ed” in the US, I am not so sure….)
Big cars, jobs that pay a lot, physical prowess, money, power, aggression etc. all in significant ways to ensure sex is available to them.
And, as you have observed several times, abstinence is not a good idea for men at all.
Makes you wonder whether the neofeminists have really though through their opposition to pornography. Or maybe that is just a power-acquisition strategy: Control access to a resource that is desperately needed by men (sex) and hence control men. That would be truly despicable, but entirely in consistent with other things they do.
I suspect the ‘agenda’ that both men and women have to control the sexuality of others – but particularly of women – is not thought through any more than common sexual jealousy is.
It’s an ‘instinctive’ evolutionary response that is generally rationalised post hoc.
Do I sense a tone of defensiveness there? No need for it. I’m also tempted to wonder if you’re a whole group of people researching and writing this blog, because it’s amazing that one person could do such a good job.
Here’s how I would define female sexual function: difficulty or inability to experience clitoral erection before, during or after normal genital intercourse, as well as an absence of spontaneous clitoral erections during everyday life.
The latter, at least, is normally observable in healthy girls before puberty, but not surprisingly disappears after puberty due to the well-known physiological process of neural atrophy of the relative brain area when an organ isn’t stimulated during development.
Our cousins the non-human primates have no difficulty experiencing orgasm quickly after penetration. They don’t need to make excuses (partner is too fast, too small, not in true love, etc.) Enough with the excuses. The first step in solving the problem is to admit that the problem exists. Let’s talk about why the human clitoris stops becoming erect after maturity, and is years of mental castration during childhood irrelevant?
Good luck getting funding (maybe? Or maybe it’ll be easy), but this seems like a relatively easy study to construct in order to lay the groundwork for whether the mental castration hypothesis makes sense. I’m assuming that by mental castration you mean puritanical society that makes women ashamed of sex?
Here’s your study: pick countries that are puritanical and countries that aren’t. Hook up monitoring equipment that can measure clitoral blood flow. See if women in non-puritanical countries have a statistically higher ability to get an erect clit. BOOM! Step one is solved. If they are different – that points heavily towards puritanical society. (Although you have to be careful with causation vs correlation) If it doesn’t, then it’s something else.
Finally, while it is certainly the most egalitarian approach to try and ensure that both parties can reach climax, sex can be enjoyable without it. There have been times that myself or the girl/woman did not climax, but enjoyed bringing the other to orgasm.
By mental castration I mean prohibiting or discouraging little girls from stimulating their clit., so that the relative brain area atrophies, as opposed to cutting the tip off with a razor blade, as some cultures do.
I can’t add a link, but search “mental castration of the clitoris” for a more detailed explanation. Are there any countries that don’t castrate little girls mentally or physically?
There are certainly countries that have much healthier attitudes towards sex and women’s bodies than the USA. So maybe those. I’m guessing some parts of Europe and possibly some parts of Asia.
I wish it were true. But if we’re going to propose a study we need to name names.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. My parents didn’t talk to me about my clit, and why masturbation was good or bad for my soul. I figured it out all on my own, probably how nature intended. I knew “something” felt good when I slid up and down on playground equipment, wrapped my legs around the monkey bars, rode a bike, rode a horse…. I was young, and definitely knew what was going on. I liked it, too. No one told me I was dirty. Yet, still, I don’t have the sex drive men have. And I’m ok with what I have.
In my opinion, it is the constant media telling women we “want” it more than men that harms women’s psyche. (Heaven knows Cosmo magazine informed me of all things every lusty girl needed to make it…lusty. Have you picked one up, lately?) I had the soft porn books like Harlequin to read at night, too. Today’s young girls have Vampire stories, Miley Cyrus…same theme, different generation.
I have both male and female children, and had diaper duty for years. Both sexes hands go to the genitals, even as babies. As babies mature into toddlers, it isn’t considered proper behavior for either sex to “touch themselves” in public. Both sexes have to be socialized not to touch, and I don’t know a culture that preaches the opposite. But privately?
It’s private. : )
Muse, thanks for your feedback. Many mothers don’t even admit that children have a tendency to touch themselves, and try to censor those of us who do admit it.
You might get a better understanding of what I mean by mental castration of the clitoris if you read my detailed discussion of the subject on my blog. Click my username.
Unfortunately, many individuals think this is all an open philosophical question, so anybody’s offhand opinion is as good as the next person’s. But if you do your homework, as I did, you will see there is good a scientific foundation for saying that mental castration is a physiological injury that is likely permanent.
Defensiveness? Why? And why on Earth do the number of clitoral erections matter in a healthy, happy woman? It’s mostly men that obsess about this stuff, not women. I have no idea how often I have clitoral erections, nor do I care; I suspect the majority of female readers feel the same way, with the exception of those who are unhappy with their sex lives for one reason or another…usually for reasons that have nothing to do with clitoral erections.
I don’t deny that most women are amazingly silent about clitoral erectile dysfunction. That’s the main reason why the problem repeats itself generation after generation.
As far as the reason for worrying about it, lack of sexual desire and/or difficulty reaching orgasm in two-thirds of mature women are nothing to sneeze at. If that was the case with men, I suspect there would be more interest by medical researchers.
In my upcoming blog post I’ll describe the case of a female biologist married to a medical doctor, who despite remembering very well her own traumatic menarche, nonetheless failed to prepare her own 11-year-old daughter at all. Think: mental block, Maggie.
Think: applying male standards of sexual performance to women. They are not the same. Yes, there is such a thing as female sexual dysfunction, but it cannot be defined by counting either orgasms or clitoral erections.
Little boys have spontaneous genital erections and so do little girls. That’s not a problem of applying male standards to females.
Most healthy young men continue to have spontaneous genital erections, but most young women (in my experience) don’t. That’s applying male standards to women?
The idea that it somehow matters if the person has no complaint about it is. A guy would probably get worried if he never got an erection; most women simply won’t care as long as they’re satisfied with their sex lives. And if they aren’t satisfied, there are a lot more likely reasons than a lack of spontaneous clitoral erections.
…”so do little girls”.
How do you know this?
Visit nudist families at nudist resorts. I’m not blind.
Anyone who knows me or has read my comments here knows I’m not a prude In. The. Least.
But if I spotted someone closely examining my young daughter’s genitalia for signs of spontaneous clitoral erection (or that of any young girl, or boy for that matter), that person would be swiftly told to back the fuck off.
Ditto.
I wonder if sexhysteria writes like this on his own blog.
If so he must have a few followers who are cops.
You seem to assume a child has no mind of her own, or her possible desires or preferences are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what mommy wants.
That attitude supports the traditional idea that there’s no point in providing children with accurate, balanced and comprehensive sex education, or education for competence (what it means to consent, etc.), because mommy the dictator has the only desires that count.
In any case, an erect clitoris is visible from a distance – no very close observation is necessary, and when a healthy child straddles an adult’s knee you can feel her clit protruding erect like a bony finger pressing against your knee. No visual observation is necessary. Even an adult who is psychogenically blind can feel that.
Two more lines like that and you win pedo-bingo.
I have no idea where you’re actually coming from with this and I sure aren’t accusing you of being a pedophile, but I just hope you’re aware of the sort of assumptions a lot of people will make on reading comments like this on the internet and the sort of attention you’re likely to attract.
The police state doesn’t intimidate me. I’m ready for a 5:00 visit. In fact, I would welcome it, because it’s probably the only way to get large numbers of people to confront what I’m saying, even if their confrontation will be in the form of “Oh my God, can you believe he actually said THAT.”
However, I would appreciate your advice on how to discuss clitoral erectile dysfunction in politically correct terms, since that’s what you seem to be suggesting.
Firstly I don’t believe in projecting my own sexuality onto others – especially not kids – and I don’t hear a lot of women complaining about clitoral erectile dysfunction. So I don’t feel the need to discuss it in a PC or any other way.
But if I did and wanted my message to get out I would sure discouple it from notions of childhood sexuality because no matter what you’re trying to say, all that a lot of people are going to hear is ‘pedo, pedo, pedo!’.
I’ve read some of your blog and it doesn’t make me feel any easier.
Yes, your prescriptions may well allow kids to find and express their sexuality more readily. It might equally sexualise some of them in a way they are not comfortable with in the same way many adults now feel the pressure of sexualisation in our society. But what they would definitely do is give adults who want to groom children for their own sexual purposes an ideal environment in which to do so.
Yep, the pedophile scare is a modern witch-hunt that is being used to scapegoat some and reduce the freedoms of all.
Yep, children are sexual beings and in some ways our society suppresses their sexuality (though in others it inappropriately promotes it).
But there really are child sex abusers out there. Probably a lot more than the police or media ever find. And the best way to protect kids from them is not to lock up the minority we catch and throw away the key or put everyone who has ever raised suspicions on a register to try to keep them away from children.
It’s to do precisely what you rail against. Teach kids that their body is their own and they shouldn’t allow others to touch it (or examine it closely) unless they are completely comfortable with that. Teach them that they can and should talk openly about any physical contact or nude play adults (or other kids) encourage them to engage in. And warn them that some people may want to do things they don’t like and may offer them rewards to do so, but these people are not to be trusted.
Above all it’s to teach kids that no-one is to be obeyed unquestioningly and they should stand up and speak out for what they want (or don’t want) while doing their best to respect what others want as well.
It’s not about projecting what you like to imagine what kids want onto them.
Yep, some of them may become hysterical and paranoid about sexuality and that may affect their attitudes towards it for life. But if they are sexually abused and think it’s “just a special secret between you and me, little one” they can also end up sexually messed up for life. And I honestly think the approach you advocate on your blog would promote the latter while doing little to address the former.
Carobel: Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Where I live it’s time to go to work so I have to be brief.
On projection: You put it perfectly, although you are confusing who is doing the projecting. Many adults who have been mentally castrated are projecting their mental castration onto children.
On repression of children’s sexuality as the cause of mental castration in adults: read the science. http://sexhysteria.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/clitoral-erectile-dysfunction/
On the dangers of sexual abuse: If anybody is really concerned about children’s health and safety, I wrote the book on it. Study the subject in detail before you select certain dangers as the ones most worthy of your attention.
As it happens I am not a complete novice in this field and I am aware of several people who claim to have written the book about child sex offending and child protection – ranging from ‘sexual hysterics’ like Hetty Johnston of Bravehearts to pederasty promoters like Bill Andriette of NAMBLA (who I think would find little to quibble with on your website).
But the person whose books have made the most sense to me is Freda Briggs and while I doubt Professor Briggs would be so arrogant as to call any of her publications the book on child protection her conclusions are based on the best available data on offenders and victims. It is her work and, to a lesser extent, that of Dr Steven Smallbone that informs my areas of concern and my earlier comment.
But my concern with your comments and blogposts arises from my own contact with convicted sex offenders (including a few child sex offenders).
The ones I met and corresponded with did not fit media stereotypes of sex abusers and were largely indistinguishable from anyone you might meet – including me, disturbingly enough. But what was quite common among them was the utter conviction they knew more about the sexuality of others than those others themselves knew. Words like ‘repressed’, ‘uptight’ and ‘frigid’ were among their favourites and I’m sure if they’d read your blog ‘mentally castrated’ would have been right up there with them.
Having read several of your posts and noted from one of Maggie’s earlier posts that you have already come a cropper with Paypal for the sexualised images of underaged girls in your book I have very little doubt you are already on file with the child sex offender sections of several police departments.
I’m not sure how it works in Italy but were you in Australia I could pretty much guarantee that 5am visit and even if you are squeaky clean there is a good chance police would ‘find’ enough child abuse images on your computer to send you down and prevent you from ever working with children again.
Perhaps the cop who stitches you up would justify taking you off the street in her own mind with the conviction that she knows more about your sexuality than do you and if you have not yet sexually abused children it is because you had been ‘mentally castrated’ through fear of detection.
Cabrogal: Instead of doing your homework you try to sway readers with guilt by association (NAMBLA would like me!) and changing the subject (the dangers of child sexual abuse), as if we should judge the correctness or incorrectness of my hypothesis on clitoral erectile dysfunction on the basis of its possible consequences!
You want to scare people about child sexual abuse? Why don’t you show everyone where the Rind (1998) meta-analysis of 59 unbiased studies was wrong in it’s conclusion that the best evidence does NOT support the popular belief that child sexual abuse is usually seriously harmful.
You say that you’ve read “some” of my blog posts, as if that’s all you need to know, but you carefully avoid responding to the specific post I linked to on Clitoral Erectile Dysfunction. If that’s not a mental block then it’s intellectual dishonesty.
My post on clitoral erectile dysfunction clearly cites scientific support for my hypothesis that mental castration is an unsurprising consequence of lack of stimulation of the clitoris during development. Where is the counter-evidence against my hypothesis? It’s more convenient for you to change the subject and talk about the dangers of child sexual abuse!
Guess what: my book “Real Child Safety” is not about child sexual abuse. That’s the whole point: popular attention focused on sex abuse is pure hysteria because the vast majority of preventable child deaths and serious injuries have nothing to do with sex abuse, in addition to the junk science on which the hysteria is based and which Rind successfully refuted. Get your priorities straight.
If you think law enforcement employees are doing such a fine job of arresting innocent parents, driving children to suicide, and wasting millions of dollars of tax money in witch hunts, then why don’t you also sing the praises of the fraudulent “therapy” business for “survivors” of uninvited kisses?
Cabrogal: Another thing: You have libelously misrepresented my conflict with Paypal. They never specifically accused me of having “sexualised images of underaged girls,” (their legal department knows better), and in fact none of my publications has any images that could even remotely be called “sexualised.” Get your facts straight.
Footnoting scientific references does not make your claims to better know what is sexually healthy for women than do women themselves ‘scientific’ (though Maggie might find the Ray Moynihan article you cite useful in her upcoming post).
I stand by everything I have said in my earlier comments except inasmuch as equating the arguments made by NAMBLA with those on your blog I may have been doing NAMBLA an injustice. To the best of my knowledge they do not act as apologists for sexual contact between adults and prepubescents.
And to anyone who thinks I might be committing an injustice against ‘sexhysteria’ by calling him out as an apologist for pedophilia – even after reading the comments he has made here – I would endorse his earlier suggestion to check out his blog and decide for yourself.
You did it again: the mental castration of millions of little girls continues while people like you carefully avoid confronting the cause, and instead hide behind bullying innuendo!
So your “research” is based on surreptitiously observing children with erections? How do you know that children at a nudist colony are representative of children in general? In fact, one could make the argument that being children of nudists makes them more open to sexuality and sexual situations. Your observations wouldn’t necessarily carry over into the general population.
I’m not even going to ask how you know that a child’s clitoris feels like a “bony finger”. Have you touched enough of them to extrapolate that conclusion?
Sasha, my darling, don’t you think your tone sounds just a little annoyed with the whole subject? Now, why would you or any reasonable woman (as opposed to hysterics and profiteers in the sex abuse rescue business) be so averse to the subject of clitoral erection?
My personal experience with nudist (Naturist in Europe) families is that they are NOT more open to sexuality or “sexual situations.” They are perfectly normal in most other ways, except that they don’t see any urgent need to hide the human body (and specifically the human genital region). So I think they probably are representative of the general population in all relevant respects.
As I said in one of my replies to Cabrogal, when a healthy child straddles an adult’s knee you can feel her clitoris protrude erect. You only feel the tip if she becomes erect after contact with your knee (and hence is not spontaneous), or you can feel the whole shaft pressed against her by clothing if she was already erect before contact. The healthy young clitoris is a strong and powerful organ.
How many clitoral erections would be sufficient to convince you that the subject is worthy of scientific attention? I think even one should be enough. Actually, I did place a full-page ad in the New York Times seeking volunteers for clitoral observations with parental consent, but there wasn’t much response.
Sasha, my darling, don’t you think your tone sounds just a little annoyed with the whole subject?
Thanks for the patronizing condescension. I hadn’t had my daily dose yet.
Now, why would you or any reasonable woman (as opposed to hysterics and profiteers in the sex abuse rescue business) be so averse to the subject of clitoral erection?
I’m not averse to the subject in the least. I’m averse to someone claiming to be an expert on the topic, who gained his knowledge by observing little girls without their knowledge.
My personal experience with nudist (Naturist in Europe) families is that they are NOT more open to sexuality or “sexual situations.” They are perfectly normal in most other ways, except that they don’t see any urgent need to hide the human body (and specifically the human genital region). So I think they probably are representative of the general population in all relevant respects.
I disagree, but I’ll give you this one since I’ve never known a naturist family or been to a resort.
As I said in one of my replies to Cabrogal, when a healthy child straddles an adult’s knee you can feel her clitoris protrude erect. You only feel the tip if she becomes erect after contact with your knee (and hence is not spontaneous), or you can feel the whole shaft pressed against her by clothing if she was already erect before contact. The healthy young clitoris is a strong and powerful organ.
If I confess how much this statement skeeves me out, I guess that makes me an “hysteric” or a “sex abuse profiteer”, right? You never did address what I asked earlier: obviously you’ve felt enough girls’ clitorises to know that this is a sign of sexual normality, or how you’d know that the child in question was “healthy” as it pertained to clitoral erections.
I did place a full-page ad in the New York Times seeking volunteers for clitoral observations with parental consent, but there wasn’t much response.
ROFL. I can’t imagine why. 😀
Sasha, sorry you didn’t appreciate the “my darling.” But I don’t see any reason why we can’t be friends.
I’m not an expert on clitoral erections. I’ve merely been fortunate enough to observe a few, and can’t help but notice that they appear to be common in childhood but rare in adult women. I’ve also seen a mother notice her daughter’s erection, and then look at the child in horror.
I have proposed a reasonable hypothesis to explain those observations. Do you have counter-evidence against my hypothesis, or an alternative hypothesis that might explain the observations?
You claim that you’re not averse to the subject, but you admit the facts skeeve you out, whatever that means. Your logic in the rest of that paragraph escapes me. Your grammar is odd too. Why do you say “an hysteric”? The letter h is a consonant and it isn’t silent in this case. Where do English speakers talk like that? I think “a hysteric” or “a hero” or “a history” sound much better.
Refusing to engage you anymore, or be taunted by your insults re: my logic or my grammar. I will simply repeat the question that has already been asked by Maggie:
How is the sex life of a woman who doesn’t have clitoral erections (and doesn’t care that she doesn’t have them), worse than the sex life of a woman who does?
Where on earth are you getting this stuff – both theory and ‘facts’?
Your claim about non-human primates does not seem to be in line with research, but even if it was – so what?
Their genital physiology is quite different to ours.
It makes about as much sense as saying male gorillas suffer from sexual dysfunction because their penises are so much smaller than ours and they orgasm so quickly (sorry for outing you on that, krulac).
But I have an alternative hypothesis.
Adult males suffer from sexual dysfunction because they are relatively less responsive to non-genital stimulation than are women and though they can experience nipple erections they are unable to lactate – which is clearly the ‘purpose’ of nipples in the first place.
I’m referring to laboratory research in which probes attached to female monkeys indicated female orgasm soon after penetration. You’re right: the genital physiology of monkeys is quite different from mentally castrated human females.
Apes and Monkey are a little bit farther down the food chain than humans – you can’t compare their sexual response to ours exactly. For instance – they’re still in an environment that favors – and sometimes demands QUICK coupling. Animals in the jungle are vulnerable to predators if they enjoy the “wild thang” for too long. Not surprising to me that they get off quick – and then get the fuck out.
Krulac, I agree with you: pointing out that female monkeys have orgasms easily is not an argument for quick orgasms in human females. But if two-thirds of women are having trouble with orgasm or lack of desire, it’s not because female orgasms should not be expected. I personally find that women faking orgasm is pathetic.
Thanks for the reference, but is that author the same Elizabeth Lloyd who once claimed women’s difficulty in reaching orgasm “must be seen as a design flaw” in female anatomy?
Cabrogal, you wonder too much. My blog does discuss this subject in some depth. Why don’t you read it (click on my name sexhysteria above), instead of wondering. So what if cops are reading my blog too? Should I be afraid and stop writing? Is that you would do?
If I really believed in something and it was important to me I hope I wouldn’t be intimidated into keeping quiet about it by the thought of what cops might do.
But if I expressed it in the way you express it I wouldn’t be too surprised to get a 5am visit and having my computer and discs seized either.
That’s why you need to make backups and keep them in a lot of different places, some of which you probably shouldn’t even know where they are.
Obviously childhood sexuality is a touchy subject, so much so that even people here (and we’re not exactly a parliament of prudes here) seem to think it would be better not to even ask the questions, let alone try to answer them. And for heaven’s sake don’t ever talk about it!
It’s not asking the questions that makes me uncomfortable but how SH chooses to answer them.
I first got uneasy when SH endorsed nudity at home but that children should be told to keep it a secret from others. It’s not the nudity that I question of course, but the “our little secret” approach to it that is right out of “Pedophile Grooming 101”.
But what sealed it for me are the anecdotes he tells on his blog about his sexual contacts with children.
In particular there is one in which he says he ‘inadvertently’ revealed he had a ‘spontaneous’ erection to class full of nine year olds and then allows a young girl to grasp it (presumably through his clothing). He uses this as an argument in favour of the ‘natural sexual curiosity’ of very young girls.
Maybe SH is exactly what he claims to be, a man who is obsessed with the alleged sexual repression of women.
Maybe he is using his superficially academic approach to prepubescent sexuality to provide plausible deniability for an obsession with something more unsavoury.
I have no way of knowing.
But what I do know is that I sure wouldn’t want my nieces in one of his classes.
Checking his blog I note he has now altered the anecdote I refer to.
In the original version he is sitting at his desk when he ‘inadvertently’ reveals his erection and a young girl comes out in front of the whole class to touch it.
The edited version has him rushing to help an injured child when the girl ‘takes advantage of the confusion’ to feel him up.
I also note that he is now arguing on his blog that pedophilia is so rare as to be practically non-existent. That puts him into conflict with pretty much every serious researcher in the field.
That’s enough to give even me pause. I’ll click over to his blog sometime and look it over. I’ve been there, but only to read specific things that he’s linked to from here.
With regards to the idea that you’re a man:
I don’t believe it myself but one of my favorite parts of your blog is how close you wind up sounding to the stereotypical rich white twenty something male blogger.
I’m very glad I’m not male or under 30, but I sure wouldn’t mind being rich.
Eh funny … you get accused of being a male – while on ECCIE I was recently accused of being a female provider!
You are?
How much would you charge to provide me with half a dozen or so?
A “rich white twenty something male blogger” has no chance to write with this level of insight. If you just look at the very surface (i.e. “keyword”-level reading comprehension) maybe, but otherwise there is no way to get that impression.
Incidentally, Dr. Brooke Magnanti has a similar level of insight, and also does not care very much about whether her observations are in line with political correctness or any other such nonsense. I believe she also has been accused of being a man, before it became obvious that this is not the case.
I have two questions, but I want to separate this one so that the thread of the other question doesn’t get bogged in this one.
The final quote was talking about how the war on drugs disproportionately affects black men. I have read that black men are more likely to get a longer sentence than a white man – if the white man even ends up before a court. But if drug use is a choice and everyone knows it’s illegal, why do drugs if you’re a black man who’s more likely to get a longer sentence?
The accusation that you’re a man got me thinking again about something I wonder every time I read this blog. I’m reading this blog under the assumption that everything you say in it is true. Sure, it’s foolish to believe everything that is in published form – whether it’s the internet or a book, but it’s the only thing that makes sense when reading this blog. Someone could read my blog and assume I was lying about being a father or liking photography or whatever, but there would then be no point to reading that blog unless you enjoyed esoteric performance pieces, I guess.
So I have no doubts about your personal experiences as a prostitute. As I think you would appreciate, based on what I’ve read of your blog, we can only speak to our own experiences. If we do not do so, we risk being like those you call part of the sex worker hysteria. You tell them you are not doing this out of tragedy and they assume you can’t be telling the truth. (It’s similar to a post I wrote about polygamy, but I won’t be so crude as to post a link unless someone asks for it in a reply)
The problem for me as a reader is your dismissal of the anti-sex workers information as consisting entirely of flawed research. I don’t doubt the possibility of such a thing being true – I know the scientific work, especially sociology, can be stubborn to change its points of view if it is revealed to have logic flaws. However, I am ill-equipped to know whether the studies YOU point to have logic flaws.
So, after having read the blog for a while now, here is my mental state:
I’ve gone from seeing all prostitutes as the women of the street depicted in Hollywood. I now know that not all sex workers are traffickers. Some are in it because that’s what they want to do – not because of rape, molestation, or drugs. They can be professional and not harass people at home because they’re trying to become a mistress. What I don’t know is how big “some” is. Is it Maggie and like 4 other people (to be hyperbolic about it)? Or is it the majority? Are all the trafficked women the exception, but they make better media soundbites? Or is Maggie the exception? Or it it a race thing? Or a class thing?
I could tell you what I THINK the Hispanic experience in America is, but that’d be foolish. That varies depending, first of all, on country of origin. But it also depends on class and on location; growing up Hispanic in Miami was very different from growing up Hispanic in Broward County which was VERY different from being Hispanic in Oregon or Maryland. Different friends and experiences.
So am I asking the impossible? Or is is possible to extrapolate from your story, Maggie, and get a better sense of what’s going on with sex workers.
Either way, thanks for writing the blog and opening my eyes to a different possibility – no matter how representative it may be. And I hope there is time in your schedule for a response – I genuinely am curious.
That’s exactly why I encourage my readers to do as much investigation on their own as possible; there are plenty of sex worker blogs out there, and plenty of good research. The only way to accept prohibitionist bullshit is to mentally exclude everything else, but if you’ll think long and hard about it you’ll realize the facts stand up perfectly well on their own.
Makes perfect sense. I will take a further look at other resources. Thanks for the reply, Maggie.
From my point of view the ‘male’ thing is just a cheap attempt to undermine Maggies reputation and credibility. I feel sorry to hear. But I m not wondering cos there are so many creeps who want to denunciate people with good arguments and knowledge. And its moreover absurd to deny the fact that Maggie attended conferences this year. But its not necessary getting outed; wrong people always find a more or less creative way try to distort s.o.’s reputation. However, I ve not found so many people online and offline who are deeply empathetic and able to change and challenge perspectives, linked together with a high reflexivity of own life experiences and the capability to reflect the macro agenda on sex worker related issues with the capacity to destroy ‘myths’. If people destroy myths and complex realities are turning up very few people are willing or capable to handle, in particular if they have already internalised the overwhelming propaganda and discourse with its powerful impact on mind-mapping. To destroy myths doesnt mean to deny realities but to challenge them by questioning authorities, figures, experts, (junk) science etc. Yes its hard to bear from people which you wouldnt expect and the messenger will be blamed for the bad news and laws. The fury and obsession to deal with this subject is always rooted in the knowledge how wrong policies and politics bring so much evil into our world. “Many women who are now dead or damaged might still be alive and healthy …” I read one year ago on Maggies blog. And I think thats all about; to put the finger in the wound, to take a stand, to try to make things clear to stop these barbaric cruelties.
And one global strategy and particularly unscrupulous exercise in the manipulation of human rights is to act in the name of human rights. These predators are mostly camouflaged as ‘rescuers’. I think that is the mission: to ‘safe us from saviours’, a popular claim of the Asean Pacific Sex Workers Rights Movement, a motto we can also expand on global politics. The efforts of saviours as I can see so far are focussed to endanger and multiply the risks of sex workers lifes. And this is not a paranoid statement, that is an historically and evidence proofed reality.
Sasha, as I said: the subject of clitoral erection seems to be a cause of emotional discomfort for you, and I’m sorry about that.
@sexhysteria
Using “an” in front of words beginning with “h” seems to be a British thing. “Quite an historical happening” and the like. Arthur C. Clarke did it, and I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that he knew proper grammar.
It’s been my experience that one should reserve “my darling” and similar phrases for one’s darling.
It’s possible that a “falling off” in the number of spontaneous clitoral erections after puberty is just a natural thing, similar to how it’s natural for adults to have more trouble digesting milk than babies have. Or, it could be some very cruel thing that our culture does to girls, and I don’t think it makes you a damnedable pedo pervert creep to want to know which one it is. Of course, you could be exactly that, but I haven’t seen anything yet which makes me think that you are.
@maggie
A lot of people seem to assume that I’m male, too. Of course, I can understand why they would. 😉
I think of what I knew and thought I knew about prostitution and other sex work before this blog, and think, “wow, I was kind of stupid.” Then I remember that I was actually a lot more knowledgeable on the subject than the average man or woman on the street (I knew that sacred prostitution had existed, that pimps weren’t as common as TV would have us believe, etc.). THAT’S what you’re working against: a level of ignorance which makes pre-Honest-Coutesan me look well-informed. I’m glad you are a good writer, because luck won’t be enough to make progress, but I also wish you luck, because, hey, you could use it.
Thank you, Sailor.
It’s the tone rather than the word, and also the person using it. If Maggie or Krulac or Aspasia or someone else with whom I’ve verbally interacted on this forum called me “darling”, I’d take it the way it was likely meant: as a term of endearment. The way SH used it came off as patronizing.
I also think that questions about this topic are important, but they need to be approached scientifically. SH took out an advert in the paper looking for research subjects, and though he was unsuccessful that time, a clinically supported start would be the only feasible way to go forward.
My problem is SH’s admitted predilection for spying on little girl’s genital areas without their knowledge and using that as the basis for his conclusions. It hasn’t got a thing to do with being prudish or anti-sexual or repressed. It’s got to do with adult men touching girls’ vulvas to compare them to other girls’ vulvas, and determining from that whether they are “healthy” or “castrated”.
I sometimes call Laura “Baby Doll,” and she likes it… when I do it. I’m guessing she wouldn’t care for it from a stranger. She reads here sometimes, so…
Tell me if I’m wrong, Baby Doll. 😉
My nephew overheard me talking to her on the phone once and I told him, “Your Aunt Laura is the only person in the world I can get away with calling “Baby Doll.”
You’re not wrong…smile.
<3
The logic is that you need “an” in front of words with a silent “h,” because those words begin with a vowel sound, but “a” is appropriate when the “h” is sounded – as most h-words are: a hymen, a hard-on, a healthy orgasm, etc.
In the past “an” was commonly used in front of sounded h-words (or perhaps in the past the h wasn’t sounded in “history”), and some people today try to sound aristocratic by sticking to the old illogical usage. Others are simply poorly educated.
As to clitoral erectile dysfunction, there is clearly a widespread mental block on the subject. Many people are not merely afraid to talk about it, they are unable to talk about it. I’m not concerned about a fall-off in the frequency of clitoral erections after puberty, but the complete loss of erectile function – possibly affecting millions of women. Not exactly a trivial prospect, which nonetheless often elicits a silent blank stare or perhaps a suspicious blush.
The above reply was for Sailor. Sasha, my calling you “darling” was an expression of affection, which you subsequently indicated was certainly inappropriate and undeserved.
But you are a classic example of being unable to talk about clitoral erectile dysfunction. Instead you resort to the cheap trick of putting words in my mouth in a superficial attempt to draw attention away from your problem.
The clitoris and vulva are two different things, and I’ve never mentioned any man touching girls’ vulvas, as you misleadingly attributed to me. If you were sincere and not mentally blocked, you would click on my username, read my blog post on Clitoral Erectile Dysfunction, and then respond to what it specifically says. I’m sorry but your excuses don’t convince me that you could if you wanted to but you’re too busy focusing on methodological and ethical questions!
The clitoris and vulva are two different things, and I’ve never mentioned any man touching girls’ vulvas, as you misleadingly attributed to me.
Say what?! The vulva encompasses the female external genitalia, which includes the labia majora and minora *and* the clitoris. So if you’ve touched a clitoris you’ve touched a vulva.
If you were sincere and not mentally blocked, you would click on my username, read my blog post on Clitoral Erectile Dysfunction, and then respond to what it specifically says.
I have read your blog, and I’m not buying your theory.
But you are a classic example of being unable to talk about clitoral erectile dysfunction. Instead you resort to the cheap trick of putting words in my mouth in a superficial attempt to draw attention away from your problem.
Funny, for someone who is allegedly unable to talk about it, I’m sure doing a lot of talking about it! 😀
I will repeat the question that you have studiously avoided answering: How is the sex life of a woman who doesn’t have clitoral erections (and doesn’t care that she doesn’t have them), worse than the sex life of a woman who does?
Your continuing condescension and insults do not advance your cause.
I had a debate with an Australian woman (on another blog), and she consistently refused to confront the subject of female sexual dysfunction. Changing the subject and attempting to bully me about the dangers of child sexual abuse and the threat of officers of the Inquisition knocking on my door were the only strategy she could muster.
The blog’s owner, too, although a highly intelligent woman and mentally balanced, met my hypothesis about mental castration by claiming that women don’t mind lacking sexual desire and orgasms. The happy female eunuch doesn’t need to reach “male standards” of sexual pleasure. She eventually published an entire post responding to my suggestion that she (like many women) is strangely silent about female sexual dysfunction http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/borrowing-trouble/.
Show me where I “bullied” you. Cite date and time please.
I suspect SH was referring to me in the mistaken belief I’m a woman.
I initiated a conversation with him about potential dangers of writing as he does on the internet and he kept trying to change the subject to his odd views about female sexuality. I think that’s what he means by “she consistently refused to confront the subject of female sexual dysfunction”.
You could be right. But what do we know, we’re just mentally castrated.
Still cracking up at the lunacy of calling Maggie a “female eunuch”. 🙂
Even if Sasha, Cabrogal,* and Maggie are wrong, that doesn’t mean they are mentally blocked. That’s assuming too much.
* And why isn’t it Cabrodude, hhhhhhmmmmm…….. 😉
Because ‘Cabrodude’ is not the name of my clan group.
Thanks for linking that; when it isn’t obvious, I often wonder what people’s screen names mean.
And now I’ve learned something I didn’t know before. Thanks, dude. 😉
Sasha, if you straddle a man’s knee will he feel your clitoris protrude erect? Are you able to reach orgasm without the aid of a vibrator? I’m not trying to make you feel bad, I’m merely pointing out the obvious: you are doing your best to avoid confronting the subject of clitoral erectile dysfunction. Simply saying that you don’t buy my theory is not confronting it.
You keep avoiding the question “Are many women suffering from clitoral erectile dysfunction” and instead you keep repeating “What difference would it make?” That’s not changing the subject?
I seriously doubt you’ve been with as many GROWN women as I have. And let me tell you – erect or not, I rarely notice their clitoris unless it’s right in my face. When it’s on my tongue – I can usually feel it expanding and contracting – IN SOME WOMEN.
It’s funny – some women have rather large clits – while others have tiny ones. In my experience – the bigger ones are more “clitorially” oriented when it comes to orgasm. Or – maybe that’s just because there’s more there for me to work with. In any case – it would seem to me that the tiny clit gals got the short end of the stick but …
They are also the ones that really get off from penetration – and for my money, that’s where it’s at.
The clit (and I’m sorry I’m using the obscene form but it’s shorter to type and half the time I misspell “clitoris” anyway) … but the clit is just archaic penile tissue. Men have a penis – women have a clit – in the same spot pretty much. Women have nipples – so do men. My nipples have never lactated (thankfully) – does this mean I have some kind of nipple dysfunction?
No.
Men and women are different and expecting that a woman’s clit should give her all the pleasure that a man’s penis gives him is ridiculous on it’s face. My nipples are dead as tacks – I feel nothing but YAAWWWN when a woman licks and sucks them. However, I’ve known quite a few women where I actually broke down their “You’re Not Fucking Me” defenses by simply rubbing their nipples.
Now – some women get off on clitoral stimulation. it doesn’t mean that women who don’t have some kind of “dysfunction” any more than it means that women who don’t “squirt” have some kind of g-spot dysfunction.
Men are cookie-cutter … there’s a couple of things you can play with – and we’re good to go – just about every single one of us is the same.
This is NOT the case with women. What turns on one woman – can often turn another off.
What’s with the word “dysfunction” anyway? That’s a word we apply to erections – when they don’t happen. But – there are all kinds of consequences to not having an erection. No erection – there is no sex at all. No sex at all – there is no propagation. So an erection is kind of a special thing here. This is not the case with a clitoris – there or not – sensitive or not – sex still happens.
Are men who cannot play baseball suffering from “athletic dysfunction”?
This is just plain silly.
Also – Sasha is not suffering from any sexual “dysfunction” … she’s not sexually repressed in the least. In fact, were she not married – I’d be all over the girl!
If I may be permitted the self-indulgence of quoting myself twice, from the “Borrowing Trouble” comments:
The consequence of female sexual dysfunction (that is, the lack of orgasms) is less pleasurable sex for women (and the men who like to please them).
The consequence of male sexual dysfunction is extinction of the species.
Not that I’m opposed to making sex better, hotter or more satisfying for women. Not. In. The. Least. 😉 But one of these is not like the other.
and
There are enough women in the world who will do their “marital duty” of sex and subsequent pregnancy and childbirth without complaint, that it doesn’t matter whether they like it or not. So barring an epidemic of male infertility, female pleasure and desire for sex is not, biologically speaking, necessary.
I like sex, rather a lot. I enjoy orgasms (and yes, I can have them without a vibrator, I dislike vibrators as a rule). But I can still like having sex, without having an orgasm. YOUR mental block is that that is incomprehensible to you. For men, the orgasm is the goal, the purpose, the be-all and end-all of sex. For me, it’s a nice bonus but the sex is still satisfying without it.
Male orgasms are wonderful and, as a man, I prefer to have one than not. But there’s something to be said for teasing.
This goes on much longer and I won’t be able to stop myself from saying something about My Balls.
Krulac, you’re wrong about several things, as well as ignoring the specific claims I hypothesize about clitoral erectile dysfunction. It’s like me claiming that I’ve observed pure water boiling at 100 degrees C., and you reply that you prefer mineral water to tap. When you say that some women have large clits while others have small ones, are you talking about when erect?
Sasha, I’m glad to hear that you can have orgasms without a vibrator. Is your clitoris erect when you orgasm?
No – I’m talking about “flaccid” … are we really doing this? Are we REALLY talking about a clit as if it were a penis?
Please.
Cabrogal, great joke! Sasha: Yes, in a sense. Masters and Johnson observed the clitoris become erect “during” orgasm, and a urologist told me that men with erectile dysfunction become erect momentarily “during” orgasm. So there is reason to believe that erection and orgasm are related.
Although genital erection is not necessary long before orgasm, it probably contributes to the capacity for orgasm. Conversely, erectile dysfunction probably contributes to anorgasmia. In my limited personal experience girls certainly do know when their clitoris is erect, and if they weren’t mentally castrated they are erect during the whole sexual experience just like uninhibited boys.
Is your clitoris erect when you orgasm?
Boy, you are a charmer. Do you use that line on all the ladies?
Yes. Probably. I think so. I’ve never really stopped to check, because I’m, you know, HAVING AN ORGASM at the time.
Wait a second. Are you conceding that women can have orgasms without being “erect”?
Excuse the gratuitous Jewish joke but your recent comments on this thread have lodged it in my mind Sasha and I’ve got to get rid of it somehow.
LMAO!!
🙂 🙂 🙂
a Jewish wife is entitled to sexual pleasure
That’s new to me. Of course, talking about this could open up that whole “rights/privileges/entitlements” can of worms all over again…
The joke can work for Gentiles just fine by changing the Rabbi to a psychiatrist. And it’s too good a joke to not export to Gentiles; we need to laugh too. 😀
But jokes are always funnier when there’s a ‘schmuck’ in the punchline.
Did you see the one in the video in “More Hooker Humor” last year? 😉
I can’t see a video linked from that post Maggie (if it’s meant to load automatically it will be blocked).
Have you got a URL for me?
Not linked, embedded. You can’t see “The Old Man and the Prostitute” near the bottom?
I can see the title “The Old Man and the Prostitute” but the very next line is “In the Days Before Cell Phones…”. That’s because I have streaming audio and video blocked due to my extremely slow internet speed.
I can’t watch embedded videos. The only way I can see an online video is if I can download it and play it back later. A three minute YouTube MP4 takes me several hours to download.
I’m sorry; you mentioned that once before but I forgot. Here’s the url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87KRI3fqlQ8
But jokes are always funnier when there’s a ‘schmuck’ in the punchline.
Can’t argue with that.
I was once involved in the premiere of a chamber opera called “Jewish Humor from Oy to Vey”. It was exactly what it sounds like: old chestnut Jewish jokes set to music. It’s on YouTube.
And one of my favorite holiday albums is called “Oy To The World”: Christmas carols played in Klezmer fashion. It’s a riot. 🙂
Cabrogal, great joke! Sasha: Yes, in a sense. Masters and Johnson observed the clitoris become erect “during” orgasm, and a urologist told me that men with erectile dysfunction become erect momentarily “during” orgasm. So there is reason to believe that erection and orgasm are related.
Although genital erection is not necessary long before orgasm, it probably contributes to the capacity for orgasm. Conversely, erectile dysfunction probably contributes to anorgasmia. In my limited personal experience girls certainly do know when their clitoris is erect, and if they weren’t mentally castrated they are erect during the whole sexual experience just like uninhibited boys.