jadedmusings: (Sherlock - Yes that's porn)
I've been reading Wizard's First Rule by Terry Goodkind. The book has been engaging, the plot moves at a good pace, and apart from some eye-rolling at the gender stereotyping when it comes to the Confessors (women are maternal, ergo they're always compassionate and empathetic; men are biologically incapable of learning these traits and are always power hungry and prone to abusing their power) and a lot of fantasy cliches (including the straight-up Gollum rip-off), I've been enjoying it.

And then...suddenly, femme domme leather S&M! Not. Even. Kidding.

If you've read the book, you should know I'm referring to the Mord-Sith. I am being totally serious when I say I nearly threw the book across the room and stopped reading entirely. The thing is, I would have been okay with it if there'd been any sort of warning that it was coming. Before this, any mentions of torture and abuse happened off-screen, or they were covered with a few sentences that weren't just descriptive enough to get the point across without being explicit. Then, Richard was captured by Deena--excuse me, Mistress Deena, and we are treated to roughly forty pages (not an exaggeration) of Richard being tortured brutally both physically and psychologically, and from their first "lesson," it's quite obvious Deena is a sadist and is getting off on Richard's pain. We're all but told, "Deena is getting wetter each time she makes Richard scream." The only good thing I can say about the scenes is that we at least got a fade to black before the actual sex (because of course, Richard is so awesome that Deena wants to make him her "mate").

Truthfully, it felt like I was an unwilling participant in Goodkind's sexual fantasy, and it left me feeling vaguely nauseous and horrified. When I wasn't revolted from the sudden left turn into Kinky Town, I was rolling my eyes at Deena's over-the-top characterization. Cliche doesn't begin to describe what she is. And to be brutally honest, I could probably find better written S&M with less cartoonish dommes on Literotica (and I have in the past).

I forced myself to keep reading, to get through it, and then got pissed off all over again at how this "conflict" is resolved. Richard gets to learn how to master the Sword of Truth, and then he has to kill Deena (which, she actually wants him to because, you know, it's the only way to truly "save" her since she's so "broken"). Of all the ways for him to figure out that particular mystery, we had to suffer through all those pages of descriptive sadistic torture. Other than that, this whole scenario serves no purpose to help the plot. Well, okay, a half-assed way to get Richard and Darken Rahl in the same room, too. And then, Richard simply walks out of D'Hara after killing Deena and another dominatrix Mord-Sith who helped Deena torture him.

When Sam was talking about his favorite characters and aspects of the series, he mentioned the Mord-Sith. Given that it was Sam, I was thinking I'd encounter an elite assassin group, or some other super bad-ass soldiers who strike fear into the hearts of everyone just by mentioning their name. This was totally not what I expected. At all. (Sam, sweetie, I love you, but I am giving you the side-eye so hard over this.)

I am going to finish the book. I'm less than 100 pages from the end. At this time, I'm not sure if I'll read the second book. I might give it a shot. As I said, up until the Mord-Sith, it wasn't terrible, and I was actually mostly enjoying it.

(And if anyone wants to accuse me of being prudish, or try to say I don't "get kink," I'm warning you in advance, I am going to point and laugh and mock you publicly here on my journal.)
jadedmusings: (Supernatural - Worst Date Ever (Bobby's)
I'm reading Narcissus in Chains because I am committed to getting through all the Anita Blake novels. I am told this is the book where it really goes off the rails and rolls into not-as-sexy-as-it-thinks town, but for now it's a pretty "normal" Anita Blake book, with just a bit more sex than there's been in previous books. It's not horrible and some of it has been, if not hot, then at least pleasurable to read. (Note: I am only 200 pages in and not even half-way through the 630 pages. I expect this to change. And I do know it will get worse.)

But of course, there's one thing I must comment on.

Dear Mrs. Hamilton,

Bath soap/body wash is NOT an adequate form of lubrication! That shit burns like a mother fucker, not to mention it can dry out pretty quickly and, you know, not really lubricate. I'm not even going to try and wonder whether or not said soap was anti-bacterial and why, if it was, that it's a bad thing to introduce to the vaginal environment.

I'm all for whatever floats your boat and suspension of disbelief, but lubrication requires a bit more realism for this reader.

A Reluctant Fan of your Work,

Jade
jadedmusings: (NCIS - Tim Doubts Your Sincerity)
Right, so is it just me or does anyone else get annoyed by this idea of "Light = Purity, therefore to wield it, you must be celibate"? I'm speaking purely in fantasy settings which, supposedly, has none of our religious dogma and/or trappings. Plus, as a feminist--hell, as a woman, I loath viewing sex as something that can stain a person and/or make them impure, and if you can't figure out why that pisses me off royally, have you even been reading this journal?

My paladin (Salih) is decidedly not celibate. He's not taking a warm body home every night, yet he'll be the first to say he's not dead. Hell, he's not even completely straight, and his vows did not preclude the opportunity to have a family. The reason he didn't take his vows years ago was because his wife-to-be was a Warlock and there was some tension in his family and silly notions about working with demons being a danger. (Yeah, about that...)

Leaving Azeroth and looking to the FFRPG campaign OLAD, I had Clotho. She was a white mage, an accomplished healer, and so damned good she refused to take a life. Ever. Yes, even that evil thing that nearly killed her and her unborn child. She chose forgiveness and turning the other cheek. (Her husband, however...)

And while she'd never publically admit it, she was incredibly kinky and had quite an, ahem, active sex life. She worried about many things, namely sharing a husband with other women and the family dynamic of that, but amazingly she never once considered being a naughty girl in the bedroom would ever impede her ability to wield holy magic.

If there is an established set of rules a "Light wielder" must adhere to in the setting, then by all means, play that angle. Yet, if there is no such rule established, can it hurt to, you know, expand the horizons a little, explore what it might be like if sex were just something people had if they wanted to and ignored if they didn't? That sex is only as dirty as you want it to be and it can be a healing, holy experience all its own?

Just saying.
jadedmusings: (Sherlock - Yes that's porn)
I don't really read a lot of romance (the exception being Keri Arthur who deals with paranormal romance, and I hated her stand alone book Destiny Kills), at least not in the vein of the Happily Ever After (HEA) sort, but I do read many books with romantic themes mixed in with the plot. I also read fanfiction and erotic stories online (sometimes both at once, heh), and one particular theme I'm occasionally drawn to is "the first time." I don't necessarily mean the first time a character ever kisses or has sex, in fact usually it's more a couple's first time sharing a kiss or making love.

But I have to say when I do read about a character's first time, there is one thing I absolutely hate and it's The Clueless Virgin.

Cut for sex talk. )
jadedmusings: (Default)
Here we go again.

[livejournal.com profile] fanficrants is a community that is dedicated to...well, ranting about bad fanfics. Most of the rants are along the lines of grammar snark, out-of-character Mary Sues/Gary Stus, and gemstone-colored orbs eyes. Given that it's fanfiction, there is inevitably a few rants about bad sex scenes, which per community rules are always placed behind a cut (and if they aren't, mods are quick to step in and ask the poster to place behind a cut or face deletion). This method seemed to work out really well, and FFR has been around since 2002. That is until someone flagged it as being sexually explicit and LiveJournal changed the settings on the community and labeled it as containing "explicit adult content."

It was first mentioned here by one under-eighteen member (and yes, this is the post for which I was metaquoted, so now you know what I was on about). Today, an FFR mod confirmed that LiveJournal had indeed flagged the community as adult and that there was nothing they could do about it. No chance to change their rules, no chance to delete any "offensive" material, nothing. After eight years without a problem, suddenly anyone under the age of eighteen cannot so much as view a single post in FFR.

There are so many things wrong here that I don't even know where to begin.

Read more... )

Finally, where are the parents in all of this? As a parent I fully recognize that if I don't like the material my child is viewing/reading, I can prevent him from viewing/reading it. There are a plethora of ways of protecting my child from the dangers of the internet, and as he gets older, I can stay involved with what he's doing online and informed of who he is talking to. I can make a list of rules and provide consequences for breaking those rules, which can and should include my ability to take his computer access away. It won't kill him, and if it will keep him just a little bit safer, I'll accept his anger in exchange for keeping him healthy.
jadedmusings: (Default)
(In response to a question about what you would do if you overheard your twelve year-old talking about oral sex with a friend over the phone.)

Person One: At that age I'd assume they were lying to impress their friends. I'd probably try to have a chat with them about peer pressure and how they should be themselves and don't have to put on an act to impress anybody. Though I'm not sure that any 12 year old would be convinced by that!

Person Two: Ohhhh honey. You have so much ahead of you. Be grateful your babies are still, in fact, babies.

It is a pretty well-known fact that middle school kids are doing this and more, not just talking about it.


Person Three: rainbow parties are the cool thing. i can't wait to pick out assorted lip gloss colors for my daughter when she enters middle school. fun times ahead !

From here.

Really? You know, I remember rumors like this flying around when I was in middle school sixteen years ago. However, they were rumors from urban legends spread by fearful parents (though they weren't called rainbow parties* back then as we weren't that creative yet). Oh, yes, there was a twelve year-old girl at my school who had a baby, but that wasn't a consensual sex situation (her uncle molested her - how's that for fucked up?).

Maybe it's because I live in such a rural area, but I seriously want to see reliable sources in the form of (unbiased) academic studies stating that masses of pre-teens are having sex with wild abandon while all these concerned and involved parents are somehow unaware of it. I'm sorry, I don't buy it, I really don't. Children can be sneaky and get away with loads of stuff without their parents ever knowing, but that many children in that many schools across the country...yeah, I really can't wrap my head around it. It's like that pregnancy pact thing that turned out to be only between two or three girls and it was blown way out of proportion by the adults. I think this is more of a case of one or two couples getting caught and then people clutching their pearls thinking that the exception must be the rule.

Yeah, yeah, I'm a naive young parent who has no idea of what's going on. Nevermind I have set foot in a public school in the last five years, and it all seems to be the same as it was when I was in school, only now you have Spongebob instead of Care Bears and the non-CGI Chipmunks.

ETA: Oh thank deity, people brought some snese to that thread and linked to a New York Times article from 2009.

As for that supposed epidemic of oral sex, especially among younger teenagers: national statistics on the behavior have only recently been collected, and they are not as alarming as some reports would have you believe. About 16 percent of teenagers say they have had oral sex but haven’t yet had intercourse. Researchers say children’s more relaxed attitude about oral sex probably reflects a similar change among adults since the 1950s. In addition, some teenagers may view oral sex as “safer,” since unplanned pregnancy is not an issue.

Health researchers say parents who fret about teenage sex often fail to focus on the important lessons they can learn from the kids who aren’t having sex. Teenagers with more parental supervision, who come from two-parent households and who are doing well in school are more likely to delay sex until their late teens or beyond. [Emphasis Mine]

I'll ignore the two-parent household thing because as a single mom I don't think it's totally impossible to provide appropriate levels of parental supervision for my son, and it's offensive to insinuate that one-parent household equals only one authority figure in the child's life to help keep tabs on them. Growing up I knew plenty of kids in two-parent households who were getting into just as much if not more trouble than the children from so-called "broken homes." Some of them weren't caught because they were rich, white, and their parents knew the right sort of people to keep them out of trouble.

But anyway, my point stands. There's no oral sex epidemic and little Johnny and Suzy aren't picking out lip gloss colors for rainbow parties.

* = I know what a "rainbow party" is, but the sensible side of me can't help but think "Man, that sounds incredibly boring and not fun at all." I mean, really? Stopping after going down on a guy to put on another shade of lipstick only to do it again? Isn't that frustrating for both people? I guess I'm just too boring and conventional. I don't want to stop sex to apply makeup, it kind of defeats the purpose of getting down and dirty.
jadedmusings: (Ming Ming Sewious)
I have discovered a new condition. It's called Involuntary Celibacy, or incel for short. What is incel you ask?

Involuntary celibacy, or incel, is the state of a person who has not established an intimate relationship or engaged in sexual intercourse for reasons other than voluntary celibacy or sexual abstinence. The term is used especially for adults who, despite general expectations, have had little to no sexual or romantic experience. [Wikipedia]

OK, and the causes of incel?
Loneliness. Love shyness. Sexual frustration. Romantic envy. Missing the boat. Playing an agonzing, tantalizing game of catch-up. It’s alarming that a problem so destructive can be all but virtually ignored by both serious sociologists and the mental health community. It can be argued that incel is a symptom of a deeper root cause and that this cause should be the greater focus of investigation. The most obvious reasons for some incels would be social phobia or a significant degree of social incompetence. However many incels are also actually outgoing, charming, humorous, gregarious, approachable types who resemble most people already in relationships. Yet they find themselves in the same social situation of the stereotypical shut-in. Many introverts involved in serious relationships or are even married. There are no easy causal explanations.

Right, I can buy that there are valid disorders, illnesses, and diseases that get ignored by various parts of the medical community (i.e. fibromyalgia), but so far I'm not exactly sold on incel as a disorder deserving of medical recognition. Furthermore, if there are "no easy causal" explanations, and sufferers can be either socially inept, suffer from depression, or be perfectly charming, how on earth can we come up with diagnostic criteria? Or is the only symptom lack of sexual relationships?

To help simplify matters, when I say incel, I mean to include only men and women above age 25, who are not incarcerated and do not have any physical handicap that could get in the way of a relationship. For now I don’t want to include the medically celibate or prisoners and other people in strict single-sex communities in the discussion yet--even though they do actually qualify as incel--mainly because the reason for being incel is so self-evident there. I would also defer discussion on very youthful incels because I believe most people understand in the adolescent and young adult years, people are expected to stumble and get rejected, and some frustration is a natural way of life, even though it can certainly be no less troubling in one's social development.

Right, so a disabled person over the age of 25 couldn't possibly be depressed that zie is incapable of having the sort of relationship zie assumes hir able-bodied friends have? And an incarcerated person couldn't possibly be depressed about lack of human intimacy with someone zie loves? Wait, they are incel? Why are we excluding them? Oh, oh, because well, golly gee, of course we know why those people aren't getting laid. It's so obvious! You just can't possibly compare them to all the "outgoing, charming, humorous, gregarious, approachable types" not getting any nookie. And certainly able-bodied, presumably law-abiding people under the age of 25 wouldn't be upset when their friends have relationships and they are late bloomers.

But I do very much want to address the problem of mature emotional frustration of people in a sexually permissive society, who have reasonably advanced sexual knowledge, even if it is all secondhand, especially for incels who are outgoing, are quite socially competent and are free to mingle with whoever they please. In these cases, the frustration is compounded because the sufferer has difficulty pinpointing the reason they are like this. It’s not as easy as in the last century where one could be frustrated from being in the wrong class or wrong sort of family or neighborhood. Because we live in an increasingly global community, there would seem to be no excuse not to connect with people, but incel cases still exist and, I think, much more prevalently than it would seem.

Sexually permissive society? Hey, when did the virgin/whore dichotomy go away? Did I miss a news flash? And when did porn count as good sexual education?

"...the sufferer has difficulty pinpointing the reason they are like this." And instead of looking at themselves to figure out what might be the cause, they blame the medical community for not paying attention to their plight? Yes, because people die every day from not getting laid. Oh, wait...

There’s also the feeling of helplessness and that the situation is somewhat out of their hands; after all it takes another reciprocating person to form a couple, and even doing everything right is no guarantee, as incels understand too well. Obviously luck plays a role in the success of many relationships, but luck affects non-incels as well; why does fortune frown on them in particular?

Where have I heard this before? "Women only like jerks!" "Men only date sluts/bitches!" "I'm a Nice Guy! Why don't women like me instead of those assholes?" "I'm a Sweet Girl! Why don't men want to date me instead of those bitches who just use them?"

Ohhhhhh. Now I remember. The poor persecuted Nice Guy/Girl(TM) has decided to adopt a term to apply to hirself.

Actual lack of sex is not only the most misunderstood aspect of incel, but in many cases, it’s also beside the point. Some incels have had opportunities for casual or paid sex but have declined them because they don’t consider them a real relationship (or in the latter case it’s illegal for them in their residential jurisdiction.) What they are truly missing is the affectionate touching, holding and kissing and unconditional give-and-take that true couples the world over enjoy.

This right here I can get on board with. Ignoring the legality of paying for sex, some can't afford it or wouldn't know where to look, and really, sex is more rewarding in the context of a long-term, loving relationship for most people. Avoiding one-night stands or single encounters with a person is also completely understandable, but I thought incels were incapable of getting sex. Apparently they are choosing not to take presented opportunities because it doesn't fit their needs/desires, which, again, is completely understandable and should probably even be lauded as emotionally/mentally responsible behavior. Acknowledging your limits is always a good thing, but I think I've found the crux of the problem.

When I found myself single at 21 after my three-year relationship ended, I had several opportunities for sex. All of them would have likely been one-night stands, or very short-term relationships. Like what's quoted above, I desired intimacy as opposed to only sex. I wanted an emotional committment, and I knew even back then that I can't have sex without love. It was nearly a full year before I had sex again, and there were times when purchasing batteries instead of condoms that I wondered if I was being silly. Yes, there were even a few nights when I whined to a friend or to myself that I wasn't getting laid, and I worried about carpel tunnel syndrome. However, I chose to turn down the opportunities for sex. I chose not to engage in any sort of sexual activity with anyone who wasn't seeking a relationship. I accepted that the consequences for my choices were that my bed would be empty for what might be a long time, and in the interim, I put myself out there as a single woman, and was honest with myself and potential partners about my expectations.

This is why I really can't buy the incel movement. It's not involuntary celibacy if you're turning down opportunities for sex. You have, for whatever reason, made a concious decision not to engage in certain behaviors that limit your options. Illnesses and disorders are not a matter of choice. You either have/get them or you don't.

I'm sorry, I understand the desire and drive for sex. I understand what's it's like to go without and how much it can suck. However, instead of being proactive about "fixing" the problem, you come up with a term to hide behind and so you won't have to address the actual problem: You. Want to know what you're doing wrong? Ask the people who turn you down. It might seem silly and feel awkward, especially if you've just been rejected, but learning what turns people off from you can offer you invaluable insight. Will it hurt? Yes, the truth often hurts, but if you can find friends who are honest with you, it will be an asset for you in the long term. Yes, this might mean you have to change things about you, and address the root causes of your negative behavior, but that's all part of life and growing up. Trust me, you are far more appealing relationship material if you can prove to others that you Handle Your Shit, and Get Over Your Issues.

Finally, if you do feel suicidal, or feel the need to turn to drugs and/or alcohol to deal with your issues, please, please, please get help. It is not lack of sex that's the issue at that point - it's that you have a problem that needs immediate medical attention.

Cross-posted to LiveJournal.
jadedmusings: (Default)
I have discovered a new condition. It's called Involuntary Celibacy, or incel for short. What is incel you ask?

Involuntary celibacy, or incel, is the state of a person who has not established an intimate relationship or engaged in sexual intercourse for reasons other than voluntary celibacy or sexual abstinence. The term is used especially for adults who, despite general expectations, have had little to no sexual or romantic experience. [Wikipedia]

OK, and the causes of incel?
Loneliness. Love shyness. Sexual frustration. Romantic envy. Missing the boat. Playing an agonzing, tantalizing game of catch-up. It’s alarming that a problem so destructive can be all but virtually ignored by both serious sociologists and the mental health community. It can be argued that incel is a symptom of a deeper root cause and that this cause should be the greater focus of investigation. The most obvious reasons for some incels would be social phobia or a significant degree of social incompetence. However many incels are also actually outgoing, charming, humorous, gregarious, approachable types who resemble most people already in relationships. Yet they find themselves in the same social situation of the stereotypical shut-in. Many introverts involved in serious relationships or are even married. There are no easy causal explanations.

Right, I can buy that there are valid disorders, illnesses, and diseases that get ignored by various parts of the medical community (i.e. fibromyalgia), but so far I'm not exactly sold on incel as a disorder deserving of medical recognition. Furthermore, if there are "no easy causal" explanations, and sufferers can be either socially inept, suffer from depression, or be perfectly charming, how on earth can we come up with diagnostic criteria? Or is the only symptom lack of sexual relationships?

To help simplify matters, when I say incel, I mean to include only men and women above age 25, who are not incarcerated and do not have any physical handicap that could get in the way of a relationship. For now I don’t want to include the medically celibate or prisoners and other people in strict single-sex communities in the discussion yet--even though they do actually qualify as incel--mainly because the reason for being incel is so self-evident there. I would also defer discussion on very youthful incels because I believe most people understand in the adolescent and young adult years, people are expected to stumble and get rejected, and some frustration is a natural way of life, even though it can certainly be no less troubling in one's social development.

Right, so a disabled person over the age of 25 couldn't possibly be depressed that zie is incapable of having the sort of relationship zie assumes hir able-bodied friends have? And an incarcerated person couldn't possibly be depressed about lack of human intimacy with someone zie loves? Wait, they are incel? Why are we excluding them? Oh, oh, because well, golly gee, of course we know why those people aren't getting laid. It's so obvious! You just can't possibly compare them to all the "outgoing, charming, humorous, gregarious, approachable types" not getting any nookie. And certainly able-bodied, presumably law-abiding people under the age of 25 wouldn't be upset when their friends have relationships and they are late bloomers.

But I do very much want to address the problem of mature emotional frustration of people in a sexually permissive society, who have reasonably advanced sexual knowledge, even if it is all secondhand, especially for incels who are outgoing, are quite socially competent and are free to mingle with whoever they please. In these cases, the frustration is compounded because the sufferer has difficulty pinpointing the reason they are like this. It’s not as easy as in the last century where one could be frustrated from being in the wrong class or wrong sort of family or neighborhood. Because we live in an increasingly global community, there would seem to be no excuse not to connect with people, but incel cases still exist and, I think, much more prevalently than it would seem.

Sexually permissive society? Hey, when did the virgin/whore dichotomy go away? Did I miss a news flash? And when did porn count as good sexual education?

"...the sufferer has difficulty pinpointing the reason they are like this." And instead of looking at themselves to figure out what might be the cause, they blame the medical community for not paying attention to their plight? Yes, because people die every day from not getting laid. Oh, wait...

There’s also the feeling of helplessness and that the situation is somewhat out of their hands; after all it takes another reciprocating person to form a couple, and even doing everything right is no guarantee, as incels understand too well. Obviously luck plays a role in the success of many relationships, but luck affects non-incels as well; why does fortune frown on them in particular?

Where have I heard this before? "Women only like jerks!" "Men only date sluts/bitches!" "I'm a Nice Guy! Why don't women like me instead of those assholes?" "I'm a Sweet Girl! Why don't men want to date me instead of those bitches who just use them?"

Ohhhhhh. Now I remember. The poor persecuted Nice Guy/Girl(TM) has decided to adopt a term to apply to hirself.

Actual lack of sex is not only the most misunderstood aspect of incel, but in many cases, it’s also beside the point. Some incels have had opportunities for casual or paid sex but have declined them because they don’t consider them a real relationship (or in the latter case it’s illegal for them in their residential jurisdiction.) What they are truly missing is the affectionate touching, holding and kissing and unconditional give-and-take that true couples the world over enjoy.

This right here I can get on board with. Ignoring the legality of paying for sex, some can't afford it or wouldn't know where to look, and really, sex is more rewarding in the context of a long-term, loving relationship for most people. Avoiding one-night stands or single encounters with a person is also completely understandable, but I thought incels were incapable of getting sex. Apparently they are choosing not to take presented opportunities because it doesn't fit their needs/desires, which, again, is completely understandable and should probably even be lauded as emotionally/mentally responsible behavior. Acknowledging your limits is always a good thing, but I think I've found the crux of the problem.

When I found myself single at 21 after my three-year relationship ended, I had several opportunities for sex. All of them would have likely been one-night stands, or very short-term relationships. Like what's quoted above, I desired intimacy as opposed to only sex. I wanted an emotional committment, and I knew even back then that I can't have sex without love. It was nearly a full year before I had sex again, and there were times when purchasing batteries instead of condoms that I wondered if I was being silly. Yes, there were even a few nights when I whined to a friend or to myself that I wasn't getting laid, and I worried about carpel tunnel syndrome. However, I chose to turn down the opportunities for sex. I chose not to engage in any sort of sexual activity with anyone who wasn't seeking a relationship. I accepted that the consequences for my choices were that my bed would be empty for what might be a long time, and in the interim, I put myself out there as a single woman, and was honest with myself and potential partners about my expectations.

This is why I really can't buy the incel movement. It's not involuntary celibacy if you're turning down opportunities for sex. You have, for whatever reason, made a concious decision not to engage in certain behaviors that limit your options. Illnesses and disorders are not a matter of choice. You either have/get them or you don't.

I'm sorry, I understand the desire and drive for sex. I understand what's it's like to go without and how much it can suck. However, instead of being proactive about "fixing" the problem, you come up with a term to hide behind and so you won't have to address the actual problem: You. Want to know what you're doing wrong? Ask the people who turn you down. It might seem silly and feel awkward, especially if you've just been rejected, but learning what turns people off from you can offer you invaluable insight. Will it hurt? Yes, the truth often hurts, but if you can find friends who are honest with you, it will be an asset for you in the long term. Yes, this might mean you have to change things about you, and address the root causes of your negative behavior, but that's all part of life and growing up. Trust me, you are far more appealing relationship material if you can prove to others that you Handle Your Shit, and Get Over Your Issues.

Finally, if you do feel suicidal, or feel the need to turn to drugs and/or alcohol to deal with your issues, please, please, please get help. It is not lack of sex that's the issue at that point - it's that you have a problem that needs immediate medical attention.

Cross-posted to Dreamwidth.
jadedmusings: (Default)
Woman Injured In Sex Toy Mishap

LEXINGTON PARK, Md. (WUSA) - A Southern Maryland woman was seriously injured in a mishap involving a sex toy over the weekend. The case was first reported on BayNet.com, and Saint Mary's county public safety sources confirm the information to 9NEWS NOW.

The accident was reported to local fire and rescue personnel about 1:30 a.m. on March 7, from an address on Rogers Drive. The man who made the 911 call said he had placed a sex toy over a saber saw blade, and then used the power tool on his partner, but the blade cut through the plastic and injured the woman.

The victim, a 27-year-old woman, was reportedly injured and bleeding. She was flown to Prince George's hospital center by Maryland State Police.

County law enforcement officials who were familiar with the media report about this case said although they were not initially called to investigate the incident, they would likely follow up to determine it was just an accident and involved consentual behavior.
Written by Bill Starks
9NEWS NOW & wusa9.com


OK, seriously, I know there's a website called fuckmachines.com (NSFW, duh!), but do people not realize that those machines are altered specifically for sexual purposes? At the very least, did it not occur to them that a saw, well, saws through materials and that a (presumably) silicone dildo isn't exactly going to resist a saw blade?

If you need me, I'll be over here crossing my legs and making the D: face.
jadedmusings: (Default)
Reading through some of my LJ things today, I encountered another misogynistic rant about women "oopsing" or "trapping" men by becoming pregnant and forcing them to pay child support. I'm not going to try to tackle the logic behind a woman enduring nine months of pregnancy, labor, post-partum healing, and then a couple of decades of childrearing for the sake of keeping one man who clearly doesn't want to be there.* (Seriously, as much as I love my boyfriend, he isn't worth that, nor are a majority of men. I'm pretty sure even if I did do such a dishonest thing, it'd be the end of all romantic involvement.) Instead, I have other questions to ask.

Barring one-night stands and hook-ups, why is it unreasonable to expect some sort of communication when it comes to the possible outcomes of "doing the deed"? From where I sit, I am allowing someone to put various body parts into strategically located orifices on my body, and I'm subjecting him to the sight of my nude form under questionable lighting conditions. Clearly, I've reached a deep level of intimacy here. Is it so unreasonable to take five minutes to sit down and discuss a worst-case scenario before any fluids have been exchanged? Do people think such talk might lessen the passion? Personally, I've yet to experience that myself. If anything, being open and honest with a partner helps me to relax and enjoy myself more because there's not a voice in the back of my head freaking out over the "what ifs." I know the answers to those questions beforehand.

I understand that ultimately a woman has the ability to say she wants a pregnancy or not.** However, she does not get pregnant on her own, and it is up to both parties to take the proper precautions to better their chances of avoiding pregnancy. If a male never wants children and still wishes to engage in sexual intercourse, shouldn't he take responsibility over his own biology and either use a condom every time, or seek sterilization rather than placing the burden of birth control solely on the woman's shoulders?

I know, me and my crazy Earth logic.

* = I am not saying it's never happened, but the frequency with which it possibly happens is greatly exaggerated. In fact, birth control sabotage is likely in abusive relationships wherein the male partner intentionally tries to impregnant his unwilling partner. In most cases where someone is accused of going off the pill, she may have simply taken an antibiotic or other prescribed medication that negated the hormones in her pills, or her biology may work against her and she's one of those rare women for whom the pill doesn't work. Shit happens.

** = Of course, that depends on where she lives, her economic status, and whether or not she's in an abusive situation. As much as people scream "A woman can always abort!" the truth is there are a lot of obstacles to a woman obtaining an abortion here in the US. Just because the procedure is still legal it doesn't mean it's easy to get.
jadedmusings: (Default)
“I’ve only ever done it with a couple of people. People make up stories, but mostly I just kiss. I think it’s important to play hard to get. Nobody wants the fake Prada bag - they want the brand new bag that no one can get and is the most expensive. If you give it up to a guy he won’t respect you. He’ll want you much more if he can’t have you.” - Paris Hilton

You know, I can't even fully comprehend how many levels of messed up it is to have Paris Hilton of all women telling me I should play hard to get and that no man wants my vajayjay because it's not brand spanking new out of the hermetically sealed wrapper I'm supposed to keep it in. Don't you love the "virgin-whore" crap?

I could be a real asshole/idiot and make some personal attacks on Paris's character, but that's wrong and perpetuates the same sort of sexist bullshit I hate. However, allow me to translate what Paris is really saying here. "Ladies, your entire worth is between your legs. Your intelligence and accomplishments in life are rendered moot if you let an icky penis anywhere near your vagina. No man would want a used vagina."

If you give it up to a guy he won’t respect you.

I just wanted to emphasize this because this is a pet peeve of mine. I've dated some real assholes, but I can at least say they didn't lose respect for me because I "gave it up." I'm not the type to do one night stands or random hook-ups as that's just not me, but even if it were, why would I care if he respected me afterward if all I want is sex? Oh right, women never want just sex. We have to always have the emotional connection, right? (Picture me rolling my eyes as I type that.) Why isn't it important that a man be respected after sex too? Ah, yes, we should have known all along that all he wanted was sex anyway and his worth isn't tied into how many vaginas he's put his penis in.

He’ll want you much more if he can’t have you.

This doesn't make sense. In the past when a man has wanted a purely sexual relationship from me and I refused, he's moved on to find someone with similar needs and desires. (I'm discounting the asshole who didn't take no for an answer and only considering the men who were truly decent human beings, ok?)

I've got this crazy idea about communicating my feelings and desires to my partner. It shouldn't matter if I just want to get laid, fall in love, or stay up all night playing video games and quoting Monty Python (hey, don't judge me, we've all got our kinks). The number of sexual partners I've had don't affect who I am and it certainly doesn't make me less of a person. If a man is going to get bent out of shape because I enjoyed myself before I even knew he existed, then I don't need him in my life.

Let me say it again: My entire worth as a person does not lie between my legs. Got it? Now quit comparing my vagina to duct tape, candy, cups, and Prada bags for fuck's sake!

H/t Jill at Feministe.

Profile

jadedmusings: (Default)
Wrathful and Unrepentant Jade

December 2013

S M T W T F S
1234567
8910 11121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930 31    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 21st, 2017 08:32 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios