Thursday, February 18, 2010

The Male "P" Spot: Why het men are so afraid to discover their own bodies' capacities for pleasure, from a sex organ that ISN'T a penis

 
[image is from here]

[What follows has been partially revised and added to after the post was initially written. Later revision on 24 September 2010 ECD. Last revision of one paragraph, on the objectification of breasts by men, was done on 31 August 2012.]

Above, witness the perennially pink human in medical diagrams and illustrations. (I have yet to meet one pink person, btw.) Ah, white (or is it pink?) supremacist racism. It finds its way into every area of society in which white people live.

I will take us on a little journey, into the world of sexism and heterosexism in the discussion of human sexuality. We will examine the G-spot on route to the P-spot. And we may take some side trips along the way from point G to point P.

First, a question to the reading audience:

Has anyone, anywhere, seen a medical illustration of the prostate gland and men's other sexual organs depicted with the prostate being touched and the penis erect? Why not? And why do these diagrams only exist to promote "checking for cancer"? Talk about stigmatising an organ! Do men think of women's breasts only as "things that may get cancer"? Are women's breasts presented to the public only as potentially in need of removal? No.

Women's breasts are "presented" socially, by pimps and advertisers, as "things for men", "things" to be used by men, mounds between which to thrust the penis, a thing to be cosmetically/surgically altered, lifted, bloated with silicone or saline pouches, a thing for men to poke, a thing for men to fetishise in the imagination, a thing for men to look at and touch, if not grab and grope in reality. Especially--and quite unnaturally--the most fake breasts are fetishised by normal men; giant breasts are drooled over or ejaculated onto--if the ejaculate isn't deposited onto the face of the person; the person with the breasts is believed to "like it" whenever a man ejaculates anywhere near, in,  or on her (i.e., usually a woman). Corporate pimps, advertising executives, clothing manufacturers, and television producers* all make it their business to promote the breast as a thing, or breasts as a pair of things which had better be (unnaturally) identical, and has better be exposed for some men's view to some degree. Men demand to know the contours of women's breasts, to see the form, to discern the shape, and to have the collective power to make that be so by controlling industries that make women's breasts readily available to men.

*Anyone would be hard-pressed to distinguish between those four groups of overwhelmingly wealthy white men.

There's a controversial and somewhat mythological* part of human female anatomy--not the breast--that may or may not exist, but has been promoted by het men as yet another reason why their dicks need to be in women's vaginas--allegedly for women. (When the dick isn't between the woman's breasts or buttocks, of course.) It has been termed the G-spot, named, wouldn't you know it, after a man (Dr. Ernst Grafenberg)! And women can welcome men near them and envelope men's penises should they wish, desire, and want to do so.

*From Wikipedia:
A study using ultrasound found women who report having vaginal orgasms do have thicker tissue in the G-Spot region, but this could be an extension of the clitoris rather than a separate structure. Another study of 1,800 twins found that 56% of women surveyed reported having a G-Spot, although this cannot be considered a representative study.[4] Sexual psychologists are concerned women may label themselves "dysfunctional" if they cannot find a G-Spot,[5] and women have had plastic surgery done to enhance G-Spot sensitivity. The largest study to date on the G-Spot found its existence unproven and subjective among women.[6] The study based its results on questionnaires and personal experience.

Sexual psychologists are concerned about the promotion of the G-Spot, as it could lead to women feeling "dysfunctional" if they do not experience it. Dr. Petra Boynton points out:[5]
We're all different. Some women will have certain area within the vagina which will be very sensitive, and some won't - but they won't necessarily be in the area called the G spot. If a woman spends all her time worrying about whether she is normal, or has a G spot or not, she will focus on just one area, and ignore everything else. It's telling people that there is a single, best way to have sex, which isn't the right thing to do.
*          *          *
Indeed.

And sexist politics are prevalent in any social discussion of women's bodies, especially when the subject is sex. *Here* we have a website created to tell men "how to master the woman's g-spot". And how many sites are there instructing women on how to master men's P-spot? And how many ultrasounds were done while men experienced pleasure rectally? And how many studies have been done on this matter? There is a kind of privacy of the body that men enjoy that women are not afforded in patriarchal, misogynistic, sexist societies.

A society that seeks to undermine women's sexual and physical autonomy from men and male systems will do whatever it takes to bind women to beliefs that are not in their best interests. Exhibit A: "feminine hygiene" products. Bodies have various smells. In case those het male researchers, marketers, and advertisers haven't noticed, men's crotches smell. So too does the area between men's buttocks. Are men sold "masculine hygiene" products, and told to attend to themselves before they let anyone move their face "down there"? In what sense don't men need "freshening" up? Would life be better if men's crotches smelled perpetually like spring meadows? How would it be if children were gathered in a room watching television with parents and ads came on the air repeatedly reminding men to use "dippety-douche"--a product men can lower their genitals into to make sure they smell like lilacs--for those times when men want to feel most confident?

Why do so many girls and young women not welcome oral sex being performed on them? I have heard, with sad regularity, young women speak to me about how they are terribly self-conscious about "what they smell like down there". I remind them that it is tremendously probable that women smell human down there, just as men's crotches smell human. And that boys and men don't seem especially obsessed about their own crotch's smell.

Advertising works, or it wouldn't exist as a multi-million dollar business. Girls and women, along with boys and men, absorb the message, delivered without relief, that their genitals need to be attended to with chemical washes and rinses before a boy or man's face can go near it. And what are the "cleansers" called for men to use to wash their crotches, besides soap? This matter of women's bodies, and specifically their genitals, being "dirty" is a powerful message in many patriarchal societies. Sometimes women are made to "go away" while menstruating. Some cultures require women to not go near social places or food while they are bleeding "down there". As if women stir-fry or order in a pizza using their crotches.

What women want is never central in the sexxx that is manufactured by male pimps. The reasons women's bodies are invaded or violated are certainly not due to women's mass demand for such mistreatment--unless you actually believe what trafficked and pimped women are made to say in front of a camera. The pimp-speak scripted for women to say (or grunt) in pornography films is not imagined with women's human rights in mind. Where in the world do women have full control over their bodies such that men approach them only when women desire, wish, welcome, and want men to?

I wish it were the case that only when all those criteria were met (desiring, wishing, welcoming, and wanting), did vaginal-penile intercourse occur. Alas, everything from incest, molestation, rape, assault, and other forms of unwelcomed and unwanted violence against and violation of women and girls ensures that this activity will occur when het men want it to, not women... or girls... or infant human females.

What misogynistic, racist, and callous men do routinely to women's bodies is gross. And when men do it, women get stigmatised as the gross, dirty ones. How "fucked up" is that?!?

There is a less contested part of men's anatomy--not at all mythic, called "the prostate gland" which only gets discussed in dominant media when the term "cancer" is in the same sentence or news story. When is the last time you heard, on national news broadcasts, or on "morning shows", the prostate gland discussed as one of males' several sexually responsive organs?

Due to a combination of institutionalised and naturalised heterosexism, and profound and virulent levels of homophobia and misogyny, men's rectum's being penetrated in sex, as sex, is seen as "feminising" of the man who engages in this sort of behavior. In some societies, it is only the male who takes the penis into his body (note how often women doing this is not phrased that way!) who is socially seen as "gay". The male who sticks his dick in women and men, or whose dick is enveloped and gripped  by women or men, is not seen to be gay. Such a man is seen as heterosexual.

This is but one reason why I say that sexual orientation is a social, not "natural" phenomenon.

There is a stigma attached to the body that sometimes has a penis inside it. The stigma--not a natural one--is generated socially and politically by being degraded by men's violent acts of invasion and violation of women's bodies. Due to the degradation of women by men, at times involving the penetration of her body by a penis, all forms of penetrative sex carry this stigma. The accepter of the penis is potentially degraded in the act, not at all because of something inherent to the act. The stigma comes from the frequency with which het-active men utilise these acts as means to achieve degradation and dehumanisation of people. Therefore the physical act of having a penis in your body is stigmatised as dirtying, degrading, and feminising. As Dworkin noted in her book Intercourse, women are (effectively) dirt to men who use them in dirty, degrading ways.

So all those butch het boys who want to never appear to be anything other than "masculine", may reply "no thank you" to the opportunity to experience sexual pleasure that may be achieved by massaging the prostate gland, which is finger deep in men's rectums, unless it has been removed surgically. Note how women's alleged G-spot is not so likely to be thought of as something that ought to be approached with great care and overt and meaningful consent. Note how men do not take "no thank you" or "no, not interested" or just "no" as a sufficient indicator of her wish not to do what men ask women to do, sexually, that he wants to do. Note how we don't assume that if a man says no to anally penetrative sex, she has a right to force her way in. And if he allows her to play near his anus, we don't assume that means he's consenting to her jamming something into his ass.

To all het men who are nervous about having your anus penetrated during sex: please "do unto others as you would have done unto you" when it comes to penetrating anyone's body, in any way, with anything, including your dick. And learn how to have non-penetrative sex, non-phallocentric (or phallocratic) sex. You'd be surprised what sex can be, if you take the focus off your own dick long enough to discover the rest of your body, and, if heterosexually active, the rest of women's bodies too.

Het men who are sexually active ought to be made to learn about female anatomy, and be socially required to be deprogrammed of pornographic sexxxuality before being allowed near anyone to engage in sexual behavior. Interpersonally, het men who plan to be sexually active with a woman ought to seek out from her  information about what she enjoys, prefers, doesn't like, doesn't want to be asked to do, and is triggered by, sexually. There's no physiological, hormonal, genetic, or anatomical reason het men can't ask for this information BEFORE you put your dick near a woman's body.

And perhaps if we spoke more about the prostate gland as a sex organ, and discussed how to stimulate it, we'd be more mindful of how it might feel to have women's vaginas be discussed as if they were not part of women's lives, their human histories as vulnerable and vibrant human beings.

Newsflash to het men: your anuses, as well as your rectums and prostate glands, are potentially part of your lives, your histories as vulnerable and vibrant human beings.

For more on one of male human beings' sex organs, see http://ezinearticles.com/?Male-G-Spot-Diagram-For-Mega-Orgasms&id=2850510.

28 comments:

beverlyheels said...

"Note how we don't assume that if a man says no to anally penetrative sex, she has a right to force her way in. And if he allows her to play near his anus, we don't assume that means he's consenting to her jamming something into his ass."

Word up.

I agree, and everything, but I think that when you address "all het men" that what you said could be extended to gay men as well. By "gay" I mean contemporary or "mainstream" gay identity (ie. white, upper class, gay). Being a 'top' and being a 'bottom' carry just as many of the connotations and stigmas in the gay "scene."

Julian Real said...

Hi beverlyheels,

Great screenname, btw!

I quite agree with you, but the focus of this piece, and this blog generally, is on white het men's oppressive behavior.

But, yes. I hear you and agree with you completely. Gay male sexuality, steeped as it often is in the same material pimps mass produce for het men, carries all the same values and practices, just done among men, not from a man against a woman.

Christopher Kendall writes about this quite a bit. Do you know his work? Here's a link, in case the name is new to you.

Thanks for noting that.

Katlego said...

Yeah, i have had that experience of feeling "feminized" because someone was penetrating me anally. I am a man, and it was a woman who penetrated me with a strap-on. the position gave her a lot of control over my body. as it were, i felt the power relations in vaginal-penile intercourse were reversed. i felt very very sexist in thinking and feeling what i did at that moment. and it said much about what i regard as feminine roles - especially their powerlessness viz-a-viz the masculine roles. what was special about this feeling was it was not premeditated, it was intuitive or automatic. it was like a light into the sexism into my heart and my unconscious. i felt ashamed at telling her how i felt. because well, i felt that my practice must have been disempowering in such a manner, some how, to the women i was having vaginal-penile penetration.

so these white-heterosexist-partriarchal-supremacist-misoginist-etc messages permeating society have colonized us in ways unimaginable. really unimaginable. wherefore, all males, absolutely all males are fucking sexist. there aint no exception. not even JC was redeemed from it. hell no.

Julian Real said...

Hi Katlego,

I very much appreciate you writing what you did and sharing it here. I think a lot of het men will be able to relate to what you say, and a lot of women who have penetrative sex with men will feel validated.

I'm going to post, anonymously, your comment over at this blog's post, as it so completely relates to what they are discussing.

You'll be interested, I think, to read feministx's post, and if you want to comment there and own the comment I'm putting there as yours, feel free to, of course. But without having your email address to ask your permission to name you, I'll take the conservative approach and not do so.

And, if you want to, send me your email address as a comment marked "Not For Publication" and I'll reply by email.

so these white-heterosexist-partriarchal-supremacist-misoginist-etc messages permeating society have colonized us in ways unimaginable. really unimaginable.

Well said.

therefore, all males, absolutely all males are fucking sexist. there aint no exception. not even JC was redeemed from it. hell no.

I think in a society steeped deeply in values that are part of every social institution, part of every structure, every system, every culture tainted by WHM supremacy, it is inevitable that all men in those societies are sexist. We are structurally, positionally sexist, and so it becomes quite significant to put yourself in heterosexually active women's positing, for a moment, at least, and to know how much of that experience comes across.

And what I'm talking about is not "asocial" AT ALL. All the meaning of being penetrated is social, politial, attached to the culture one is part of and its values.

So I agree: all males in a sexist society are sexist, just as all whites is a racist society are structurally positioned to be racist, to benefit from racist systems and values that permeate society. Regardless of how we act as men, or as whites.

Thanks again. Brilliantly stated and expressed comment, in my view!

Julian Real said...

Hey Katlego,

I'll add the following. I don't think you'd disagree at all, but I just want this on the record.

What you experienced, for me, to me, and to women I know, doesn't even approach having "a woman's experience" as many women's experience is waking up knowing and negotiating around and through the fact that her body is seen socially as a thing for men to use and abuse--publicly and privately, and to also have the experience of it being used and abused. To be a het man who is penetrated, one night (or day), by a woman with a dildo/strap-on is not to be wake up knowing that society has made your body for use by men conceptually, existentially, phenomenologically.

raytherah said...

Great article.

Julian Real said...

Thank you, Ray!

Katlego Matsila said...

Yeah,

I absolutely see where you are coming from in that last comment you made about the everyday/every minute woman's body's and psyche's experience. I will hold on to that comment. The same can be said about other feminized experiences that men can have, in that they are fractional. Yes, that's right FRACTIONAL. Fuck. This system is ridiculous.

Hey Jules, i like reading your blog. i makes sense of much of my experiences in this world.

Thank you very much for having done this, and doing this with the vigor that you do it with

Julian Real said...

Thanks, katlego. :)

robinjjj said...

“I have yet to meet one pink person, btw.”

Really? I know you’re making a point about the idealized caucasian image vs. the diverse reality, but you’ve never seen one single person with pink skin?

“Has anyone, anywhere, seen a medical illustration of the prostate gland and men's other sexual organs depicted with the prostate being touched and the penis erect?”

http://www.passiononline.co.uk/shop/images/rudeboy-diagram.jpg
Bam. There you go. No surprise, it’s not from a textbook, but from a sex toy website. Still, medical illustrations is medical illustrations.

“Why not? And why do these diagrams only exist to promote "checking for cancer"? Talk about stigmatising [sic] an organ! Do men think of women's breasts only as "things that may get cancer"? Are women's breasts presented to the public only as potentially in need of removal? No.”

You completely shifted the goalposts right in the middle there. You started by discussing medical diagrams, and ended by generalizing popular perception. These diagrams are used to promote health (and they’re not just for checking cancer, they’re for understanding the whole functioning of the male reproductive system) because that’s the point of the medical profession, not sexual excitement. Clinical diagrams of breast exams don’t show women as sexually aroused, either. The worlds of medical study and titillative popular media are different, believe it or not.

“Women's breasts are "presented" socially, by pimps and advertisers, as "things for men", "things" to be used by men, a place to put the penis, a thing to be cosmetically/surgically altered, lifted, bloated with silicone or saline pouchs [sic], a thing for men to grab, a thing for men to fetishize as "for men to look at and touch", especially--and quite unnaturally--the most fake breasts are fetishised [sic] by men, drooled over or ejaculated on--ir [sic] not on the face.”

Breasts are presented as such, in comparison to prostate glands, because they’re an external, readily visible primary sexual characteristic, rather than a minute, unseen erogenous zone accessible only by a non-reproductive orifice.

If you really want to compare male vs. female objectification in the media, you should talk about penises, not prostates. Obviously, women are objectified in the media far more commonly, brutally, and to greater extent, but you must at least concede that the manner of fetishization and exaggeration regarding female breasts is in some ways analogous to the treatment of the penis. All manner of augmentation and improvement are promoted, not to mention many women own replica penises that are literally things to be used for self-gratification. Fleshlights and Real Dolls are nowhere near as pervasive.

“And how many sites are there instructing women on how to master men's P-spot? And how many ultrasounds were done while men experienced pleasure rectally? And how many studies have been done on this matter? There is a kind of privacy of the body that men enjoy that women are not afforded in patriarchal, misogynistic, sexist societies.”

You’re ignoring the fact that the G-spot, real or imagined, resides within THE PRIMARY sex organ of the female body, whereas the prostate gland is in a region primarily devoted to dispelling waste products. I assure you there are plenty of instructional sites on how to arouse men’s primary sex organ, not to mention innumerable studies devoted to examining phallic stimulation in highly personal, often uncomfortable ways. But, being external, they don’t require ultrasounds. If you’re claiming that the only type of tests that invade one’s privacy are those that involve internal access, aren’t you agreeing with the stigma against anal penetration? That only by being penetrated can one be violated?

robinjjj said...

“Are men sold "masculine hygiene" products, and told to attend to themselves before they let anyone move their face "down there"? In what sense don't men need "freshening" up? How would it be if children were gathered in a room watching television with parents and ads came on the air repeatedly reminding men to use "dippety-douche"--a product men can lower their genitals into to make sure they smell like lilacs--for those times when men want to feel most confident?”

Again, being external, male genitals are much easier to wash, and odor-covering products that work elsewhere on the body (i.e. body sprays) work just as well below the Southern border, as it were. Female hygiene needs to take internal anatomy and menstruation into account, and is therefore more complex.

If it consoles you any, know that 30% of men worldwide have a portion of their penises snipped off, largely for now-controversial “hygienic” reasons. Female genital cutting, though often more severe, is much rarer, affecting less than 1% of women, not to mention illegal in most places.

Also, if you want to discuss invasive primetime commercials, how about ones for impotence treatment, with warnings about erections lasting longer than four hours? Or ones that equivocate success in life and sense of self-worth with penis size?

“And what are the "cleansers" called for men to use to wash their crotches, besides soap?”

If you would prefer to use soap in your vagina daily, be my guest. But I am given to understand that it is less than comfortable, and dangerous to your health.

“There is a less contested part of men's anatomy--not at all mythic, called "the prostate gland" which only gets discussed in dominant media when the term "cancer" is in the same sentence or news story. When is the last time you heard, on national news broadcasts, or on "morning shows", the prostate gland discussed as one of males' several sexually responsive organs?”

Most mentions I see of the G-spot in these media concern controversy over its existence. Meanwhile, the prostate is established to exist, so there’s not much news to be found there. I don’t hear a lot of national news broadcasts about the clitoris, either.

robinjjj said...

“This is but one reason why I say that sexual orientation is a social, not "natural" phenomenon.”

Maybe the classification is a social construct, but are you suggestion the phenomenon of sexual attraction to one sex and/or another is itself socialized? That one is “taught” to be gay, straight, or what have you, as claimed by the homophobic far right?

“Note how women's alleged G-spot is not so likely to be thought of as something that ought to be approached with great care and overt and meaningful consent. Note how men do not take "no thank you" or "no, not interested" or just "no" as a sufficient indicator of her wish not to do what men ask women to do, sexually, that he wants to do.”

Are we talking about instances of rape, here? Sexual contact disregarding verbal refusals? I assure you, when men are raped, they don’t get asked how they feel about anal penetration. Or are you of the belief that all heterosexual sex is rape, as Dworkin said?

If not, what exactly are you talking about? A woman who wants to have sex, not involving vaginal penetration? Oral sex is perfectly common and generally accepted in society. There are more websites promising to tutor men in the ways of oral stimulation than about the G-spot.

“Note how we don't assume that if a man says no to anally penetrative sex, she has a right to force her way in. And if he allows her to play near his anus, we don't assume that means he's consenting to her jamming something into his ass.”

I just don’t know what you’re talking about. Who in current Western society claims men have the right to force intercourse on women, Aside from jilted MRA extremists, and the marital rape-loving far Christian Right? Every piece of advice I’ve seen, including those from the “G-spot mastering”-type sites you mention, says that consent is paramount.

Also, your equivocation of male anal stimulation to vaginal stimulation is way off the mark. Vaginas, like penises, are the primary sexual organs, while anuses, for either sex, are a WHOLE OTHER REGION. One that, I might add, requires a lot of additional preparatory cleaning and artificial lubrication before it’s considered acceptable, let alone desirable, to touch. The thought of all the enemas and cleaning products it would necessitate is more than enough to turn many het men off to the idea, no matter how open-minded they are.

Meanwhile, there’s plenty of stigma against female anal penetration. Even in most popular media, it’s presented as something that takes a lot of cajoling and consideration for a woman to consent to, and many women think it’s totally taboo, without exception.

Finally, you state all this as if women are champing at the bit to stick stuff up guys’ butts, a wish, desire, and want I’ve almost never heard voiced outside S&M circles, which engage in the behavior specifically because of its stigma as degrading and feminizing.

robinjjj said...

“To all het men who are nervous about having your anus penetrated during sex: please "do unto others as you would have done unto you" when it comes to penetrating anyone's body, in any way, with anything, including your dick. And learn how to have non-penetrative sex, non-phallocentric (or phallocratic) sex. You'd be surprised what sex can be, if you take the focus off your own dick long enough to discover the rest of your body, and, if heterosexually active, the rest of women's bodies too.”

You’re talking about this as if kissing, oral sex, fingering, dry-humping, and heavy petting are unknown or ignored amongst men. Ever heard of “running the bases?” I know of no heterosexual man who isn’t excited about exploring any part of a woman’s body that she consents to. You can’t in the same post complain that breasts are fetishized in the media, and that men are unilaterally focused on vaginas.

“Het men who are sexually active ought to be made to learn about female anatomy, and be socially required to be deprogrammed of pornographic sexxxuality before being allowed near anyone to engage in sexual behavior.”

Just so we’re clear, you’re not suggesting this should be LEGALLY imposed, right? That there should be a law against men (and only men) having sex without going through some sort of state-implemented sex school, as with a drivers license? Because if you were saying that, it would be about the craziest damn thing I ever heard.

“And perhaps if we spoke more about the prostate gland as a sex organ, and discussed how to stimulate it, we'd be more mindful of how it might feel to have women's vaginas be discussed as if they were not part of women's lives, their human histories as vulnerable and vibrant human beings.”

So what are you saying, that discussion of female genital stimulation is degrading, so men shouldn’t talk about it, lest they be forced to get uncomfortably personal about their own erogenous zones? Or that discussion of female genital stimulation is an important part of sexuality, so the male equivalent should likewise be discussed more freely and extensively? After bemoaning men’s fixation on the G-spot, and claiming how enriching and wonderful stimulation of the prostate is, I really can’t tell which camp you support.

In conclusion, I’d like to note that an aspect of prostate stimulation you completely ignore are the risks involved. Just look at the section on Wikipedia: Some of the documented consequences are life-threatening periprostatic hemorrhage, cellulitis, Fournier's gangrene, septicaemia, possible disturbance and metastasis of prostate cancer to other parts of the body, and hemorrhoidal flare-up.” Those are all perfectly good reasons for men to be extremely wary and cautious about it.

I don’t deny that there is an element of patriarchal stigma and prejudice to popular dismissal of the prostate’s sexual potential, but the matter is not nearly so black and white as you make it out to be.

Julian Real said...

Hey robinjjj,

[...]you’ve never seen one single person with pink skin?

Have I ever seen a pink person? I suppose that depends on the shade of pink. I've seen sunburned pale white people that I suppose were a pretty true pink color, but my point is that "pink" and a few other colors, including "flesh" in crayon boxes--I think they've done away with that, actually--in no way reflect the majority of skin tones that actually exist in the world.

re:
http://www.passiononline.co.uk/shop/images/rudeboy-diagram.jpg
Bam. There you go. No surprise, it’s not from a textbook, but from a sex toy website.

I can't understand why I missed that: oh, because I never go to sextoy sites. And you're missing the point.

You completely shifted the goalposts right in the middle there.

I don't play that sport.

You started by discussing medical diagrams, and ended by generalizing popular perception. These diagrams are used to promote health (and they’re not just for checking cancer, they’re for understanding the whole functioning of the male reproductive system) because that’s the point of the medical profession, not sexual excitement. Clinical diagrams of breast exams don’t show women as sexually aroused, either. The worlds of medical study and titillative popular media are different, believe it or not.

Ever hear the phrase: "Missing the forest for the trees?"

Breasts are presented as such, in comparison to prostate glands, because they’re an external, readily visible primary sexual characteristic, rather than a minute, unseen erogenous zone accessible only by a non-reproductive orifice.

Prostates aren't minute. Whose talking about reproduction? Not me. I'm talking sex organs, not reproductive organs.

That's because I don't heterosexistly associate "sex organ" with "reproductive organ".

Julian Real said...

If you really want to compare male vs. female objectification in the media, you should talk about penises, not prostates. Obviously, women are objectified in the media far more commonly, brutally, and to greater extent, but you must at least concede that the manner of fetishization and exaggeration regarding female breasts is in some ways analogous to the treatment of the penis.

I don't concede that, no. Women's breasts, part of their breast tissue, is generally made visible and available in the West to a het male supremacist consumer base. This is not at all the case with penises. Not that I want it to be.

All manner of augmentation and improvement are promoted, not to mention many women own replica penises that are literally things to be used for self-gratification. Fleshlights and Real Dolls are nowhere near as pervasive.

You're speaking in the context of some liberal sex-toy world that is not the world I've lived in. I don't even know what those things are you mentioned. There's no comparison between how breasts are fetishised and fixated on, except the fixation and fetishisation of other "parts" of women.

Men's "parts" are not presented as existing for the sole purpose of providing pleasure to WOMEN, are they? Nor are they presented as belonging to women, for women to possess, for women to violate.

You’re ignoring the fact that the G-spot, real or imagined, resides within THE PRIMARY sex organ of the female body,

I think the primary sex organ of the human female body is the clitoris. But we can agree to disagree. In a phallocracy, the primary organs of women must be ones that a dick can be thrust into. And pimps' visual materials make that clear.

whereas the prostate gland is in a region primarily devoted to dispelling waste products.

And the mouth is dirtier than the rectum. So?

I assure you there are plenty of instructional sites on how to arouse men’s primary sex organ, not to mention innumerable studies devoted to examining phallic stimulation in highly personal, often uncomfortable ways. But, being external, they don’t require ultrasounds. If you’re claiming that the only type of tests that invade one’s privacy are those that involve internal access, aren’t you agreeing with the stigma against anal penetration? That only by being penetrated can one be violated?

As I see it, women are violated by men's looking, which is not at all "penetrative" physically. Women are violated in many ways inside a male dominant system which values and protects rape as standard practice.

Julian Real said...

Again, being external, male genitals are much easier to wash,

And yet... most men don't wash their dicks very well and don't wash their hands after touching their dicks.

and odor-covering products that work elsewhere on the body (i.e. body sprays) work just as well below the Southern border, as it were. Female hygiene needs to take internal anatomy and menstruation into account, and is therefore more complex.

I think the "female hygiene industry" is one big misogynist capitalist load of CRAP. Clearly women functioned just fine before this industry existed. And there have been new medical problems due to tampons, chemicals being put in the vagina, etc.

If it consoles you any, know that 30% of men worldwide have a portion of their penises snipped off, largely for now-controversial “hygienic” reasons. Female genital cutting, though often more severe, is much rarer, affecting less than 1% of women, not to mention illegal in most places.

I find that to be a grossly inaccurate comparison. Female circumcision is the removal of the clitoris and sometimes the sewing up of the labia. In the West, surgery on women's genitals is increasing, for "cosmetic" reasons. There's no society that removes boys' penises, as a practice of "controlling the sexuality of males", is there?

Also, if you want to discuss invasive primetime commercials, how about ones for impotence treatment, with warnings about erections lasting longer than four hours?

You mean the ones that brag about men being able to have boners for four hours, to better sell the pro-rape product?

Or ones that equivocate success in life and sense of self-worth with penis size?

I've never seen ads like that on television. But I don't get have a wide variety of channels.

If you would prefer to use soap in your vagina daily, be my guest. But I am given to understand that it is less than comfortable, and dangerous to your health.

Again, you miss the point. The point is that the products sold to men, generally, that wash their bodies are also the products that wash their genitals. Yes, those genitals are exposed. But women's genitals are also exposed, and also internal, and men's sex organs are both internal and external, and there's an obsession, culturally and medically, with "getting inside women", a het male obsession, that is institutionally and industrially backed by force. Nothing of the kind exists to push the exploitation, abuse, violation, and domination of men by women.

Most mentions I see of the G-spot in these media concern controversy over its existence. Meanwhile, the prostate is established to exist,

Not as a sex organ.

so there’s not much news to be found there. I don’t hear a lot of national news broadcasts about the clitoris, either.

No, but there's a whole range of media that do exploit women's bodies, the external and the internal body. This is not so with men's internal bodies. Hustler used to routinely show women's open vulvas, back in the 1970s, before the Internet. There was nothing comparable showing men's rectums to the audience. Why do men need visual access to unknown women's vaginal canals? That's the point here. Men's ought not have such access 24/7 through so many means that all serve patriarchal interests, not women's liberation from being violated and exploited by men.

Maybe the classification is a social construct, but are you suggestion the phenomenon of sexual attraction to one sex and/or another is itself socialized?

I'm suggesting that "orientation" as that term is now commonly used, is not primarily a "natural" phenomenon. It's primarily, if not only, a social-political one.

Julian Real said...

That one is “taught” to be gay, straight, or what have you, as claimed by the homophobic far right?

I think people are taught to be heterosexual, actually. And we are not taught to be lesbian or gay. And that's too bad.

Are we talking about instances of rape, here? Sexual contact disregarding verbal refusals? I assure you, when men are raped, they don’t get asked how they feel about anal penetration. Or are you of the belief that all heterosexual sex is rape, as Dworkin said?

Women's bodies generally, and their genitals specifically, are regarded in dominant society as sexual service station f*ck-holes for het men.


And you don't get to promote antifeminist bullshit lies here, robinjjj. She never said it and for you to make that ridiculous claim here is to show you've never read her work.

I have posted here a few times about that lie. It is a lie.

If not, what exactly are you talking about?

Read other posts here on the topic. It'll get clearer what I'm talking about. I'm talking about male domination of women's sexuality and bodies. And the fact that we live in a pro-rape (of women by men) society. If you don't accept that, fine. I'm not debating the point with you.


A woman who wants to have sex, not involving vaginal penetration? Oral sex is perfectly common and generally accepted in society.

Overwhelmingly, at parties and elsewhere, boys get head from girls and girls don't get oral sex from boys. And that's not only to do with male genitalia being "external". It's to do with a male- and penis-centered social sexuality that "values" women as existing "for" men's pleasure, use, and profit.

There are more websites promising to tutor men in the ways of oral stimulation than about the G-spot.

And more het men go to sites that show them how to rape women or how to believe that women love rape or how to use force as a form of "sex-play" or how to not give a damn about women's humanity.


I just don’t know what you’re talking about. Who in current Western society claims men have the right to force intercourse on women, Aside from jilted MRA extremists, and the marital rape-loving far Christian Right?

They're called pimps and rapists, male supremacists and misogynists, child molesters and wife-beaters. Sadists and callous f*ckers. Boys who commit date rape. Frat boys who commit gang rape. Shall I go on and on?

Every piece of advice I’ve seen, including those from the “G-spot mastering”-type sites you mention, says that consent is paramount.

Right, as if the majority of people in the U.S. even know those sites exist. Get a clue, please. No one teaches boys and men about women's anatomy. Pornographers and pimps, abusive fathers and fucked up male friends teach males about sex. And it's not pretty.

Julian Real said...

Also, your equivocation of male anal stimulation to vaginal stimulation is way off the mark. Vaginas, like penises, are the primary sexual organs,

I don't agree.

while anuses, for either sex, are a WHOLE OTHER REGION.

A sexual one for gay men. And anuses are, relatively speaking, NOT a whole other region. Men who abuse women rectally or vaginally often damage the tissue that is the lining between the two areas. It's not a "WHOLE OTHER REGION". It's quite nearby.

One that, I might add, requires a lot of additional preparatory cleaning and artificial lubrication before it’s considered acceptable, let alone desirable, to touch.

Yes, men's bodies get special care before something is shoved up into them. That's my point.

The thought of all the enemas and cleaning products it would necessitate is more than enough to turn many het men off to the idea, no matter how open-minded they are.

That's not what het men tell me. Most het men I know want to f*ck their female partners rectally, and a few "good men" I've known have raped their wives because the women didn't want to. A multi-billion dollar industry fetishises men f*cking and raping women rectally because it is done without care, causes pain, is humiliating, and is a way to express dominance and enforce submission to het men's wants and will. Het men like it because it is dehumanising and abusive to women.

Not "intrinsically" so. Just socially-politically so. As it happens. It all could be different, but we'd have to take the mic away from the pimps, for a start. And also take the pimps away from girls. And rapist fathers away from their children.

Meanwhile, there’s plenty of stigma against female anal penetration.

Where?

Even in most popular media, it’s presented as something that takes a lot of cajoling and consideration for a woman to consent to, and many women think it’s totally taboo, without exception.

That's not what I'm hearing from women. Most women I know who have been sexual with men have been pressured by men to "try it". And they get their idea to "try it" from pornography, which is to say, from pimps.

Julian Real said...

Finally, you state all this as if women are champing at the bit to stick stuff up guys’ butts, a wish, desire, and want I’ve almost never heard voiced outside S&M circles, which engage in the behavior specifically because of its stigma as degrading and feminizing.

The point, once again, is missed by you. The point is that women are not raised to shove stuff into men and call it "sex". Men are raised to shove things into women and consider it natural, normal, and inevitable. Even when it is against the will and wishes of the women. Sometimes "especially" because it is against their will. Western societies promotes rape as much as it promotes eating unhealthy food. Or more so.

Julian Real said...

You’re talking about this as if kissing, oral sex, fingering, dry-humping, and heavy petting are unknown or ignored amongst men. Ever heard of “running the bases?”

You mean that incredibly obnoxious "baseball" reference that boys teach each other about that turns girls' bodies into a baseball diamond that boys are supposed to compete with one another homosocially to "get around" one way or another, usually by using coercion and force?

Yeah, I've heard of it. That was standard "sex ed" when I was a kid. And there was no regard for what girls like or want. The reverse: girls teaching girls how to get coerced access "around" boys' bodies ("bases") was not part of sex ed.

I know of no heterosexual man who isn’t excited about exploring any part of a woman’s body that she consents to.

Well, I do. I know plenty of het men that will not go down on women. I know plenty of het men that only care about getting off, and will ignore their female partners completely, if the women want something more intimate or complex than a quick f*ck.

You can’t in the same post complain that breasts are fetishized in the media, and that men are unilaterally focused on vaginas.

Women's bodies are exploited--any and all parts of them. That seems fairly obvious to me.

Just so we’re clear, you’re not suggesting this should be LEGALLY imposed, right?

Oh, goodness no. We mustn't have any "regulation" on men having 24/7 access to women's bodies!! Why, that'd be CRAZY. And, to be sure I answered your question: no, that's not what I'm saying.

That there should be a law against men (and only men) having sex without going through some sort of state-implemented sex school, as with a drivers license?

If only. As long as it was run by feminists.

Because if you were saying that, it would be about the craziest damn thing I ever heard.

Right. And men raping women from the age of day one until women's last days as elderly people is one of the crazier things I've ever heard of. And genocide. And ecocide. So I guess we have differing ideas on what the craziest damn things are.

Julian Real said...

So what are you saying, that discussion of female genital stimulation is degrading, so men shouldn’t talk about it, lest they be forced to get uncomfortably personal about their own erogenous zones? Or that discussion of female genital stimulation is an important part of sexuality, so the male equivalent should likewise be discussed more freely and extensively?

I may be unclear there. What I'm saying is that we ought to have one standard for how we discuss bodies and there various errogenous zone and sex organs. As it is, we have two: one that says women's bodies exist for men to do with as men please. And another than says we ought to be extra careful if we penetrate men's bodies in any way. Because men's internal and external areas are so delicate. As if the vagina, and women's rectums, and breasts, are lined with steal.

In an industry that is larger than cinema and music combined, men put knives in women's vaginas and in their rectums. They put guns in women's mouths and vaginas. They put cigarettes out on women's flesh, especially on their breasts. And this industry is protected as "[white het men's] free speech" in the U.S.

And, no, that wasn't an appeal to "censorship". That was noting how this society works to oppress women.

After bemoaning men’s fixation on the G-spot, and claiming how enriching and wonderful stimulation of the prostate is, I really can’t tell which camp you support.

I support the camp that sees people as human, that treats women humanely, that systematically disavows all male supremacist practices, that opposes white supremacy until it is dead, and that organises to end heterosexism in all forms and expressions. That' the camp I'm in.

In conclusion, I’d like to note that an aspect of prostate stimulation you completely ignore are the risks involved. Just look at the section on Wikipedia: Some of the documented consequences are life-threatening periprostatic hemorrhage, cellulitis, Fournier's gangrene, septicaemia, possible disturbance and metastasis of prostate cancer to other parts of the body, and hemorrhoidal flare-up.” Those are all perfectly good reasons for men to be extremely wary and cautious about it.

I have little doubt that society will treat men's rectums with great care. I wish I could say the same about how men treat women's rectums, and the rest of their bodies.

I don’t deny that there is an element of patriarchal stigma and prejudice to popular dismissal of the prostate’s sexual potential, but the matter is not nearly so black and white as you make it out to be.

There is privilege, power, permission, encouragement, and protectionism for men to mistreat and violate women, including rectally. There is no information given about men's prostate glands to teenage male about them as a sexual organ that can be stimulated by a penis, or a finger.

Society is grossly heterosexist, overly careful when it comes to dealing with the interiors of men, and horrendously callous when it comes to how women's bodies are treated in many areas: educationally, medically, inside systems of gross sexual exploitation, like prostitution and pornography, and through many other woman-hating practices valued in patriarchal societies.

Oh, and if you ever come here again with lies about what radical feminists say or write, I'll ban you from ever posting here again.

ethan1066 said...

The only way you will get to achieve a prostate orgasm is with patience and consideration. Go with the flow, and enjoy all the way....also when using a mens sex toys to play here do not forget to use plenty of lubricant

Julian Real said...

Hi ethan1066,

I've known men who come rather quickly with a finger stuck up their ass while being jerked off. Or while being fucked.

And, if only het men, collectively, would be so careful when going near women's bodies, eh? And, say, make sure their dicks are well-lubricated before being jammed into women. (I realise this would take half or more of the fun out of it for the doods raised on rapist pornography.) Or, heaven forbid, women get to take in the penis at their own pace, without the man thrusting at all! It's curious to me how het men assume "fucking" means "thrusting their dicks in someone's vagina or ass". This so presumes man-as-aggressor. Why can't het men be passive during intercourse? It can work that way, after all. Just fine. Without tearing and bruising vaginal or rectal tissue. Without the consequence being unintended or intended rape.

Trevor Cunningham said...

@ Julian Real

robinjjj makes some thoughful and interesting points to serve as a counter-arguemnent to contrast the arguement you have made in this post. Yet, instead of debating these points based on their merits, you have regressed to the proverbial, "whatever." Is this because you feel that the issues he presents in his argument threatens some aspect of your worldview? By your own use of clever or witty one-liners to respond to his claims, you simply reveal your dismissiveness of his opinions. In doing so you prevent the kind of open dialogue needed to ensure your small corner of the blogosphere retains any shred of social or intellectual relevancy. It is this reluctance and closed-mindedness that in effect does not differentiate you from those you criticize. You also claim that women are violated because men "look" look at their physical features such as their breasts. You seem to lack any background in biological processes which should tell you that differentiating between possible mates is crucial to the reproductive processes. Secondly, biological history should tell you that primitive man was inclined to seek multiple mates and view their physical features as signs of good health and vitality. This contrasts to early females who sought to find a single companion to ensure adequate resources for herself as well as her offspring. These processes are not so much social (although they have been socially re-inforced) as they are biological. You speak strongly about the oppressiveness of a caucasian, heterosexual male dominated society, but the only alternative you offer is a diverse yet equally oppressive female dominated society. Not exactly the hallmark of egalitarianism. If you acknowledge that natural selection is a process of the natural environment, why should human beings be exempt from this processes? Through all of the protocol that modern civilization requires, in the end our deep biological instincts will always win out and men will continue to look at breasts and women will continue to attempt to attract a mate.

Julian Real said...

Hi Trevor Cunningham,

Clearly we are in disagreement about a few things. I'll respond to you one portion at a time:

robinjjj makes some thoughful and interesting points to serve as a counter-arguemnent to contrast the arguement you have made in this post. Yet, instead of debating these points based on their merits, you have regressed to the proverbial, "whatever."

I see it, I don't say "whatever" at any point, but we can agree to disagree. As I see it, I responded to robinjjj point by point, more or less.

Is this because you feel that the issues he presents in his argument threatens some aspect of your worldview? By your own use of clever or witty one-liners to respond to his claims, you simply reveal your dismissiveness of his opinions. In doing so you prevent the kind of open dialogue needed to ensure your small corner of the blogosphere retains any shred of social or intellectual relevancy.

I don't believe in engaging with everyone the same way. If someone makes a series of unexamined and patriarchy-loaded assumptions as Gospel Truth, presented here at a blog that expressly challenges such assumptions for the systemic abuses they support and protect, then I may find myself having less energy for dealing extensively with those, than, say, supporting women of color who fight racism, misogyny, and classism, among other oppressive injustices.

But let's see how I do here, with you.

It is this reluctance and closed-mindedness that in effect does not differentiate you from those you criticize.

I don't see how my responses are any more or less close-minded than the commenter's remarks. I suppose I see it as close-minded to reject radical perspectives for liberal-to-conservative ones. But, again, let's see how I deal with your arguments here.

You also claim that women are violated because men "look" look at their physical features such as their breasts.

I'm saying that some women feel (and are) violated by the WAY that men gaze at them, turning them into things, turning them into body parts to objectify. Also, secretly taking photos of them without the women's awareness, in public and private places. Also, creating websites where such photos are displayed, with the women's permission, for other men to gaze at as if the woman is a thing to be visually consumed.

And in our society, when men do this, it warrants caution and often enough generates fear from many women because too many men have learned--often enough from pimps' mass produced pornography--to "take what is mine", assuming any woman a man fancies is somehow "his" for the taking--including by taking her in visually, in ways that are distinctly predatory and hostile.

Now, you and I can disagree with whether or not that's the case. Either I'm describing something true and real about society or I'm not. I suppose it depends on how many women you've talked to who express those experiences of fear and terror, of aggression and violation, and whether or not you believe them and feel their experience is valid and accurate. Also, whether you feel it constitutes behavior that is part of something larger and more terrible: the systematic subjugation of women to men.

Julian Real said...

You seem to lack any background in biological processes which should tell you that differentiating between possible mates is crucial to the reproductive processes.

Well, I guess my response to that is this: you don't seem to question the validity of the pseudo-sciences known as evolutionary psychology and socio-biology. You appear, in various parts of your response to me, to assume such disciplines are without grossly racist and sexist biases and assumptions that tend to go unquestioned, unexamined, and unanalyzed by far too many men, perhaps especially white men. I present as evidence of this non-challenge and unquestioned acceptance of those two pseudo-sciences, the following portion of your comment:

Secondly, biological history should tell you that primitive man was inclined to seek multiple mates and view their physical features as signs of good health and vitality. This contrasts to early females who sought to find a single companion to ensure adequate resources for herself as well as her offspring. These processes are not so much social (although they have been socially re-inforced) as they are biological.

What "early females" are you speaking of? And how well did you know them? Who wrote the books you are basing this on? White men without any consciousness of the ways misogyny and racism inform, distort, and construct intellectual disciplines? Can you tell me what those books are, or who those professors are? Is this your area of study, Trevor? Are you an evolutionary anthropologist? I'm genuinely wanting to know the answer to that.

You speak strongly about the oppressiveness of a caucasian, heterosexual male dominated society, but the only alternative you offer is a diverse yet equally oppressive female dominated society. Not exactly the hallmark of egalitarianism.

Could you quote me, where I speak of the value of a female-dominated society? In over 1700 posts, I don't believe I've ever advocated that. I've advocated for women of color to be in leadership positions in various sectors of society. That's hardly advocating for "an equally oppressive female-dominated society" and it concerns me that you could mistake one for the other. It implies sloppy reading on your part. But I await your proof that I hold such views.

Next is more evidence that you don't question the veracity of those pseudo-sciences:

Julian Real said...

If you acknowledge that natural selection is a process of the natural environment, why should human beings be exempt from this processes?

I don't think natural selection as a process in the natural environment results in human beings participating in objectification, fetishisation, and violation--visual and otherwise, by men of women.

Your arguments seem consistent with the dangerous perspectives and bogus theories put forth in this book:

A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion

For a solid review and rebuttal, please see this:

Susan Brownmiller's review of the Thornhill book on rape and biology

Through all of the protocol that modern civilization requires, in the end our deep biological instincts will always win out and men will continue to look at breasts and women will continue to attempt to attract a mate.

You seem unaware that not all men continue to look at breasts. It's actually quite a culturally specific behavior, not at all universal, even putting aside that there are, in reality, gay men.

There's nothing "natural" about the way men ogle totally unnatural breasts--those significantly over-stuffed with silicone or saline, for example. And plenty of het men don't fetishise or glare at women's breasts at all.

Your assumptions about "our deep psychological instincts" and "processes" are, imo, too naively accepted as Truth and ought to be rigorously challenged. Especially who you mean by "our". I suspect you mean "your" and the "instincts" of people culturally similar to you.

I look forward to your thoughtful reply.

Julian Real said...

Correction: In the first part of my reply to you, Trevor, this:

I see it, I don't say "whatever" at any point...

Should read:

"I don't believe I ever said or implied "whatever" at any point..."