On porn and sex

Well, yes:

Of course, you may be a woman, and you may enjoy all of these things and more. Human sexuality is varied and fluid and experimentation is to be encouraged. The feminists of the 1960s held that sexual freedom was key to the liberation of women. I believe that.

So do I.

But it’s clear to anyone who’s out there sleeping with men, the sexual landscape has changed, and under no circumstances can it be called freedom.

But there’s the thing. Sexual freedom doesn’t mean freedom for sex to be like women would like it to be. It means freedom for sex to be what the participants would like it to be. Of whom, on average, 50% are going to be male.

And as our foremothers noted male and female sexuality can be rather different things at times. And many of the rules that limited sexual freedom were about that difference.

Which leads to the point that this current sexual freedom: it’s what was asked for and now it’s arrived some aren’t all that happy with it.

But this is what turns it into a wondrous Guardian piece of course.

No, porn is not the problem: it’s the complete and utter absence of any other narrative that is, and the disappointing failure of our government to provide one.

Why on Earth should it be the government providing anything? Social mores are societally imposed, this is a job for Burke’s little platoons. If young women, collectively shun those young men demanding the porn star experience then young men’s hunger for pussy will lead to their not asking for that porn star experience.

This is, after all, how women have tamed men since the dawn of time: why would anyone think it should be different these days?

44 comments on “On porn and sex

  1. The error here is to presume that sex isn’t (even in a 50% sense) “what women would like”. It is simply not what the Feminist movement want it to be like. Feminists are derived from the Victorian evangelicals, and thus presume that truly free women will not want to do dirty things, and that dirty things are a form of corruption imposed by men. Therefore, when women with real freedom are found to be doing the dirty things, rather than consider that dirty things are of subjective merit to both sexes, they can only conclude that women are not “really” free.

  2. Seems to me that the absence of any government-approved (==government-enforced) narrative is a bloody good definition of freedom.

  3. This may only be a personal experience but I’ve always had the impression, as far as Northern European women are concerned, it’s them that are rather more into the PSE than their blokes. The blokes come down here & rent are, according to the girls, remarkably unadventurous.

  4. Just to add: Do think that ties in with IanB’s views on Victorian prudery but that it’s the males carry the greater legacy.
    Years ago the ladies’ at the squash club was wired for sound so we could sit in the office & enjoy the entertainment. It was a complete revelation what women talk about while putting on the slap. Certainly learnt a great deal about various mates’ personal lives in stunning & graphic detail. I can’t say I’ve ever heard Brit blokes discuss actual sex. Certainly not in the can. It’s all jokey evasions.

  5. Ian is right. A small number of people with a disproportionately loud voice, next thing you know ‘society’ ‘thinks’ ‘differently’ from you and just about everyone you actually know.

    These people are best ignored – listening to and discussing them is what they crave.

    (Anyone else ever met a women who is PIV-negative? Google it, it’s a thing, apparently.)

  6. Anyone else ever met a women who is PIV-negative?

    Not for any length of time. It’s a good signal to flee at top speed in the other direction.

  7. I should have been clearer re the length of time Matthew. They’re pretty much all PIV-negative on first acquaintance – that’s one of the (many) things that makes them so alluring, isn’t it?

    Those who are not as are well avoided as those you describe, in my experience; it’s a happy medium we’re after!

  8. BIS-

    Because part of the argument is that contra feminist narrative, males are the socially and sexually inferior class in the Anglosphere and Northern Europe and have been since the Victorian Era. A such, they’re as a class more likely to be restrained sexually in order to avoid causing offence to a Gibson Girl. And thus, frequently ultimately disappointing to said women, hoping for something a bit more exotic and memorable. Which may well feed into the exhorbitant divorce rate.

    That’s my theory, anyway.

  9. I think the two categories are inadequate. There is a third – “don’t chase for a shag, but wouldn’t say no if offered and unlikely to conflict with other commitments”. Surely that is in fact the largest category?

  10. I think I need to have some time away from the meedja.

    I can’t rid myself of the utter certainty that these people are insane.

    So David Cameron (the State) should provide a “narrative” (whatever that is) to enable Mr and Mrs Miller to perform the jumpy-jumpy bits to the Guardian’s – and therefore, naturally our – satisfaction?

    I can’t help feeling that if I dug up my old Mum and Dad and they read the papers and watched the meedja for a few days they’d think they’d returned to a different planet.

  11. Can’t say i follow the logic on that Ian.
    it doesn’t seem to be the boy/girl interface rather than the boy/boy. Brit blokes just seem to have a hang up about their relationship with sex.
    Maybe I notice it because I’ve been out of the loop so long. Last flower of English maidenhood was plucked sometime in the 70s. I’ve been exclusively into foreign crumpet ever since so their expectations are what I’m inclined to provide. I would be perfectly relaxed about discussing the subject seriously but Brit blokes default to “whoar lookit the knockers on her” bravado. Which is another way of not talking.
    Get it here. Visitor wants fitting up with a rental. So what’s he want? Economy drive? Sports? MPV? Why get coy? it’s their money.

  12. john miller,

    “I can’t rid myself of the utter certainty that these people are insane.”

    Pretty much.

    Most Graun feminists have a simply insane idea about what they are entitled to. Take one sentence from that article: some men ask women for some freaky stuff that they’re not comfortable with, but they don’t have the language or confidence to refuse. It’s basically saying: “my bloke should be telepathic enough to know that I don’t want to do something freaky, OK, and it’s the government’s fault that he’s not”.

    It’s shockingly naive about the quid pro quos of life. The producers of romantic comedies have long figured that you only have to make a film that women like, because a bloke will buy a ticket and endure it on the chance of a shag later.

    And smart married women know that if you want a new bathroom suite, the easiest time to ask is just after a blowjob.

  13. BIS-

    Then that fits my argument that, contrary to the Feminist belief, Anglo males are sexually repressed, and that is a direct consequence of the narratives peddled by the Fems for the past century. The average beta male is just too scared to ask for X, Y and Z.

  14. @ian
    Maybe it’s that. Maybe it’s the “stiff upper lip” model. Which is really a martyrdom complex. To suffer is improving to the soul. The reverse being., pleasure is not to be admitted.
    Tend to get that with after action debriefings
    “Have a good time”
    The reply often sounds like the recount of a victimhood experience. Why? Spaniard would just say “Si, gracias”.

  15. @Stigler ‘And smart married women know that if you want a new bathroom suite, the easiest time to ask is just after a blowjob.’

    Allowing for this being a joke, lots of people do make this sort of point quite seriously.

    So am I the only bloke in Britain who just gets blow jobs from his wife roughly when he wants them, with no expectations?

    Not to mention, if my wife wants a new bathroom, she goes out and buys one.

    I can’t be the only bloke in Britain (also) who pretty much shares/adbicates takes on these sorts of decisions on an ad hoc basis?

    In other words, this is 2014, not 1954?

  16. Interested-

    Indeed.

    To be fair though, I do remember around a decade ago when I was engineering, one of the cleaning ladies (ebullient middle aged Afro-Caribbean lady) joking about the same thing in the mess room.

    I’d be pretty appalled to have a BJ followed by a demand for a bathroom suite. She might get a new hoover maybe, or a new mop and bucket, but that’s my limit.

  17. Isn’t this just indicative that lefty metropolitan ladies pick utter gits as boyfriends? Possibly because the choice being from lefty metropolitan laddies, they’ve had all of the run-of-the-mill laddishness surgically excised from their public personas, so they have a surfeit to exercise in the private arena where they come across as deeply sexually disturbed?

    Or, vice versa, screwing modern mid-lefty metro birds gives you a warped idea of what’s generally available from the sexual smorgasbord.

    So am I the only bloke in Britain who just gets blow jobs from his wife roughly when he wants them, with no expectations?

    Quite possibly. Is she a Yank?

  18. I must say – and while it may just be me I don’t think there’s anything that special about my penis, taste-wise – I’ve never had any problem getting blow jobs off any woman with whom I’ve been in a relationship (and some, pre-marriage, with whom I’ve not been in a relationship).

    Women like giving blow jobs. It’s a fact. If they don’t it seems to me it must be about the bloke, not the bird.

  19. Interested,

    I was being flippant, but it’s just this whole “me me me” thing with Guardian women. There’s a lot of guys out there that really don’t like eating pussy, but they do it because it gets their girlfriend off. It’s no different to why some women will give a guy a soapy tit wank.

  20. This basically is the thing; the Feminist idea of “give and take” is just “take”.

    This wouldn’t be a problem if they didn’t have such bafflingly consistent legislative and social influence.

  21. Looks like a shy and retiring West Country boy is going to learn something if he sticks around here.

  22. Isn’t this just indicative that lefty metropolitan ladies pick utter gits as boyfriends?

    This is the only area where I feel even vaguely sorry for them (and even then not for long). But I am pretty sure that it’s because lefty metropolitan chaps are either a complete waste of fucking space or only kidding on so they can get laid.

    So LM ladies either end up getting bored and going off with the polar opposite of the dribbles of piss they hang around with (who are generally a bit boorish) or laying the second kind (the impostors) and getting a nasty shock.

    In other words; ethographically, their sampling methodology is fucked.

  23. I hadn’t read the article. I have now.

    “It’s clear that porn is having an effect,” says one. “I mean, when a guy asks to come in your hair, he’s not thought that up by himself.

    Can’t stop laughing.

  24. I’m inclined to agree with Sam’s last comment for reasons of my pure class prejudice against lefty metropolitans. But it is worth adding that there is almost certainly a considerable misrepresentation of experience going on with this, because (beside all else) they are using the “Have you ever…?” sampling method.

    If you ask a cohort “has X ever happened to you?” you’ll get an enormous number of positive responses. It’s not representative at all of the general experience. For instance,

    “Have you ever been bullied?”

    “Have you ever had a lousy boyfriend/girlfriend?”

    “Have you ever had regrettable sex?”

    “Have you ever got too drunk?”

    Nearly everyone says yes. It doesn’t tell you anything abuot their general experience of workplaces, relationships, sex or drinking. It might be that out of 50 sexual encounters, one included an unwanted precocious anal sex request. It tells you nothing of any use. But it implies an epidemic.

    It may also be worth mentioning that I and several other commenters at the Graun have pointed out that the author’s reference to an unfeasible sexual practise called “seagulling” is pure myth, so she seems at the very least to be the credulous type.

  25. Since Sam posted again while I was composing mine, “Sam’s last comment” should actually read, “Sam’s last but one comment”.

  26. Mr in Spain, by my reckoning I’m about twenty years your junior, but I can’t recall my plucking English maidenhead in at least sixteen years. I’m pretty sure we both learned the same lesson, Interested’s interesting outlier notwithstanding.

    And did someone up-thread extoll the sexually adventurous virtues of American gals? If so, I mean, what? Sirsly? I was married to one. I might as well have been a monk or a castrato.

    General rule: Anglo-Saxons are badly messed up about sex.

  27. Well, I think the debate shows that I am of a different era. The fact that everybody is discussing the question, rather than; “Why do people think like this and what are the ramifications for society” is quite worrying.

    We’ve been through the phase of how a normalised Stated Person should act, We’ve been through the phase of how a Stated Person should speak, We are going through the phase of how a Stated Person should think and we are now advancing on how a Stated Person should respond to visceral urges.

    Basically, we’ve used up 1984 and are now fast-forwarding through through The Matrix.

  28. So a woman who wanted to be free and demanded the social contract of yesteryear be torn up now finds she does not get her own way so the whole world needs to change for her.

    No love, you free yourself, you free everybody, theres no going back. Suck it up and deal with it.

  29. The official Guardian Sex Manual:

    Brush teeth
    Kiss kiss
    Now wash your hands please
    Fondle fondle
    Now check your privilege
    Rumage rumage
    Why is there so much packaging in this condom packet – it’s a scandal!
    Jiggy Jiggy
    Lib dem variant: Rumpy pumpy.
    Jiggy jiggy
    OOH that’s nice
    Smoking can be dangerous for your health.
    Do not discuss kitchen or bathroom fittings.
    Wait and listen before falling asleep.
    Do not snore. (Only applies to Daily Mail readers.)

  30. Andy – “No love, you free yourself, you free everybody, theres no going back. Suck it up and deal with it.”

    Perhaps not the most tactful piece of commentary for the day. Given the topic of conversation.

    But your point is undeniable. The Feminists destroyed the old social contract. The one that said women were angels and that men had to control their beastly unChristian appetites. We now live in a post-Christian world and we need to re-negotiate.

    Personally, I feel for the poor man who was writing on some American blog the other day about how his wife flatly refused to have sex with him if possible, and certainly nothing unusual. Which he put up with for years…. until he found an old video she kept of her doing four guys at the same time back in college. These are the sort of moral conumdrums feminism has given us. The Guardian ought to think about these rather than complaining they openned Pandora’s box and were surprised to find something nasty lurking down there at the bottom.

  31. SMFS-

    The Feminists destroyed the old social contract. The one that said women were angels and that men had to control their beastly unChristian appetites.

    This is completely the reverse of reality. The first wave feminists were the carriers and implementers of that system. The second wave radicals are trying to put it back in place. The whole fundament of the movement is that women are angels, victimes by beastly male appetites.

    Here is a typical example.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/28/lap-dancing-clubs-tougher-legislation

    Do you really see anything in this woman other than a Victorian matron fluttering her handkerchief?

  32. Ian B,

    Wikipedia seems to identity 3 waves – the pre-WW1, 1960 -1980 and 1980-.

    It’s hard to know what a wave is, but it seems to me that the 1960-1980 period changed women’s freedom in positive ways, and was broadly supported by both men and women.

    3rd wave feminism is for women who wanted 2nd wave to be more like 1st wave with more moral authoritarianism and sexual purity, but most women don’t support this. And that’s why they’ve worked by trying to infiltrate the establishment (with some success). They submit evidence to Leveson, get coverage on the BBC for anti-Page 3 campaigns, despite tiny levels of support.

  33. Stig-

    It’s normally considered two waves- the Victorians and Suffragettes, then the official “Second Wave” starts in the 1960s. In between, there isn’t really any Feminism; but there are various women writing or campaigning on particular issues that affect women and get lumped together under the Feminist banner. You could call this a period of liberal feminism, but the Feminists themselves don’t, and I think they’re right. They have a gap between Wave 1 and Wave 2.

    The third wave seems to just be a rebranding, and it’s hard to call it a wave at all; it’s just the development of the movement. It seems to be a half hearted attempt to distance themselves from the most extreme of the radicals (Second Wave) in terms of branding (though they are based on the same ideology and policies).

    So anyway, I think you’re wrong about the 2nd Wave. Feminists like to take credit for good social changes which they had little or nothing to do with- womens’ expansion into the workplace and changing role, which was basically driven by two things- labour saving technology and the collapse of 1st Wave (Puritan, 2 spheres) Feminist values. The actual 2nd wave feminist movement was simply a reaction against the collapse of the 1st wave regime- the sexual revolution, the breaking down of the 2 separate gender spheres; based this time on a marxist ideology its overwhelming focus was, and is, obsessions with sex and relationships.

    So, things much improved between 1960 and 1980, I agree. But the Fems deserve no credit for that. They have been steadily working to poison and ruin those improvements throughout their existence, and have always been committed to the re-implementation of 1st Wave social purity values. If there is a distinctive enough 3rd Wave, it is simply the spread of that social purity value system into the general female upper middle class, beyond its primary 2nd Wave constituency of cropped haired dungaree wearing pseudo-lesbian post-marxists. It’s always a social purity movement.

    The major problem is that the 2nd Wave managed (astonishingly, looking back) to piggy-back on the general mood of the Feminist interregnum, thus masking themselves as seeking equality and so on, which most everybody thinks is a good thing. That enabled them to reimpose the social purity ideology as being supposedly “liberal”, while totally confusing the right wing, most of whom are to this day in a delusional state of believing that Feminists are seeking some kid of pornified hedonist Sodom. Any of which still exists- the porn industry, Miley Cyrus- are in reality hangovers from the period between the two waves’ hegemony.

  34. Ian B,

    I broadly agree with you about the labour-saving/other technology thing. Feminists often like to think that they changed the world with campaigning when in reality, the pressure to change laws only happened after technology changed the world (and the effect of technology is frequently understated by historians).

    And yes, the word “feminist” has no clear meaning. The porn producer Candida Royalle considers herself a feminist (she makes porn aimed at women) but I doubt most of the feminists in the Guardian would consider her to be. And most of those might (literally) wear the clothes of teenage rebellion, but they are fellow travellers with the husband-hating harpies on Mumsnet.

  35. It always amuses me to point out to women complaining about the lot of women that coal mines, the Somme, building sites, ploughing clay fields etc were not a barrel of laughs either.

  36. Ian B – “Feminists like to take credit for good social changes which they had little or nothing to do with- womens’ expansion into the workplace and changing role”

    Let’s agree that women had nothing to do with either. That is not really the question though is it?

    “The actual 2nd wave feminist movement was simply a reaction against the collapse of the 1st wave regime- the sexual revolution, the breaking down of the 2 separate gender spheres; based this time on a marxist ideology its overwhelming focus was, and is, obsessions with sex and relationships.”

    But it was overwhelmingly focused on women’s right to have good sex and the Marxist belief that marriage could be abolished and everyone could live in a big group marriage thingy with the children raised collectively. This was sex positive feminism. The lesbians came later at the end of the Second Wave. A standard text for this period would be something like the vile Erica Jong’s Fear of Flying – all about a woman’s quest to have consequence-free sex with anyone she wanted. Or someone like Nancy Friday – every woman in the Sixties had a copy of Her Secret Garden on their shelves somewhere.

    You simply cannot claim that feminists in the Sixties were opposed to sexual liberation. They were not. They were very female-focused. Which led them into lesbianism. But they started out wanting better sex with men.

    “That enabled them to reimpose the social purity ideology as being supposedly “liberal”, while totally confusing the right wing, most of whom are to this day in a delusional state of believing that Feminists are seeking some kid of pornified hedonist Sodom.”

    The social purity ideology came later. And it grew out of the same place – wanting women to have better sex lives. Not out of the same assumptions of the Victorians – that women had no sex lives. The aim of speech codes is not to prevent women having sex. It is to prevent men having the sex they want, while giving women as much freedom as possible to have the sex they want.

    Interested – “It always amuses me to point out to women complaining about the lot of women that coal mines, the Somme, building sites, ploughing clay fields etc were not a barrel of laughs either.”

    I am sure it is an false internet meme that was made up, but there is a quotation floating around the internet from some American feminist who asserted that the women were the real victims of the Titanic because they had to deal with life without a bread winner while the men simply died.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.