It about took my breath away for a moment, I was stunned and not quite sure how to respond. My purpose for this diary is not to call out the other person involved in any way, but rather to use this as an opportunity to discuss some fairly sensitive topics. I do not link to the interaction and request that people not go hunting for it in my comment history to find out who it was - that is pretty much immaterial. I promise you this did happen and there may be a few folks who saw the posts involved as the diary itself was on the rec list for a good while. I'll get into the incident itself below, but first I want to go through some background and present a bit of my personal perspective regarding this topic.
We have been in the middle of a national battle over sexual matters since about the time of the Kinsey Reports, 1948 (male) and 1953 (female). These reports lifted the veil of secrecy that had previously "defined" sexual normalcy/deviancy. Among other things they revealed a great deal more "deviancy" than had previously been presumed to exist.
Strict societal sexual mores and demands for compliance and conformity are core issues for those who lean towards being authoritarian followers. Often religious beliefs and teachings also underlie these attitudes. One of the very few things on which I agree with Rick Santorum is his statement that it all comes down to sexual freedom. We just happen to be on opposite sides of the debate. Santorum thinks that sexual freedom is the root of all evil. I think it is the very definition of personal freedom. If you don't have the freedom to share sexual pleasure with another consenting adult in an appropriately private setting then you live in a repressive society - period, exactly what Santorum and his churchy busybodies crave. And they're doing this even as they claim that their freedom is being compromised by not being able to limit the freedom of others based on their moral values.
Theirs is the universe of one man, one woman, together forever, no other partners, no need for contraception since sex is only for the glorification of God by being fruitful and multiplying. All pleasures of the flesh are sinful, and to actually enjoy the sex instead of seeing it as your Christian duty to procreate is kind of slutty too, even if you are married. You see, all forms of pleasure must have their negative consequences. You must pay in some way for having pleasure, even if only by feeling really, realllllllly guilty. Only sinful people have sex outside marriage, and only sluts and Casanovas have sex with more than one partner concurrently. These people must be condemned by society as their punishment for having fun, and an occasional accidental baby wouldn't hurt either.
But several factors challenged this world view starting with the Kinsey Report. Then along came Playboy Magazine around the time of the second Kinsey Report, breaking yet more societal taboos. While pornography was nothing new, prior to Playboy it had largely been confined to collections of poorly photographed and printed shots of naked women that some guy in a trench coat sold on the street corner, much like drugs or other contraband - which it was. What Playboy did was bring it out into the open and declare that it was OK to be there. Of course, the religious sector of the country was appalled, and there was a very real possibility that the act of publishing the first issue of Playboy could have landed Hugh Hefner in legal trouble. Then a few years later came The Pill, and a few years after that the landmark Griswold v Connecticut decision which said that states cannot prohibit the use of contraceptives. Add in some pot-smoking hippies and the Summer of Love, then gay people rioting at the Stonewall, and all the sudden you've got a full fledged sexual revolution.
Now, as I mentioned, pornographic images have been around for a long, long time. There is a very good reason for this. [Note, I'm about to get into some icky details about guy stuff.] Sexual thoughts and imagery are what make erections possible. Whether it is in graphic form or simply imagined in the mind, if the sexy isn't there then neither is the hardon. Meanwhile, the urge/desire/need for sexual release is virtually universal. But as things are, many men are too ugly, fat, old, shy, socially inept, or simply too far from any women to be able to have partners with whom to share sexual pleasure and release. As such, pornography provides them a means for achieving that arousal needed to achieve their goal. Jocelyn Elders was slut-shamed out of her office as Surgeon General for suggesting that masturbation be taught to children as a healthy and natural thing. But she was right. Also, some couples find that after a number of years together, while the love and desire remain, the familiarity makes it such that a little porn can make a big difference in the quality of their sexual experience.
This isn't about objectifying women, it is about appreciation of beauty and sexual attractiveness. It really is possible to appreciate these things without holding sexist attitudes in which these attributes are the only thing about a woman that matter. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with two strangers meeting, finding each other desirable, and acting on that desire. Yes, they used each other for sex. So what? As long as there were no deceptions involved and no coercion then where is the problem? The problems only arise when these actions are viewed from within the context of religious conditioning and authoritarian attitudes.
Similarly, counter to the claims of some long discredited radical feminists, the only way in which pornography degrades women is in the interpretations of the religious and authoritarian conditioned people. Yes, if you believe that sex is dirty and that covering your naughty bits is necessary to be a moral person, then showing your naughty bits - especially for payment - makes you a lesser person. Conversely, if you believe that sexual sharing and intimacy is natural, and that there are no naughty bits, the naked female body can then be seen simply as beautiful and something to be celebrated. If this is accepted as true then posing for such photos is hardly improper. It is also not true that enjoyment of pornography is purely a male pastime. Furthermore, there are many women who desire to be seen nude by others and pose for amateur pornography for free because it turns them on.
Now, for those who feel that slut-shaming only happens to women. perhaps the terminology is a little hazy since the term slut has traditionally been reserved for women, but the exact same dynamic can play out against men. I first experienced this here last summer. I was in the midst of a argument here with a long time Kossack who liked to argue. The next thing I know she has posted a blockquote of a post I had made a few weeks previous in which I related a story about my ladyfriend and I sitting around a fire singing songs with a bunch of naked people. Her intention was presumably to shame or embarrass me - something which she failed to do. In her mind, the simple fact that I had related this story made me a lesser person.
For those who are unfamiliar with the Oregon Country Fair, it is a three-day hippie-fest in the woods just west of Eugene, Oregon. It is all on secluded private property and has a long tradition of semi-nudity. And I promise you, the average hung-up east coast authoritarian would be shocked at the number of women, young, old, and in-between who choose to go topless for a day or three during the fair. There is also an enclosed communal shower area which is where the fire pit is located, along with saunas and a stage for ongoing musical performances throughout the day. And it is amazing just how wholesome the experience is of sitting there with a bunch of naked people around a fire. Almost all of the trappings of wealth and social position are absent and what shows up in their absence is a profound sense of community and shared humanity. And it was my description of this beautifully transcendent experience which was thrown in my face in an attempt at shaming ...major fail.
The incident Thursday night was more jarring, to the point of leaving me in a minor state of shock for a few moments. I had just posted a link for the youtube video of the telling of a joke. I had referred to Rush Limbaugh as an aristocrat and was explaining that my use of the term was as per the way this joke had defined an aristocrat. (Some of you already know where this particular aspect of the story is going - the aristocrats joke has been around for quite a long time.) From years of studying authoritarian and religious cultures, one thing I had learned was that the rules are only for the little people. The cultural and financial elites are not bound by the taboos that constrain the rest of society, almost as though their position entitles them to do whatever they please. And, they generally have the privacy available to them that nobody is the wiser. This is the context in which I consider this joke to have a point.
That said, it is most likely the dirtiest joke in the history of dirty jokes. The gist of it, without getting too graphic, is a family, father, mother, daughter, son, family dog, walk into a talent agency to pitch their family act. The agent isn't interested in family acts and tries to shoo them along. They plead for just a few moments to show him their act. He agrees, upon which they begin having a no-holds-barred incestuous orgy and more. [It is in the descriptions of this section that the various versions distinguish themselves.] After a couple of minutes they stop, take a bow, and say "Ta Daaaa!" The agent is speechless at first, then finally manages to say, "That's quite a unique act, what do you call yourselves?" They reply "The Aristocrats!"
And no, posting this video isn't what got me slut-shamed. You see, the vilest, most disgusting version of this joke that I am aware of was told by comedian Gilbert Gottfried during the Friars Club roast of Hugh Hefner. And considering that I was posting this as a commentary on Rush, I figured vile and disgusting was exactly what I was after. Now given the Very, Very not safe for work aspect of this video, I chose to simply include a link instead of imbedding it. I also explained that it might well be the dirtiest telling of the dirtiest joke ever told. Choosing to link over embed was my undoing, my great mistake, my slut moment. I titled my link, "Gilbert Gottfried roasts Hugh Hefner." Here was the response I saw a few moments later:
You've got to drag that bullshit in here?
Whatever, I'll skip your hugh heifer bullshit.
What part of not treating women like property do you not fucking get?
Wow, just fucking wow. I responded with,
What part of comparing Rush to the disgustingly decadent family described in "The Aristocrats" joke actually offends you? The fact that the venue in which the joke was told involved Hugh Hefner? Your reaction here is way out of line.
But you know what? Even if my link had been for a story praising Hugh Hefner, this attack was wrong. Hugh Hefner never advocated treating women as property, that is the province of his tormenters in the churches. Also, the overall impact of Playboy on society was one of liberation from decades of sexual suppression, freeing many women from antiquated attitudes about sexual behavior and helping to break up sexual double-standards. Yes, how DARE I drag that bullshit into a discussion about fighting back against a misogynist bully. How DARE I believe that sex is OK and sexual imagery is OK and that nakedness is a good thing, How DARE I. That is simply unacceptable in polite society.