Monday, February 20, 2012

What sexuality means to me


Now that I have entered my fourth week of being an asexual, I like to explain in detail of what sexuality really means to me. I brainstormed to find words to describe sexuality. In my opinion sexuality has five pillars. I will sum them up:

1. Transgression
2. Naughtiness
3. Shame
4. Humiliation
5. Desecration

Perhaps that I could actually collapse my five pillars into two. Transgression and naughtiness are very much related; you can make a transgression by stealing things and this is surely not sexually related. Naughtiness is obviously related to sex; you can actually describe naughtiness as the feeling that you have when planning or making a sexual transgression. But I was trying to define the major characteristics of sexuality, and obviously one of those characteristics is this feeling of naughtiness that is very distinct from any other feeling. You cannot describe it by any other means than to call it 'naughtiness'. But the feeling of naughtiness is also related to the other characteristics of sexuality. You use the other characteristics to feel naughty. Without the feeling of naughtiness, there is no sexuality.

Shame and humiliation are also obviously related; often you can humiliate a person by letting that person feel ashamed. Desecration is related to women being generally regarded as sacred. In my thought world, and I think in the thought world of many men, women doing sexual stuff is desecrating for women. Things such as: women showing their ass, women inserting objects into their orifices, or walking around with their clothes on, except their trousers and underwear, or only wearing their shoes. It is desecrating, but also humiliating and shameful. So there is a very deep relationship here. So perhaps I could collapse the five pillars into two:

1. Transgression/naughtiness
2. Shame/humiliation/desecration

I believe that transgression is the most important pillar. I become sexual aroused by seeing or doing things that are a strange and unusual. It arouses me to fantasise about transgressing an internal boundary. Usually these are related to things that are socially not very desirable, such as: being fully or partially naked, having anal sex, having sex with multiple persons, having sex with prostitutes, asking camgirls to show their ass, being a prostitute, etc. Doing or seeing things that are related to shame, humiliation and desecration are sexually arousing for me. And I think it is also true for many men.

There are three directions in which you can become aroused. One direction is to be the object of the shame/humiliation/desecration. The other direction is to be the actor who perpetrates the humiliation and the desecration upon another person, or puts another person in a shameful situation. A third direction is that you are a viewer of people being humiliated or desecrated, or people that are put into a shameful situation. This third direction, this last category is called pornography.

Humiliation and shame are related to the parts of our body that are usually hidden from view. Such as breasts, the genitals, the anus, the thighs and the buttocks. Exposing these parts usually fills a person with shame. Men don't hide their breasts, so it is not shameful for a man to expose his breasts. It must also be observed that the body parts hidden from view, are also very sensitive. So you can humiliate a person even more by stimulating these parts. For instance: by inserting objects into these parts, or by placing pegs. There is a long list of objects that you can put into a person, objects such as: broomsticks, handrails, bottles, penises, deodorant bottles, fingers, thermometers, tongues, and you name it.

I have also hesitated about adding an extra pillar. That pillar is about power. The power of men over women, the power of men over children, the power of men over other men. The latter is called homosexuality. But I hesitated to add this pillar, because it doesn't apply to situations where you humiliate yourself. Who has power over who when you humiliate yourself? But the same point can also be made about desecration. When you put an object into an orifice of yourself to get sexually aroused, do you desecrate yourself? Perhaps. You desecrate your own body to get turned on. If a man bangs another man in the anus, is he desecrating him? Perhaps, in the mind of homosexuals. But I cannot speak for myself, because I am not a homosexual.

Power is about subjugation. When you have sex with a person, and you are on top, you have not only humiliated that person, you have also subjugated that person. You are the winner. He/she has lost. He/she is in your control, and you have total power to let that person do all the humiliating, shameful and desecrating acts that you order that person to do. To arrive at such a situation people usually use emotional manipulation to seduce a person into entering such a position. People use the natural need of a person to be desired or loved. People usually give such a person compliments about his/her appearance, or give that person attention by asking that person to go to the cinema together. These tactics are all used to blind a person into believing that being humiliated, desecrated or being put into a shameful situation is actually a sign of being loved. But you should understand that if a person gives you compliments or asks you to go to the cinema, this could actually be a ploy to put you into an embarrassing situation where that person has total power over you. This is blatant sexual harassment. This is the reason I am hesitant to give compliments to women, or to ask them to go to the cinema together.

I can become absolutely sexually aroused by looking at women’s naked asses. Seeing women bending over, or seeing women walk while looking at their naked asses, seeing how the buttocks move while women walk. I also like to see how objects are inserted into the orifices when a woman bends over. I also like to insert my penis in a woman while she bends over, and to look how my penis disappears into the vagina, while her labia enclose my penis.

I wonder where my ass obsession comes from. I can remember that as a child I was very fond of my own ass. When I was very young, still 8 years of age or something, I took off my pants and lied down on the floor. I turned my head around to look at my own ass. I found that very arousing, lying there with my butt-naked ass on the floor. I can also remember that at the age of four or five, when I was afraid, my mother allowed me into her bed. She often slept naked. I was able to crawl down under the sheets and admire her naked ass as long as I wanted. I can remember that, when I was approximately 6 years old, a boy proposed to me to show our asses to each other in the bushes. That's what we did. I also found that very arousing. Perhaps that’s where my ass obsession came from. Nobody learned it to me. Perhaps being attracted to asses is natural after all. Perhaps not.

In fact, perhaps all sexuality is just a big fetishism. Many people believe that it is natural for men to be obsessed with breasts, buttocks and vaginas. And it is supposedly unnatural when you are sexually obsessed with ears, leather clothes, women standing with their bare feet on insects, guillotines, noses, etc. But perhaps this is not the case. I have read that men's obsession with breasts is typical for Western civilisation. Other cultures are more obsessed with buttocks, and not necessarily with breasts. So perhaps my obsession with asses is learned after all, somehow. Perhaps I was sent the message that you may not show your ass, and so it became a fetish.

I watched my first hardcore porn movie when I was about 13 years old. This particular porn movie is called "kinky business" (1984). It starred porn actors such as Tom Byron and Ginger Lynn Allen. It's about a teenage boy (Matt) fantasising about having sex with the girl next door and her mother, and about hiring a call girl. And because he couldn't pay the call girl, she offered him to use the house of his parents (who were on vacation) as a brothel for other girls. I found the film very arousing. The porn actors still had their pubic hair at that time. Anal sex didn't take place in this particular film. The sex in the film wasn't particularly violent. But it showed lots of transgressions. It begins with Matt showing his dick to his neighbour Gloria, who tells it to her mom. When Matt follows Gloria into the house, he stumbles unto her mother in lingerie, who says that he has been a bad boy and seduces him into having sex with him. The camera focuses on her ass when she gives him a blow job. He strokes her buttocks and he shoves her lingerie aside and puts his finger into her asshole. The film also has a scene where Gloria is showering, and where Matt suddenly and without warning enters the shower cabin with a big erection. Gloria doesn’t appreciate it at first, but goes along with it anyway. There also is a scene where a woman dances naked before a window of her house.

This film proves my point. Sexuality is all about shocking, the unexpected, and crossing boundaries that no man has dared to have crossed. It is about older ladies seducing teenage boys, showing your penis to a woman who doesn't expect and appreciate it, putting your fingers in places where nobody expects fingers to be pushed in, dancing naked at spots where people don't expect you to dance naked, fucking a woman doggystyle, ejaculating in the face of a woman, ejaculating over the back of a woman.

When I had become older, it was the internet which opened Pandora’s box for me. First I was shocked by the sexual content, it looked all kind of dirty. But I watched more and more anyway. Anal sex was really hardcore from my point of view, but slowly I got used to it. And that’s the problem. To get stimulated you slowly need even more hardcore and demeaning images. Pornographic pictures and movies were supplemented with watching live camgirls (I watched only the free streams at first). These camgirls did really hardcore stuff like pushing big dildos, fingers and hands into their anuses, or even eating their poo. When I watched the camgirls I thought, I could do this with real life women (not the hardcore anal stuff by the way). This led me to visit prostitutes. The stories of forced prostitution scared me off for several years. I was genuinely upset about finding out the truth. It made me start this blog. After several years I switched to paying camgirls to show their asses. When I slowly made myself belief I knew how to avoid forced prostitutes, I also turned to prostitution again. Until I also let my guard down and also visited the prostitutes I believe that are forced. At first I felt very guilty, but if you repeat a crime more often, that guilt slowly disappears. It is said that many people whitewash a crime they have committed, by repeating the crime over and over again. Perhaps it also applies to me.

I kept on expanding my sexual boundaries. If one sexual act becomes too mundane, it is replaced with the next more transgressing sexual act. I cannot imagine sex without the five/two pillars I mentioned. I have fallen in love with women, but I never felt sexually attracted to them. I never fantasised about having sex with a woman I was in love with. Romantic love and sexuality are completely separate domains in my opinion. I have never managed to start a relationship with a woman. I am just too shy. I am curious what would have happened if a woman wanted to have sex with me. I think I wouldn't have been able to get sexually aroused. I think I would be shocked, seeing the woman of my dreams without her clothes on, observing that she also - like all women - has a vagina and an anus. That without her clothes, she looks just like an ordinary porn actress, or prostitute, or camgirl. I think that I must turn a switch in such a case. I MUST see her as a porn actress, and I must do something naughty to get aroused. I MUST do something unusual, something transgressing. But how could I do that to the person I love?

But perhaps this is just it! Perhaps having sex with your loved one really IS the transgression!!! Perhaps this way I can understand how a man can develop an erection while looking at THE GODDESS, the woman of his dreams, his fairy princess; she has turned from a fairy into a porn slut. This is the shock, this is the transgression. And THAT gives men a hard-on. First you look up to her, then you throw her down: you have the goddess around your cock.

But it is so very humiliating to get an erection by looking at the naked body of the woman of your dreams. Or to fuck her doggystyle, and looking at her poophole down below, smelling the scent that comes from it. Or banging her like a rubber doll. That is very humiliating in my opinion. I think that I must turn a very very big switch in my head to achieve this.

By the way, I can absolutely imagine to kiss and caress the woman of my dreams. But with the clothes on. But that's a different realm. It has nothing to do with sexuality. You can kiss, caress, stroke the hair, massage everybody without a sexual connotation. If a man cuddles his daughter, is this sex? Of course not. If a hairdresser gives the client a head massage, is this sex? Of course not. If you stroke the hair of your pet, do you have sex with your pet? Of course not. So hereby I counter the criticism that sexuality is much more than the five/two pillars I mentioned. These five/two pillars are the defining elements of sexuality. Without these five/two elements there is no sexuality. Sexuality is definitely NOT intimacy.

Sexuality is transgression, sexuality is humiliation. Sexuality is about taboos. Taboos that must be broken. There is no sexuality without taboos. What will happen if all taboos in the world would disappear? I believe that will be the end of sexuality. Nobody would get aroused anymore. No more naughty things. It would all become mundane.

But that will never happen. There will always be taboos that must be transgressed. Give me something sadistic that really shocks people, and it must be broken. That's sexuality. If there is nothing that shocks people, we will be living in an awful world without any moral codes, without knowledge of good and bad. The only good thing is that sexuality has totally disappeared in such a world. No more taboos that must be broken. Our sexual fire is extinguished.

I hope that all sexuality and sadism will disappear from the face of the Earth. It will be utopia, but it must be a viable goal nonetheless. I hope tenderness and intimacy will stay. We must strive for a world where people respect and love each other, and where people don't disrespect and hate each other. A world where people act with tenderness to each other, and don't torture and objectify each other.

I found out that my ideas are not strange or unusual. There is a little voice in me which protests. It says that my views are too radical. Obviously there are women who enjoy sex, this little voice says. But these women are wrong, in my opinion. They support the system which oppresses them. They don't understand their subjugation, they have internalised their oppression, just like women in Northern Africa who support the system of female circumcision. If a woman asks you to have sex with her, you should politely refuse. If a person asks you to give him/her a slap in the face, would you comply? I believe you should tell that person that something is wrong with him/her. Of course you won't give that person a slap in the face. And the same is true for sexuality. If somebody asks for sex, you should refuse it. That person should respect you, and you should respect that person. Prostitutes have asked me to lick their vaginas or to suck their nipple. I complied, but I should have refused. They don’t have sex with you for their own pleasure, just like ordinary women do. And don't come with the argument that sex is necessary for procreation. We live in very modern times where you don't need to put an erect orgastic penis into a vagina. We can use pistons to extract the semen from a penis, and to put it into a vagina. Or we can just cultivate semen in laboratories. No man necessary.

But perhaps I'm too radical indeed, or I just have to break through my own internalised oppression. Perhaps I should just find a girlfriend anyway and have sex with her in a very divine and loving way, mutually respectful, if ever that may be possible. (I gave up all hope of finding a girlfriend a long time ago).

I will quote women who agree with me. I have stumbled upon these quotes by accident. I didn't know of these quotes. I am totally surprised that these women exactly put into words the things that I have said above. Just like them, I also dream about a world without romantic and sexual relationships, where people live in anarcho-syndicalistic communes, where all men live as women, and all women live as women, and where everybody is equal and respects each other, and where are all wealth in the world is shared equally.


"Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks." Andrea Dworkin in the Philadelphia Inquirer, May 21, 1995..

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..." Sheila Jeffreys

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." Andrea Dworkin

"Sex is the cross on which women are crucified ... Sex can only be adequately defined as universal rape." Hodee Edwards, ‘Rape defines Sex’

"Our culture is depicting sex as rape so that men and women will become interested in it." Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth, p. 138..

Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's daughter is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman," Andrea Dworkin, Liberty, p.58..

"Compare victims' reports of rape with women's reports of sex. They look a lot alike....[T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it." Catherine MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers, "Hard-Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation," Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991.

"One can know everything and still be unable to accept the fact that sex and murder are fused in the male consciousness, so that the one without the imminent possibly of the other is unthinkable and impossible." Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 21..

"Sex as desired by the class that dominates women is held by that class to be elemental, urgent, necessary, even if or even though it appears to require the repudiation of any claim women might have to full human standing. In the subordination of women, inequality itself is sexualized, made into the experience of sexual pleasure, essential to sexual desire." Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 265..

"All men are rapists and that's all they are." Marilyn French in People, February 20, 1983..

"How will the family unit be destroyed? ...[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." Roxanne Dunbar in Female Liberation

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage. Robin Morgan, from Sisterhood Is Powerful (ed), 1970, p. 537

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership. Only when manhood is dead--and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it" Andrea Dworkin

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together.... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.... No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all." Linda Gordon, "Functions of the Family," WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969

"God is going to change. We women... will change the world so much that He won't fit anymore." Naomi Goldenberg, Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the End of Traditional Religions (Quoted at beginning of From Father God to Mother Earth)

"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men..." Elizabeth Stanton, One Woman, One Vote, Wheeler, p. 58

"Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don't like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down." Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia. (Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia - 9 February 1996)


Anonymous said...

Hello again, Donkey

I didn't know what to write back after your last post - you managed to pick all the most women-hating, anti-sex "feminists" out there, who are genuinely despised by the majority of other female activists and ignored by most of the rest of women. Sigh.

Today, I found this article on Alternet that says everything much better than I could, and touches some of the things you talk about very, very closely:

From it -
.."That’s how deeply invested our culture has become in the women-don’t-like-sex lie. We have to throw out basically all of the data to make that theory fit, so we blithely do just that.

This grotesque misrepresentation of women’s experience has, with the usual cruel duality of gender stereotypes, created a terrible problem for men. Because straight or bi men want to have sex with women. That’s… kind of the definition, really. We are told, however, that women don’t want sex. Thus, those of us who desire women must believe that we our desire is unwelcome, barely tolerated, and kind of gross. It’s like being biologically driven to fart in crowded elevators.

This, of course, feeds rape culture. Because after all, if there is no situation where any woman genuinely wantssex, then having sex with women who don’t want it… well, that’s just how it works, isn’t it?"

"The way we think about libido in our culture now is deeply broken. It involves denying the experience of damn near every person alive, everyone who doesn’t fit into a binary men-horny/women-not framework, and since human experience falls into a spectrum far more subtle and complex than that, that’s everyone."

Donkey said...

I'm afraid that you are starting to convince me that you are right. However, being an asexual suits me very well. I think sexuality is bad for me in particular, perhaps not for others. And there is the real danger that I abuse forced prostitutes. So it would be better for me if I shun sexuality completely. And it doesn't harm me when I avoid sexuality. I feel good about it. But it would be easier for me to regard all sexuality as evil. That makes the world easier to grasp, and it helps me to stay put. (Though I believe it would have really been cool if women really were biologically asexual) ;-)

Donkey said...


By the way are you Noah Brand?, the writer of the article you refer too?

Why Do We Live in a World That's Petrified of Women Who Love Sex? (Noah Brand)

Anonymous said...

Hi again Donkey,

If being asexual works for you, that's great. I'm just worried if you choose that path for a wrong reason... masturbation doesn't hurt anybody (especially true regarding your fear of hurting women if you choose not to look at porn at all), which makes me think that there's a deeper issue at work.

There's a great community of asexual people here - ; it might be of interest to you.

Nope, I'm not the writer of that article, he just happened to articulate what I was trying to say better than I could. I'm an unrepentant female :-), who has been highly sexual my entire life. Sexuality was always fascinating to me in all its forms - not just in my private life, but in its scientific, sociological, cultural and historic manifestations. I don't have a degree in this field, though I've completed a few sex-related courses, and read everything I can get my hands on.

It may be that my lifelong fascination with sex comes from having mainly very positive experiences with it from the start, including growing up in one of those "less civilized" cultures that sees it as a natural part of life for both men and women. :-)

Much luck to you, and I hope you find happiness wherever your path leads you.


Donkey said...

Good luck to you too!

One question still: What's your opinion about prostitution?

Anna said...

The more posts of your I read, the more I think I understand you. I would suggest that your fear of sex with non-prostituted women is a fear of engulfment and intimacy, because of the incest-overtones you had with your mother. You have so much guilt over this that you have decided to throw away all romantic love and all sex attached to love. This is a hysterical reaction to wanting to remain free and independent of the mother. Because you feel she is watching you and that she is somehow your real lover, you want to be a good boy and not give in to your desires for sex for other women. And then you need to ennoble yourself and justify your position by saying that all sex is bad. But then the transgressive side comes out, and you want to punish her for making you feel desire for her. You take this punishment out on the prostitutes you visit. But the fact that some of them may like their work really bothers you, because then it's not a transgression. This is why sex is guilt, transgression dirty things to you. It is about hatred and fear of the mother. Your sexuality was further twisted by looking at pornography at an early age. Instead of experiences with real girls, you had porn, your mother, and naughtiness.

The only thing that will cure you is to have experience with real live girls that you love and have sex with, and to try to get rid of your fear of that. You clearly don't want to be dependent on someone that much - to love them and also desire them. That would be too much of a risk for you. And you also fear hurting the one you love, because you have not worked out your hate. Plus, you never really learned how to love, and you are afraid that will will fail. The porn culture we live in does not help you at all. It encourages you to take a twisted route out of your problems. Sex between men and women is very natural. Sex flows freely between men and women who are left alone together and grow to like or get used to one another. You need to believe in love, and to believe that sex is natural and lovely and is not a desecration of a woman. You need to be with regular girls and try to develop relationships with them. It's not too late to change this, but the longer you wait the worse it will get. You should see Catherine Breillat's film ROMANCE. In that film, a girl has a boyfriend that refuses to have sex with her, although he goes to the club and dances with all of the other girls and flirts with them. He has a problem like yours - he can't get turned on by the woman he loves. She leaves in tears to go out and find sexual adventures, and in a voiceover she talks about how a man who refuses to have sex with a woman who desires it is desecrating her. She says in tears, "he is desecrating me." And then she leaves to find a man who will have sex with her.

Donkey said...

What you say could be true for me. But still, why do men watch all this degrading porn? That's what truly turns them on, apparently.

I don't understand why you defend sex within marriages and romantic relationships, but not the sex in pornography and prostitution. If you are so sex positive, why not defend prostitution and pornography? What’s the harm with that?

Can't a client worship the vagina of the prostitute and a prostitute the penis of the client?

Why can’t prostitutes and clients have loving and respectful relationships?

I know. They can’t.

Anna said...

As long as the people involved in prostitution and pornography are consenting adults, I'm totally okay with it, and even enjoy some pornography myself. But we know that often the people are not consenting adults. We know for instance that Linda Lovelace was forced at gunpoint to make "Deep Throat." We hear horrible stories of things that happen to porn actresses and prostitutes. Unimaginable abuse and torture, kidnapping, rape, etc. Porn actresses zapped with stun guns. Children forced into prostitution and pornography as toddlers. You really need to read that book I mentioned to you, PROGRAMMED TO KILL. This is not just happening in third-world countries. It is enormous industry. I know you know a lot about this and have been studying it for years, but in that book we have proof and not just anecdotes. So we have all of this misery and poverty and slavery and so forth.

But this has nothing to do with sex in my view. Sex may drive the industry, but the industry is selling a product that has little to do with real sex. People defend porn by saying they are "sex-positive." Well, anti-porn people are sex-positive too. But they are porn-negative. This is because sex is not porn. Porn is the commodification of sex, usually solely for the pleasure of the male. And because most women do not want to have their bodies sold as commodities, we have all of the violence and drugs which forces them to comply. When we have desperation and poverty, we have crime. A criminal can get maybe $500,000 for a white blonde child on the slave market. So of course criminals are going to try to capture little children for the slave market. And of course men who grow up in poor neighborhoods will try to force young girls into prostitution and take their money. But I don't see what any of this has to do with sex! Can't one be pro-sex but anti-slavery? Of course. In fact, most people are both those things. Does a woman have the right to sell her body if she wants to? I say of course yes. Decriminalize the prostitutes and help them if they want to escape.

The other problem I have with pornography today is that it is so shitty aesthetically and in every other way. As I said earlier, men get aroused by any image of an attractive naked woman. But the market caters to the most extreme tastes, and then those tastes become normalized. I do believe that a certain percentage of men are so guilty about sex that they need to see the porn actresses as especially dirty in order to get aroused, and that's why we have all the debasing porn. And as women get more and more overtly sexual, the men need harder and harder porn to separate the girls in the movies from the girls they know. But the girls try to keep up with the porn actresses, which I think is not what the men want! The men want to make their virgin-whore separations. But women hate this. They want to be seen as full human beings with their goodness and sexuality and everything else together. Men need to stop being so afraid of female sexuality, and even going so far as to insist, as you do, that it doesn't exist. That is terrible oppression for a woman.

Anna said...

So to clarify: I am not against sex work or pornography - only if it is being used in criminal ways. I am all for freedom of speech, even if it means tolerating the most extreme and disgusting pornography. But I am sad that it exists, and I think there needs to be some cultural shaming at least around the worst and most degrading stuff. Maybe if you would find some old-fashioned porn, like the Henry Paris films, you would develop a more positive attitude about sex, since you seem so influenced by porn. The best I think is THE OPENING OF MISTY BEETHOVEN.

Anna said...

By the way, I have a question for you: why do you link to the blogs of the sex-positive crowd, and not the blogs of the position you seem to support which is anti-prostitution? You should link to Rachel Moran's blog. You should also read all of her articles. She is so articulate and explains so well what the problems are from her point of view.

Here is a link though that I found especially fascinating. I think it is a bad article, but the comments get really interesting! There is a fight between different women (and some men) about sex work which is really amazing. You have to read the comments to the end to really get a sense of the debate. Please let me know what you think after you've read it:

Anna said...

Oh, and in response to your question, if a prostitute can worship the penis of the client, and he her vagina: well, that's impossible, you're right. It's possible for him to worship her vagina (and perhaps many clients do), but not the other way around. So the problem here is inequality. Only one person is getting sexual gratification. The whole point about the purity of sex as described by Lawrence is that it is a spiritual connection between two people - spiritual because both have mutual desire. If they come together in mutual desire they experience something transcendental. I think this is what romantic love is.

Anna said...

So here is the contempt that a "happy hooker" has for her clients:

And here is a quote:

"First off, naked men are some of the most unattractive creatures on the planet. Skinny hairy legs, knobby knees, loins in need of fumigation, much less a wash. Hairy buttocks, hairy genitalia, hairy chests, arms, and faces. There are times I can’t even see said genitalia for the abundance of hair. Jesus, razors aren’t that damn expensive! Shave, trim, wax, but for the love of god, de-fuzz yourself.

So there is this specimen of manhood standing before me in all his naked glory. And because he is a man, and he functions sexually on the same level as a flatworm, he thinks that I too am sexually as stunted as he is. Which means, he thinks that because he is showing me the goods, that my juices are flowing and my bits are throbbing with desire to jump on him. No, no, no dear boy, they are not. Not even close.

I have to resist the urge to laugh. Poor things."

She is far from worshipping the penis, obviously! So she hates men and they hate her. Maybe the only woman who can be a "happy hooker" is one that doesn't understand what love is, and is as damaged as her clients are. Therefore maybe a "happy hooker" and her client are birds of the same feather and they can share a meaningless, soulless fuck together and neither is the worse for it, but she feels as if she is ahead because she has money to show for it. Pay attention and you will realize that she was sexual already as an 8-year-old girl. What does that tell you? This is a damaged woman, who was probably raped as a child by adult men, which caused her to imagine that it had all been her own idea and to pretend all she wanted was to look at boys' penises.

And this is where you get your idea of whether women like sex or not - from prostitutes! As I said before, prostitutes hate sex in a way that no other woman can. As a woman, is it possible to worship a penis? Of course it is, and women do it all the time, because a penis when not being used as a weapon is a beautiful thing capable of giving a woman great pleasure.

Donkey said...

The callgirldotcom blog is really interesting! I will take a closer look at it.

It is nice chatting to you, but I think we will never agree. I understand that you support decriminalization too?

Okay, the reason why I link to Laura Agustín and Maggie McNeill is because I find them very interesting, and because they have the most credible blogs about prostitution on the internet. I don’t take Melissa Farley and many other abolitionists very seriously to begin with. Their blogs and websites are full of mistakes.

I would say the abolitionists are 10% right, and Laura Agustín and Maggie McNeill are 60% right. Only, Laura and Maggie lack morality, except if the government does something bad to prostitutes. Then they are full of anger. They completely ignore abuse by clients, pimps and brothel owners. In their universe it doesn’t exist, or women have the right to be abused by clients, pimps and brothel owners.

The abolitionists are angry about pimps, brothel owners and clients, that is very good, but nearly all the other information that they give about the sex industry is wrong. At least Laura and Maggie get most of it right. Well, Maggie makes the mistake that she believes that nearly all forced prostitution work in street prostitution, which is not true. That is a very big mistake.

I have asked some questions to prostitutes in the meantime about how they experience clients. They gave very interesting answers. You know I told you that Jo Doezema and Metje Blaak complain about clients continuously transgressing their boundaries and groping everything? Metje Blaak even said that she trained clients to become ‘nice’, as if they are evil by default. Well, I told two prostitutes about this (via internet). One told me that the mistake Jo Doezema and Metje Blaak made is that they didn’t tell the clients beforehand what is allowed and what isn’t allowed. They both told me that clients are often like obedient lambs who do nothing. One said that they just lie there like a piece of wood, you really have to activate them as a prostitute to let them do something more. The other said that if the clients do something you don’t want, you subtly give them a hint to do something else, without ruining the mood. What is also true according to her, is the type of clients you attract. If you advertise with sex without condom, you could get the bad guys.

One of the women is a former victim of forced prostitution, and at that time she hated the clients. Later she decided to work for herself, and she tells me that she had pleasant contacts with clients. She said about Jo Doezema and Metje Blaak that prostitutes could just say something, without meaning it.

In also asked some other prostitutes how they experience their work, and in general they all say that clients are respectful in general.

So, I am really confused now.

Anna said...

I would say that the sex-positive crowd has done a very good job of making Melissa Farley and the abolitionists out to be wrong, when actually that is not the case. Maggie is a very dishonest women. She refuses to have a fair and balanced discourse. And she lies and says outrageous things to further her cause. If she would be honest, she would say that trafficking and child exploitation exists in an overwhelming degree, poverty and lack of viable options drives prostitution, that she as a privileged first-world white woman with a head for business and the ability to rise to the position of madam of an escort agency had advantages very few women in prostitution ever have. She might also admit that she actually doesn't give a shit about anyone but herself and that anyone who is not her and has not had her advantages is lying and can go fuck themselves. That is her position. She has her head up her ass about politics, is narrow-minded and bigoted, and is abusive to survivors. I don't think you're reading the material I'm suggesting. All of the nonsense about Melissa Farley's studies being wrong come from pimps and people with financial and legal stakes in the sex industry. Many women in prostitution who are still stuck in it will put a positive face on it, but it doesn't take away the trauma they are actually experiencing just because they deny it. I found all of this out by reading that link I sent you, the one that has a long discussion of over 400 comments. The war is right there online.

Here is what happened: a person with the online name Stella Marr, a survivor of prostitution and trafficking in New York City, came out and starting blogging about her experiences. Immediately she started getting harassed by all of these women who started to intimidate her, told her she was lying or exaggerating, and tried to get her to shut up. She researched and found out that they were all former madams in charge of sex-worker rescue groups. So she went online and started challenging them in their forums, saying that pimps should not be representing survivors. And they started beating up on her and punishing her more. Then Maggie wrote a post about how Stella Marr has been "outed," revealing that she knew her real name and identity and that she was lying about her experiences. And another madam, Norma Jean Almodovar, created a whole website just to smear and slander her and to prove she wasn't who she said she was. But to me their smears were not convincing. I instinctively believed Stella. So I asked Maggie on her blog how she knew Stella was lying, because I said I found all of her stories very credible, and Maggie and I had a fight that basically ended with her admitting that she didn't know really whether Stella was lying or not, but that she doesn't give a shit, because Stella is the enemy!

Do you see how dangerous she is? Why does she see a survivor an enemy? Maggie is a pimp and a criminal, and if she is lying about Stella Marr she is also probably lying about many other things. Stella Marr went into hiding after that, and she deleted most of her accounts. I think they scared her by telling her they knew her real name and where she lived and that she felt their threats to be a real danger to her life. She was especially a threat to them because she is an articulate woman who can name names in a network that Maggie is most certainly connected to. A few months ago Stella was vigilant about not being able to be silenced. Now they have silenced her. I would not be surprised if they try to murder her. Another survivor, Dublin Call Girl, has also had her blog disabled. I would not be surprised if Rachel Moran's blog disappears too. Maggie, Norma, all of these women are pro-human trafficking. They and their friends are the traffickers. So of course they are threatened by Farley's statistics. If this cracks open, they all go to jail. It is very naive to believe anything they say.

Donkey said...

I read the article you referred to about what is a representative sex worker.

I read it a long time ago, and I also read parts of the discussions. I find the article actually very neutral. The writer admits that we don't know really what's going on in the sex industry. This is very honest. I like it!!! She is more honest than Maggie, who acts as if she knows it all.

The only thing is that she refers to Nick Mai's report, of which she can't find a link to, but it is right here:

click this link

I now have my doubts about Nick Mai's research. It is just too good to be true. If I must believe this report, everything is good about the sex industry. The only negative side about prostitution is that it is boring. The clients are nice, the brothel owners are nice, everybody is nice!!! I don't believe that.

It think it is not fake because there were multiple interviewers. I think they cherry-picked the good stories, and ignored the bad stories. I have a bad feeling about this report. I think the researchers projected their happy hooker views on the prostitutes. Not that all the good stories are wrong. They just ignored the negative side.

Yes it is true, Maggie and Norma can't really speak for prostitutes because they have been madams themselves. It is a conflict of interest.

Anna said...

I'm glad you read that. I think it's a good discussion. And I'm sure that many reports are as you say, where they try to find only certain women to interview that have only certain kinds of experiences. Each side accuses the other of cheey-picking, but Farley's studies were very comprehensive and included women from every type of prostitution, so Maggie is lying when she says they only spoke to street prostitutes.

But look at what Maggie did: she said she knew for a fact that Stella Marr was lying, and she wrote a smear piece about her. Then when I questioned her she admitted that she really didn't know anything about Stella but that she doesn't care because Stella is the enemy. Maggie said that Stella wants to cage women and have them be raped. I contradicted her and said, no, Stella is for the Swedish model which decriminalizes prostitutes. So Maggie is a rage and telling me how ignorant I was sent me a link which she thinks proves that she is right about the abolitionists. The link was to a story about how a sex worker was murdered by her ex-husband. Maggie and other sex workers claim that it was the government's fault for taking her children away from her and giving custody to the ex-husband, thus treating her like an irresponsible person because she is doing sex work. But what actually happened was that the husband killed her after she regained custody, because he didn't think a whore should raise children. So it's again proven that the people who are most dangerous to prostitutes are the men who think of them as whores, not the feminists. A feminist didn't kill her, a man did. They also blame the government for not stepping in and helping her, and letting her be alone with her husband. But this is a contradiction of their usual reasoning. They usually say the government shouldn't intervene at all, otherwise they're treating the women like children. So they gave her back her children and treated her like an adult, and she was murdered. They don't give any details about who this ex-husband was. Was he also her pimp? Was he a former client?

Donkey said...

I really don't know about Stella Marr. I’ve seen her comments on the website of Maggie. I can’t judge if she really was a prostitute and what her situation was. Something similar also happens now with Brooke Magnanti, whose former boyfriend now says she never was a prostitute. Brooke Magnanti says otherwise and even leaked his diary, and she pointed to an old internet advertisement which is still stored on the wayback machine.

There has been a case in the Netherlands where a girl said she worked as a teen prostitute, but it later turned out this could never have been true. A nun in Belgium claimed she helped Albanian victims of forced prostitution who were infected with HIV, and she gave a lot of readings about it. She later admitted this was all fantasy.

There is a woman in the Netherlands who writes about her experiences in prostitution on her blog. But also in her case there are people who claim they know her, and that she is not a prostitute.

I don’t know what to believe anymore in the world of prostitution. The Dutch researcher Ine Vanwesenbeeck has reported (in ‘Wiens lijf eigenlijk?‘) about social workers complaining about prostitutes laying smoke screens around themselves all the time.

It is difficult to know what’s going on in the world of prostitution. I’m trying to find out for years, but I still don’t know. I only know something about their ages, their nationalities, and the fact that most have oral sex without condom. The latter can absolutely be objectively determined by studying reviews written by clients about prostitutes, and it is a worrying development by the way.

What happens in Sweden I don’t know. Has the situation improved or deteriorated for prostitutes? I think nobody will find out. I hope it is not as bad as in the Netherlands however. I understand that the Swedes don’t want to decriminalize prostitution, because they are obviously afraid something awful will happen like has happened in the Netherlands with Saban B and his gang who terrorized prostitutes in several red light districts.

Actually, I also have no clue about the murdered Swedish prostitute. But I think it would be wrong for the authorities to take away the children of a woman, merely because she is a prostitute. But I think this was not the intention of the Swedish lawmakers.

Anna said...

I agree that no one can really know the truth. But my point was that Maggie and types such as her are protecting criminals when they say they are protecting the prostitutes. It is not important whether Stella's story is true or not. What is important is that they are hounding and abusing her and calling her a liar when they don't know her or anything about her because she says she was trafficked. This is because they need to support their idea that "trafficking is a myth." If you use common sense you know that it's dangerous to be a prostitute, and that there are many women who are forced (although not all of them are). But even the ones who say they are happy are not safe. It's obvious that there are dangerous and evil people out there, and that prostitutes are targets for them. I guess some are lucky and don't have horrible experiences, but the odds are against it. The happy hookers all have their horror stories too, as you know. If you go to a prostitute and she backs away from you or sighs or closes her eyes or looks at you like you're scum, then you know she is not willing and you don't need statistics for that. The best thing if you care about not contributing to trafficking is to avoid the brothels and agencies and only go to women who don't work for other people. I've seen performances by cam girls, when they've popped up on my screen while I am doing research, and sometimes I stay for a few minutes and watch. I have enough empathy to see what these girls are experiencing, and it's really depressing. Sometimes their pimp is right their handing them a dildo and shoving it in for them. Their eyes often look so drugged out. Lots of those girls would say they are happy with what they are doing. But you just have to look at them to see the truth. Also I once went to a party hosted by Susan Block, a "sexologist" who is supposedly a sex-positive feminist. At her party, which was being filmed for television, there was a mix of arty people, mostly in their thirties and above (she was in her fifties), mostly educated privileged types, and some male perverts. But then there were these other people, a group of petite girls who looked maybe eighteen years old at the most (they looked more like 14 or 15 actually) with bleached-blonde hair, who were paraded onto the stage in lingerie while everyone clapped and cheered. They were the only people at that party who did not seem happy. They stared out at the crowd like scared rabbits. Some of them looked like they had bruises. Their eyes looked scared, drugged, and dead at the same time. Eyes with no hope in them. I think they had been hired for the event, for the after-party. They were obviously slaves. They huddled together in fear as if they were in a concentration camp and not a party. This was at a party of a "feminist." Later I was location scouting and I visited a location that was used for porn shoots and parties. There was an incredible stench of filthy semen-stained sheets, because there had been a party the night before. There was filthy lingerie on the floor and rancid beer stains everywhere. I saw another slave there, a blonde girl of maybe sixteen, with a man that was maybe 80. He was laughing in delight, and she looked too frightened to say a word. I said hello and she just looked down at the floor in terror. I see that same look on some of the cam girls, although they are smiling these weird fake desperate smiles. I can see that a lot of them are slaves. I don't need statistics when I see that.

Anna said...

So, the reason I brought up the example of Susan Block's party is that she is a strong, educated privileged woman who loves sex and is in control of her body, and so she projects that onto all sex workers, which is not fair. Does she really seriously believe that those terrified slaves at her party have the same agency as she does?

Anna said...

Also, I think Susan Block is a madam. I looked on her website recently, and she advertised for "slaves." I know it's a tongue and cheek ad, but the job entails answering phones and other menial tasks, plus "great sex and travel." I think it is an ad to recruit sex slaves. These people are so out in the open, it's amazing. She is a well-respected personality too, and used to have a cable show where she interviewed writers.

Anna said...

Oh, I looked again, she has escort ads up too:

Anna said...

Okay, here's what I don't like about prostitution: say you are a man who wants o humiliate and degrade women, and that is what turns you on. There is nothing to stop you from going to a prostitute to enact your fantasies. The only thing that could stop men from doing that is if they feel bad enough about it not to do it. But of course that's too much to ask. But there is another way: to make it illegal for them to do that, and make it legal for prostitutes to prosecute if they are mistreated. The law is already moving in that direction in the United States. They are arresting more pimps and traffickers and giving more prostitutes legal protection. But Maggie hates these laws, and thinks they're backwards. She wants to be sure he pimps thrive.

Anna said...

Here's what most normal people think of Maggie McNeill (scroll down for the comments):

She is a laughingstock on the internet. No one takes her seriously.

Donkey said...

It is true that as a client you can get everything you want. There's always a prostitute who offers it. I think that's why many prostitutes offer oral sex without condom nowadays, because it's difficult to refuse it when other prostitutes do offer it.

I must say that I visit camsites a lot. Often the women look bored indeed. I have had some good contacts with some camgirls. I unfortunately had some conflicts too. One woman complained I only wanted to talk.

What I notice that many camgirls don't earn a lot. Often there are not many clients, and often they beg you to have a private, or to tip. They have to hand over a lot of their earnings. Usually, the website takes 50%. And many girls work in webcam studios, and the studio takes 50% of the remaining 50%. So the women are left with only 25%.

I have to say, it all started for me with camgirls. I often looked at the free streams, without ever paying for it. Only later I thought, hey, I could actually visit these girls in real life. And then I visited prostitutes. Later I also started to pay camgirls.

There is a Romanian camgirl whom I know well. I have financially supported her. She lately told me that she wanted to migrate to the Netherlands after finishing her education. She want to follow Dutch language courses, and asked me to practice with her if she is online.

Donkey said...


You say I could better visit prostitutes who work in their own homes. I've never done that because I don't know what they look like. Often they hide their faces on the internet, and in brothels you can see them first, before you decide.

Anna said...

You see, Maggie is really stupid. She has no logical arguments. They all lie and change their agenda around to support their ideology. The Swedish model is good for prostitutes and good for women. No one is infantilizing or locking up women, They are giving legal rights and taking rights away from the pimps. So the only bad thing is that is reduces a lucrative market. So how is it infantilizing women to ask that they should compete in the other markets like everyone else? No one cries and screams when a market is ruined except for the people who are making big money off of it, and the people who enjoy its services. But the workers don't cry, unless they can't find other work. But there is always other work. And since sex work would be legal for women, they could continue to do that work, just not with a pimp and some of their clients might get arrested. If they feel they need a man to protect them they are infantilizing themselves, or perhaps then they would have to come to terms with how dangerous their job is and decide if it's really worth it. So the Swedish model is bad for pimps and madams and men, but it is good for women. It's totally ludicrous to say that Stella supports caging women and rape.

I disagree that that was a balanced article. It was 100% propaganda, and it was trying to silence and shame real victims. It is so obvious how threatened they are by people like Stella. This is how you know they are criminals. They say to Stella, you are victimizing women by talking about your abuse; you are causing abuse by talking. And she counters with, how is talking about rape causing rape? They can't debate people like her because they have no sound arguments. Abolitionists already want to empower and decriminalize women. So why is there even a fight? It's because the pimps don't want to lose their income. They're always defending all prostitution as if it's about "sex between consenting adults," but if that was what was really happening we wouldn't need any laws.

Anna said...

I don't think you're really trying to find out the truth about prostitutes. In some of your posts you seemed like you did, but now it doesn't seem as if you do. If you were really interested you would take Rachel Moran's blog very seriously, because she is sane and not selling anything and her views reflect the reality of most or all prostitutes.

I would also say that you are misinterpreting the look in the cam girls' eyes as boredom. It is not boredom, it is deadness. It's the look of prisoners and people who have no hope. Of course they beg for visits. They are poor and need the money.

Your blog has good information about trafficking, but when you link to stupid people like Maggie and Laura you are doing a further disservice to prostitutes by advertising people who oppress and silence prostitutes. Of course they say that they are the ones being oppressed by feminists, but can't you see that's just a transparent tactic? The reality is that prostitution is a miserable place to be, and if you are confused about that you shouldn't be. It's only the people selling the product who say otherwise, and they do so for purely financial reasons. They're also confusing the prostitutes themselves by telling them the enemy is the feminists and the people who are trying to rescue them and not the criminals holding them prisoner. They have really got to be kidding. Read the piece on Rachel Moran's blog about how there is no difference between trafficking and regular prostitution.

Donkey said...

I am in fact interested what prostitutes feel. I'm asking some prostitutes about this. I get some very confusing reactions. I will write about it soon.

Have you read Maggie McNeill's post about the Frequently Told Lies?:

It is a good post. Especially about the average age of entry. Unfortunately she does some cherry picking herself by only selecting the research which indicates that prostitutes' self-esteem goes up after working in prostitution. And she takes prostitutes too literally when about 1.5% says they are coerced. They don't tell that immediately!

Anna said...

There is no truth in that post by Maggie McNeill or in any other of her posts. Maggie is selling fantasies the same way she did when she was prostituting and madaming. If you are still going to her blog for truth, you are looking in the wrong place.