Войти в систему

    - Создать дневник
    - Написать в дневник
       - Подробный режим

    - Новости сайта
    - Общие настройки
    - Sitemap
    - Оплата
    - ljr-fif

    - Настройки
    - Список друзей
    - Дневник
    - Картинки
    - Пароль
    - Вид дневника


Настроить S2

    - Забыли пароль?
    - FAQ
    - Тех. поддержка

Пишет Misha Verbitsky ([info]tiphareth)
@ 2018-07-10 16:05:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Настроение: sick
Музыка:Front Line Assembly - RE-WIND

sexual counter-revolution
Чудесный документ
"concent code": список правил, которые обязаны заучить
наизусть студенты, и их неукоснительно придерживаться,
чтобы не стать насильниками (мальчики) или пособниками
насильников (девочки). В нем прекрасно все, и длина,
и предельно бюрократический язык, и детали употребления.

В 1957-м году канцлер University of California, Berkeley
афористически припечатал

"The three purposes of the University?--To provide sex for
the students, sports for the alumni, and parking for the

- "Три задачи университета? Предоставить секс студентам,
победу в спортивных соревнованиях выпускникам и парковки
для профессоров".

Не знаю как уж там со спортом и паркингом, но
со студенческим сексом современные американские
университеты борются примерно как с наркоманией
и пьяным вождением автомобиля.

И вот еще


...Ironically, the enormous impact of #MeToo proves the power

some women now have; its influence demonstrates the very
status #MeToo's proponents claim they lack. But just as
women have gained power, the currency has changed. A
decade ago, young female journalists made column inches
out of stories revealed over flirtatious Westminster
lunches. Today, those same journalists make columns out of
those same lunches - but this time casting themselves in
the starring role. Once, men held power and women gained
influence through flirting. Now, more women are on top and
they gain power - access to platforms and resources as
well as the moral high ground - through making their
private suffering public.

The #MeToo movement has, on both sides of the Atlantic,
publicly brought down once-powerful men. Striking a blow
against the patriarchy (albeit a jaded patriarchy well
aware of its own obsolescence) lends it a veneer of
radicalism. But #MeToo has endured not because it is
radical but because it is fundamentally conservative. The
movement's focus on vulnerable women in need of protecting
and predatory men in need of taming rehabilitates age-old
tropes. Yet again, women are cast as innocents whose
life's work is to ward off unwanted sexual advances.

Women have always policed sexuality. But the matriarch who
threatened dire consequences to girls who let boys 'go too
far' was once ridiculed. Today she's back - only now she
wears dungarees and an 'I heart consent' badge. She
doesn't warn against unwanted pregnancy or even sexually
transmitted infections. Instead she tells young women of
the irreparable psychological trauma that will certainly
be induced if sex is not preceded by the incantation of
previously rehearsed scripts. In this way, the #MeToo
movement feeds into a reappraisal of the sexual revolution
as fun for men but bad for women.

#MeToo has exposed an apparent generational divide within
feminism. Many young feminists blame the older generation
for either ignoring or, worse, colluding in sexism. Older
feminists decry these identity-obsessed 'snowflakes',
unable to determine what women are, still less what they
want. Younger feminists are more likely to consider
whistling, knee-touching and winking to be sexual
harassment, while older women bemoan the end of
flirtation. This generation war is ugly: it can seem as
if no insult is too offensive it can't be hurled at a
second-wave feminist.

The main criticisms of the sexual revolution - that it
went too far, that it robbed women of legitimate reasons
to say no to sex, that it encouraged commitment-free sex
rather than lasting relationships - have become widely
accepted. Those now arguing for a sexual
counter-revolution insist that men and women are
fundamentally different and that while men enjoy casual
sexual encounters, women do not. Many have reached the
conclusion that the sexual revolution sold women the lie
that casual sex was empowering, while all along it was
really only men who gained. But these criticisms hold a
previous era to account for promises it never actually

The #MeToo movement throws up daily illustrations of the
consequences of trust abused. In response, the call goes
out for more regulation of relationships between men and
women in the workplace, on campus and on the street. This
public regulation of private interaction takes away the
freedoms gained during the sexual revolution. There is no
longer an assumption that men and women, as equals, can
freely and spontaneously negotiate relationships on their
own terms. Instead, people need to defer to rules,
frameworks and codes of conduct, for their own
safety. Those who refuse need professional re-education in
consent workshops.

The key claim of this sexual counter-revolution is that
sexual harassment and rape cannot be defined
objectively. What is important in determining abuse is not
the behaviour itself, but whether or not it is wanted. The
understanding and the intention of the accused is
irrelevant. The feelings of the accuser - even if not made
clear - are all important. Winking and whistling are
sexual harassment not because of anything intrinsically
harmful about them, but because they are unwanted. Rape
becomes redefined as unwanted sex. Sex, by the same logic,
is no longer something created spontaneously between
people in the give and take, rough and smooth, of a messy
real-life interaction. Rather, it becomes a consciously
desired, formally summoned and sanctioned, wanted good.

This focus on 'wanted' and 'unwanted' sexual interactions
throws up new problems. Sometimes we don't know what we
want until we have it, or no longer have it, or begin to
have it. Seduction, the stuff of countless novels, poems,
films and cheap romances, is the art of persuading someone
to want to have sex with you. It forms the basis of
stories dating back over centuries because it taps into
deep-rooted fantasies. To be seduced, to be persuaded to
want someone, is thrilling. Seduction is not just powerful
men and passive women. The tension and excitement of
chasing, persuading, making yourself attractive and
desirable, making someone want you, is enjoyed by men and
women alike. Passion and love are made in seduction far
more than in the physical act of sex.

The redefinition of rape and sexual harassment as unwanted
behaviour further contributes to the presumed riskiness of
sex. It is difficult ever to know what another person
truly wants - and even the act of ascertaining whether
something is wanted can itself be unwanted. Young adults
have been taught that the only way to inoculate themselves
against the danger of doing something unwanted is through
the formal process of ascertaining consent.

One legacy of the sexual revolution is that when it comes
to sex there are few remaining taboos. Consenting adults
can do with and to each other anything they please. The
imagination, not morality, sets limits on sexual
activity. But the emphasis here is on the consenting. It
might be the case that anything goes, but for consent to
be requested and given things can't be worked out in the
heat of the moment. There's no room for spontaneity when
everything must be predetermined and micromanaged. Once
underway, you can't veer off-script. Of course, in the
reality of the sexual encounter, what we want is not known
in advance, but made up as we go along. But what we can
never consent to is sex without consent.

* * *

Самое же главное, что произошло от #metoo, по факту
это движение нахуй отменило секс в традиционном виде.
Учитывая количество порно, интерактивного порно,
секс-роботов, 3д порно на любой вкус, потребность
в женщинах для секса перестала быть насущной.
Стараниями антисекс-феминисток, добивавшихся и
добившихся насаждения стандарта, ухаживание превратилось
из романтической и увлекательной игры в последовательность
договоренностей, по формату ничем не отличной от секаса
с проститутками. В результате же, совращение нарисованной
Гермионы Грейнджер стало и интереснее, и романтичнее,
и увлекательнее, чем общение с живыми женщинами,
что проститутками, что непроститутками, благо разницу
старательно стирали и стерли.

В теории, в сексе (по согласию или в проституции
Вайнштейн-стайл) нет ничего страшного, и от стакана
воды он отличаться не должен. Но на практике, секс
сделали травматическим или потенциально травматическим
как раз те самые борцы с харассментом, которые боролись
за благополучие травматизированных. И теперь это занятие
скучное, непродуктивное, тухлое как носки и потенциально
опасное - травмами для теток и metoo-разбирательствами
для дядек.

В общем, пухлая рука Андреи Дворкин дотянулась
из могилы, и секс отправился на свалку истории, вслед
за курением, виниловыми пластинками, VCR и

Ну и хуй с ними тащемта, будем торренты качать.
И дешевле и проблем меньше.

Автор текста из spiked-online зовется Joanna Williams,
бывшая феминистка, уволившаяся из движа по понятным причинам,
и она изрядно много всего пишет, и что мне попадалось -
было чрезвычайно умно. Сделаю выписки, если доберусь руками.



(Читать комментарии)

Добавить комментарий:

(комментарий будет скрыт)
Identity URL: 
имя пользователя:    
Вы должны предварительно войти в LiveJournal.com
E-mail для ответов: 
Вы сможете оставлять комментарии, даже если не введете e-mail.
Но вы не сможете получать уведомления об ответах на ваши комментарии!
Внимание: на указанный адрес будет выслано подтверждение.
Имя пользователя:
HTML нельзя использовать в теме сообщения

Обратите внимание! Этот пользователь включил опцию сохранения IP-адресов пишущих комментарии к его дневнику.