Monday, 5 January 2009

Two thousand and nine offensive ideas?

And so back to what could be termed jointly 'work', 'training' or 'college'. I need to choose one word and stick with it, methinks. Any suggestions? Maybe I should just call it Dave. Anyway, with the daily commute comes the daily free paper shower, and with that comes the inevitable love section. Today's Metro contained some sex predictions for 2009.

Yes, it did.

Petra Joy (the name
is a coincidence, but since only one other person who reads this will get the irony of someone being called "Petra Joy" it's not as funny as it could be) has this to say:

We are past fluffy handcuffs now and many women and men are ready to go a few steps further to enjoy more intimacy and even better orgasms, namely 'gender-bending'. Men have always been restricted to being butch and in control and women to being passive and feminine. More women will be wearing strap-ons and a few hunky guys might enjoy dressing up in killer heels. This kind of role play allows you to act out fantasies beyond the restrictions that usually apply to gender roles.

Wha... wha... WHAT?!

I mean, just WHAT?

Does anyone else find that, apart from anything else, undeniably SEXIST?!


Anonymous said...

Oh not at all. I'm consistently both passive and feminine. So much so I never use any active verbs at all and... oh wait, that was one. Shit. Um, I mean, humbug. Coz I don't swear, far too unfeminine.

I mean Jesus, she's liberal enough for strap-ons and crossdressing but she can't even imagine outside of stereotypes? If she wanted to be that backwards she may as well have just suggested that women have no sex drive at all and men are all rapists.

And don't get me started on fluffy handcuffs :P

Anonymous said...

Grr and double Grr.

See - that ain't passive at all.

What f**king generalisations are we talking about here - life generally for men and women or in the bedroom. Also. How the hell is being a littler more assertive and in control supposed to be construed as 'gender-bending'?

Plus, I do not need to buckle myself into a strap-on and imitate a male to be in control/aggressive or whatever the hell is meant to be the opposite of the *obviously* passive state of femininity.

I'll stop before I become irate.

Molly Ren said...

I have a feeling she meant well.

Innocent Loverboy said...

BS: Her stance on such "unconventional" things (although maybe she is trying to be shocking) as strapons and crossdressing is baffling, considering how she neuters mentioning them by putting up these stereotypes. In her movies, apparently (although I've never seen one, should investimagate), female fantasies are often played out, and men are put into a more submissive role; maybe she's trying to do that in text? But whatever she's doing, she's doing it poorly.

LP: I can just imagine Dick Dastardly saying "grr and double grr." That's going to be in my head all afternoon, damn it!

MR: I agree that she meant well, but she didn't come across as doing so - she came across as sexist. Other people in the article (such as Sarah, the editor of Scarlet) had much more appropriate things to say about the future of sex.
Also, new blog to explore. I will do so when I'm back from college and not being watched. ;)

All: One more point... why is she assuming that sex is all based around roles of dominant/submissive, or even boy/girl? Also confusing.

Anonymous said...

Because she's desperately heteronormative? Sorry, I just like that word, it has good sounds.
Her website says "I choose to embrace taboo subjects such as male bisexuality and the prostate as an erogenous zone for (heterosexual) men." I'm sorry, these are taboo since *when* exactly? People have been going made over the prostate thing for a while now, it's practically the big 'in' thing (scuse the puns) for sex.

As for the D/s bit, I'm just guessing that she's so into it that it's probably hard for her to do sex, or even really conceive of sex, outside of the power play thing.

The whole 'porn for women' thing is all very well and good but I think that that type of director often gets some very odd ideas.
Like our dear Petra.

Apparently her films are about "female pleasure", now I haven't seen them either, but I very much doubt even if we were to take the entirety of her work that it would cover the whole broad spectrum of "female pleasure". She seems to presume, like many of her ilk, that there is but one form of female desire that she, naturally, caters to.

Her assertion, on the topic of mainstream porn created by men, that "No wonder these films do not turn women on." is particularly confusing and awful. What, *all* porn films not made by women? They don't turn on *any* women? Then pray tell, Petra, what gender am I?

Also, if I'm going to be picking holes, there's no such word as 'aestheticist' and even if there were it wouldn't mean what she thinks it does.
Plus, she claims to "show a variety of body types" but looking through her gallery I can only see, what, maybe size 12 at the biggest? I dunno, I'm not a good judge, but that's not even as big as the national average and I certainly don't see any women even *my* size, which, though larger than average, is certainly not colossal.

Epic fail all round I think.

Anonymous said...

Also, in my rantage I forgot to mention one thing: I wonder what she'd say to the idea that some women actually *get off* on male satisfaction, being degraded, being submissive, force fellatio or any of the other things that don't fit her version of female desire?