# Article on Feeding Erotica



## butch (Aug 28, 2009)

Enjoy-


http://www.alternet.org/sex/142213/...moralistic,_thinness-obsessed_culture/?page=1


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Aug 28, 2009)

It most likely goes without saying, but read the comment section at your own risk people, because it's already depressing.


----------



## Tad (Aug 28, 2009)

Hmmm, some interesting stuff on the first page, but to me the second buys into a lot of stereotypes and then comes to conclusions based on them. I'd love to hear Ivy's take on this, in particular--I assume that the Ivy in question is the one who posts on Dimensions. Not saying that the article doesn't have good points in the end, but I think a little more journalistic investigation might have been called for to back up some of the statements made.


----------



## marlowegarp (Aug 28, 2009)

Articles like these always feel like there are paragraphs missing. They will be going along, making their point, when WOOOOAAAAHHH they make huge leaps in logic (often with no evidence at all) and and then it's logical fallacy time. Nevertheless, thanks for sharing, Butch.


----------



## Ash (Aug 28, 2009)

I especially like this last line: "And in fetishizing consumption that makes women too big to move, the genre makes it hard to look at the pleasure on their faces and not see the violence that follows quickly behind."

Um. What?

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but it certainly isn't MY feeding fetish being described here.


----------



## marlowegarp (Aug 28, 2009)

I've seen the way you slap those Oreos around. Where will the cycle end?!


----------



## joswitch (Aug 28, 2009)

Gah! This article with the stereotypes! Esp. the immobility BS - how many feedees / feeders want that in *reality*? Seriously?? And the irony - cos isn't Ivy a self-motivated feedee? On Big Cuties? Run by Heather who is also a self-motivated feedee?? Where are the evil exploiting menz in this picture?? But - Ok this bit made me lol! 'rejecting the penis as the "ultimate bestower of rapture"' ... Awesomesauce! ... Psst! Hey Baby - c'm'ere! I gotz some rapture to bestow upon ya!


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 28, 2009)

I'm less than thrilled that BC was linked to this article. I do not want to end up plastered on joke sites all over the internet. :x

Other than that.. typical article, typical comments.


----------



## bdog (Aug 28, 2009)

I thought the article was pretty good until it turned to shite at the end.

Seems like someone should write a balanced but generally pro-feeding article that's intelligent but not overly long/complicated, and suitable for the broader public. Or point me in the direction of one?


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 28, 2009)

article's mostly on point re: transgressive fetish et al., but i was disappointed enough in the author's characterization of "if the woman happens to enjoy it, that's secondary" et al. towards the end that i contacted her for a good crack in her bitch mouth.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 28, 2009)

bdog said:


> Seems like someone should write a balanced but generally pro-feeding article that's intelligent but not overly long/complicated, and *suitable for the broader public*.



NO.

if feeding was meant for the general public, it wouldn't exist. the banana republic's perverse fascination with the crass ways of the lowly margin do not portend any reason to instruct them of their non-lifestyle.


----------



## Ivy (Aug 29, 2009)

i am just now seeing this and am really.... stunned. i don't really know what to say other than that this is bizarre and that i am not pleased at all.

i had no idea about this article. would have been nice if she would have contacted me before using me as the poster child for her article by name. i'm still processing this. i will be contacting the author/bitch magazine (where the article was originally printed according to the page). 

as joswitch said, i am a self motivated feedee. i've had a few long term relationships with men who are feeders, but even when i am single i am still gaining and into this for me. the authors conclusions about the fetish (and myself) are all kinds of inaccurate. 

my guess is that she saw the videos some jerk stole off of my now defunct bbwpinups site that are on youtube and has not looked extensively at any other bbw/feeding porn.

i just called Bitch and left a message on their answering system. hopefully i will hear from someone soon and can discuss this entire situation with them. if anyone else would like to contact them their number is (877) 21-BITCH.

gotta say it is bizarre to see my name printed in a magazine that i've been an avid reader of for 10+ years. wtf?!

edit: re: the paragraph about me looking off camera at my male camera man-- i've never had a male camera man except for one or two sets... haha.


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Aug 29, 2009)

Ashley said:


> I especially like this last line: "And in fetishizing consumption that makes women too big to move, the genre makes it hard to look at the pleasure on their faces and not see the violence that follows quickly behind."



That's borderline engrish just in terms of awkward language. 

I think I know everything I need to about this article. -__-

Ivy: let us know how that goes. You should be able to rip out the kidneys of author and magazine and beat them over the head with them, metaphorically speaking. >_<


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 29, 2009)

there's zero use in contacting the magazine for an article that's already been printed - by a freelancer-not-staffer u of chicago '10

letters page at best, or maybe a good chiding for the editor-not-author for letting in too much potentially libelous artistic license, though i doubt it with bitch


----------



## Ivy (Aug 29, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> there's zero use in contacting the magazine for an article that's already been printed - by a freelancer-not-staffer u of chicago '10
> 
> letters page at best, or maybe a good chiding for the editor-not-author for letting in too much potentially libelous artistic license, though i doubt it with bitch



i've had to deal with other magazines/news sources regarding them printing misinformation about me/others/feederism. contacting the magazine via email and phone and having a good bitch fit has helped in several cases in regards to getting a retraction/follow up/fixing their boo boo.


----------



## Ivy (Aug 29, 2009)

http://bitchmagazine.org/article/feast-of-burden

The same article on the Bitch magazine website. The author replied to the comment left by Juicy Jacqueline earlier. I left my .02 for her as well. I think that this is probably the best forum to share your opinions on the piece should you feel the need or desire to do so.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 29, 2009)

> So perhaps in future;
> 1. ask permission before you write about a girl


jurp



> So perhaps in future;
> 1. ask permission before you write about a girl


jurp



> So perhaps in future;
> 1. ask permission before you write about a girl


jurp


----------



## Duniwin (Aug 29, 2009)

The three paragraphs where the author cited sources are not bad, but the author started of with some faulty assumptions (big cuties and bbw pinups are male controlled feeding porn sites?) and the last two paragraphs got way off base.


----------



## pinuptami (Aug 29, 2009)

Duniwin said:


> The three paragraphs where the author cited sources are not bad, but the author started of with some faulty assumptions (big cuties and bbw pinups are male controlled feeding porn sites?) and the last two paragraphs got way off base.



Didn't you know Heather and I are secretly not the webmasters on our respective sites and instead were puppets of men? Jeez I thought everyone knew that.

But seriously...this article hurts Jesus's feelings. 

(seriously)


----------



## Ivy (Aug 29, 2009)

Duniwin said:


> The three paragraphs where the author cited sources are not bad, but the author started of with some faulty assumptions (big cuties and bbw pinups are male controlled feeding porn sites?) and the last two paragraphs got way off base.



I agree with you. My main issue (other than being used as an example without her speaking to me once to get real information) is with the last few paragraphs, the last one especially.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 30, 2009)

I posted a reply.

I don't get how Bitch, of all publications does not even consider the notion that a female engaging in sexual activity is doing so because it brings her pleasure.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 30, 2009)

a whole publication does agree with one unenlightened freelancer's views


----------



## Wild Zero (Aug 30, 2009)

it's not my fault people can't handle their sexual addictions and have to resort to disgusting stuff like this to get off.





And as a cancer survivor





What I have a problem with and what I feel is disgusting, is the feeding.
And it has NOTHING to do with sex...it's not my fault people can't handle their sexual addictions and have to resort to disgusting stuff like this to get off.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 30, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> a whole publication does agree with one unenlightened freelancer's views



does _not _that should be


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Aug 30, 2009)

FA X seems to take objection to people who are upset because of this objective, outside perspective and people unwilling to live up to the real world.

I've noticed that people generally use the term "real world" when they want to say "my limited subjective experiences are infinitely more valid than your limited subjective experiences."


----------



## Duniwin (Aug 30, 2009)

Ivy said:


> I agree with you. My main issue (other than being used as an example without her speaking to me once to get real information) is with the last few paragraphs, the last one especially.



I can understand your being upset with being used as an example, but I disagree with you on it. 
Average citizens and journalists alike are free to publish stories and links about any figure the public may have heard about without first talking to the person.

If I newspaper editor wanted to print an editorial about her reaction to Barak Obama's stance on health care, she don't have sit down with the President first. If I wanted to start a thread in the main forum about British reality show contestant Susan Boyle, I don't need to give her a phone call first. If a geeky webcomic want's to talk about Felicia Day's new webseries, they don't need to Tweet with her on Twitter first.

Would the article have been better if she had talked to you and asked you some questions? Yes, absolutely. That's not the point. The information you she found on you was publicly assessable. If her article had used Susan Boyle or Barak Obama as examples I would not expect her to talk to the source. When your work is available to the public, you have to acccept that the public will react to it.

Anyway I agree with you about the last couple paragraphs. The author falsely assumed that Big Cuties and Bbw Pinups are male dominated porn sites rather than female owned and operated modeling sites. I do agree with the author that feeding porn "[is] different from much of traditional porn only in the poundage."


----------



## steve-aka (Aug 30, 2009)

Duniwin said:


> I can understand your being upset with being used as an example, but I disagree with you on it.
> Average citizens and journalists alike are free to publish stories and links about any figure the public may have heard about without first talking to the person.
> 
> If I newspaper editor wanted to print an editorial about her reaction to Barak Obama's stance on health care, she don't have sit down with the President first. If I wanted to start a thread in the main forum about British reality show contestant Susan Boyle, I don't need to give her a phone call first. If a geeky webcomic want's to talk about Felicia Day's new webseries, they don't need to Tweet with her on Twitter first.
> ...



I must say in response to this that just because someone has a legal right to do something doesn't make it ethically right. All too often in this country we become caught up in our "right" to free speech and of the press and forget about the simple act of what is the "right" thing to do. I mean look at Fred Phelps' anti-gay nut-jobs picketing the funerals of dead soldiers for an extreme take on this view of rights. Now the author of this article, Jessica Hester, isn't anywhere near as crazy as the Phelps' bigots, but she does have an obvious agenda behind her so-called journalism, which is proven by the fact that she didn't even try to contact Ivy.

Sure, Ivy's website may be publicly accessible but it's not like she's anywhere near as inaccessible as the examples you've used here of Barak Obama, Susan Boyle, et al. It would've been way easier for Ms. Hester to contact Ivy than for her to contact any of the other people you've listed. Now, of course, Ivy didn't have to speak to her but there are plenty of other women with similar websites out there she could have attempted to contact but she didn't. She singled Ivy out for some reason and used her as a catch-all example in order to propel her agenda forward for the article. This smacks of biased reporting at best and yellow journalism at worst.

Now, of course, Ms. Hester has a "right" to state her opinion but it was couched in an air of "research", what with using "sources" to back up her opinions and all. But this is ultimately misleading to the unwary reader as it makes it seem like her opinions are backed by scientifically researched proof. However, anyone can find and use social sciences research to prove whatever they want. In fact there is some evidence supporting a _decrease_ in rape due to increased access to pornography via the internet: 

http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/

http://www.impactlab.com/2008/01/06/internet-porn-shown-to-decrease-incidence-of-rape/

Now, I'm not sure if these statistics are really correlative but they show just how anyone with a computer and internet access can get "proof" of their opinion with a few clicks of the mouse.

The bottom line here is that if Ms. Hester really wanted to do an unbiased report on "feeding porn" then she should have at least tried to contact Ivy, as well as other women who run websites with similar themes, so they could share their views with her. She should have also tried to talk to the men who frequent, or at least appreciate, the women who run these sites as well to get their side. I know we, both the men and women in the feedism world, are an elusive bunch with a lot of well-warranted mistrust of the general public regarding our "fetish", but she still should have _at least_ tried, then, if no one wanted to talk to her, write about that in the article. The fact that she didn't do any of this says to me that she was less interested in finding out the psychological and social undercurrents within our particular subgroup of sexuality and more interested in advancing her own already biased agenda against pornography in general. This sadly just serves to propagate more divisiveness in our culture as well as less understanding, two things we definitely _don't_ need more of.


----------



## Ivy (Aug 30, 2009)

Duniwin said:


> I can understand your being upset with being used as an example, but I disagree with you on it.
> Average citizens and journalists alike are free to publish stories and links about any figure the public may have heard about without first talking to the person.
> 
> If I newspaper editor wanted to print an editorial about her reaction to Barak Obama's stance on health care, she don't have sit down with the President first. If I wanted to start a thread in the main forum about British reality show contestant Susan Boyle, I don't need to give her a phone call first. If a geeky webcomic want's to talk about Felicia Day's new webseries, they don't need to Tweet with her on Twitter first.
> ...



steve-aka pretty much summed up everything that I am thinking and feeling perfectly.

I wouldn't have minded being used as an example had she written things that actually applied to me or done a bit more research. She watched one stolen youtube video of me from 2006. That was her research on me. I understand that I put myself out there to be commented on, judged, etc. I am okay with that. This isn't the first time that something like this has popped up, however, this is the first time that the person writing the article has not properly researched me before using me as an example. Not to mention the topic at hand. With someone like President Obama, there are hundreds of thousands of articles, books, papers etc all with differing opinions his opinion on health care. With me there will be nothing aside from my website and any of the posts that I have made here or on that other fatty site. She essentially did no research on me before using me as her example. That is where my problem with her using me in her article lies. 

I feel like had she properly researched any of this the last few paragraphs would have been very different.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 30, 2009)

The lack of research should be embarassing to this author.

Not for anything, feederism is hardly an exclusively "dom male feeder/sub female feedee" kink. While it's true that most available porn is geared towards heterosexual males, that is also true in mainstream porn.

There are female feeders, male feedees, and dominant feedees of both genders. I've personally been involved with a dominant male feedee/gainer. I don't know if this is the norm or the majority, but it does exist and I don't think it's *that* uncommon. Heck, the author could have just logged onto the BHM/FFA part of this site to see that it's not all about women.


----------



## what (Aug 31, 2009)

this article was more one sided than anything i believe, she really only gave her take on bbws and gainers. Also, i have to say, she was HARSH on ivy, i mean, i just found her profile, and i think ivy is a really sweet girl, and for the author to pretty much accuse her of being sort of an outcast of society is totally, well, mean, but more just... MEAN!

sorry you got a bad rap ivy, youre still awsome though  -what


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 31, 2009)

there is nothing ethically wrong with this article.

it's not even poorly-researched, most of the actual citations are great, it's just lazy about inserting bias - which a real editor would've caught, but also things an editor would have no way of knowing, like that she didn't do her homework to find out that the sites are female-run.

unfortunately, you undisciplined scrotes couldn't resist pumping the hit count with pointless comments and the author will be getting congratulated on generating controversy and public interest rather than a stern talking-to about fact-checking. congratulations, you just godmothered an ann coulter in potentia.

and for the record, we should be thankful the author isn't stupid - a lesser talent would've correlated some of the model's other clips, like suffocating under plastic bags - in with her transgressive deathwish theory.


----------



## Ivy (Aug 31, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> and for the record, we should be thankful the author isn't stupid - a lesser talent would've correlated some of the model's other clips, like suffocating under plastic bags - in with her transgressive deathwish theory.



as far as i personally know or anyone else knows, the author of the article never came across my current website* or my clips4sale due to her laziness. nice personal jab though!


*the clips that she referenced were videos from a site rip of another model who has my content on her site. the videos were then posted on youtube by a fan. the web address in those videos is to my old website on bbwpinups. the article makes no mention of any of the places online where i currently post my photos or videos.


----------



## Oldtimer76 (Aug 31, 2009)

I've posted a few replies there, but cannot find them. Guess it takes some time for them to show up...

I believe this is a stupid article and I'm getting bored from some very small-minded people on there!


----------



## Judge_Dre (Aug 31, 2009)

I mostly agree with the author's point about the allure of transgressive sexuality. It's the last couple of paragraphs that leave me scratching my head. It seems to me that they were tagged on just so that no one would get the idea that the author was promoting this sort of alternative sexuality. I tinink sometimes, writers may feel pressure to write such things due the bias of the editors or publisher. I use to write for SexHerald.com and wrote an article on BBW porn. I interviewed Heather Boyle for it. My editor loved it, but the publisher and his cronies killed it. I don't think it was promoting what they wanted. It was certainty much more positive that this Bitch article.


----------



## katorade (Aug 31, 2009)

> To publicly eat when youre already fat might be one of the most transgressive behaviors available to the modern woman. And though feeding pornography eroticizes the pain of overeating, it also emphasizes a certain possibility for female pleasure that is decidedly antagonistic to the heteronormative model -- in other words, theres no penis necessary. (In his essay on porn in the book _Fat: The Anthropology of an Obsession, _anthropologist Don Kulick suggests that feeding pornography is a rejection of the penis as the ultimate bestower of rapture.)




Pffff, either Don Kulick either thinks too highly of himself or doesn't know much about women.

Seriously, since when is "no penis necessary" a NEW thing or fat girl specific? I thought it was widely accepted knowledge that most women DON'T get off on intercourse alone.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 31, 2009)

Judge_Dre said:


> I mostly agree with the author's point about the allure of transgressive sexuality. It's the last couple of paragraphs that leave me scratching my head. It seems to me that they were tagged on just so that no one would get the idea that the author was promoting this sort of alternative sexuality. I tinink sometimes, writers may feel pressure to write such things due the bias of the editors or publisher. I use to write for SexHerald.com and wrote an article on BBW porn. I interviewed Heather Boyle for it. My editor loved it, but the publisher and his cronies killed it. I don't think it was promoting what they wanted. It was certainty much more positive that this Bitch article.



send pls. does it remain unpublished?


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 31, 2009)

katorade said:


> Pffff, either Don Kulick either thinks too highly of himself or doesn't know much about women.
> 
> Seriously, since when is "no penis necessary" a NEW thing or fat girl specific? I thought it was widely accepted knowledge that most women DON'T get off on intercourse alone.



something true about women is widely accepted knowledge?


----------



## joswitch (Aug 31, 2009)

Ferzackerly! But you got to admit his phrasing is hysterical! I like to imagine that when Don gets a girl back to his 'pimptastic crib' that he does a little drumroll and a fanfare and starts shouting 'And NOW appearing before for your priveledged eyes - the "ultimate bestower of pleasure"!!!' And then when he drops his jeans, instead of boxers he has a little red velvet curtain that he winches aside with a tiny squeaky pulley to reveal his junk.. At which point he strikes at "Ta-daa!" pose and waits for swooning applause.. XD


----------



## katorade (Aug 31, 2009)

joswitch said:


> Ferzackerly! But you got to admit his phrasing is hysterical! I like to imagine that when Don gets a girl back to his 'pimptastic crib' that he does a little drumroll and a fanfare and starts shouting 'And NOW appearing before for your priveledged eyes - the "ultimate bestower of pleasure"!!!' And then when he drops his jeans, instead of boxers he has a little red velvet curtain that he winches aside with a tiny squeaky pulley to reveal his junk.. At which point he strikes at "Ta-daa!" pose and waits for swooning applause.. XD



I just don't see what that has to do at ALL with the rest of the article! It's a similar circumstance for women all across the board, not just fat women or women into any kind of fetish. It's like saying fat girls don't just eat their tears, they eat their penis, too. Stupid!


----------



## Oldtimer76 (Aug 31, 2009)

When viewing Feast of Burden on Bitch magazine again:

Looks to me that the posts of the person who attacks people the most aren't deleted, but other less attacking posts are...:doh:
Is he maybe part of the Bitch Team or something?

Just curious...


----------



## steve-aka (Sep 1, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> there is nothing ethically wrong with this article.
> 
> it's not even poorly-researched, most of the actual citations are great, it's just lazy about inserting bias - which a real editor would've caught, but also things an editor would have no way of knowing, like that she didn't do her homework to find out that the sites are female-run.
> 
> ...



So you don't consider bias to be ethically improper? Well, perhaps some bias is harmless, such as my bias towards liking fat women. However the bias in this article is pernicious in that it not only portrays feedism and the women who participate in it as some sort of masculine-controlled cadre of fetishistic robots, it makes no effort to even talk to said women. This is bias of the highest order, in other words, bigotry. Bigotry with possibly a hint of lipophobia emanating from it.

However, even if we give the author the benefit of the doubt and call the article as written merely lazy journalism, any editor worth her salt would have seen the obvious one-sided nature of the article and insisted Hester get a quote or two from Ivy and/or some other plus-size paysite models. Alas, that was not done, which strikes of a broader editorial bias against feedism. This larger bias is even worse than the article itself as it smacks of a greater agenda of unfounded and unenlightened censorship that, frankly, frightens me. What harm has the feedism community done to people in the general population? What harm has the feedism community done to the women's rights movement? What harm has the feedism community done to the editors of _Bitch_ magazine?

As for impudently insulting all the people who felt it necessary to leave a comment over on the article's page, I don't see how debate over the bias and poor execution of said article is gonna somehow elevate Hester to the status of Ann Coulter. Also, you imply that we should just keep our mouths shut and not defend ourselves and one of the icons of our community from an unprovoked attack. Should we just sit back and let their bigoted statements go unchallenged? That is weak and cowardly, sir! However, you're certainly within your rights if you don't want to fight back but don't insult those who do simply because you're too afraid of making a scene by drawing attention to ours. Reading your statements on this subject not only here but elsewhere across the Weight Board, it seems to me that you are quite happy with your place in the feedism closet. I'm not saying you should walk down the street carrying a placard stating, "I feed fat chicks for fun and pleasure!" but, sheesh, you're the one who needs to grow a scrote surrounding a pair and fight back when your tribe is being attacked! Or, at the very least, stop being so insensitive and insulting to the very community you profess to being a part of when _they_ choose to fight. In other words, sir, stop biting the hand that feeds her!


----------



## thatgirl08 (Sep 1, 2009)

steve-aka said:


> As for impudently insulting all the people who felt it necessary to leave a comment over on the article's page, I don't see how debate over the bias and poor execution of said article is gonna somehow elevate Hester to the status of Ann Coulter. Also, you imply that we should just keep our mouths shut and not defend ourselves and one of the icons of our community from an unprovoked attack. Should we just sit back and let their bigoted statements go unchallenged? That is weak and cowardly, sir! However, you're certainly within your rights if you don't want to fight back but don't insult those who do simply because you're too afraid of making a scene by drawing attention to ours. Reading your statements on this subject not only here but elsewhere across the Weight Board, it seems to me that you are quite happy with your place in the feedism closet. I'm not saying you should walk down the street carrying a placard stating, "I feed fat chicks for fun and pleasure!" but, sheesh, you're the one who needs to grow a scrote surrounding a pair and fight back when your tribe is being attacked! Or, at the very least, stop being so insensitive and insulting to the very community you profess to being a part of when _they_ choose to fight. In other words, sir, stop biting the hand that feeds her!



I really, really hate to get involved in this as I realize this was directed at Dan and not me, but this whole paragraph bothered me. For the record, Dan wrote a note discussing the parts of the article that bothered him to the author of the article, which I believe he mentioned in one of his comments on this thread. 

re: Hester/Ann Coulter, his whole point was that you're drawing attention even more so to the article and thus causing more controversy/discussion. I'm sure Bitch magazines loves this as it makes the article more interesting to read and giving it (and thus, them) more exposure. If you have an issue with the article, write a note to the author explaining why. I don't think having 15 paysite girls and 15 feeders commenting THIS IS SO UNFAIR AND MEAN YOU DID NOT EVEN INTERVIEW HER is going to do anything except fuel fat/feederism hating responses by others reading the comments.

ETA: I do think it's horrible that they didn't interview Ivy for this. It might not be a law that you have to, but that doesn't make it right.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 1, 2009)

steve-aka said:


> So you don't consider bias to be ethically improper? Well, perhaps some bias is harmless, such as my bias towards liking fat women. However the bias in this article is pernicious in that it not only portrays feedism and the women who participate in it as some sort of masculine-controlled cadre of fetishistic robots, it makes no effort to even talk to said women. This is bias of the highest order, in other words, bigotry. Bigotry with possibly a hint of lipophobia emanating from it.
> 
> However, even if we give the author the benefit of the doubt and call the article as written merely lazy journalism, any editor worth her salt would have seen the obvious one-sided nature of the article and insisted Hester get a quote or two from Ivy and/or some other plus-size paysite models. Alas, that was not done, which strikes of a broader editorial bias against feedism. This larger bias is even worse than the article itself as it smacks of a greater agenda of unfounded and unenlightened censorship that, frankly, frightens me. What harm has the feedism community done to people in the general population? What harm has the feedism community done to the women's rights movement? What harm has the feedism community done to the editors of _Bitch_ magazine?
> 
> As for impudently insulting all the people who felt it necessary to leave a comment over on the article's page, I don't see how debate over the bias and poor execution of said article is gonna somehow elevate Hester to the status of Ann Coulter. Also, you imply that we should just keep our mouths shut and not defend ourselves and one of the icons of our community from an unprovoked attack. Should we just sit back and let their bigoted statements go unchallenged? That is weak and cowardly, sir! However, you're certainly within your rights if you don't want to fight back but don't insult those who do simply because you're too afraid of making a scene by drawing attention to ours. Reading your statements on this subject not only here but elsewhere across the Weight Board, it seems to me that you are quite happy with your place in the feedism closet. I'm not saying you should walk down the street carrying a placard stating, "I feed fat chicks for fun and pleasure!" but, sheesh, you're the one who needs to grow a scrote surrounding a pair and fight back when your tribe is being attacked! Or, at the very least, stop being so insensitive and insulting to the very community you profess to being a part of when _they_ choose to fight. In other words, sir, stop biting the hand that feeds her!



tl;dr

if bias was unethical there would be no journalism, no art forms, no films. the editor is supposed to remove opinions, but this one has chosen to slyly classify the piece as op-ed. what can you do? bias is great; you're supposed to prove your bias using facts to make your point. this girl didn't complete part of that. but again, it's not her fault; she's some excitable college cunt looking for her big break. the editor failed to do her job and has her thumb in her nose over it.


----------



## steve-aka (Sep 2, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> I really, really hate to get involved in this as I realize this was directed at Dan and not me, but this whole paragraph bothered me. For the record, Dan wrote a note discussing the parts of the article that bothered him to the author of the article, which I believe he mentioned in one of his comments on this thread.
> 
> re: Hester/Ann Coulter, his whole point was that you're drawing attention even more so to the article and thus causing more controversy/discussion. I'm sure Bitch magazines loves this as it makes the article more interesting to read and giving it (and thus, them) more exposure. If you have an issue with the article, write a note to the author explaining why. I don't think having 15 paysite girls and 15 feeders commenting THIS IS SO UNFAIR AND MEAN YOU DID NOT EVEN INTERVIEW HER is going to do anything except fuel fat/feederism hating responses by others reading the comments.
> 
> ETA: I do think it's horrible that they didn't interview Ivy for this. It might not be a law that you have to, but that doesn't make it right.



I'm sorry the final paragraph of my statement bothered you, and maybe I did come across as rather harsh but certainly no more harsh than he did by calling the people who made remarks in the article's comments section "scrotes". As for his post earlier in this thread where he stated he sent a note to the author, I'm assuming you mean this: http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1263688&postcount=10? Judging from your defense of him here I take it you're a friend of his and therefore probably know the good side of him. I, of course, only know him via his posts on the various Dims boards, and frankly he comes across as very acerbic and insulting most of the time. That said, it's hard to take him seriously, especially when he couches his statements in a thick slurry of cynical sarcasm seemingly only meant to generate an aura of aloof coolness and reap rep points while vaguely touching on the subject at hand. Why not state the contents of his note here in an earnest manner so it can generate some actual conversation? Instead he merely writes, "...i contacted her for a good crack in her bitch mouth", am I supposed to take that seriously? Now, maybe he's a nice guy in real life, but judging by his posts, he seems like an immature and petty man.

As for me drawing more attention to the article by commenting upon it at their website, I confess I have made no such commentary either there nor to the author or editors in private. I feel that as a man it is not my place to do so as it will only further propagate their stereotype of the paternal puppet-master pulling the strings of the female marionettes populating the porn world, thus fueling the feminist fire and ire of their already biased community. Besides I think that many of the women with paysites of their own have said things way better in defense of Ivy and against the article than I ever could have. And speaking of defense, I feel that it is better to actually say something so that the sycophants who believe this feminist anti-porn clap-trap know they must be held accountable for poor and biased reporting. Besides, isn't part of the point of articles like this to generate discussion? 

It seems that people like you and Dan don't want to be singled out for your feedism fetish and I respect your rights to privacy on the matter. However, whether you like it or not, it's inevitable that the mainstream media will discover our subculture, and, to a certain extent, already has. It really doesn't take much effort to research feedism, and the internet _is_ ultimately a public forum accessible to all, even websites like Dimensions and Fantasy Feeder. When the media calls, and it will, should we just scurry and hide? Or should we prepare cogent statements about who we are and why we do what we do? I'm not saying we should all go on talk shows or otherwise actively seek out attention, but when people publish articles with half-truths and biased opinions we shouldn't cower in fear, this is tantamount to admitting to the masses that there is something to be ashamed about for being a feedee/er, but respond with aplomb and show the media that we can be intelligent people who aren't some sort of slavering monsters who all want our mates or ourselves to be immovable slobs that laze around the house eating endless boxes of bon bons. We are people first, and for that reason we should at least get the respect due us without overblown hyperbolic catch-phrase, snap-psychiatric judgments clouding the way.


----------



## steve-aka (Sep 2, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> tl;dr
> 
> if bias was unethical there would be no journalism, no art forms, no films. the editor is supposed to remove opinions, but this one has chosen to slyly classify the piece as op-ed. what can you do? bias is great; you're supposed to prove your bias using facts to make your point. this girl didn't complete part of that. but again, it's not her fault; she's some excitable college cunt looking for her big break. the editor failed to do her job and has her thumb in her nose over it.



Indeed everyone has bias. I'm not necessarily against the more benign forms of bias. What I am against is bias in it's extreme forms of bigotry and prejudice. These are most certainly unethical. Remember that at one time not too long ago homosexuals were routinely arrested for practicing sodomy or for merely going to gay bars. Black people were routinely segregated and held as second-class citizens. Now, I'm certainly not comparing feedism to these horrible acts of heinous bigotry, but we must be wary of bias nonetheless and this article has it to a fairly high degree. Sure, it's op-ed, but it's also lazy journalism, especially when the author could've easily tapped off a quick email to Ivy or did some further research using resources that weren't friendly to her hypothesis in order to at least feign fairness. She may be an "excitable college cunt" but I'm assuming she did at least take some journalism classes where they talked about libel, slander and actual reporting. One doesn't get carte blanche to be prejudiced just because it's passed off as an opinion piece. That is why I'm all for the people who've posted _their_ opinions on the article's forum page. Opinion begets opinion, if we just clammed up then that is sort of like saying to the author and editors that they're right and us feeders/feedees are degenerate scum. By stating our opinions we show them that we are people with valid views who are intelligent, or at least literate, who deserve a voice, especially when we are under attack.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Sep 2, 2009)

steve-aka said:


> As for me drawing more attention to the article by commenting upon it at their website, I confess I have made no such commentary either there nor to the author or editors in private. I feel that as a man it is not my place to do so as it will only further propagate their stereotype of the paternal puppet-master pulling the strings of the female marionettes populating the porn world, thus fueling the feminist fire and ire of their already biased community. Besides I think that many of the women with paysites of their own have said things way better in defense of Ivy and against the article than I ever could have. And speaking of defense, I feel that it is better to actually say something so that the sycophants who believe this feminist anti-porn clap-trap know they must be held accountable for poor and biased reporting. Besides, isn't part of the point of articles like this to generate discussion?
> 
> It seems that people like you and Dan don't want to be singled out for your feedism fetish and I respect your rights to privacy on the matter. However, whether you like it or not, it's inevitable that the mainstream media will discover our subculture, and, to a certain extent, already has. It really doesn't take much effort to research feedism, and the internet _is_ ultimately a public forum accessible to all, even websites like Dimensions and Fantasy Feeder. When the media calls, and it will, should we just scurry and hide? Or should we prepare cogent statements about who we are and why we do what we do? I'm not saying we should all go on talk shows or otherwise actively seek out attention, but when people publish articles with half-truths and biased opinions we shouldn't cower in fear, this is tantamount to admitting to the masses that there is something to be ashamed about for being a feedee/er, but respond with aplomb and show the media that we can be intelligent people who aren't some sort of slavering monsters who all want our mates or ourselves to be immovable slobs that laze around the house eating endless boxes of bon bons. We are people first, and for that reason we should at least get the respect due us without overblown hyperbolic catch-phrase, snap-psychiatric judgments clouding the way.



Do you not see the serious irony in these two paragraphs? You're calling Dan & I cowards for not standing up for feederism and suggest that we're in the 'feedism closet' yet you also admit that you have not commented on the article or sent an email to her? Uhh..


----------



## steve-aka (Sep 2, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> Do you not see the serious irony in these two paragraphs? You're calling Dan & I cowards for not standing up for feederism and suggest that we're in the 'feedism closet' yet you also admit that you have not commented on the article or sent an email to her? Uhh..



I don't think that's ironic at all because, as I stated, I don't want to further fuel their irrational tirade against the "male dominated" porn industry by being a man who's defending it. I also stated that several people have already said better over their what I felt anyway. Many of these people being women who's opinions will ultimately be way more valued by the readers of _Bitch_ magazine than a male voice. What I'm doing here is merely defending the people who have felt a need to voice their opinions over there. Something that you both apparently seem to think is gonna make things worse for us and better for them. I respect your rights to not want to draw attention to _your_selves in this matter but please respect the rights of others who do.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Sep 2, 2009)

steve-aka said:


> I don't think that's ironic at all because, as I stated, I don't want to further fuel their irrational tirade against the "male dominated" porn industry by being a man who's defending it. I also stated that several people have already said better over their what I felt anyway. Many of these people being women who's opinions will ultimately be way more valued by the readers of _Bitch_ magazine than a male voice. What I'm doing here is merely defending the people who have felt a need to voice their opinions over there. Something that you both apparently seem to think is gonna make things worse for us and better for them. I respect your rights to not want to draw attention to _your_selves in this matter but please respect the rights of others who do.



So, wouldn't Dan commenting (like you more or less suggested he do) do the exact same thing considering he's a guy?

The whole point is that having tons of your friends come and say OMG YOU'RE SO WRONG in comments is not the best way to approach it, imo. It draws more attention to it, and most likely doesn't make the author or editor go gee, I wish I would've not written this article/allowed this article to be published because it's giving them publicity and attention. A well written email to the author explaining your thoughts on the article is probably far more effective.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 2, 2009)

steve-aka said:


> Indeed everyone has bias. I'm not necessarily against the more benign forms of bias. What I am against is bias in it's extreme forms of bigotry and prejudice. These are most certainly unethical. Remember that at one time not too long ago homosexuals were routinely arrested for practicing sodomy or for merely going to gay bars. Black people were routinely segregated and held as second-class citizens. Now, I'm certainly not comparing feedism to these horrible acts of heinous bigotry, but we must be wary of bias nonetheless and this article has it to a fairly high degree. Sure, it's op-ed, but it's also lazy journalism, especially when the author could've easily tapped off a quick email to Ivy or did some further research using resources that weren't friendly to her hypothesis in order to at least feign fairness. She may be an "excitable college cunt" but I'm assuming she did at least take some journalism classes where they talked about libel, slander and actual reporting. One doesn't get carte blanche to be prejudiced just because it's passed off as an opinion piece. That is why I'm all for the people who've posted _their_ opinions on the article's forum page. Opinion begets opinion, if we just clammed up then that is sort of like saying to the author and editors that they're right and us feeders/feedees are degenerate scum. By stating our opinions we show them that we are people with valid views who are intelligent, or at least literate, who deserve a voice, especially when we are under attack.



point of order

1. please don't elevate a girl going "yuck" at a fetish to "bigotry"

2. of course one gets carte blanche to be prejudiced just because it's an opinion piece! this is rush limbaugh country dood; we pay those people more than objective journalists.

3. libel doesn't even remotely apply here - the author basically left she-who-must-not-be-named as an already-a-pseudonym and didn't link the video or site in question. there was no mistaking that the article was not "about" that person in the piece itself and any further confusion can blamed on the brave comments-thread martyrs serving our citizens.

4. i've said this too many times around here: talk to the media and fuck yourself. why do i give a shit what people who subscribe to nylon and bust think of my private life? nothing on earth could compel me to speak to the media to convince the world my heart's in the right place when i force-feed my girlfriend and fuck her in the ass. why would i engage with such tripe?

5. the porn industry _is_ male-dominated. it's not worth defending. a lot of lives have been ruined because of it, a lot of girls around here make regretful and unhealthy decisions because of it. there are successful and healthily-run independent companies but why should i waste my time? how does this affect me? they make plenty more money than i do and live with themselves fine.

6. i don't disagree with your description of my board persona but the schmancy alliteration (reap/rep) (aura/aloof) just makes you look like a freshman on open mic night


----------



## butch (Sep 2, 2009)

Wow, so many 'bitches' and 'cunts' and what not in this thread. Seems like whatever gender bias the author's being accused of, her critics are doing the same thing when all they can come up with is to hurl gender-based slurs around.

With the plethora of insults available in the English language, from now on in this thread try insulting the author, the editors, and the readers of Bitch* with gender-neutral slurs. Seriously, you'll get the same point across, and sound more knowledgable doing it, too.

*I can't of course escape the irony of my complaint with the title of the magazine, but the magazine title is meant to be _ironic_, and I don't think the same thing can be claimed of the gender-based insults in this thread.


----------



## Mini (Sep 2, 2009)

butch said:


> Wow, so many 'bitches' and 'cunts' and what not in this thread. Seems like whatever gender bias the author's being accused of, her critics are doing the same thing when all they can come up with is to hurl gender-based slurs around.
> 
> With the plethora of insults available in the English language, from now on in this thread try insulting the author, the editors, and the readers of Bitch* with gender-neutral slurs. Seriously, you'll get the same point across, and sound more knowledgable doing it, too.
> 
> *I can't of course escape the irony of my complaint with the title of the magazine, but the magazine title is meant to be _ironic_, and I don't think the same thing can be claimed of the gender-based insults in this thread.



I seriously don't get the taboo with gender-based insults. I've no problem calling a man a fucking dick and would have said the same thing had it have been a dick who wrote the article. But nope, stupid bitch.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 2, 2009)

Mini said:


> I seriously don't get the taboo with gender-based insults. I've no problem calling a man a fucking dick and would have said the same thing had it have been a dick who wrote the article. But nope, stupid bitch.



from a political standpoint - i get why certain words thrown around will be taboo long after we're get "past" them. the ones rooted in tragedy anyway; me and my friends calling each other fags will have to stay in our sewing circle. but the perception of "cunt" as woman-hating is a huge myth, and in england it's as common as hearing "fuck". was there some genocide i wasn't aware of where women were tattooed with the word 'cunt' and taken to death camps? i'm not saying it's not an effectively offensive, uncouth word, or that a dude should say it to a girl for spilling his drink. but to have the reputation it does with no formal history specific to why is bogus. cunt cunt cunt. i know lots of cunts. i know lots of dicks. i am one. beyond the usual it's-just-words thing, i do not understand the relationship between that particular word and why it signifies the Worst Thing Ever to so many women. at least "bitch" has a genuinely problematic history for black women considering the suffocating majority of young black (OK - and non-black) men idolizing "gangsta" and "pimp" culture.


----------



## mossystate (Sep 2, 2009)

Mini said:


> I seriously don't get the taboo with gender-based insults. I've no problem calling a man a fucking dick and would have said the same thing had it have been a dick who wrote the article. But nope, stupid bitch.



You wind up your cute bit of sexist shit by talking about how you support the wimmins this way and that way....but, when they get too uppity or stupid ( to you ) then they need to shut the fuck up.

Substitute race for gender.....see how it is received. But, that would not be allowed here. This is not about being pissed off at a particular writer, or, for me, in this particular situation, even calling her a bitch ( cuz that is like breathing for some a-holes). You brought all women into it, by bringing up what you are ok with, when it comes to women. You did not treat her as an individual you did not like.

You are really going to sit there and refuse to understand.

Gotta love this bullshit.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 2, 2009)

mossy moves to let the record show there is no such thing as a "stupid bitch"


----------



## Mies (Sep 2, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> mossy moves to let the record show there is no such thing as a "stupid bitch"



Of course there isn't. Just ask one. (And back away.)


----------



## butch (Sep 2, 2009)

Mini said:


> I seriously don't get the taboo with gender-based insults. I've no problem calling a man a fucking dick and would have said the same thing had it have been a dick who wrote the article. But nope, stupid bitch.



I know you don't, because you don't understand what I said. My comment wasn't about you using the word 'bitch,' but about how you chose to disagree with someone else's words by focusing on their biology in a negative way. If you had called the writer a 'fucking dumbass,' you get the same thing across without having to resort to making her gender some part of the equation of why you think her words and her thoughts are stupid.

My comment works equally as well had the writer been male and you said 'stupid dick.' I don't know if that makes it any clearer to you, but hey, I know you're an equal opportunity misanthrope, so it probably makes no difference anyway.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 2, 2009)

butch is basically saying it only would have been acceptable to have called the author a cock, mini, and that you're a big cunt.


----------



## mossystate (Sep 2, 2009)

Dan...* chuckle *...aw...what the hell......* musses your mutton chops *.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 2, 2009)

don't touch me you cock


----------



## mossystate (Sep 2, 2009)

I used mini's cock to do it. And I held Mies' hand to accomplish that. I think you owe me an apology!


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 2, 2009)

i didn't apologize to my mom when i tore her a new one and i ain't startin now


----------



## mossystate (Sep 2, 2009)

It's ok, dan....it's ok. I understand. :happy:


----------



## Weeze (Sep 2, 2009)

You two get a room


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 2, 2009)

you're tupac krissy


----------



## mossystate (Sep 2, 2009)

krismiss said:


> You two get a room



Your regular by the hour motel?

Kris...I only need 30 seconds for what I would do, silly girl.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Sep 2, 2009)

mossystate said:


> Your regular by the hour motel?
> 
> Kris...I only need 30 seconds for what I would do, silly girl.



I'd need 10 seconds. 

But a quick trip to Home Depot beforehand.


----------



## mossystate (Sep 2, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> I'd need 10 seconds.
> 
> But a quick trip to Home Depot beforehand.



Rookie.

...


----------



## Weeze (Sep 2, 2009)

mossystate said:


> Your regular by the hour motel?
> 
> Kris...I only need 30 seconds for what I would do, silly girl.



my b 

............


----------



## thatgirl08 (Sep 2, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> from a political standpoint - i get why certain words thrown around will be taboo long after we're get "past" them. the ones rooted in tragedy anyway; me and my friends calling each other fags will have to stay in our sewing circle. but the perception of "cunt" as woman-hating is a huge myth, and in england it's as common as hearing "fuck". was there some genocide i wasn't aware of where women were tattooed with the word 'cunt' and taken to death camps? i'm not saying it's not an effectively offensive, uncouth word, or that a dude should say it to a girl for spilling his drink. but to have the reputation it does with no formal history specific to why is bogus. cunt cunt cunt. i know lots of cunts. i know lots of dicks. i am one. beyond the usual it's-just-words thing, i do not understand the relationship between that particular word and why it signifies the Worst Thing Ever to so many women. at least "bitch" has a genuinely problematic history for black women considering the suffocating majority of young black (OK - and non-black) men idolizing "gangsta" and "pimp" culture.



Yeah I honestly never thought of the word as being that bad until I started substituting cunt for bitch in daily conversation (hint: it was a mistake)


----------



## bdog (Sep 3, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> from a political standpoint - i get why certain words thrown around will be taboo long after we're get "past" them. the ones rooted in tragedy anyway; me and my friends calling each other fags will have to stay in our sewing circle. but the perception of "cunt" as woman-hating is a huge myth, and in england it's as common as hearing "fuck". was there some genocide i wasn't aware of where women were tattooed with the word 'cunt' and taken to death camps? i'm not saying it's not an effectively offensive, uncouth word, or that a dude should say it to a girl for spilling his drink. but to have the reputation it does with no formal history specific to why is bogus. cunt cunt cunt. i know lots of cunts. i know lots of dicks. i am one. beyond the usual it's-just-words thing, i do not understand the relationship between that particular word and why it signifies the Worst Thing Ever to so many women. at least "bitch" has a genuinely problematic history for black women considering the suffocating majority of young black (OK - and non-black) men idolizing "gangsta" and "pimp" culture.



A week ago I referred to a woman as a cunt because she was treating my girlfriend horribly. My potty mouth British girlfriend said it sounds so much worse when I say it. *shrug*

The moral of the story is that if enough people in a certain region believe that it's the worst thing you can call a woman, then it is. It's kind of a stupid moral, but, you know, there's lots of people that LOVE LOVE LOVE to be offended. If we took away the horribleness of the word cunt they would have less to be self-righteous about. 

ps Dimensions grants these people amnesty, but you didn't hear that from me.


----------



## Mies (Sep 3, 2009)

mossystate said:


> I used mini's cock to do it. And I held Mies' hand to accomplish that. I think you owe me an apology!



I would never let you touch me.


----------



## mossystate (Sep 3, 2009)

Mies said:


> I would never let you touch me.



Please!!!... I want you...dare I say...I yearn for you!!

Get me to the fainting couch...I am getting a bad case of the vapors.

* whimper *






wait...did I just overdo that?...


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 3, 2009)

bdog said:


> The moral of the story is that if enough people in a certain region believe that it's the worst thing you can call a woman, then it is.



what does it mean though? words like this are so wrongfully misconceived. someone calls you a cunt. ok. you get sad and lose confidence in yourself. where do you begin? what does it mean to be a cunt? the funniest thing about keywords that piss people off is that there's nothing concrete about them and yet they're treated as free-floating signifiers. are you angry because you've been exposed and accused of being this..genital? or are you angry that someone would dare say something so taboo to you?

the word cunt has excellent snap and rhythm to it: the n falling on the hard t to sew it up at the end makes for great angry exclamations. that's why people say it, not because you've angered them so much you've inadvertently uncovered their secret hatred for an entire gender. most true hatred of women these days takes place behind closed doors anyway.


----------



## bdog (Sep 3, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> what does it mean though? words like this are so wrongfully misconceived. someone calls you a cunt. ok. you get sad and lose confidence in yourself. where do you begin? what does it mean to be a cunt? the funniest thing about keywords that piss people off is that there's nothing concrete about them and yet they're treated as free-floating signifiers. are you angry because you've been exposed and accused of being this..genital? or are you angry that someone would dare say something so taboo to you?
> 
> the word cunt has excellent snap and rhythm to it: the n falling on the hard t to sew it up at the end makes for great angry exclamations. that's why people say it, not because you've angered them so much you've inadvertently uncovered their secret hatred for an entire gender. most true hatred of women these days takes place behind closed doors anyway.



Oh, I think they 'why' has to do with the 10,000 or so years of shit women have had to endure at the hands of men. You say the word 'cunt' and you subconsciously hit that nerve. Everyone knows a girl or five who has been raped. We're still a decade away from the 100 year anniversary of women's suffrage in the USA. Using the word Cunt is insulting a woman by saying "you are a woman." That's about as bad as it gets. You are not a person. You are a gender. Or. You are not a person. You are a color. 

The irony is that the people who revile the word cunt so much are the one's who give it power. If you call someone a cunt and they're like, "ok... I'm a cunt. Whatevz." It kinda takes the wind out of the proverbial hate sail. 

Dyke used to be a very derogatory word. Then lesbians reclaimed it and they now have an official dyke march. And in doing so they made it so that people couldn't hurt them with that word any longer. (don't want to step on any toes... that's just my understanding of the history of that word.)

anyway, yeah... so i think that's what it means.

edit: 
hmm... don't mean to be dismissive of the word's weight by calling attention to the irony. the point is that the word is what people make of it. like all words.


----------



## butch (Sep 3, 2009)

I enjoy using cunt as much as the next person (and bitch too, shockingly enough), but when you start seeing 'cunt marches' let me know, 'kay? No one has 'reclaimed' that word yet, and as a queer woman, I can tell you I don't refer to myself or my peers as 'dykes,' on a regular basis, so don't think that word is all scrubbed clean of it's derogatory genesis.

Y'all can focus on the words all you want, but the larger idea, as bdog says, is the way focusing on gender, race, sexuality, etc, when you insult people means you see something 'wrong' about that characteristic, otherwise the word wouldn't work as an insult. 

See, look: you fucking whitey, you fucking hetero, you throw like a man. Do any of those have the punch, the heft, the impact, of 'bitch' 'cunt' 'fag,' etc? Of course not. When the day comes that I can say those things and know they wound the same way calling a woman on the street a cunt can, then please use those words with glee.



And, yeah, I know, I'm beating a dead horse, and doing it in a pendantic, humorless feminazi way. Thems the breaks, kid.


----------



## Judge_Dre (Sep 3, 2009)

I think the bitches and cunts debate is taking away from this thread's intention. IMHO. Does anyone know if the editor's of Bitch have responded to the article's criticism?


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 3, 2009)

editor defended the article as an op-ed piece.


----------



## jonah-uk (Sep 3, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> but the perception of "cunt" as woman-hating is a huge myth, and in england it's as common as hearing "fuck".



when used as an insult it's never to refer to a woman though, only men. it sounds really odd to me hearing it used to insult women

(although no doubt the US usage will start to spread over here...)


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 3, 2009)

butch said:


> I enjoy using cunt as much as the next person (and bitch too, shockingly enough), but when you start seeing 'cunt marches' let me know, 'kay? No one has 'reclaimed' that word yet, and as a queer woman, I can tell you I don't refer to myself or my peers as 'dykes,' on a regular basis, so don't think that word is all scrubbed clean of it's derogatory genesis.
> 
> Y'all can focus on the words all you want, but the larger idea, as bdog says, is the way focusing on gender, race, sexuality, etc, when you insult people means you see something 'wrong' about that characteristic, otherwise the word wouldn't work as an insult.
> 
> ...



i agree with all this with the add that liz phair on Noted Album exile in guyville casually proclaiming "you know that i'm a real cunt in spring" had it on its way to something before lilith fair hijacked the course to promote patchouli oil.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 3, 2009)

bdog said:


> Oh, I think they 'why' has to do with the 10,000 or so years of shit women have had to endure at the hands of men. You say the word 'cunt' and you subconsciously hit that nerve. Everyone knows a girl or five who has been raped. We're still a decade away from the 100 year anniversary of women's suffrage in the USA. Using the word Cunt is insulting a woman by saying "you are a woman." That's about as bad as it gets. You are not a person. You are a gender. Or. You are not a person. You are a color.
> 
> The irony is that the people who revile the word cunt so much are the one's who give it power. If you call someone a cunt and they're like, "ok... I'm a cunt. Whatevz." It kinda takes the wind out of the proverbial hate sail.
> 
> ...



the first part of this i still disagree with because again, linking the word to that oppression remains specious to me. the oppression's real, definitely. how that word came to signify the worst thing, as opposed to let's say, pussy or twat - it doesn't compute. why is calling a girl pussy less harsh? pussy is the more commonly-used vag slang, which i guess has desensitized it. but there you go: if one can be desensitized why can't the other?


----------



## bdog (Sep 4, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> the first part of this i still disagree with because again, linking the word to that oppression remains specious to me. the oppression's real, definitely. how that word came to signify the worst thing, as opposed to let's say, pussy or twat - it doesn't compute. why is calling a girl pussy less harsh? pussy is the more commonly-used vag slang, which i guess has desensitized it. but there you go: if one can be desensitized why can't the other?




Heh... well yeah, maybe it is specious. Let me try again. 

Words and symbols come into existence as receptacles for the psyche of a people. 
Racism against black people has it's special word.
Anti-semitism has it's special symbol.
And I think that misogyny needs it's special word, too, because that type of thinking exists. Why cunt as opposed to pussy or twat? Well why not? If a word needs to exist, it will exist. 

A swastika can't be desensitized. It is a boundary. No one wants to desensitize it. 

The link between cunt and misogyny is far more tenuous than that link so I don't really know whether or not it will be desensitized. 

my two cents, anyhow...


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 4, 2009)

bdog said:


> A swastika can't be desensitized. It is a boundary. No one wants to desensitize it.



you just put a big shiny red button in front of me labeled 'do not push'


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 4, 2009)

who would've thunk it's a text character: &#21328; &#21328; &#21328;

i feel like i have my hand up hitler's ass

but yeah 20,000 years as a symbol of peace and it's done for good in like 12


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Sep 5, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> i agree with all this with the add that liz phair on Noted Album exile in guyville casually proclaiming "you know that i'm a real cunt in spring" had it on its way to something before lilith fair hijacked the course to promote patchouli oil.




...whu? 

I think I understood only 2/3rds of the nouns in that sentence, and the whole left me with the impression that I had missed something big.


----------



## katorade (Sep 5, 2009)

Fuzzy Necromancer said:


> ...whu?
> 
> I think I understood only 2/3rds of the nouns in that sentence, and the whole left me with the impression that I had missed something big.



Syntax: It's not a Dr. Seuss character.


----------



## mollycoddles (Sep 7, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> editor defended the article as an op-ed piece.



Could we get a link to that, please? I'm curious as to her justification.


----------



## Fascinita (Sep 10, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> there is nothing ethically wrong with this article.
> 
> it's not even poorly-researched, most of the actual citations are great, it's just lazy about inserting bias - which a real editor would've caught, but also things an editor would have no way of knowing, like that she didn't do her homework to find out that the sites are female-run.
> 
> ...



Quoted for truth.

Also, I wouldn't call what Bitch does "journalism" in the newspaper sense. It's more like pop cultural criticism. Thus the worst you can say about this author is that she's a bit unpolished as a researcher and writer, a little unsophisticated in applying some theory, and that some bias shows. Some of her claims toward the end are a tad over-confident.

On the other hand, many will note that she makes good points about the relationship between and pleasure and food, for example. As a writer in search of a career and a readership (I'm conjecturing), Hester may be unpolished, but I don't think she's a fool. This article--and the pissy controversy around it--is sure to give her a leg up. Maybe it's unfortunate, but the truth is shaped by those positioned to articulate it.

Hello, cultural punditry!


----------



## mergirl (Sep 10, 2009)

bdog said:


> Dyke used to be a very derogatory word. Then lesbians reclaimed it and they now have an official dyke march. And in doing so they made it so that people couldn't hurt them with that word any longer. (don't want to step on any toes... that's just my understanding of the history of that word.)
> 
> anyway, yeah... so i think that's what it means.
> 
> .


You make "Lesbians" sound like an army with the one mind. Actually, for me it is not reclaimed. Here it is not reclaimed and if a mod sees it written it becomes the -"D-word". 
There is too much history between me and that word for it ever to be reclaimed. Obviously not as much history as the N-word but painful history none the less, personally speaking. I never call other women 'dykes' ...never ever. Just so you know.
Cunt, on the other hand.. now thats just a beautiful word in so many ways.. and powerful too.


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Sep 10, 2009)

You know, that reminds me of an obscure dirty joke about a little dutch boy.


----------



## mergirl (Sep 11, 2009)

Fuzzy Necromancer said:


> You know, that reminds me of an obscure dirty joke about a little dutch boy.



yeah..we have one big thing in common him and i!


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Sep 12, 2009)

*rimshot*

It's the Mergirl and Fuzzy Necromancer show! =D


----------

