Originally I wasn’t sure what you meant by rapism. Then I wasn’t sure how you saw it as related to the ad. I still don’t see how the ad promotes rapism, but perhaps as we discuss the other points I’ll understand you better.

I feel comfortable asserting that any man who physically assaults a woman in bed in the context of “having sex” is practicing rapist behaviors, which is to say, is partaking in the rapism society enforces and welcomes men to enjoy as sex.

Rapist behaviors? As in behaving like a rapist? Ok. I agree that there are some physical actions in common between a rape and consensual BDSM sex. This does not make them the same thing.

The conflation that ought to be of more concern, imo, is not between BDSM sex and “real sexual abuse”, but rather with heteronormative “vanilla” sex, sex-pozi ideas about what constitutes “meaningful consent”, the lack of possibilities for achieving consent that is meaningful, whether in a “vanilla/heteronormative” context or a BDSM one, and the willingness of people across the “sexual behavior” spectrum to be so quick and willing to assume consent in present just because someone who smacks around someone else says it is.

I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

The point is this, Jeff: if a woman asks you to hit her during “sex”, what ethical standards and political practices are you supporting if you do it? I’d say you’re engaging in abusive behavior, regardless of how “consensual” it is. If someone is turned on by being cut with a knife, and I cut them, I’ve “cut them”. That they consented to me doing it doesn’t render it “not abuse” or “not a cut”.

I certainly agree that consent does not change what some acts are. A cut doesn’t become something else if done with consent. The word ‘abuse’ is trickier because while it can be used to mean physical acts only, it is more often used to mean that the abuser intended to intimidate, damage, or otherwise control the abused. For example, it would be very strange for a member of a couple who enjoyed participating in BDSM to say they were “in an abusive relationship”.

This is a semantic question, a debate about what the words signify. Whether a given action gets the label ‘abuse’ or not isn’t the real question. What matters is whether that action was wanted.

What ethical and political practices am I supporting if during sex I do things requested of me that would be wrong to do if unrequested? That’s what you’re asking, and all of sex is in this category. It would be wrong for me to kiss someone if I did not believe it was what they wanted, just as it would be wrong for me to hit them without the same belief. There needs to be more caution surrounding hitting than kissing, as the consequences of unwanted hitting are much higher, but ethically it’s all the same continuum. Politically, I don’t see what negative effect comes from people physically enjoying themselves in private.

Why is it “sexy” or “romantic” for a het man to stand erect, with a woman leaning against him, with one leg bent, foot in the air? Why is him being grounded and her not “romantic”?

I don’t understand how this is related. My understanding is that the woman bending her leg in a kiss was invented by hollywood as a way to make kissing larger to show up better on screen. I think one could do an interesting project looking at whether this really is the origin and if so how it spread from movies to life.

Why is men slapping women, in any context at all, considered “acceptable” by men?

In US culture, slapping someone usually has lots of meaning behind it. It’s not primarily about causing physical pain, it’s about humiliation and an assertion of superiority. It’s also much more broadly acceptable for women to slap men. I would say in general, it is not acceptable for men to slap women.

This ad promotes butchness, in white people, female and male. It promotes valuing butchness over other ways of being. This is, if the butch ones are white, simultaneously racist, misogynistic, and deeply homophobic. It’s also pro-ecocide, pro-animal abuse, and pro-genocide, because that’s what butch whiteness exists to do, as well as other forms of whiteness, like the cool, calculating “cerebral” man who plots how many bombs to drop where. Genocidalists are not perceived as “femme” right? Nor are killers/murderers generally. Even if a “femme” person kills, their act is seen to butch them up.

There’s a huge amount in here. Most of it I’m not going to accept without more justification. For example you say that because the ad is pro-butch and full of white people that “it’s also pro-ecocide, pro-animal abuse, and pro-genocide, because that’s what butch whiteness exists to do”. What? And how do bombs come into this? I agree that killing is generally seen as masculine/butch/tough, but how does this fit? This has me really confused.

On an individual level, I believe that personal autonomy is a prime component of morality. If a person says that they’d enjoy being hit, and asks me to hit them, and if I would enjoy hitting them, then the primary ethical standard that I am upholding is the right of individuals to consent to the way that they interact with each other.

To put it another way: the same ethical principle that gives me the right to decline sexual intercourse also gives me the right to consent to it. And why should interactions involving the collision of body parts other than genitals be any different?

Thanks for your reply. Did you have some questions, re: rapism and that ad?

As for calling “Al” out: this information was in the context of finding out this is someone who does not respect women and who is in no way feminist/profeminist, and who is known for being a male supremacist jerk. As this is not a law firm, I feel comfortable asserting that any men who physically assaults a woman in bed in the context of “having sex” is practicing rapist behaviors, which is to say, is partaking in the rapism society enforces and welcomes men to enjoy as sex.

The conflation that ought to be of more concern, imo, is not between BDSM sex and “real sexual abuse”, but rather with heteronormative “vanilla” sex, sex-pozi ideas about what constitutes “meaningful consent”, the lack of possibilities for achieving consent that is meaningful, whether in a “vanilla/heteronormative” context or a BDSM one, and the willingness of people across the “sexual behavior” spectrum to be so quick and willing to assume consent in present just because someone who smacks around someone else says it is. The point is this, Jeff: if a woman asks you to hit her during “sex”, what ethical standards and political practices are you supporting if you do it? I’d say you’re engaging in abusive behavior, regardless of how “consensual” it is. If someone is turned on by being cut with a knife, and I cut them, I’ve “cut them”. That they consented to me doing it doesn’t render it “not abuse” or “not a cut”.

I don’t for a second buy what men tell me and other guys say about “what we did consensually” that hurt her in some way “that was cool, fun, hot” or whatever. Patriarchal imperatives and mandates, values, ethical standards–or lack thereof, and gender/race/class/regional socialisation, and fusion of “sex” to “violence” makes “desire of violence” into something that is often sexualised. Why is it “sexy” or “romantic” for a het man to stand erect, with a woman leaning against him, with one leg bent, foot in the air? Why is him being grounded and her not “romantic”? Why is men slapping women, in any context at all, considered “acceptable” by men?

This ad promotes butchness, in white people, female and male. It promotes valuing butchness over other ways of being. This is, if the butch ones are white, simultaneously racist, misogynistic, and deeply homophobic. It’s also pro-ecocide, pro-animal abuse, and pro-genocide, because that’s what butch whiteness exists to do, as well as other forms of whiteness, like the cool, calculating “cerebral” man who plots how many bombs to drop where. Genocidalists are not perceived as “femme” right? Nor are killers/murderers generally. Even if a “femme” person kills, their act is seen to butch them up.

What’s confusing to you about that? I ask you seriously, welcoming an answer, not snarkily or rhetorically.

Offensive much?

I live in the middle of Sydney and those stereotypes in one way or other apply to most hipsters hanging around the middle of town regardless of whether they’re fe/male gay/straight.

It’s possible, although I don’t know because I’m not American, that urban/rural is a class divide in America, but I don’t believe that in Australia we equate everyone living in the bush as of a lower or higher class. I think it’s more about a type of rugged person who is able to withstand very harsh environments. Even the ‘bush sheila’ stereotype is a rugged hardy woman who is able to live in extreme environments and survive well in drought.

I thought the ad was quite funny, even though it riffed on the stereotype of hard and soft to a larger extent than I think it needed and I would have appreciated more women in the ad.

I am glad you at least tiptoed in the right direction here, cause what really gnawed at me was “good old fashioned cultural imperialism. We’ve had 200 plus years of that crap, and frankly we’re over it!”

No non-Aboriginal Australian can say that in good taste IMO.

As for there being other Kats, I’ve only been reading for a couple of weeks. I did presume the outraged and snarky Kats were one and the same person. Sorry if there was more than one of you, and you weren’t the one taking advantage of anonimity to be nasty to people… I don’t know, maybe in future comments you (or the other Kats, if they are reading this) should presume not everyone is as enlightened as yourself and take it (calmly) from there.