Sav­age Love

The Georgia Straight - - Contents - On the Love­cast: Trump! What’s up with the piss thing and how to fight him. Lis­ten at sav­agelove­cast.com. Email: mail@sav­agelove.net. Fol­low Dan on Twit­ter @fakedansav­age.

I am quite the fol­lower on so­cial me­dia—face­book and Twit­ter, in par­tic­u­lar. I make no trolling com­ments, no #MAGA hash­tags; I just look with my male gaze. Like Laura Mul­vey says, the male gaze is only nat­u­ral. I’ve lost in­ter­est in pornog­ra­phy, so I use ev­ery­day pic­tures of women, typ­i­cally self­ies. It helps me to know the story be­hind the face and body. None of these pics are porno­graphic—just feel-good self­ies by young women posted on so­cial me­dia. I don’t com­mu­ni­cate with these peo­ple, be­cause that would be creepy. I’m not wor­ried about whether this is ab­nor­mal. I just won­dered if peo­ple would be okay with this, if peo­ple were aware of be­hav­iour like mine when they post, and if I should ask these girls for their per­mis­sion to wank to their self­ies. > NOT AN­THONY WEINER So long as you’re wank­ing alone, wank­ing with a rea­son­able ex­pec­ta­tion of pri­vacy, and not both­er­ing any­one who isn’t a sex part­ner or a sex­ad­vice pro­fes­sional with your wank­ing, NAW, you can wank to what­ever you’d like—ex­cept for im­ages of child rape, a.k.a. “child pornog­ra­phy”.

You re­mind me of the prover­bial shoe sales­man with a foot fetish. (Full dis­clo­sure: proverb of mine, not a proverb of Proverbs.) Let’s say a guy work­ing in a high-end shoe store has an in­tense at­trac­tion to feet. Is it in­ap­pro­pri­ate for him to get an ob­vi­ous boner while help­ing women try on shoes? Of course it is. It would also be in­ap­pro­pri­ate for him to drool or pant—and it would be su­per in­ap­pro­pri­ate of him to ask the women he’s serv­ing if he can jack off about their feet af­ter his shift. But if he can be com­pletely pro­fes­sional, if he can go eight hours with­out giv­ing off any signs of se­cret perv­ing, that guy can (and prob­a­bly should) sell shoes. And he’s free to up­load men­tal im­ages to his spank bank for later—we’re all free to do so, NAW, and it’s only creepy if the peo­ple whose im­ages we’re up­load­ing/re­pur­pos­ing are made aware that we’re up­load­ing/re­pur­pos­ing them.

So in an­swer to your ques­tion, NAW, un­der no cir­cum­stances should you ask the girls whose self­ies you’re wank­ing to for their per­mis­sion. Peo­ple who post re­veal­ing pic­tures to so­cial me­dia—men and women— know they run the risk of their pics be­ing wanked to by ran­dom strangers. But there’s a dif­fer­ence be­tween know­ing some stranger might be wank­ing to your pics and hear­ing from one of those wank­ing strangers. Be­ing asked by a wanker for per­mis­sion to wank drags the so­cial-me­dia poster into the wanker’s fan­tasies—and not only is that creepy, NAW, it’s also no way to show your gratitude. If some stranger is go­ing to make your day by post­ing a hot pic, why would you ruin theirs— or make them think twice about ever post­ing a re­veal­ing pic again—by telling them ex­actly what you’re do­ing while you gaze at their pics?

If you saw a woman on the street that you thought was hot, you wouldn’t stop her to ask if you could wank about her later. You would no more ask a stranger that ques­tion than you would flash your penis at her, be­cause, NAW, it would con­sti­tute sex­ual ha­rass­ment. (Prom­ise me you wouldn’t do ei­ther of those things.) You would in­stead walk on by, mind­ing your own busi­ness while dis­creetly fil­ing her men­tal image away in your spank bank. You should be­have sim­i­larly on so­cial me­dia: don’t ha­rass; don’t send un­so­licited dick pics; and don’t ask for per­mis­sion to wank.

Fi­nally, NAW, your ques­tion in­spired me to read fem­i­nist film the­o­rist Laura Mul­vey’s 1975 es­say “Vis­ual Plea­sure and Nar­ra­tive Cinema”, in which she coined the phrase “male gaze”. Mul­vey de­scribes the male gaze as phal­lo­cen­tric, pa­tri­ar­chal, per­va­sive, and so­cially con­structed— she never de­scribes it as nat­u­ral. A prob­lem has cropped up for me ever since the re­ports of Don­ald Trump’s piss­ing Rus­sian hook­ers made the news. Ev­ery time some­one on so­cial me­dia tries to make a com­ment about how dis­gust­ing that is, some­one else jumps in and scolds that per­son for “kink sham­ing”. The prob­lem for me is that by nor­mal­iz­ing my piss fetish, you’re mak­ing it dull for me. Piss was one of the few things that even the kink com­mu­nity found dis­gust­ing. I now find my­self look­ing for dif­fer­ent porn be­cause, eh, a les­bian piss­ing in the mouth of an­other lovely lady on a train plat­form? No big whoop any­more, it seems. My polyamorous boyfriend and I found each other with­out know­ing we shared a love for piss. Nei­ther of us had ever had some­one to en­joy that with be­fore. The one thing the piss porn I’ve been watch­ing for half my life com­pletely failed to cap­ture is how god­damn amaz­ing it is to em­brace and make out with a per­son you love dearly while you’re both cov­ered in each other’s piss. If you per­son­ally don’t want to kink-shame, that’s fine. I get it. But ev­ery­one, please stop telling your friends not to kinkshame so that my boyfriend and I can get back to the busi­ness of piss­ing on each other and feel­ing dis­gust­ing about it and horny be­cause of it. > PISSED OFF SLUT WIFE I have grap­pled with this same co­nun­drum, POSW. If a kink is boneror slicker-in­duc­ing to some pre­cisely be­cause it’s so trans­gres­sive and dis­gust­ing to most, ef­forts to nor­mal­ize said kink—by sham­ing kink shamers, for in­stance—could piss away that kink’s power to in­duce all those bon­ers and slick­ers. But I’m con­fi­dent that the kink shamers will con­tinue to have the up­per hand for decades to come, de­spite the best ef­forts of the kink-shamer shamers. So your kink will con­tinue to in­duce enough re­vul­sion and dis­gust gen­er­ally to keep you and your boyfriend feel­ing dis­gust­ing and horny in per­pe­tu­ity. Lis­ten­ing to pun­dits dis­cuss the pres­i­dent on the ra­dio, I was in­spired by your bril­liant acro­nym (DTMFA) to yell, “Im­peach the moth­er­fucker al­ready!” I’d love to see a line of bumper stick­ers and T-shirts bear­ing that sen­si­ble mes­sage: ITMFA! We need a short­hand for the ob­vi­ous— think of the boost to pro­duc­tiv­ity we’d get if we could cut half-hour con­ver­sa­tions about the pres­i­dent to five sim­ple let­ters: ITMFA! I ap­peal to you to bring this acro­nym into our ev­ery­day vo­cab­u­lary. > DUMPED MY MOTH­ER­FUCKER AL­READY DEAR READ­ERS: DMMA wrote me that let­ter in 2006. She wasn’t re­fer­ring to Don­ald Trump, our cur­rent aw­ful pres­i­dent, but Ge­orge W. Bush, our last truly aw­ful pres­i­dent. I thought DMMA’S idea was great, I put up a web­site (im­peachthe­moth­er­fuck­er­al­ready. com/ ), and I raised more than $20,000 sell­ing ITMFA lapel pins and but­tons. I do­nated half the money to the ACLU and the other half to two Demo­cratic can­di­dates for the U.S. Se­nate. (My read­ers helped turf Rick San­to­rum out of of­fice!)

I didn’t think I’d see a worse pres­i­dent than Ge­orge W. Bush in my life­time. But here we are. So I’m bring­ing back my line of ITMFA but­tons and adding T-shirts and, yes, hats to the ITMFA col­lec­tion. Go to im­peachthe­moth­er­fuck­er­al­ready.com/ or, if that’s too much typ­ing, ITMFA. org to or­der some ITMFA swag for your­self or some­one you love. All the money raised will be do­nated to the Amer­i­can Civil Lib­er­ties Union, Planned Par­ent­hood, and the In­ter­na­tional Refugee As­sis­tance Project.

We’re in for a long and ugly four years, folks. Let’s raise some money for groups fight­ing Trump; let’s bring ITMFA back into our ev­ery­day vo­cab­u­lary; and let’s re­mem­ber that we—peo­ple who voted against Trump, peo­ple who want to see him out of of­fice as quickly as pos­si­ble—are the ma­jor­ity. ITMFA!

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.