As I’ve said before, perhaps my favorite bona-fide sex blogger ever is Thumper. Beyond simply being my favorite, he’s also one of, if not the best-known, writer on the fetish of male chastity/orgasm control (linked by mainstream sex-advice columnist Dan Savage),1 which I happen to strongly share with him. However, almost a year ago I started noticing a downright alarming absolutism in the way he approached the subject matter in relation to sexual submission.
Perhaps paradoxically, I’m actually in favor of absolutism in exactly one context and one context only: the belief that diversity is the only principle worthy of absolutist loyalty.
This is why Thumper’s essentialist explanation of submission rubbed me the wrong way back when I first detected the unmistakable stink of the idea. While essentialist explanations seem plausible for an individual (“I am that I am.”) such reductivism is logically irreconcilable when applied to a group. So, this same laughably nonsensical reductivism is also what triggered me to leave the following intensely harsh (and possibly inappropriately mean) comment on Thumper’s most recent post with regards to a masculine identity.
For my own interests, I’m reproducing our public thread here.
Since you can take it, I won’t mince words. You wrote:
I firmly believe orgasm control is Right and Natural. There’s nothing kinky about it. It’s totally clear to me now that literally every man in a relationship should have his orgasm controlled by his partner (no, I’m not ignoring you gay guys, but I need to leave you out of this for clarity’s sake). I know that sounds very out there and draconian and like I know what’s best for the entire world. Can’t help it. You can disagree with me if you want, but it seems that, for a man, the act of committing himself to a woman would take on so much more significance if he was also committing one of the critical things that defined him as a man: his orgasm. Not only that, it would make it much more difficult for his partner to drift away. If he really meant it and lived up to his word, the two would be forever locked in a symbiotic feedback loop.
(Emphasis mine.)
Put simply, this is the most disgusting paragraph I have ever read from you, and possibly from any blogger in a very long time. Perhaps that is because I greatly enjoy your writing and find that you and I share much of the same fetishistic desires. So I am perhaps hugely disappointed, which thus fuels my disgust at such a ridiculous and callously sexist statement coming from someone who has a track record that has stayed relatively clear of such contemptible essentialism.
Tell me, Thumper, while you stroke your ego for so carefully addressing the wrinkle of homosexuality while simultaneously tossing it to the winds, what about the heterosexual women, what about the wrinkle of gender? What “should” they do with their desires, in your worldview?
On a related note, I would urge you to read the opening chapters to Sex At Dawn, which I hope will purge you of this pathetically reductionist view of the way men “should” be. Ick. This paragraph feels like everything I was warning you against in my (admittedly rambling) post, Orgasm Denial Does Not Submissive Men Make.
I am, in other words, legitimately an asshole sometimes. In case you wonder how I sleep at night, I justify it the same way any other asshole probably justifies it: I think I’m an asshole about “the right things” and not an asshole about “the wrong things.” So, yeah, it’s true I was meaner than I needed to be to get my point across. I hope I’ll do better the next time, and in the mean time I’ll acknowledge both my triggers (sexual authoritarianism and sexism) and my errors (making someone else feel unnecessarily bad).
Anyway, the comment did spark an interesting interaction worth reading. Thumper replied:
Since you can take it, then I’ll not mince words. Chill the fuck out.
Sorry, maymay, this isn’t religion for me or political. It’s my life and what I’m thinking at any given point. I am not here to advance any agenda. I am not trying to please you or anyone. If I disappoint you, we’ll both just have to figure out a way to deal with it.
Nice way to start the day. Thank you for your opinion.
To which I said:
I can take it, and you don’t have to mince words. Sarcasm, however, seems beneath you. Or maybe it’s not? I wasn’t kind, but I was direct.
Anyway, I’m sorry I contributed to a bad morning. That sucks. I’m just headed to bed and didn’t think about your sleep schedule.
You may never take an interest in politics, but politics will take an interest in you. Same thing as what you seem unwilling to acknowledge about my other post, too. Sigh.
As for religion…well, seeing as how you’re the one who brought that up, I’m struck with the unshakable notion that your views are a religion for you.
Such (religious?) adherence to an ignorantly essentialist view of human maleness, or indeed of any human characteristic, is perhaps the most destructive form of self-centeredness, for you declare others’ expressions illegitimate. And I say this, I hasten to add, as a self-identified man who not only would, but already has wholly subscribed to your beliefs for my own life.
I hope you consider these facts the next time you grant yourself absolution because “this isn’t…political.”
Then, circling back to answer my initial criticism, Thumper wrote:
Now that I’ve had a bit of caffeine, I’ll reply to your comment by saying the intention of my post was to describe a strategy in which men (with penises) and women (with the other part) in traditional marriages or long-term relationships could experience greater degrees of sexual intimacy and satisfaction. That should explain my (admittedly flippant) dismissal of the “gay guys” and, I suppose, by extension anyone not in the aforementioned gender group.
I loved Sex at Dawn. Thought it was great. And, truth be told, I think we humans have totally screwed with ourselves and our sexuality. However, I’m also a pragmatist. I live in this time and under these social norms and am married to a devout monogamist. Therefore, while I agree that my POV does not align with the vision of human sexuality presented in the book, I think it very much compliments the version of human sexuality that plays out in my house. Which, at the end of the day, is all I really care about. Were I like you (young, passionate, not married with two kids and a mortgage), I’m sure my position would be different. Alas, I am not. And I’m very happy not to be.
I have no interest in getting into a multi-thousand word debate about this with you. If you feel the need to rail against my pathetic, narrow, disgusting and icky words, please do so on your own blog. Don’t be upset, though, if I don’t ever read it. As I said before, sex is not political for me. It’s personal. You can go fight the good fight. Leave me out of it.
And, finally, my reply:
I think that’s all peachy keen. Until this:
As I said before, sex is not political for me. It’s personal. You can go fight the good fight. Leave me out of it.
You are the pre-eminent blogger about male orgasm control on the entire Internet, on par with Tom Allen. You are political whether you like it or not.
If you want to treat your sex life as wholly personal and not the least bit political, then you can not blog publicly. Otherwise, and I’m not sorry about this, you can’t have it both ways.
My final words on the issue, since I don’t want to overstay my welcome (and you have been generous with my characteristic harshness, so I thank you) will be to make clear that I care about this with “passion” precisely because we share a fetish and every single time I talk about it I reference this blog as one of the only sensible places on the entire Internet to learn about this fetish. It would upset me greatly to need to start disclaiming my admiration for you due to an increasing amount of relatively careless and flippant remarks specifically due to how often I cite your otherwise fantastic writing.
I hope I didn’t ruin your day. I shouldn’t have that much power over you. Thanks again for your generosity with your comments section.
There is, of course, something to be said for Thumper’s argument that we live in a particular world, with particular realities, and not some other world with some other realities. However, we know what we can say about that: it needs changing. I remain baffled by implications such as his that, thanks to the way things are, ideals like sexual egalitarianism even–and perhaps especially–when it comes to consciously constructed power imbalances are the illusory fantasies, rather than the other way around. The ideals I hold about sex are not the illusions, they are the core of our humanity, buried under eons of cultural sediments (stigma, collective phobias, mass hysterics like religion, and so on).
If reality was, in fact, as gender essentialist as Thumper described it, he would not have been able to actualize the relationship he currently enjoys precisely because such a relationship is founded on the very egalitarian ideals his thesis dismisses. He shoots himself in the foot with his own words, same as I sometimes do by forgetting to use honey in situations where it would catch more flies than vinegar.
Maybe next time Thumper and I talk, we will both have learned a thing or two. (If there is a next time.)
Update: Thumper’s got a reply on his blog. It’s worth a read, so check it out. TL;DR version and my reaction: Thumper affirms maymay’s asshole-ishness and will “amputate him from my life” (sic.) (well, okay, but owch), asserts that our worldviews are irreconcilable and as part of that his blog “is not a platform for any kind of activism” (except, as I keep reminding him, when it kind of is, which says more about how narrowly Thumper construes activism and how widely I do) and will continue to write his blog while abdicating any recognition of the influence he has. All right then. Truce?
- I originally intended the prior, non-parenthetical link to point to Dan Savage’s post, and mistakenly pointed to Thumper’s post about an article by Dan Savage. Hence the inserted parenthetical statement. [↩]
by J
01 Feb 2011 at 07:33
You know what, maymay? You were a bit of an asshole, but I think this is a wonderful post. You might need to learn to break out the honey once in a while, but I think your treatment of the exchange is very fair.
Long may your passion continue.
J.
by Trusthynenemy
01 Feb 2011 at 15:36
I find it interesting, that in the initial post you took issue with what I took issue with: the absolutism with which Thumper expressed the perfection of those interactions. It wasn’t just a “this is how things work in my house, and I like it, and I think others might too, but what I really care about is that this is how things work in my house”. Thumper specifically expressed the thought that this is how it SHOULD be for EVERYONE else.
I find it further interesting that you addressed this point, and yet the further the conversation went, the further astray it went from this point.
by maymay
01 Feb 2011 at 16:25
Well, Trusthynemeny, I admit to efforting a far calmer reply after I noticed Thumper’s obvious offense at my initial comment. Perhaps this muddied the water?
In any event, can you say more about what was “interesting” about straying from that point? How would you have reacted differently? (Honest question, I’m genuinely curious about others’ interpretations of this thread and the topic at hand.)
by quartzp
01 Feb 2011 at 17:18
I think that Thumper made it explicitly political from the start when he made the jump from “this is fantastic for us” to “every het relationship should work like this.” My main reaction? It goes on the pile of ideas I’ve heard where prescriptive gender essentialism meets kink, now with a dash of myth-of-male-weakness thrown in for variety. I can be squicked by descriptions of relationships that are largely based on gender essentialist views held by the people involved, but my reaction to those is usually closer to “I’m glad that works for you, and hope it does actually work; I’ll be over here now.” This also applies to relationships that appear to be closer to vanilla where, for instance, the man is the one who makes decisions because he’s the man.
(And yes, what *about* us bi folks? Is my girlfriend so different from my male partner that I should have complete control over his orgasms but make an agreement with her that she and I can do whatever we want? Does the fact that he and I are more deeply committed mean that I should control his sexuality? Somehow I don’t see this as bringing lasting stability and commitment to the household…)
by ben
01 Feb 2011 at 20:51
you realize that all assholes think they’re assholes about the right things, right? with the possible exception of those who don’t realize that they’re assholes in the first place.
Also, I agree entirely with what you’re saying about diversity (and in general with your point to thumper, if not your delivery), but I feel like that should include diversity of opinion. you can’t really build communities of diversity by quibbling and starting fights with people who agree with generally, that leads to isolation and self righteousness. I mean, sure, point out the arrogance of people, but no reason not to do it in a friendly way. (eep, suddenly realizing that I might not be doing that. hypocrisy fail)
by Kitty Stryker
02 Feb 2011 at 01:53
Ugh ugh ugh! Thumper’s post squicks me out too. Partially because of saying “this is what works for me” he implied that’s what’s best for everyone- partially because of his total dismissal of queer folks- partially because of my own projections of WHY it’s so much better for male orgasms to be controlled by women… which smacks to me of “men can’t control their sexuality and so women need to act in such a way as to control them”. Ewwww. That is not why domination gets me wet, at all. And of course it not only insults men, by suggesting that their devotion is entirely in their cocks, but also women by suggesting that’s somehow our issue to deal with. Never mind that the whole bit about ” Not only that, it would make it much more difficult for his partner to drift away. If he really meant it and lived up to his word, the two would be forever locked in a symbiotic feedback loop” screams to me of codependence and some weird manipulation. Gross.
by SnowdropExplodes
02 Feb 2011 at 21:16
I wrote about my response to this, specifically with reference to my own sexuality, here. In short, I somewhat doubted the idea that my orgasms really are critical to defining me as a man since my SSRI medication inhibited (i.e. controlled) them for about a year and I didn’t feel myself become any less male as a result!
by maymay
03 Feb 2011 at 00:07
Well, yeah, Ben. That was the next sentence I wrote: “I am, in other words, legitimately an asshole sometimes. In case you wonder how I sleep at night, I justify it the same way any other asshole probably justifies it: I think I’m an asshole about ‘the right things’ and not an asshole about ‘the wrong things.'”
I’m unsure I could have been any clearer. :)
by AV
03 Feb 2011 at 20:36
I don’t think you were an asshole. Sometimes I don’t like the stuff you tell me, but I never think you do it because you’re an asshole. You’re a direct communicator who realizes his role in the community and world in a way few of us do. When I started writing about sex, I shared Thumper’s view. It’s a very privileged view. I have never lost access to any opportunity based on my sexual preferences, I have never had the state tell me I am not allowed to enjoy sex or marry whoever I wish to marry, and so on.
It took me a while to understand that this isn’t the norm. There are a lot of people out there who continuously deal with repression, abuse, and hatred and even when bloggers with a wide reach — whether or not we realize it — do affect others. That makes it political.
So, in short, I want to take this time to thank you, May, for always being there to kick my ass when I say something narrow-minded. Because it helps me immensely. If I am half the blogger I am in this good fight, it’s mostly because of you.
by Ross K
04 Feb 2011 at 07:28
Weird. I just thought what Thumper was saying was “I’m so into this [my current situation] that I think it would work for everyone, even though I know only they individually can figure out what works for themselves.”
Yes, there is a contradiction, and I’ve always seen Thumper as a happy-go-lucky poster who sees that conflict but won’t let it get in the way of him saying how he feels. That’s one of the ways he manages to write so well. We are all supposed to adults reading this stuff, after all. I think you’d do well to ease up on the lad.
by lalouve
05 Feb 2011 at 06:04
Well, “It’s totally clear to me now that literally every man in a relationship should have his orgasm controlled by his partner” is a political statement. If you tell people, publicly, what their lives should be like, you have moved from private to political.
Furthermore, I notice that I, as a dominant woman, appear in this sentence only as the facilitator of how men should live. Whether I enjoy orgams control or not is clearly not the issue here: I should do it that way because it’s the right way. This is not very far from the men wo write me, beg to be my submissive, and add a laundry list of what I am expected to do to them – my sexuality, my pleasure, my kinks are not interesting to them. I am only a prop in the story of their sex lives. Thanks, but no thanks.
Also, orgasms defines someone as a man? I have them; am I suddenly male? Or do I have a special kind of orgasms that define me as female? I am reminded of why I never really got into reading Thumper.
by Dae
06 Feb 2011 at 23:03
I think that Thumper’s initial language was plainly out of the realm of his personal life. I can sympathize with the desire to be able to talk about one’s own life honestly… but he wasn’t talking about his own life; he was talking about other people’s.
My opinion of your responses is that they weren’t worded in a way to easily facilitate a non-explosive discussion – it’s hard to deal with that level of venom no matter how objectively you’re trying to look at a situation – but I agreed with you. I’ve always appreciated your scruples with respect to what you write – unqualified generalizations seem rather endemic to most parts of the internet, and it’s a breath of fresh air not to see many of them on this blog.
I’ll also note that this instance of the attitude, “it’s my life, I’m not involved in any sort of advocacy” runs pretty strongly parallel to (and indeed, in the case of sexism, dips into) the realm of denying the influence that any kind of careless statement about groups of people can have. As a woman who participates in a lot of male-dominated online activities, I hear the excuse of a sexist jokes/generalizations being just harmless fun (“you know I don’t really think that way”) enough to have a near-constant puff of steam coming from my ears – somehow the discussion about creating hostile environments never seems to change anything.
If you speak or write where anyone can hear or read your words, you have influence. It’s flat-out irresponsible to deny that.
by HOL
18 Feb 2011 at 05:01
I just don’t like the way Thumper has categorized people’s sexualities. I have pointed it out on his blog before, Two fallacies I feel his blog has
a) To say that men need to be controlled through their chastity is enforcing the myth that men can’t control themselves.
This is the same slippery slope paedophiles use when stalking children, or when men harass women! They can’t control themselves!
It’s a myth. Men are human beings who have control over their sexuality and to say anything otherwise is to degrade men to animals.
b) Women don’t have the same intensity to masturbate as men do. Hence why he thinks that women should control men’s sexuality. Women are held responsible for so much in this world, women have to be responsible with the way they dress for fear of provoking men, women are responsible for not walking out alone at night.
I’m also disappointed in Thumper’s blog.
He is taking the criticism personally instead of looking at the bigger picture.
HOL
by Rididill
24 May 2011 at 17:05
sounds like a failure to take responsibility to me… you can’t write something like that (clearly NOT just about him) in the public domain and then say it’s got nothing to do with anyone else!
Pingback
by Signal boost: “The Devaluation of Male Submission” « Maybe Maimed but Never Harmed
02 Jun 2011 at 20:04
[…] Read my archives and you’ll no doubt see I’ve become darker, more bitter, more jaded, meaner, more ugly. I’m scarred and scared and broken and horribly disfigured. And I’ve said […]