Opinion of Lesbian Sex Scenes on TV!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Sex scenes are very rarely necessary or particularly helpful, and lesbian sex scenes are almost always made for the benefit of straight men in a way that is in the long run damaging to actual lesbians. Horrible Scenes.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Sex scenes are very rarely necessary or particularly helpful, and lesbian sex scenes are almost always made for the benefit of straight men in a way that is in the long run damaging to actual lesbians. Horrible Scenes.

You guys are terrible at being teenagers.

I, at least, am not a teenager.

afleitch as usual makes a good counterpoint and I thank him for making it. It's definitely possible for scenes of intimacy to advance understanding of the characters involved, and I wouldn't want to claim otherwise. I just don't think that's very often the case, and with this particular issue--my opinion might be different if we were discussing LGBTQ characters and narratives more generally--I'm not sure I agree that bad representation is really any better than no representation.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Sex scenes are very rarely necessary or particularly helpful, and lesbian sex scenes are almost always made for the benefit of straight men in a way that is in the long run damaging to actual lesbians. Horrible Scenes.

You're no fun.

Says the guy who doesn't even think two consenting women should be able to get married.

Patriarchy is a funny thing.

Would this be the same "patriarchy" that causes feminists to say gems like this “And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” -Susan Griffin?

That's called misandry.  Of course, I'm sure you already knew that.

Try "owning" me again, though.

It's also called not, in fact, as prima facie absurd as Devin seems to think it is.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Sex scenes are very rarely necessary or particularly helpful, and lesbian sex scenes are almost always made for the benefit of straight men in a way that is in the long run damaging to actual lesbians. Horrible Scenes.

You're no fun.

Says the guy who doesn't even think two consenting women should be able to get married.

Patriarchy is a funny thing.

Would this be the same "patriarchy" that causes feminists to say gems like this “And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” -Susan Griffin?

That's called misandry.  Of course, I'm sure you already knew that.

Try "owning" me again, though.

It's also called not, in fact, as prima facie absurd as Devin seems to think it is.

Really it pretty much says there is minimal difference between a ordinary man and a rapist. How is that anything but absurd? Also what the hell is a professional rapist? Last time I checked you went to prison for rape, not get paid.

Quantitative differences can be more than large enough to be important. The quote also specifies 'dominant heterosexual', which I think one could be forgiven for thinking is a somewhat worrying combination of attributes in a man. The use of the word 'professional' is presumably non-standard and confusing as all get-out, I'll grant that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Out of all the threads to end up in some kind of quasi-MRA fest this would not have been the one I picked.

Really? Why not? I'm just thankful it hasn't turned into a repeat of some of my interactions with memphis yet.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Sex scenes are very rarely necessary or particularly helpful, and lesbian sex scenes are almost always made for the benefit of straight men in a way that is in the long run damaging to actual lesbians. Horrible Scenes.

You guys are terrible at being teenagers.

I, at least, am not a teenager.

afleitch as usual makes a good counterpoint and I thank him for making it. It's definitely possible for scenes of intimacy to advance understanding of the characters involved, and I wouldn't want to claim otherwise. I just don't think that's very often the case, and with this particular issue--my opinion might be different if we were discussing LGBTQ characters and narratives more generally--I'm not sure I agree that bad representation is really any better than no representation.

What do you mean by this? Why do you believe that portraying lesbian sex is a "bad representation" of lesbians?

I don't. I believe that portraying the kind of so-called 'lesbian sex' that typically appears on television is because the segment of the population that's expected to take interest in it is not lesbians and in many cases barely seems to see lesbians as fully human as it is.

Sex scenes are very rarely necessary or particularly helpful, and lesbian sex scenes are almost always made for the benefit of straight men in a way that is in the long run damaging to actual lesbians. Horrible Scenes.

You're no fun.

Says the guy who doesn't even think two consenting women should be able to get married.

Patriarchy is a funny thing.

Would this be the same "patriarchy" that causes feminists to say gems like this “And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” -Susan Griffin?

That's called misandry.  Of course, I'm sure you already knew that.

Try "owning" me again, though.

It's also called not, in fact, as prima facie absurd as Devin seems to think it is.

Really it pretty much says there is minimal difference between a ordinary man and a rapist. How is that anything but absurd? Also what the hell is a professional rapist? Last time I checked you went to prison for rape, not get paid.

Quantitative differences can be more than large enough to be important. The quote also specifies 'dominant heterosexual', which I think one could be forgiven for thinking is a somewhat worrying combination of attributes in a man. The use of the word 'professional' is presumably non-standard and confusing as all get-out, I'll grant that.

I don't see any problem with one person being dominant, if the other is into that.

The 'dominant heterosexual male' as an entity is really not about individual desires at this point.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Sex scenes are very rarely necessary or particularly helpful, and lesbian sex scenes are almost always made for the benefit of straight men in a way that is in the long run damaging to actual lesbians. Horrible Scenes.

You guys are terrible at being teenagers.

I, at least, am not a teenager.

afleitch as usual makes a good counterpoint and I thank him for making it. It's definitely possible for scenes of intimacy to advance understanding of the characters involved, and I wouldn't want to claim otherwise. I just don't think that's very often the case, and with this particular issue--my opinion might be different if we were discussing LGBTQ characters and narratives more generally--I'm not sure I agree that bad representation is really any better than no representation.

What do you mean by this? Why do you believe that portraying lesbian sex is a "bad representation" of lesbians?

I don't. I believe that portraying the kind of so-called 'lesbian sex' that typically appears on television is because the segment of the population that's expected to take interest in it is not lesbians and in many cases barely seems to see lesbians as fully human as it is.

What about televised lesbian sex to you consider non-genuine (I assume that's what the quotes are intended to indicate)?

I've never met a lesbian who considers the way it's usually portrayed anything other than sensationalized and, usually, played up for fetishes that lesbians aren't the people who most generally have.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If presenting sexuality solely involving women primarily or solely for the purpose of entertaining straight men doesn't already strike you as sketchy because of the way society as a whole is structured, I'm not sure I can explain it without giving some more thought as to how exactly I want to go about that. I'm also not sure I'm the best person to be explaining this, but I don't expect anybody else here to. Give me some time, okay?

Sex scenes are very rarely necessary or particularly helpful, and lesbian sex scenes are almost always made for the benefit of straight men in a way that is in the long run damaging to actual lesbians. Horrible Scenes.

You guys are terrible at being teenagers.

I, at least, am not a teenager.

afleitch as usual makes a good counterpoint and I thank him for making it. It's definitely possible for scenes of intimacy to advance understanding of the characters involved, and I wouldn't want to claim otherwise. I just don't think that's very often the case, and with this particular issue--my opinion might be different if we were discussing LGBTQ characters and narratives more generally--I'm not sure I agree that bad representation is really any better than no representation.

What do you mean by this? Why do you believe that portraying lesbian sex is a "bad representation" of lesbians?

I don't. I believe that portraying the kind of so-called 'lesbian sex' that typically appears on television is because the segment of the population that's expected to take interest in it is not lesbians and in many cases barely seems to see lesbians as fully human as it is.

Sex scenes are very rarely necessary or particularly helpful, and lesbian sex scenes are almost always made for the benefit of straight men in a way that is in the long run damaging to actual lesbians. Horrible Scenes.

You're no fun.

Says the guy who doesn't even think two consenting women should be able to get married.

Patriarchy is a funny thing.

Would this be the same "patriarchy" that causes feminists to say gems like this “And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” -Susan Griffin?

That's called misandry.  Of course, I'm sure you already knew that.

Try "owning" me again, though.

It's also called not, in fact, as prima facie absurd as Devin seems to think it is.

Really it pretty much says there is minimal difference between a ordinary man and a rapist. How is that anything but absurd? Also what the hell is a professional rapist? Last time I checked you went to prison for rape, not get paid.

Quantitative differences can be more than large enough to be important. The quote also specifies 'dominant heterosexual', which I think one could be forgiven for thinking is a somewhat worrying combination of attributes in a man. The use of the word 'professional' is presumably non-standard and confusing as all get-out, I'll grant that.

I don't see any problem with one person being dominant, if the other is into that.

The 'dominant heterosexual male' as an entity is really not about individual desires at this point.

No offense, but keep your personal spin out of it. Some women actually like being dominated by men. That may be hard for you to accept,but its true. Isn't feminism supposed to be about giving women choices? So why is it bad if they choose to be dominated?

Because choices and preferences don't develop in a vacuum and because feminism is most salutary when it's about advancing the position of women as a class or set of classes, and also because thundering Jesus did you even read my last response to you? It's literally one damn sentence.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Sex scenes are very rarely necessary or particularly helpful, and lesbian sex scenes are almost always made for the benefit of straight men in a way that is in the long run damaging to actual lesbians. Horrible Scenes.

You guys are terrible at being teenagers.

I, at least, am not a teenager.

afleitch as usual makes a good counterpoint and I thank him for making it. It's definitely possible for scenes of intimacy to advance understanding of the characters involved, and I wouldn't want to claim otherwise. I just don't think that's very often the case, and with this particular issue--my opinion might be different if we were discussing LGBTQ characters and narratives more generally--I'm not sure I agree that bad representation is really any better than no representation.

What do you mean by this? Why do you believe that portraying lesbian sex is a "bad representation" of lesbians?

I don't. I believe that portraying the kind of so-called 'lesbian sex' that typically appears on television is because the segment of the population that's expected to take interest in it is not lesbians and in many cases barely seems to see lesbians as fully human as it is.

What about televised lesbian sex to you consider non-genuine (I assume that's what the quotes are intended to indicate)?

I've never met a lesbian who considers the way it's usually portrayed anything other than sensationalized and, usually, played up for fetishes that lesbians aren't the people who most generally have.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If presenting sexuality solely involving women primarily or solely for the purpose of entertaining straight men doesn't already strike you as sketchy because of the way society as a whole is structured, I'm not sure I can explain it without giving some more thought as to how exactly I want to go about that. I'm also not sure I'm the best person to be explaining this, but I don't expect anybody else here to. Give me some time, okay?

Sex scenes are very rarely necessary or particularly helpful, and lesbian sex scenes are almost always made for the benefit of straight men in a way that is in the long run damaging to actual lesbians. Horrible Scenes.

You guys are terrible at being teenagers.

I, at least, am not a teenager.

afleitch as usual makes a good counterpoint and I thank him for making it. It's definitely possible for scenes of intimacy to advance understanding of the characters involved, and I wouldn't want to claim otherwise. I just don't think that's very often the case, and with this particular issue--my opinion might be different if we were discussing LGBTQ characters and narratives more generally--I'm not sure I agree that bad representation is really any better than no representation.

What do you mean by this? Why do you believe that portraying lesbian sex is a "bad representation" of lesbians?

I don't. I believe that portraying the kind of so-called 'lesbian sex' that typically appears on television is because the segment of the population that's expected to take interest in it is not lesbians and in many cases barely seems to see lesbians as fully human as it is.

Sex scenes are very rarely necessary or particularly helpful, and lesbian sex scenes are almost always made for the benefit of straight men in a way that is in the long run damaging to actual lesbians. Horrible Scenes.

You're no fun.

Says the guy who doesn't even think two consenting women should be able to get married.

Patriarchy is a funny thing.

Would this be the same "patriarchy" that causes feminists to say gems like this “And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” -Susan Griffin?

That's called misandry.  Of course, I'm sure you already knew that.

Try "owning" me again, though.

It's also called not, in fact, as prima facie absurd as Devin seems to think it is.

Really it pretty much says there is minimal difference between a ordinary man and a rapist. How is that anything but absurd? Also what the hell is a professional rapist? Last time I checked you went to prison for rape, not get paid.

Quantitative differences can be more than large enough to be important. The quote also specifies 'dominant heterosexual', which I think one could be forgiven for thinking is a somewhat worrying combination of attributes in a man. The use of the word 'professional' is presumably non-standard and confusing as all get-out, I'll grant that.

I don't see any problem with one person being dominant, if the other is into that.

The 'dominant heterosexual male' as an entity is really not about individual desires at this point.

No offense, but keep your personal spin out of it. Some women actually like being dominated by men. That may be hard for you to accept,but its true. Isn't feminism supposed to be about giving women choices? So why is it bad if they choose to be dominated?

Because choices and preferences don't develop in a vacuum and because feminism is most salutary when it's about advancing the position of women as a class or set of classes, and also because thundering Jesus did you even read my last response to you? It's literally one damn sentence.

Yes I did, I told you to keep your spin out of it. Contrary to what you seem to believe sexually dominant males are not the stereotypical (inks) who runs their wife around like a whipped dog. A male can be dominant by refusing to not allow her on top during sex. I would even think letting women admit they are into BDSM could be good for them.

I'm familiar with how BDSM works and have formed my own opinions and conclusions about it. If telling me to 'keep [my] spin out of it' over and over again--without explaining what precisely about the ideas I'm expressing comes across as 'spin' rather than notions with which you happen to disagree--and talking down to me as if I'm a wide-eyed moron strikes you as the best way to disabuse me of those opinions and conclusions, then more power to you, but I'm afraid you're very much mistaken. Also, I really don't think that what is meant by 'average dominant heterosexual male' has much to do with BDSM anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, well, I'm not one of them.

The fundamental notion that you appear not to be grasping here is that statements like the one you find so risible rest on the presupposition that looking at how and why people come to like what they like and desire what they desire is a relevant and worthwhile undertaking. And the fruits of that undertaking by and large do not reflect well upon heterosexual men as a group. At all.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Devin, it's certainly OK to have some points of disagreement with radical feminist theory, but when you use a quote to illustrate such disagreements, you should actually have a basic understanding of what the words in it actually mean. Here, it's pretty clear that you don't understand what the term "dominant" means in this context. Do some research if you are interested in getting Susan Griffin's argument. If you aren't, you should probably stop posting in this thread.

I don't think you need to condition that. I mean, we can debate for a while to draw out his true self or we can just recognize that he's with high probability just another misogynist creep and leave it at that. I'm inclined to do the latter and I'd definitely advise Nathan to.

And sigh at this thread. The weird and fairly hypocritical nature of all these sex threads seem very lost on its enthusiastic participants. And that is amusing and even a bit interesting. I'm going to think about that a bit.

Why do people on the internet have a damn obsession with calling people misogynist? I don't hate women,I just see of hypocrisy here. When some random internet person says something negative about a woman people freak out, and claim all mra are like that. Yet when a feminist does it is fine.

...huh?!