Trawling for GLBT political news yesterday and came across
a lesbian librul blogger throwing Carrie Prejean to a pack of women-hating commenters on her site. Just one more of the many ways that the internet sucks.

Delphyne, I know you’ve been reading the blog for awhile, so you know I’ve been here for years, I’ve read the blog and commented many times, and I’m not an idiot. I’m trying to say that although every woman, man, child and animal is subject to the Patriarchy, it’s with the question of personal agency is where one gets into the victim-mentality debate. To capitulate, or not to capitulate: that is what I debate. Of course I’m curious about McCain’s intent – I’d love to know whether she wanted the photo to be sexy or whether she was honestly just taking a photo of herself and happened to be wearing a tank top at the time and didn’t care or didn’t think much about it. The result, of course, is that Patriarchy screws women over no matter their intent. Didn’t I say that I agree with Jill on that?

Yes, I am silly enough to believe that people have a degree of personal agency within Patriarchy, even while the Patriarchy beats down upon them. As to age, I was 11 in Grade 7 because my birthday is in November, and then I was 12 for the rest of it. My friends and I oscillated between making up dances on the front lawn and trying to get guys to put their hands down our pants and up our shirts because we liked it. I suppose I am naive about sexual goings-on to some extent, because I grew up having most of the control over where and when I would have sexual encounters. I almost NEVER had guys pressuring me or taking the lead in any of it. My good friends were pretty much the same way. A lot of guys didn’t like me OR my friends because we were always turning the tables on them.

As to agency in sexual development: I think it depends on what stage of emotional and physical development someone is at: some of my female friends didn’t have sex or orgasms until they were 19 or older, some were happily having multiple orgasms at the age of 14, during sex with guys or girls. I don’t disagree that the majority of girls in junior high aren’t ready for the implications of sex or sex-related shit. Anyhow, I’ve digressed WAY off topic, and I’m withdrawing on this one, with a Napoleon Dynamite, “GOSH!” I know that anecdote is a crappy form of evidence, and I agree that the Patriarchy will blow up in your face you no matter what your intent. I’m glad that you questioned my comments, because it made me think and re-think what I meant and how I look at things.

Have you actually read this blog, Mearl?

Where can I get myself one of those? I might have to give one to all my female relatives and friends for Christmas too. The perfect gift.

Twelve year olds are not “teenaged” by definition. And in most places they are in their last year of elementary school not Jr. High.

That’s why I wanted to know if there were any straight males in politics that had posted photos SIMILAR to McCain’s and hadn’t gotten in shit for it – photos that would be considered sexy, intimate and revealing by straight female standards.

mearl, I’m honestly curious why you think that the Senator’s photo doesn’t fit into this category. I mean, he’s sitting there, six-pack in the forefront, sweat running down his chest, legs spread, smiling in a come-hither way into the camera. And yet you immediately make his picture a non-issue. Could that be the Patriarchy blinding you? Could that be evidence of the double standard?

I’m not arguing with you or jumping on you. I’m honestly curious why he gets a pass from you and McCain doesn’t. You refer to her “blond self with boobs in the foreground.” Would it be less porntastic to you if she were brunette with boobs less apparent?

If intent is what you are thinking about, I would imagine the Senator’s intent was to titillate more than (and I’m taking McCain’s words for it, as we all should) McCain’s, since she just snapped a random picture of herself to post for friends.

When I said that 12-year-olds are sexting and that they realise the implications, I was not, I repeat, NOT SAYING THAT ALL TEENAGED GIRLS ARE FULLY AWARE OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF SHARING SEXY PHOTOS OR TEXTS OF THEMSELVES. ARGH!

I only meant that there ARE exceptions. Girls DO have agency, and knowledge. A few of them DO know, to some extent, that there are implications attached to sexting, and yet they do it anyway for fun. I also have to specify that I was NOT talking about 12-year-olds who are in contact with older guys who are exploiting them, nor was I talking about unwilling victims of pedophiles; rather, I was referring to girls who use technology to communicate within their own age and peer group. Not ALL 12 (and 13, and 14, and 15) -year-olds are completely naive about sex or what can happen when you engage in something that could potentially get out of your hands and your control: when I was in junior high my friends and I were not every last one of us victims of Dudely balls of hormones forcing us into backroom blowjobs. Some of us would WANT to explore for ourselves. Some girls I know had sex with a handful of guys, ON PURPOSE, because they wanted to, because they liked the arousal and exploration and the orgasm that came with it. It wasn’t because these girls were “ugly” or unpopular or had no self-esteem, and it didn’t result in their being ostracised or targeted by either boys or girls at school or out of school. Some girls did what they wanted with their sexuality, and remained unscathed by it. There are exceptions to the idea that younger girls or women DON’T know what they’re doing when they act in ways that seem to capitulate with the P. I doubt that it’s the norm, I was just saying that it exists. Please do not get depressed about what an ignoramus I am.

That being said, it’s true that more often than not, when 12-year-old girls send naked cell phone pics or sexy texts to guys in their classes, it results in the girl being labeled a slut and the photos or text being shown to about 50 other people in ways the girl didn’t originally intend. I’m fully aware of that side of things, for which I blame the P. Which leads me to the meaning of the statement I posted above:

I was trying to make a lame comparison between
a) younger girls who take sexy photos with their cell phones and b) a media-savvy 24-year-old, posting a photo of her blond self with boobs in the foreground on the internet via Twitter.

It’s a lot more of an amorphous subject than that of a female Enron employee or famous athlete who decides to pose naked in Playboy, but I am still NOT a fan of capitulation when it comes to intent. I have no idea what McCain’s intent was, so yes, I am making assumptions here when I say the following:

It is far more likely that a 12-year-old just wants to be approved of and have fun, and then her life turns to crap because of one photo. But to say that 24-year-old Meghan McCain wasn’t aware of the porn2K-compliance of her photo is a little far-fetched.

HOWEVER, I fully understand that the point of Jill’s essay is that intent has little to do with it. I thought about all the times I was walking with my friends down the street in the middle of winter, the lot of us wearing some very unsexay parkas, hoods up, long johns, sorrells, the works – and lo and behold, passing carloads of guys would STILL scream out their windows at us. I agree that the problem is with the Patriarchy and its view of any woman, hawt or not, as an object of sexualisation and humiliation.

And although I checked out the photo of the Congressman in his swimsuit, I disagree that it’s the same thing. I guess it’s a matter of viewer interpretation, but if the McCain twitpic had been of her laughing it up poolside in her bathing suit, Mai Tai in hand, with some headless hawt young guys presenting their speedo-encased sausages to her in a way that made her look like she was in control of the ’sexuality’ of the situation, I might say yes, that’s comparable. I don’t consider McCain’s photo to be similar to that of the Congressdude’s. I also think that if she posted a photo of herself like the imaginary one I described, people would have likely gotten their underwear in a bunch about a woman having too much control over a situation involving half-naked guys. Or they’d still say she was a slut. She wouldn’t have gotten a thumbs-up, high-five, you-go-girl response from her Twitter followers.

I always get too wrapped up in the subtleties of any photo or video or text, especially when it causes an uproar about scandalous sexayness. But I can’t escape the fact that the male gaze goes hand in hand with the P. That’s why I wanted to know if there were any straight males in politics that had posted photos SIMILAR to McCain’s and hadn’t gotten in shit for it – photos that would be considered sexy, intimate and revealing by straight female standards.

Oh, the shit I get into for thinking out loud.