Gender and Technosexuality

[darkbutflashy]

Ah, I should add another one.

We have a powerful "feminist" over here, Alice Schwarzer. She's a publisher of her own "feminist" mag, "Emma". She was that powerful she had made the German state of North-Rhine-Westphalia pay 400 000€ per year for her private "centre for documentation of crime against women". In that "centre", she employed herself and her three female friends/lovers, each for a salary of 80 000€ per year. There was no controlling. But the men governing the state had that fear to be targeted by one of her campaigns, they threw tax payers money into the rat hole.

It had taken two women, the new governor of North-Rhine-Westphalia and her secretary for families and women, to stop that nonsense. But Mrs Schwarzer did not give up so easily, no, she was accusing the two women in power to abuse their power (sic!) to impede "documentation of crime against women".


There's another story about Mrs. Schwarzer. A woman accused the well-known weatherman Jörg Kachelmann of having raped her. Mrs Schwarzer found him guilty in an instant, and wrote from the courtroom. She wrote for a tabloid she always accused of being "sexist" before, BILD. As the trial went on, it was found Mr Kachelmann had two dozen girlfriends in the last years, sometimes five at the same time. The woman accusing him was one of these five, which he denied to marry. So Mr Kachelmann was sure guilty to Mrs Schwarzer, and she wrote it down in BILD and they made a hate-campaign against him.

To his luck, the judge panel (men AND women) found him to be not guilty. That way, he wasn't imprisoned but only lost his well-payed job as weatherman on the top broadcaster in Germany. He was well advised to have founded his own meteorological company years ago, so he had another income.

Mrs Schwarzer still says he's guilty to her.

[--NightBattery--]

oh my godness. friends, this thread was created by a master troll. About a topic that despite who is wrong and who isn't it is under the smiting eye of political correctness.
be careful. For the good of all of us.

[darkbutflashy]

Yeah, that's why I thought giving some hilarious real-life examples would make people stop taking "feminism" too seriously.

[BD]

First of all most of your accusations do seem to be mostly about "i could do this before why can't i do this now?" which is the opposite of bad, it just means that finally women have a say in stuff where they previously were completely excluded as if their presence was to be considered "useless" or even "damaging".

It's not a sign of "feminism" is a sign of "it's the fucking 21st century and you don't want to recognize half of the world's population as important yet".

Feminism might be when people started making other people notice that they were sexually harassed, which is (i would say) yet another sign of progress. Slapping somebody's butt "playfully" might have been accepted 50 years ago, i hope not today. Telling people that they have to accept your invitation out for a beer or else should never have been accepted in the first place and so on and so forth.

That said the only case in which a feminist did something criminal in all you said was with the condemnation of a rapist before he was sentenced guilty. That is unacceptable, but in all your stress venting that was the only one thing i saw. I understand you don't like it, your two post speech was a gigantic venting of stress, but personally i think most of those things you said are signs of progress not of "feminists in power".

Feminists are not in power, they are still a minority, even if they represent *half of the world's population*, and in general they are getting heard just like other minorities: slowly and painfully.

Saying that feminists are in power because you can't harass women in your workplace is like saying muslims are in power because somewhere in your town they "dared" to put a mosque.

[jolshefsky]

I want to point out that feminism is one of the 20th century movements largely responsible for freeing the idea of sex from reproduction, especially for women, and reminding the world after several hundred years of b.s. about the subject that women actually enjoy sex, have orgasms, and find pleasure in something other than gazing longingly into our paramours' eyes. Thanks to my upbringing in a post-feminism world I am here on this site now, openly engaging in "insider ethnography" research (so when I publish anything, I am "outed"), and not afraid to stand up for my right to... um... party, with anyone or anything with which I am legally allowed and morally disposed. Thanks to feminism, many of you fine gentlemen have had some great experiences roleplaying with sexually liberated women. The "F" word doesn't have to be a curse

Here here!

... denounce anyone for technosexual interests (by their very nature as potentially heterosexual and/or involving a woman choosing to be submissive in any way, even as a fantasy) ...

I like to point out that there's differences between "think", "say", and "do". You can think whatever you choose. But when you take action, you need to have a consenting party. I get that "saying" is weird since you can't "unhear" or "unsee" something, but is anyone at fault there, or is just the nature of the world? On the one hand you could not express the ideas, and on the other (in most cases) you can simply not read/watch/hear. I'm not sure what my point is other than maybe the condemnation does seem misguided since the whole point of women's rights is to not forbid consensual, desired behaviors that were heretofore forbidden. For people to use the "feminism" label as a tool of condemnation and censorship of consensual, desired behaviors seems altogether incorrect. If they'd just self-describe as a nosy, busy-body puritan, there would really be no issue.

Most of the people I speak to about my research - women or otherwise - were completely unaware of the existence of technosexuality/ASFR or anything similar.

This I find very fascinating. As a fetishistic category, I think it has some unique traits. For myself, it's a fetish entirely of fantasy so I don't desire to act it out in any deep way (e.g. I don't really want to have a robot copy of some attractive woman, just fantasize about it). I think most fetishes are based on the ability to have real-life experiences (everything from foot-fetishists to BDSM). There are no sentient androids–just as there are no giantesses or anthropomorphic animals–so I wonder if there is an unexplored category of sexuality there.

[darkbutflashy]

First of all most of your accusations do seem to be mostly about "i could do this before why can't i do this now?" which is the opposite of bad, it just means that finally women have a say in stuff where they previously were completely excluded as if their presence was to be considered "useless" or even "damaging".

Ah, no again. What you don't understand is I actually LIKE women being empowered. At the workplace, in public, in sexual affairs. It would be nice to have more engineer women around me so I won't feel so alone any more.

And that's why I find it so ridiculous that "feminists" use their (indeed) very limited power to do nothing but annoying everyone. That's the opposite of good politics. It scares away men AND women who want a change and true participation of women in society.

Slapping somebody's butt "playfully" might have been accepted 50 years ago, i hope not today. Telling people that they have to accept your invitation out for a beer or else should never have been accepted in the first place and so on and so forth.

I hope so, too. But my example was about less than that. Mr Brüderle denied the female reporter an interview, and tried to be charming in denying, which failed because he's a ditz. Then, a year later, this was used against him and "feminists" had nothing better to do than calling him the worst of all. (Though I think nobody summoned the Holy Godwin.)

That said the only case in which a feminist did something criminal in all you said was with the condemnation of a rapist before he was sentenced guilty. That is unacceptable, but in all your stress venting that was the only one thing i saw. I understand you don't like it, your two post speech was a gigantic venting of stress, but personally i think most of those things you said are signs of progress not of "feminists in power".

Did you read my comment? Really? Mr Kachelmann was found NOT GUILTY by the court, though Mrs Schwarzer did her best to tweak public opinion to consider him guilty. And she still does.

And you don't understand who Mrs Schwarzer is.

Mrs Schwarzer is not "a feminist" but the leading idol in Germany's "feminism". She's there since the mid-1970ies, with her "Emma" mag and she influenced generations of German "feminists". She's a terribly obnoxious person, from the beginning. Her basic political agenda in the 1970ies was "Let's cut off their dicks!" and she advocates all kinds of discrimination against men. Because men, in her view, are the source of all evil.

And Mrs Schwarzer is powerful. Can you think of anyone you know who is blackmailing state officials to send them 400 000€ per year? I mean, without being persecuted for blackmail but instead, actually receiving the money (for at least 8 years, IIRC), given at her free disposal? No controlling?

It's no wonder Mrs Schwarzer decided to report about the Kachelmann trial for the BILD tabloid, which is seen as powerful (roughly compareable with Fox News) and notorious in its hate-campaigns against anyone. It wasn't important she condemned BILD for almost 35 years before for displaying a half-naked woman on page 3 every day. She needed BILD as an outlet for her hate speech. All she has is hate-speech. Oh, wait. She has hate-speech and hate.

Saying that feminists are in power because you can't harass women in your workplace

Uh, no I haven't said that. And I'm pretty sure about that.

[darkbutflashy]

Maybe I add an identification figure for strong, independent women here in Germany. It's Beate Uhse. Much different from "feminists".

She became a pilot short before WWII, worked as a stuntwoman pilot in pre-war films, then did ferry flights of fighter planes later in war. After she lost her husband in war, she had to care for her son alone and started her own business, the world's first sex shop "Betu-Versand", which sold contraception manuals, a bit later condoms, a bit later she founded a porn film company. All very taboo back then, especially for a woman. And she had no problems with sex at all, was a naturalist actually.

So, that's what I call a feminist. Without ticks. No wonder Mrs Schwarzer hated Mrs Uhse.

[BD]

... denounce anyone for technosexual interests (by their very nature as potentially heterosexual and/or involving a woman choosing to be submissive in any way, even as a fantasy) ...

I like to point out that there's differences between "think", "say", and "do". You can think whatever you choose. But when you take action, you need to have a consenting party. I get that "saying" is weird since you can't "unhear" or "unsee" something, but is anyone at fault there, or is just the nature of the world? On the one hand you could not express the ideas, and on the other (in most cases) you can simply not read/watch/hear. I'm not sure what my point is other than maybe the condemnation does seem misguided since the whole point of women's rights is to not forbid consensual, desired behaviors that were heretofore forbidden. For people to use the "feminism" label as a tool of condemnation and censorship of consensual, desired behaviors seems altogether incorrect. If they'd just self-describe as a nosy, busy-body puritan, there would really be no issue.

This!

Fucking! This!

Only a narrow minded puritan would stop two consenting people from doing what they want. Let's not label them "feminists" just because some prick who is also a feminist got on someone's nerves.

For all i care you could mix together any kind of fetish. Like (out of the top of my mind) a male getting a footjob by another male while dressed in a pink rabbit suit and shitting in a diaper and then eating the shit. Do i find it repulsive? Yes. Would i masturbate to that? Hell no. Do i want to stop two consenting people from doing it? FUCKING NO!

The keyword here is C-O-N-S-E-N-T.

A normal person, feminist or not at the sound of that keyword would say "Okay, it's your thing, do it, i have no idea how you two found each other, though, and i REALLY do not want to know. I'll just go behind a wall, so i don't see you. Do your thing and don't bother me."

An hater/puritan/troll/whatever-you-want-to-call-it would say "THOU SHALL NOT!".

It's not feminism. It's the haters.

[Miss Pris]

Okay - let's all breathe for a moment.

Everybody's got some good points here. Dark - your Ms. Uhse sounds like an awesome women and a true feminist in every positive sense of the word. And, in the U.S. at least (and I believe there is some corresponding legal standard in Germany) people are innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, just like in the U.S., it seems that in Germany, this is not the case in the court of public opinion. It is terrible when anyone in power uses that power to discriminate, and just like with a lot of media in the U.S., Ms. Schwarzer and her outlet misused their power as members of the media. B.D. - you have summed up some excellent, positive points about civil rights movements in general, and feminism in particular. All the majority members of any civil rights movement want is the recognition of basic human rights for their group, freedom from harassment, and the freedom to pursue their lives and interests without unexamined power structures, unfounded biological suppositions, or outmoded cultural traditions standing in their way.

This being said, I think we have a lexical problem with "feminism." Feminism is named as such because it is originally a cultural critique from a female perspective. It remains that in academia - an intellectual discussion that examines alternate modalities in gender perceptions - but when it moved into a political project it really should have chosen a more inclusive moniker. Mainstream, social "feminism" is a move toward egalitarianism. Perhaps it should have been called that, and many people do use the term "gender equality" to signify that there is not a privileging of women above men. A new word needs to be created for those individuals who DO want to privilege women over men, hate men, and/or believe that women are superior to men. I don't know what that word should be - perhaps "Female Supremicists" or "Female Separatists" would work. But, it seems to me that Dark is talking about Female Separatists/Supremicists and BD is talking about gender equality.

[Miss Pris]

And, Battery is right. The troll was removed from under our bridge. We don't have to pay her (him?) anymore. Our discussions are our own and our tone need not be dictated by a ghost.

[Lithorien]

This being said, I think we have a lexical problem with "feminism." Feminism is named as such because it is originally a cultural critique from a female perspective. It remains that in academia - an intellectual discussion that examines alternate modalities in gender perceptions - but when it moved into a political project it really should have chosen a more inclusive moniker. Mainstream, social "feminism" is a move toward egalitarianism. Perhaps it should have been called that, and many people do use the term "gender equality" to signify that there is not a privileging of women above men. A new word needs to be created for those individuals who DO want to privilege women over men, hate men, and/or believe that women are superior to men. I don't know what that word should be - perhaps "Female Supremicists" or "Female Separatists" would work. But, it seems to me that Dark is talking about Female Separatists/Supremicists and BD is talking about gender equality.

See, that's the trick. The word for "female supremacy" IS "Feminism". Looking at the actions of feminists in recent history, things such as the Deluth Model of Domestic Violence, VAWA, the opposition to shared parenting from the largest feminist organization in the west (NOW), the legal presumption that men cannot be raped which leads to them being unable to seek redress for being raped in the legal system, and in fact being punished for it (see any case where a boy was raped and then forced to pay child support to his rapist who was NOT punished in any way)...

Unfortunately for feminism, the actions of its loudest supporters have tainted the word and have made it leave a dirty taste in a lot of people's mouths. It would be wonderful to see the moderate "feminists" (and I use that term loosely as the moderates aren't really for female supremacy, but actual legal and social equality) and the members of the MRM/MHRM get together under a single banner, but the constant "us vs them" mentality and actions of the loudest feminists and misandrists make that impossible.

[Lithorien]

O_O feminists are in power?! Since when? As far as i know up 'till now they are just asking and are widely ignored. Personally after hearing their requests i don't find them eirthe constrictive or in any way demeaning. But seriously: Feminists are in power?! Since when?!

...Are you serious? Just look, for example, at how much money the (United States) federal government earmarks for women's health, shelters, etc. WOMEN ONLY, mind you. Now take a look and find out if there's any money earmarked whatsoever for men. Wait, I can save you the trouble - there isn't. $0 budgeted for men, multiple millions for women. Hell, men don't have the right to bodily autonomy (female circumcision = illegal, male circumcision = legal; the draft is currently male-only and I DON'T GET LEGAL RIGHTS UNLESS I SIGN UP...), sexual freedom and the right to say no (men cannot be raped under the US legal system's definitions except by another man), or even the right of fatherhood (men don't have to be notified if a child is theirs, and are legally required to care for a child who is not theirs if a woman takes them to court for child support).

All of that is the direct result of feminist campaigning. That's not all of it, mind you, but those are just some of the glaring obviously unequal results of feminism. Leaving alone shared parenting, the education gap, the massive welfare gap in favor of women, and the legal system's undue weight on sentencing men more harshly than women - as well as the assumption that men are guilty where women are not (predominant aggressor policies come to mind).

...How aren't feminists in power, again?

[dale coba]

Most of the people I speak to about my research - women or otherwise - were completely unaware of the existence of technosexuality/ASFR or anything similar.

This I find very fascinating. As a fetishistic category, I think it has some unique traits. For myself, it's a fetish entirely of fantasy so I don't desire to act it out in any deep way (e.g. I don't really want to have a robot copy of some attractive woman, just fantasize about it). I think most fetishes are based on the ability to have real-life experiences (everything from foot-fetishists to BDSM). There are no sentient androids–just as there are no giantesses or anthropomorphic animals–so I wonder if there is an unexplored category of sexuality there.

A dichotomy between materially impossible fetishes
and all the rest which can be acted involving real people and objects.

It's worthy of terminology. It may not say anything clear or simple about WHY people are in which camp; or in both. It's a new frontier in Nature vs. Nurture, inheritance vs. environment.

- Dale Coba

[darkbutflashy]

But, it seems to me that Dark is talking about Female Separatists/Supremicists and BD is talking about gender equality.

That's why I put the word feminism in ticks when I told about those hilarious events. These Female Separatists/Supremicists as you call them had occupied the word feminism for their own agenda, which isn't about how to live together peacefully but about who to blame and how to get rid of the hallucinated problem. EX-TER-MI-NA-TE.


Could you imagine Germany's #1 "feminist" would publicly condemn someone during a trial about a really really serious crime (in Germany it's *at minimum* one year in prison for rape, that's as bad as armed robbery) just because she finds exploiting gullible women for fun is as bad as rape. Should I add NOT GUILTY Mr Kachelmann was in prison for 132 days during his trial just because of the accusation and the media coverage?

Could you imagine Germany's #1 "feminist" would write about that trial for a tabloid she always said she abhored because it exploits women sexually (it actually exploits anyone in any way). They even made a advertising campaign with her face on the bus stops, praising BILD.

If you can imagine that, you can also imagine Germany's #1 "feminist" advocated to prohibit prostitution and to make porn illegal.

Mrs Schwarzer has exploited feminism for her own agenda. She's the nanny telling every man and woman what do to and not to do with their sexuality. And she has Millions of followers.


But, there are other "feminist" groups here in Germany, which are even worse than Mrs Schwarzer. Some of them destroyed Germany's Pirate Party by entering the new party in numbers, being loud and obnoxious and pushing the party's agenda from things like free speech and privacy on the net to "feminism". Do you think anyone would vote for that? I don't mean feminism but "feminism". Hell, no! – "Hiya there! Yeah, I have a brain and it found you are nuts. Go away."

[darkbutflashy]

I should add, the reason why I posted those stories about "feminism" was to laugh about this abomination. It's a freak show.

Meanwhile, all thumbs up for feminism. That one without ticks. That one made by women who just stand their ground. Without bells and whistles.

[dale coba]

I'm trying to understand the landscape, not particularly aiming to provoke...

I'm pretty sure Rush Limbaugh and other AM radio talkers would have been the ones to discuss the German incidents you describe (and in the way you describe them), if they had happened in the U.S. The rest of media wouldn't have shared or respected your perspective.

You and I draw different conclusions about what that means, what it says about the media and people; and about how far outside the norms and facts you might be. You have your Rush Limbaugh-equivalent media, and you know you are right, so I guess that's enough for you (even though everyone who doesn't follow your media has rejected those sources for themselves).

I don't want to make a comparison to racism, and I'm not. I have been working on an analogous question to ask a possibly racist white person (not a self proclaimed racist person):

Let's say, given only the true and full evidence, a large number African Americans or Hispanics were given the chance to conclude whether or not that possibly racist white person is racist - and to what degree (because there are so many ways to willfully forget that the dominant powers that be are helping you take advantage of others).

How high does that percentage of condemning Others have to be,
before one questions oneself?

- Dale Coba

[darkbutflashy]

You and I draw different conclusions about what that means, what it says about the media and people; and about how far outside the norms and facts you might be. You have your Rush Limbaugh-equivalent media, and you know you are right, so I guess that's enough for you (even though everyone who doesn't follow your media has rejected those sources for themselves).

Dale, you are soooo wrong.

BILD is "Rush Limbaugh-equivalent media". That makes it so hilarious. Yep. Germany's #1 "feminist" wrote for "Rush Limbaugh-equivalent media".

[dale coba]

You can't figure out which side I'm talking about?
Excuse my confusing language.

- Dale Coba

[darkbutflashy]

Yes, it sounded that way you are expecting me to follow hate-media which attack feminists just because... well shit, just because! (I expect Rush Limbaugh to do that. Couldn't check. Sorry, can't stand him any longer than a minute, he's just too terrible.)

No, I don't do that. I can't stand BILD either. It's just too dumb.

But yes, there are many many people who read BILD. In relation, I think much more than there are listeners to Rush Limbaugh. It's the #1 tabloid in Germany and it has more power than the #1 tv broadcasters, ARD and ZDF (who broadcast 24 nationwide PBS-like channels).

So, if a self-declared 40-year-practise #1 "feminist" is co-moderating a Rush Limbaugh show, what do you think? About her? About "feminism"?

[darkbutflashy]

Let's say, given only the true and full evidence, a large number African Americans or Hispanics were given the chance to conclude whether or not that possibly racist white person is racist - and to what degree (because there are so many ways to willfully forget that the dominant powers that be are helping you take advantage of others). How high does that percentage of condemning Others have to be, before one questions oneself?

I don't think "feminists" have this problem. Either they say women are merily treated as objects who cannot act at all under the malicious power of men, and if you prove they effectively *are* acting reciprocally, they say they have the right to do so because in history, men had always suppressed them. Mrs. Schwarzer wrote a number of articles on this years ago and found it is women's right to act that way, as society don't give them another chance but to be deceitful.

[dale coba]

If we had European-style tabloids, I could make a better comparison.

I see no common media over here, outside of the right-wingers, that channels such angry discussions with and about feminists.

Is Germany that much different from the U.S.?
Sure, there are far more female elected officials, that's better than the U.S.

But otherwise, either Germany or your view, or both together, are pretty twisted (US-relative).

- Dale Coba

[darkbutflashy]

I see no common media over here, outside of the right-wingers, that channels such angry discussions with and about feminists. Is Germany that much different from the U.S.?

Ah, no. Critics on "feminism" is a taboo subject in German media. If you write something about this, you gain nothing but another "feminist" "uproar". So journalists avoid that mine field at all costs. It's only the right-wingers and "masculists" which discuss such things. But these guys take "feminism" seriously and overreact themselves.

What to do when you don't want a clash but a peaceful coexistence of empowered women and empowered men? Especially taken the fact most men are subordinates to other men, too.

Sure, there are far more female elected officials, that's better than the U.S.

Ah, it's all a big sleaze. Did you know Angela Merkel, Friede Springer (owner of BILD) and Liz Mohn (owner of the largest media company in Germany, Bertelsmann) are best friends?

Observation: Women gain more power.
Realization: Women are exactly as dumb as men.

But otherwise, either Germany or your view, or both together, are pretty twisted (US-relative).

My view is that of a bystander. I don't want to ever get involved into anything related to "feminism". You can't win.

But I don't want to go easy on people either. I don't say my perception is the truth but my perception makes me laugh about those things. I want to share that laugh.

[Esleeper]

I question how all of this is even relevant to technosexuality anymore; remember, this whole topic was made solely as a means to an end by someone who only wanted to start pointless debates like the one happening right now. And honestly, does it actually matter to us what some hack in a German tabloid that will never affect what we do says about some issue that most of us have no desire to be involved with?

[darkbutflashy]

From the start:

Unfortunately, as with nearly any movement, there is a very vocal extreme version of "feminism" (which is often nothing less than hatred, really) who would not only denounce anyone for technosexual interests (by their very nature as potentially heterosexual and/or involving a woman choosing to be submissive in any way, even as a fantasy) but would burn me at a stake for being a woman involved in such an interest (even though I am not submissive, and am attracted to cyborgs, sentient gynoids and sentient androids.) We should not judge a group by a vocal, extremist majority. Most people are more nuanced than a single group or subsection of that group would allow.

First, don't read 'vocal, extremist minority' there, because it's in fact a majority (of "feminists") who would burn her at the stake for her technosexual interest. Group dynamics. Feel of power when acting from within a group.

Because, as I replied to her

I think there is a strong bond between today's "feminism" and nannying everyone.

That's why I gave some hilarious examples of such tries of "feminists" to nanny everyone. Including loathing women who stand their own ground without the help of "feminists" and including our #1 "feminist" Mrs Schwarzer, who turns out to be compatible with the "right wing" to some degree. Well, to the degree of hate.

Yeah, it's twisted. Yeah, it makes my mind boggle. That's why I laugh.

[BD]

I recognize this is going deep into trolling.

There's a difference between feminism and assholes that "want" to be called feminists. That is true.

There's still a huge discrimination against half of the human population, and it ain't men. That it true.

There's some government funded help towards women. That is true. But seeing the situation in general i feel the opposite of "feminists in power". That is my opinion.

But mostly i think this thread is going into trolling or troll feeding. So i'm quitting it. I hate "hate speeches".