“It turns us on when you don’t have equality”

Seriously.

The Yes-on-H8-ers have come out of the closet: they get turned on by denying LGBT people equal civil rights. For them, it’s a sexual kink. They can’t get off unless they’re fantasising about how their friends and neighbors can’t get married.

Playful Walrus was the first to admit it Kingfisher agreed that this was their motivation too: and Pearl really gets off on it.

(With regard to discussion at these blogs: Pearl, like Beetle Blogger and PomegranateApple, bans opposing opinions, preferring echo-chamber praise or silence to discussion. Playful Walrus requires full name-and-address registration. Kingfisher initially appeared to welcome debate, but then – as an anonymous troll appeared with the intent of derailing a civil debate with ad hom attacks on me – made a mod’s decision that anonymous ad hom attacks were preferable to informed/polite debate. I guess that would go with KF’s declared sexual kink of denying other people civil rights to get off…)

It’s interesting because I always figured the people who talk about how if same-sex couples can marry this will “destroy” mixed-sex marriage are speaking in code about how they fear closety gay men and lesbians will not want to spend their lives in card marriages when they see long-term same-sex couples getting to marry. How soul-destroying it must be for a person who all their lives denied themselves – to see others who were not so afraid.

But this doesn’t explain why happy hets would oppose marriage. But this admission makes sense of it: they have a kink of their own. They get off on other people’s inequality. A form of BDSM, not safe/sane/consensual, but harmless enough so long as it was merely fantasy – so long as Walrus or Kingfisher or Pearl just wanked themselves off over the idea of two men or two women being denied marriage. No one should be condemned for their sexual fantasies, so long as they don’t impose them on others who haven’t consented. I have no problem with these bloggers having shared sexual fantasies about how they’ll deny marriage to same-sex couples.

But when they want to force their sexual fantasies of denying marriage on to other people…

There’s a word for people who think that satisfying their sexual arousal is more important than sexual consent: words for people who think what turns them on ought to be forced on other people against their will. That’s the kind of person these anti-marriage bloggers are. Not just bigots…

Goodbye, Ferret Face!

Suddenly it’s all over the net: The Ferrett, who blogs at livejournal, has written a couple of skeevy posts about how he regards women’s bodies as “open source” and wants other fans to regard women’s bodies that way too. (Links roundup here.)

The guy’s name is familiar, and his face is more than familiar: this is the guy who came up with the rapist’s credo three years ago. He wrote a couple of repellent posts on how when a man pestered a woman into sex, he blamed the woman for her behavior: The Correlary, Which I Cannot Spell Without A Spell-Checker, which was a follow-up to Do-Be-Do-Me-Do.

In this thread specifically, he defends this:

The Ferrett: * – Unfortunately, I can’t decry the process of “asking repeatedly,” mainly because it’s the only stimuli a lot of women respond to.”

Responder: “I can. If they say no, why not take it at face value? This, in turn, trains THEM not to say no if they mean “try harder”. And it’s taking some responsibility for yourself rather than putting the burden on someone else.”

The Ferrett: If it gets them what they want, then I can’t blame them for using an efficient system.

This was discussed at some length on my journal then: a commenter who identified herself as his wife showed up to defend him.

So when he talks about standing round at conventions groping women’s breasts being all empowering and healing, but claims

Second: When I say, “Like any good project, you need access control, because there are loutish men and women who just Don’t Get It,” I am not referring to the women who don’t want to be involved, who are perfectly cool, but rather the guys/gals who see a green button and assume that it means that the woman has to let herself be touched because she’s got the green on. [As I said, the answer "no" is something that can be given and should be respected - it's not like a button should force you to give up your right to a body.] Or decide to spend a good five minutes in a mouth-breathing grope. Those kinds of idiots are the folks who we’re worried about, and if I could change any one sentence it would be that one, because I never meant to imply there was anything wrong with someone who didn’t want to be involved. There isn’t.

…bear in mind this is the same man who, three years earlier, argued that he couldn’t “decry” a man pestering a woman until she gave in, because this was an “efficient system”: (link) It’s sort of like the way some people consider it rude to call to find out if the company got your resume and to ask if you’ll get an interview. It may well be rude, but sometimes it gets you a job.