January 14th, 2008 -- by Bacchus
Would You Like To Ride My Rocket?
More lurid cover art, hilariously phallic in this case:
And, yes, it’s OK to enjoy this sort of artwork without having “a problem” that you need to “do something about”. Shouldn’t have to be said, but apparently it does.
Similar Sex Blogging:
This entry was posted on Monday, January 14th, 2008 at 12:35 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Shorter URL for sharing: http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2137
Shorter URL for sharing: http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2137
I suspect that the perception of the depicted situations is the difference between viewpoints, here. If your perception is based upon a passion for identifying situations that are demeaning to women, or support a preconception of male-as-abuser, then you will respond one way. However, I recall being brought up with the now erroneous view that women were to be protected and given an entire set of special privileges (some of which now appear to be “rights”). So, my rather naive “first take” to this kind of cover art when I was a teenager was an initial emotional perception of a female in distress. The titillation aspect was there as a “second take” – but because of the exposure of such delightful curves, not because I might want to abuse some luscious babe by tying her to a rocket and blasting her off into cold, unappreciative space. Those are the same curves, by the way, that I sketched (undoubtedly with some prurient, abusive motive) in my Art classes. Perhaps such art should have been eliminated, too. The truth is, that back then in the dim reaches of time and in spite of what we are now told we were really thinking – guys actually did have such protective instincts.
I don’t see it as a difference between viewpoints, so much, as a difference in philosophies about intellectual freedom.
There’s a school of thought (often called “political correctness” in the USA, but it has many forms and many names) which attempts to control people at the level of ideas — seeking to root out and prevent people from thinking inappropriate thoughts, by responding with strong negativity to any outward expression of those thoughts.
There’s a different school of thought, which I like better, that feels people ought to be free to think and fantasize as they will. In this view, the only thing that needs to be controlled or censured is actual behavior that’s harmful toward others.
Nobody civilized thinks it ought to be OK to tie pretty women to rockets and blast them into space. But there’s an actual dispute (hard as this is to believe) about whether it’s OK to paint pictures of the same scene and about whether it’s OK to look at and enjoy such pictures.
We can discuss that controversy here on ErosBlog, but I’m obviously going to be partisan about it. What I will NOT tolerate gladly or politely is people who assume the debate is over, who assume that the forces of thought control have won, and who therefore attempt to judge, condemn, and insult (as Fausten did in the other thread) those of us with the temerity to lust after whatever damn shape of ink on paper we may happen to enjoy.
Or maybe it’s just that in real life women get grabbed and strangled all the time, but I can’t recall the last time a woman was tied to the outside of a launching rocket?
You know, it’s interesting the way people categorize stuff based on their viewpoints.
In that other picture, one hand’s on her neck and one hand is in her hair.
I published that image precisely because of its ambiguity. I’m sure “grabbed and strangled” is the socially acceptable (!) description of the image that the publishers would have used with the postal inspectors. But what I found interesting about the pose is that to me, it was also suggestive of wild and passionate rear-entry sex. The grasps, the poses, even the facial expression (fear? or passion?) — they’re all fairly close to either explanation.
That’s what I meant about there being a covert, sublimated vocabulary of eroticism in this genre. If all you can see is “grabbed and strangled”, you are qualified to be a postal inspector in 1950s America, and (bless you!) it’s people like you who made it possible for this genre to thrive. But if you’re capable of looking past the gross “cover story” of violence, the plausible-deniability “it’s only a crime magazine” elements, there’s a not-very-covert sexual story in every one of these artworks. That’s what makes them fun, if you’ve got the imagination to see it.
But if you can’t get past the cover story, if you can’t accept (and dismiss as necessary) the then-mandatory elements of camoflauge, you’re left going “what a shithead, he thinks rape and torture and strangulation are sexy”. Which would be missing the point, rather profoundly.
Which is not to say that over time, the crime-and-peril elements didn’t sometimes get all mixed up with the sexy story elements in some people’s heads just as they are all mixed up in the pictures. That’s how sexual fetish wiring works, sometimes.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
I think part of what complicates the whole fetish discussion is that some people appear to believe that fantasies are always literal.
Thus they believe that fantasy material always depicts literal desires.
When they see fetish material, therefore, problems ensue. They have no other way to understand it than as a literal desire to do painful nonconsensual things to people, so they seek to forbid it on that basis–because they really don’t see a difference between somebody getting off on a bondage photo and somebody intending to harm someone. When you say something (as you did in the other comments thread) like “people can be sexually attracted to depictions of events that would repel them in real life,” it doesn’t compile for this sort of person. If you’d be repelled by it (or even just indifferent to it) in real life, then how can you be excited by it in fantasy? I think they honestly don’t get it.
Which is kind of scary, when you think about it.
Laughing girl, I think you’ve put your finger on it.
The scariest thing about the thought control brigade is that they do seem to think the fantasy is as bad as the act. And I worry it might be that for them, the one leads directly to the other — making them very scary people indeed.
Shudder.
I am so *not* missing having to deal with commenters like that.
LOL, point to Matisse!
Bacchus, I appreciate your thoughts.
Perhaps it’s just that with me and my partner, the frot of the neck is a totally unerotic, ack-you-just-touched-me-there-and-killed-the-mood zone. So I personally didn’t see the eroticism which others apparently saw in the other photo.
This picture, with a scantily-clad woman tied spread-eagle on a phallic rocket, seems much more obviously sexual, albeit one which inspires laughter more than lust, at least in an era of free X-rated internet porn.
Illicit fantasy discussions aside, correct me if I’m wrong. But to me, it looks like she’s having fun.
Suffie, that’s another fun thing about this sort of artwork. Everybody has a different interpretation of what’s happening, and there’s nobody who can say you’re wrong, because your interpretation is just as good as anybody else’s.
Bacchus said, “I published that image precisely because of its ambiguity. I’m sure ‘grabbed and strangled’ is the socially acceptable (!) description of the image that the publishers would have used with the postal inspectors. But what I found interesting about the pose is that to me, it was also suggestive of wild and passionate rear-entry sex. The grasps, the poses, even the facial expression (fear? or passion?) – they’re all fairly close to either explanation.”
The ambiguity is – IMO – a significant aspect of why ravishment fantasy, the *illusion* of nonconsent, is so erotic (for those who do find it so, of course).
Grabbed Girl didn’t particularly grab me at first; the expression on her face is more overtly “terror” (as compared to Rocket Girl here, who looks to me to be somewhere between disbelief that the guy in the supervillain costume is actually doing this, and excited about the, ahem, rocket ride). Not disturbing, it just didn’t do a lot for me. But on second inspection – yup, hair-pulling, breath play, not knowing when penetration will occur (and, possibly, not anticipating how well she’d be filled), is a perfectly reasonable alternate interpretation.
The layers of alternate interpretation are *exactly* what that genre of illustration is about.
Sunflower
Reading the various comments about your “lurid” postings, reminds me of a conversation I once had with a girlfriend, in which I stated that I wish I could develope more fetishes.
To my way of thinking, too many people are looking for ways to find something a turn-off, while I’m eager to look for reasons why something could turn me on. I’m thankful that I can find long shiny black leather boots sexually stimulating. Lovers who find others boring who do less in bed than they themselves do, and who find those perverted who do more, are like drivers who call those who drive slower “assholes”, while calling those who drive faster “maniacs”.
It would do them all well to remember someone somewhere has placed THEM in all four categories at some point…
Something that just absolutely amazes me is that the commentators who have decided what is sick and in need of “help”,had to be searching the same engines that I did to get here.
Of course there are many who fantasize about a loss of control,or taking control,and this does not make them rapists,victims,murderers,or Democrats.I would say,in fact,that it would make them Independents.
Considering the vehemence of the responses to my comments and the misrepresentation of my position, it is tempting for me to hold my peace and sign off for good, especially since Bacchus is threatening to censure my “offensive” comments in the future in the name of free speech. I did not make a sweeping condemnation of fetish behavior: you can do what you want with whom you want as long as all agree to play whatever game it is. A fantasy is something private as long as it is indulged in one’s own mind, and, there, your’s is as good as mine and the sky’s or hell’s the limit. But as soon as this fantasy is communicated, whether in writing, or in images, or in ritual behavior, it isn’t a fantasy anymore, but well on its way to being part of reality. Practitioners of bondage and SM do not put themselves or others in real physical danger, and that’s fine. But what if, for example, my fantasies take me to the point where I need actual physical danger to myself or to others in order to get turned on? Is that my right or is that my problem? In a previous comment I gave expression to the fantasy that I would like to live in a world where people do not need violence (whose roots in reality are only too deep)in whatever form to get turned on, that’s all. I have contributed many comments to this “forum” in the past months, glad to be able to add my particular take to the others. In this particular case, I hope that the writer, readers and commentators of this blog can make the effort not to divide the world so neatly into the political correctness of the “naughty-naughties” and the political correctness of the “goody-goodies.” I also hope that the thinking about fantasy/reality can go beyond the split into those wretches (apparently me) who confuse the two and others, somehow more gifted and liberated, who do not. At any rate, I am shocked to see how ready you, Bacchus, were to pounce on me and others to offend me, accusing me of a thought-crime I never committed. We are not indulging in fantasy here, folks, but reality; otherwise you would not have gotten so worked up, would you?
Fausten, you have utterly failed to understand how you gave offense.
We obviously disagree as to whether there’s danger in communicating fantasies; you think so, I don’t. But I’m cool with that sort of disagreement.
No, your offense was to condemn the fantasies of other, suggesting that they were a problem for which help might be needed. That’s not a “thought crime”, it’s a deliberate insult, and an exercise of condemnation and judgment that’s simply not permitted here. It’s a way of telling other people “you don’t think right” which in turn is code for the judgmental “you’re sick.” And that, nobody gets to say unchallenged on my blog.
You have been a valued commenter here, and I hope you remain. But you will not be permitted — nobody here is permitted — to insult or condemn others for their approach to eroticism.
I’m also not sure understand where your snide “in the name of free speech” crack comes from. I’ve never claimed that this blog was a forum for free speech for anybody but me. It’s not, although folks who are scrupulous about avoiding insult and condemnation — as you were not — can get away with saying almost anything here.
Fausten, are you saying people are allowed to fantasise so long as they never communicate it in any form?
You say consensual and safe BDSM is not a problem for you, but how on earth could people practice BDSM consensually and safely if they’re not aren’t allowed to talk about their desires?
If it is just seeing themes reminiscent of BDSM in art that upsets you… why is that any different to other forms of conversation we human beings have developed?
Thank you and bravo for posting my comment. Your accusation is a serious one, and so I would very much appreciate your quoting exactly what I said that was so insulting and offensive (you can send this privately).
What I have been trying to get at is more more subtle than confusing fantasy with reality and who determines that. You could see my comments as so much fantasy material that is taking a first timid step outwards, feeling its way to clearer ideas (fantasies). It is still only my fantasy! And yet it provoked very violent responses from you and your readers. So how real is my fantasy after all? I want to emphasize that I have no clear-cut viewpoint to sell: I am just trying to think and suggesting that thinking a few thoughts further might be as worthwhile a pasttime as indulging in free speech (OK, I did permit myself a dig there, but, hey, I really took a beating; let’s play fair here. Just how fainthearted are all of you fans of the rough stuff?).
Another thing I would like to say, since I’ve been accused of being a moralizing bigot straying off the straight and narrow that I’m supposedly prescribing. Just as there are hardline moralizers (preachers, politicians) who often turn out to have practiced exactly the opposite in private, there are free-wheelers who basically “think” exactly along the same lines as these hypercritics.
Now, to answer “S”: I am not forbidding anything, just responding to some material (Faustling’s collection) that gave me a bad feeling and got me thinking. Further, I am wondering to what extent, if at all, we are accountable for our fantasies and their indulgence in contributing to the overall thought/feeling climate of our real world.
Hey, Fausten, I’m not too sympathetic to the “beating” you took, because from my perspective you’re the one who started swinging first.
You waltzed up to the line and started flirting with offense in this comment:
“None of these apparently victimized women seem to be enjoying their lot, and I would doubt that the men aren’t enjoying much of anything either, except the venting of drives that have gotten the worse of them. I know it’s not politically correct or cool nowadays to pass judgment on what turns other people on, so I’ll just keep shaking my head.”
There, you acknowledged that you knew being judgmental was uncool, and then did it anyway, albeit with a half-denial. But your “none of these apparently victimized women seem to be enjoying their lot” made it clear that you were trying to ascribe fixed interpretations (yours) to ambiguous ink on paper, and you made it clear you you were “shaking your head” at people who might have a differing, erotic interpretation.
Then you crossed the line in a big way with this comment:
“If women in peril turn you on, you’ve got as big a problem as the women. You might want to do something about that.”
That was a direct and judgmental insult. I’m not sure whether you meant the “you” individually (meaning me) or collectively (meaning, anybody who might read the comment) but it doesn’t matter. You’re saying “If you have certain fantasies, there’s something wrong with you, and you should try to fix it.” (Either that, or you only meant “real women in real peril” — but that would have been supremely odd in a discussion of fantasy art.)
And it just kept getting worse! Then you said: “If women who have been victimized as children and had their sexual circuits inadvertantly activated in the process turn out developing a taste for more of the same, we might want to help them instead of helping ourselves.”
Despite the weasel words (“if”, “might”), that quote takes a common ignorant slam about BDSM-style fantasy and practice (that the women who enjoy it are the victims of prior abuse) and couples it with a common attack on the men who enjoy it (that they are simply taking ruthless advantage of broken people). Although individual exemplars of such behavior might be found to exist, as a generalization about the people who enjoy the kinds of sexual play we’re talking about, it is either ignorance of a kind easily dispelled by ten minutes of Google searching, or so insulting as to suggest deliberate malice. Given that you’d already acknowledged you knew that sort of comment was unwelcome here, I could only go with the malice theory.
Do you still wonder, Fausten, that you got as strong response? In one short comment, you attacked and insulted a substantial swathe of my readership, with comments explicitly telling them there was something wrong with their fantasies and urging them to “get help” (common shorthand for saying “you’re sick and need to seek mental help”, whether or not that’s what you meant).
We do “get” that some of the imagery we’ve been talking about doesn’t work for you. I even gather that you’re interested in a discussion of whether our fantasies could somehow have a negative effect on the broader world even when we take care with our actions. I’d be happy to have such a discussion, but not when it starts from the premise, insultingly expressed, that there’s something wrong with the fantasies in question, the people who enjoy them, and the art that illustrates them.
You have wasted a lot of ink misprepresenting me yet again, and since your argumentation is so tendentious, and even vicious, I have to wonder what your stake in this is. I am not a malicious person, more naive in fact, and it is my good right to “shake my head” in dismay when I feel like it. Since when is a judgment an insult (in a free country)? What have you been doing in all your long-winded responses, if not judging me? There happen to be quite a lot of people out there taking advantage (physically, psychologically, economically) of broken people. I thought that your blog was a forum for the free expression and exchange of ideas about and appreciations of sexuality, not a free-for-all slanted toward an uncritical view of sexual culture (and industry). Even you have made the odd comment about some particular stuff not being your thing. Since you earn your money in this industry, you have no interest in looking at the matter in any other way than the so-called “liberal” one, which, as far as I can tell, is just as flawed as the one you (falsely) attribute to me. With that I regretfully take leave of your blog, thanking you for the entertainment, the forum and the occasionally in-depth and thought-provoking discussion. As for the beating, you can keep it, I’m no masochist!
My stake is simply this: I will not tolerate my blog being used as a platform to attack the sexual preferences of others. Ignorance, condemnation, or judgmentalism about the sexual choices people make have never been welcome here; I’ve always avoided or challenged them to the best of my ability. I am passionate about this rule, I have never been otherwise, and Erosblog has never been for “the free expression and exchange” of that material, especially when presented uncivilly.
This is not new, it’s in the ErosBlog FAQ:
“Question: Why did you delete/moderate my comment?
Answer: Most likely because you weren’t nice. I ask ErosBlog commenters to be civil, friendly, polite, nice. And I enforce that. We don’t welcome flaming, aggressive debating style, snark, or even strong sarcasm. Yes, I do break these rules myself, sometimes. But I live here.
You may also have been moderated for substance (or, more usually, lack of it.) If your comment was condemning any sexual practice or kink, [or] suggesting that anybody or anything is “sickâ€? … that would explain why you don’t see it.”
I am a big believer in free speech, but the world is not exactly short of forums for expressing sexual condemnation and judgment. Just open any newspaper! In this matter, ErosBlog is partisan. If you simply must argue on a blog that people who enjoy BDSM scenarios need to “get help” and to stop exploiting each other, you need to find a different blog to do it on. It won’t be hard.
I’ll miss your participation, but not to the point of changing this policy for you.
And we’re talking about *fantasy* here. That’s what gets me. *Made-up stuff.* *Pretend.* In many cases, just thinking! Or talking about thinking.
Amazing that it led to such a fuss.
Yeah, but that’s exactly why it’s an issue I’m so passionate about. The totalitarian impulse to control how people think purely pisses me off.
I couldn’t resist taking a peek… Another thanks and bravo are in order for your publishing my last comment. I read you loud and clear, Bacchus. But, given what you just explained at length, how did my “untoward” comments ever make it through the filter of your moderation in the first place? With that I will leave you to the more fun part of your activities (I don’t expect an answer).
Simply, Fausten, your history of participation earned you the courtesy of an answer, even if it wasn’t an answer you liked.
A new commenter posting “you’re all sick and you need to get help” would never have made it out of moderation. You were a bit more polite, you built up to your judgmental comments over the course of a longer debate, and you were saying other stuff worthy of consideration. So, simply killing your remarks in moderation didn’t seem entirely appropriate.
Just to change tack from the previous conversation, these wonderfully colourful illustrations remind me of a book that I was given back in the seventies. It was by Harry Harrison and called “Great balls of fire: a history of sex in science fiction illustration” and the cover featured a fainting maiden with incredible luminous green breasts being borne skywards by a guy in a helmet, boots, rocket pack, codpiece – and not much else; all arrayed against the background of what looks like a gigantic bone penis. The illustrations inside were just as colourful and sure did celebrate that particular genre of pulp fiction covers, as well as more recent (then) art.
“The layers of alternate interpretation are *exactly* what that genre of illustration is about.”
What staggers me is the people who think there’s an underlying reality here to get worried about.
I’m pretty sure that NO rapist in the real world has ever strapped his victim to a rocket while wearing a metal helmet and no shirt and lighting a fuse with a big torch.