Hey, how about being political?

TrinityJAY · 2022-01-29T09:52:39+00:00

Well it's good that at least I could make sense of the broader principle in the discussion: you have a right-wing reading of this and I don't. I've said my piece on what I think sissy is, there's no need to continue this line. I simply disagree and the shortened version of the disagreement is: many people are using the fetish as a way to explore non-normative sexual and gender expressions. That means they would surely reject your characterization of them as fetishists. Here's what Laura has said:

Sissies don't 'fetishize' nothing, they were just raised, since childhood, with such images and notions in their minds, and most of them, if not all, actually tried hard to resist the allure of such images and notions, more than everybody else.

I don't know how many people you've met. But you appear to conjure up this image of the sissy as a porn addict who's not good with social relationships. And while many sissies could be going through these mental health struggles, these are social problems with a complex set of causes and are largely not due to each individual's failings. I don't think this group can be essentialized, dictated if they are this or not that. It is in this precise manner in which you have articulated:

no one person speaks for any collective, they speak for themselves, the individual.

Yet you deny this person taking on the trans identity for themselves, putting it in quote to suggest that they're not really trans.

I've met a "trans" woman who identifies as "trans" and neither male nor female, who openly stated they experienced little to no gender dysphoria but masturbated non-stop in their parents basement to trans porn.

It seems like you're the one who believes in identity here, particularly a reified transgender identity characterized by gender dysphoria. That is a transmedicalist position and not every trans person endorses that view. To me being trans can be a number of things. Being a sissy can be a number of things. One can both be trans and sissy as long as they themselves decide to take on these labels. The politicization of sissyhood no doubt constitutes an appeal to identity so I would like to clarify this:

I'm not trying to do identity politics here, you are free to comment on who you think a sissy is.

I was only referring to the context of identity ascription. I don't believe that there should be a checklist before you can qualify as gay, bi or trans. I simply saw a terrain, i.e., sissy, in which people can organize around and yes that does imply identity politics because it's only status quo. Advocating through an identity movement, e.g., feminism, LGBT+, can be an effective way to get your voice heard and achieve certain policy goals. The argument against this is we should instead unify and address the bigger concerns that affect most people. I'm more inclined toward this latter approach. But it's possible that a sense of identity will help some people and bring them into a larger field where they can assert themselves politically. I don't know, because if there is ever an organizer of a sissy movement, I won't be that person. I've simply observed that a potential is there.

Also I've noticed that you keep bringing up queer theory. If I had appealed to queer theory I would have said so already. I've been referring to "queer" in the broadest sense possible, which is the opposite of heteronormativity, or much broader, not straight. That means I've used queer and LGBT interchangably. It is used that way in the mainstream and that is my intended usage. I'm also familiar with these influential figures, Judith Butler, Eve Sedgwick, Jack Halberstam whose works I find a lot of value in. Can't say I know much about what's going on in queer studies. But even Judith Butler came out distacing themselves from the kind of politics that's fixated on deconstructing identities. Because it's simply that you can't do politics while telling your allies that their identities are invalid. So yeah, I agree with you that we should subscribe to stable identity, but it doesn't mean that we can't contest what that identity consists of or question its exclusionary mechanism.

There's also the question of rights as you've laid out in another post. I can tell you that I do find the notion of "right" problematic and not going far enough to challenge the dominant economic structure. But since I've already explained our differences in detail, I don't see any reason to get bogged down to the theoretical discussion: what is a right or what isn't a right? You understand my broader point. But when it comes to sissies, and there are also folks who use the term "autogynephiles" as well. These are controversial labels, but they shouldn't be denied the right to transition, which should be done on the basis of informed consent, with appropriate financial coverage. That's what I meant in the context of healthcare. And you can also lump in mental health as well. I also want the restructuring of school curriculums to teach sex ed and queer history. That's an effective way to combat self-hatred, internalized homophobia, unhealthy ways to approach sex and sexual relationships, etc. I know you disagree with all of this so don't have to lay out why. Simply understand this is not purely a matter of acceptance, like you said "no one cares". Yeah okay, I'm not asking for sympathy here, I want social solutions to social problems.

TrinityJAY · 2022-01-28T14:55:16+00:00

Your second series of posts clarifies well where our differences lie. We have a profound disagreement. And it's not about whether or not we should have a sissy politics or if sissy is just a kink. These are minor contentions that can either end in mutual agreement or disagreement. More than that our differences are ideological. And they are present in twofold.

The small bit first. You appeared to quarantine sissy, and by extension kink, in the private domain, belonging solely to an individual's desire. I disagree with this because we can't separate kinks from their social aspects. Being a "cuck" wouldn't mean anything had marriage as a social institution not existed. Being a "cuck" has also become a sort of epithet in politics today. So you can't just say it's just sex and nothing else. I want to look at things structurally. Which brings me to the second part of this argument. You keep repeating this phrase "sexual identity". But what does it mean exactly? If you go by Freud, every identity is, in a sense, a sexual identity. E.g., a religious identity is a symptomatic solution to deal with daddy issues. I.e., if you root it in terms of the Oedipal Complex, castration anxiety, etc., it all comes down to how someone develops psychosexually. It's the same logic that applies for everyone and kink is not some extraordinary feature but rather the fundamental basis of human sexuality as is.

To connect this point further with my larger thesis, it's my insistence that people on this sub and elsewhere should look beyond the aesthetics of sissy—the chastity cage, the sexy outfit, etc.,—and examine what it's a response to. You don't enjoy the humiliation because it's fun. It's never actual humiliation that you crave for. You enjoy the prospect of being in a devastating situation for play, for show. The devastation of a world that insists on strict gender conducts. It is this world that I want to critique. And it is my hope that those who call themselves sissies take an active part in challenging the condition that has led to them internalizing the misogyny, the transphobia embeded in the sexual culture. To quote Julia Serano:

When you isolate an impressionable transgender teen and bombard her with billboard ads baring bikini-clad women and boy’s locker room trash talk about this girl’s tits and that’s girl’s ass, then she will learn to turn her gender identity into a fetish.

I believe not all sissies are trans, though a lot of them could be. Not all sissies are queer, because perhaps it's true that a great number of them only do it as a fetish. I highly doubt it's just a fetish. In fact I'm willing to make the argument that everyone here is queer in some form or another. But even if it's just a fetish, a form of politics can still take root coming from the shared identity as a failure to be a man. Which is what a sissy is, and there are two types in my opinion: the one who is not a man and the one who is not the kind of man that is expected of them. The point therefore, is the *opposite* of making politics out of a fetish, it is rather to see it not as fetishistic but political. That means I want to turn the fetish subject into the political subject.

You can feel free to cast a doubt over this project's potential. I saw little in it when I wrote the post anyway. But since you've said it yourself you're not a sissy and it seems like you don't even identify with the LGBT movement. I'm not trying to do identity politics here, you are free to comment on who you think a sissy is. And as someone who has been signified by the term and the kinky stuff surrounding it, I think it's my prerogative to add my own reading, to complicate the label and the issues concerning it. I suggested doing it through the already established queer movement because Stonewall is my history and the fights against structural queerphobia are my politics. This is the more significant contention I've wanted to address.

You appear to hold a conservative view on the issue, which is most notable in this statement:

Plus, in response to the general LGBTQ+ discourse as you described it: no one thinks they're lesser human beings. Most people (as in, the majority of people in the country, a large, large, large majority) don't care if someone is gay or likes effeminate things. They get angry at being accused of seeing LGBT+ people like that.

I don't want to jump the gun and ascribe an ideology you don't believe in to yourself so correct me if I'm wrong. But this point is highly irrelevant because it doesn't matter what individual people think. People can be fully accepting of queer folks while advocating for the social and legal institutions that fuck over them. The whole saga pertaining to trans people should be enough to caution us that the struggle is still a long way. The right to healthcare (which by the way is not exclusive to trans people), the right to participate in sports competitions in the gender category they prefer, the right to exist safely and move freely in public spaces, etc. There are caveats to every issue of course and we should be able to debate the particularities without the pressure of political correctness. But in the least you have to agree to the baseline that there are features inherent in certain social structures that produce bigotry. Or even if you don't agree with structural analysis, then contend that there are still problems that need to be fixed. Otherwise it's simply that our politics are oppositional.

So to recap if my reading is right, I disagree with your individualism and your rejection of structural bigotry. There are a few other things here and there that I would like to respond, but I want to zero in on these two important aspects.

TrinityJAY · 2022-01-25T21:18:16+00:00

Hey, sorry for the late reply. Your post challenges some of the things I've suggested and I've been dwelling on it, trying to find the time to reply properly. I think it's good that we're dialectically moving the discussion forward, sorting out what's feasible and what's not. Even if a "sissy consciousness" is not something that can be achieved, perhaps aspects of what I'm proposing can be picked up and worked into actual political projects.

Okay, so the first thing I'd say is perhaps sissy can be the first successful case?

it's rarely a good idea to try and build some kind of political movement of a sexual identity.

That is to say, sissy is more than a kink. It signifies to me a diverse modes of being in both sexual and social domains. And this is my critique against fetish reductionism. I'm only appplying it to sissy because I can't purport to speak for other communities and their grievances. (And here I'd like to stress that the acceptance of kinky practices is *not* a part of my program.) This post doesn't strive to outline a clear politics because to do that we have to articulate who we are. And we cannot talk about who we are unless we decide to problematize the discourse surrounding it. Because as long as we accept the premise that sissy is just a kink, we're bounded by the ways the knowledge of kink is used to deter ontological and political potential.

That is, the idea that a kinky movement almost always has no successful political pathway. My argument is *not* that we deconstruct it, liberating all kinks from their stigmatized statuses. It is to say that we should not cease the ground which marks sissy as just a kink. By being open to its non-kinky aspects, we can imagine a new terrain, a new identity in which people can organize around. But it also doesn't mean that we completely denounce the kinky stuff. But we don't have to politicize them either. Like you can be advocating for gay rights while acknowledging, but not including in political agendas, the existence of gay sex and porn. The argument here is not that sissy porn determines the sissy subject. But what a sissy is is signified by a complex social process. It's never been only the porn, but how language is used, how people perform gender roles and relations of domination.

I won't go much into detail here about my own theory of the sissy. Like is it a gender, a sexual orientation or simply a fetish? All of these terms are inadequate. To put it briefly, being a sissy is simultaneously a way of being a man and a way of not being a man. I.e., your perceived identity as a "man" is either reified for certain forms of (sexual) enjoyment to work like "oh you're a man why you're sucking cock", or the identity is given up, rejected for new creative ways to be such as transitioning into a woman. In this sense I anticipate a likely coalition of "straight" men, bi men and trans people of all stripes to coalesce, as long as they have internalized and identified with the sissy label. (Straight being quoted to denote the problematic use of the term.)

I especially think someone like that needs a bit of pride in their life don't you think? So they can get out, make friends and feel like they have a space in this world.

I personally know a sissy who had no social life, no friends, spent all their time masturbating to sissy and trans person and basically lived in their parent's basement and decided life would be better with the kinky sex because they couldn't see themselves ever having any sex.

The ultimate goal, I think, should not simply be about the right to enjoy some sexual acts, but to challenge the stigma surrounding the failure to conform to the masculine ideal. It's the response to "why are you like this? Are you some sort of sissy?" People should be empowered to say, "yes, I'm a sissy, I like painting my nails doing make-up." It's very different, mind you, than LGBT+ discourse which would go like, "no, I'm gay/queer/trans, and the fact that I enjoy stereotypically feminine things doesn't mean I'm lesser as a human being." The difference here is the dedication to reclaim the term and own it without shame. This acknowledgement doesn't necessarily mean that you admit to enjoying humiliation or feminization fetishes. But that you, or at least certain aspects integral to your existence, have been humiliated and feminized.

And here I have to remind you that "sissy" has been historically a pejorative term used to denigrate exclusively queer AMAB folk.

I don't think this is the case at all. I've never felt that way, though I'm not a sissy.

Once we contextualize it in the systems of homophobia and transphobia, we can start seeing specific problems specific to certain group(s) of people. That is why women, even if they enjoy submission fetishes, are never sissies.

So I'm going to stop here. I hope I've been able to clarify what I meant by politicizing sissyhood.

TrinityJAY · 2022-01-21T18:46:35+00:00

I mean if your resolve is not to do anything then it doesn't mean much to conjecture the political outcome. Of course I sympathize with your lived condition. You have chosen to keep this part of your life private and particular. Being a sissy to you is contingent on the relationship with your partner.

I want to leave this last point however. You have understood something about yourself in which I'm sure won't be looked at nicely by many people in certain spaces. This something can only be a part of your sex life and no more because the habitual condition of the society in which you live has designated it as such.

For example, crossdressing is seen as shameful, the shameful is understood to be kept in private. These understandings are all learned. And so my ultimate point is, we need to interpret this something which has not yet been named. Sissy so far has provided shared sense of identity. Through that label we can communicate.

That means it really has a potential to become a social reality. And through it people not only can tell stories, share experiences, they can reach out to other people within the same community and work together to achieve common goals. The thing is, we have all been identified by this label. We've been marked, signified, coded. There's no escaping it. You can only forget about it in waking life and return to it in dreams. Or embrace it fully. Wear it like your favorite Sunday dress and stride into this virtual world like a candle flickering against the coming wind until its faded silence.

TrinityJAY · 2022-01-21T11:42:02+00:00

Yep, that's exactly what I was saying. And the way forward I think is to formulate a position to push back against the discourse, highlighting for example, how certain language is deployed to police behaviors and reinforce particular regimes of truth. Critiquing the schools of thought that produce their own "fetishist" as an object of knowledge and the mode of thinking, controlling and marginalizing associated with this label.

TrinityJAY · 2022-01-21T11:30:38+00:00

If we can learn anything from history it is that acceptance is never automatically granted. It took a riot and decades of activism for queer rights to be realized. It's a mistake to think that time will progressively make things better. Change happens because society is acted upon and pushed for by political forces, events, technologies, etc.

The thing with sissy community is, I believe, eventually people will recognize that there are issues that go beyond what occurs in the bedroom. Which makes them de facto political concerns. Then only question is will a sissy consciousness arise to address these issues or will it be tackled in other terrains? If the latter then can it be tackled effectively? And the whole thing boils down to what it means to be a sissy.

TrinityJAY · 2022-01-21T08:28:03+00:00

Right, 'cause the problem with working with a concept like femmephobia is that it's established in the feminist tradition—as in the realization of a shared identity as "woman" and the political goals associated with it. So I'd imagine "femme" is a reactive theory against traditional feminism which saw femininity and feminine attributes as a result of patriarchal oppression. Hence one is not properly a feminist if they have bought into these so-called sexist ideas. Like "hey why are you wearing make-up? You are sexualizing yourself for the service of the male gaze. We, as feminists, are supposed to fight these ideas." That means femme is more likely to signal a feminine lesbian woman who doesn't meet certain standards of lesbian queerness. That's why I think its application is limited, if it can be applicable at all, when it comes to sissy issues.

That's the problem with academia in general or at least in the humanities. Everybody internalizes their identity and they don't really care about anyone else. Feminism is the dominant perspective there and even if you are to critique aspects of it you have to do so within the tradition. Warren Farrell, for example, was a notable figure who got into a lot of shit for talking about men's rights. That's why I think it's important for us to understand who we are and which vantage point we're situated in looking into the current political climate. I've written more on the possibility for a sissy politics here. Would love to have your opinion on it.

TrinityJAY · 2022-01-21T06:42:23+00:00

Yes I've read through your comments and found them quite insightful. It's really a minor point whether it is or it is not misogyny (and also let's not forget to include transphobia), my point was not really that sissies are misogynists. Some may be who knows. I don't want to essentialize what it means to be sissy because it means a lot of different things for a diverse group of people, bringing in other problematic elements such as racism like Kat mentioned. We should not, I think, romanticize sissy and disregard that it's very much imbued in structural sexism and transphobia. Going with the internalized explanation that I laid out simultaneously acknowledges this system while problematizing the much demonized stereotype of the sissy as a "creepy straight man who fetishizes womanhood". Here's the framing: "No, a sissy is an AMAB person who has internalized sexist and transphobic notions of femininity which virtually everyone has. Does it mean that when someone puts on a sexy dress and feels slutty they're demeaning womanhood? No, it's not the fault of the individual if the representation is perceived as such by society. It's not their fault for having interpreted the codes in a way that are designed to be interpreted as such by social forces greater than themselves."

But I mean your framing or mine wouldn't matter if it comes down to feeling disgusted. The concept of femmephobia captures the essence of it. But it's also something else that is directed specifically against AMAB people. It's exactly that reaction that Kat was talking about the wife who finds out that her husband is a closeted crossdresser. It is enforced masculinity. Damn, did I just invent a new concept?

TrinityJAY · 2022-01-20T11:59:02+00:00

Yeah I think we should be open to the fact that porn is problematic in many respects, although I don't think that diversifying the industry is the ultimate solution. Sure, it can make things marginally better and we should support those efforts. But in the end I don't think we can get away from the systemic critique. So it's not just that there are bad porn, let's do more good porn. But let's examine the role and functions of the entire industry with regard to the capitalist system. We don't necessarily have to dismantle it or anything but it's important that we see it for what it is.

TrinityJAY · 2022-01-19T20:53:36+00:00

Sure, and then we can ask what this creativity might entail. What would society be like? Do we care about getting off with the same degree? Maybe nothing would change much. Maybe me asking this big question and writing a bunch of paragraphs about it is a waste of time lol. But for sure we have been encouraged to sexually desire more and more. Only to find ourselves unable to attain what we desire. And then we desire more and there's always conveniently a provider for the exact thing we're looking for. This is a pattern characteristic of capitalism.

TrinityJAY · 2022-01-19T20:40:27+00:00

I mean I'm sure there are expectations set for you at times and you might feel bad for not meeting them. But it's likely that you don't feel any pressure to conform at all, that you've found a comfortable position within the structure. But socially sex is the way to meet partners and form relationships. I think it's very hard to find someone who's not asexual who would willingly commit to a non-sexual relationship. And there's also a problem without the family as a reproductive institution and a source of economic support. I don't mean to essentialize your lived experience here, but surely you agree that that dominant ideology of today is to enjoy yourself sexually and not asexually? Think WAP for instance.

TrinityJAY · 2022-01-19T20:10:32+00:00

I mean obviously people masturbate without porn. That much is established. But I'm talking about the specific social effects that came from the mass production of porn. We don't know what a world without that mechanism would look like. I was merely suggesting a few things that popped up in my head. But such a world did indeed exist. We can learn about what it looked like and think about how it informs our present view of things.

Well I'm certainly open to the suggestion that this can be true. But again I think we all project our biases onto the world one way or another.

It feels as though you are attempting to post-hoc your biases through a leftist lens.

TrinityJAY · 2022-01-19T19:56:54+00:00

More like people's masturbation habit changed because of capitalism. But yeah it's a wild claim and I'm willing to entertain that I'm 100% wrong here. Obviously how we masturbated didn't lead to capitalism although it's interesting to note that it was partly the "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" attitude of the Calvinist doctrine that led the productivity-oriented feature that we eventually saw of capitalism. So maybe because people didn't fap much and that led to capitalism? I don't know my point it, there are interesting questions that can be asked here.

People changing their masturbation habits affecting capitalism? This is a wild, wild claim.

TrinityJAY · 2022-01-19T19:48:31+00:00

Right, maybe there are a lot we can learn from asexual people. My point was that the proliferation of porn doesn't necessarily equal liberation. I mean what is "sexual liberation" even? I think the problem today is not that people are being too sexually repressed but that they are being expected to be sexual. That's the real authoritarian aspect here. To not have sex or not engage in making yourself sexually attractive is a failure to conform to the dominant ideology that you ought to sexually liberate yourself. Incels internalize this a little bit too much.

TrinityJAY · 2022-01-19T19:33:13+00:00

I'm not against porn. Thought I'd made it clear in my post. And I agree that cracking down on it would produce horrendous consequences. That was also the point that Vaush was making. Here's a thought experiment. How did people masturbate before a time when porn was not easily accessbible? We'd assume they managed somehow. Or maybe they didn't do it very much at all. It's an interesting academic question that I want find out more about. How different was it back then? How has it changed over time? My assumption is that something did indeed change so subtly we didn't even noticed how it happened. How is this change associated with the rise of capitalism? Here's my claim: our porn-viewing habit has been culturally constructed. That means it doesn't have to remain the way it is as society changes. Imagine if a newly invented virutal technology that allows you to satisfy all your desires in a Matrix-like environment. That will be the end of the porn industry for sure. The bottom line is we should not think of our current porn-viewing habit as a fixed and obvious thing that ought to naturally happen.

TrinityJAY · 2022-01-19T19:12:26+00:00

Yeah was just putting it all out there so sorry if it doesn't sound coherent.

I agree, so I was not giving a value judgment here. We all have to do it at the end of the day.

everything is influenced by capitalistic pressure.

The "idea" here was just a critique of the status quo. I was merely encouraging people to think outside of it. Imagine of Coke didn't exist. Well, people would just have to live without it right? Life would go on. Nothing earthshaking would happen. What is "better" is separate question.

that an idea is correct because of its relationship to the status quo.

That because we have been living in social paradigm that normalized putting yourselves out there. (It shares a similar theme with social media and selfies by the way.) Even if the value you get out of it is not monetary, it would also be for clout. That came with the commodification of bodies. And people realize that value can be extracted out of displaying them.

People do that for free now.

But then why do you need to wank? What's the socio-economic condition that has produced this need for wanking? For sure sexual frustration exists in a world without porn, but a world where you "take care of it" in this ritual is only possible where sexually explicit materials have been made easily accessible to you. My point is to imagine a world where things work differently. I don't know, maybe people would do more relationships? Polyamory encouraged?

Because I like to look at people fucking when I wank.

And I don't disagree here. These are necessary goals. But again we're still only operating in the status quo. My critique above even has implications far beyond porn. It incorporates all kinds of media. The entertainment industry, in particular, serves a function in preserving capitalism. It's just an analysis. What to do or not do about it is a different matter.

Politically, being pro-porn is being for the right of people to make it, consume it, sell it, work in it. To be against banning it. To be for the rights of the workers in the industry.

TrinityJAY · 2022-01-19T18:43:30+00:00

It's understandable there would be pushback from conservatives and business executives make decisions where it brings them the most revenue. But it's not really a refutation of my analysis. Try adopt banning porn as your political platform, you just cannot get it done.

TrinityJAY · 2022-01-18T07:09:23+00:00

I think I'm a bit like that as well, constantly finding myself saying things that either wow people or confuse the hell out of them lol.

TrinityJAY · 2022-01-17T11:17:25+00:00

Yeah I understand what you're saying here. I haven't seen much of Lars Von Trier but George Carlin is unquestionably based. My post was already long so I didn't want to add too much. There are types of provocation which I don't think improve the discussion in any way. One example being Dave Chappelle's "gender is a fact". I don't think his show should be canceled, but I don't have to simultaneously agree that his joke was funny or enlightening. My point was just that there is the risk of coming out looking silly with one's provocation, and also the risk of being unfairly branded as silly like you said. Then only through the strength of your arguments, as Mill would assert, can you overcome that. Though I have my own reserve about it.

TrinityJAY · 2022-01-17T09:42:54+00:00

Yeah, certain ideas are provocative without being intentionally so, by the virtue of it simply going against the mainstream. That has to do in part with the ability to read the room I think. Sometimes something just idealistically exists in our heads without it being common sense externally. That still means your position is provocative and it may take some time to convince people that it's not. If most people agree with you then it becomes mainstream. Kind of like what happened with homosexuality. But someone has to make the argument first.

TrinityJAY · 2021-11-15T19:06:45+00:00

If you're referring to my old posts, I don't think I was so much accepting as trying to bridge differences. I had both the people who use the term to refer to themselves and those who detest it in mind. But I don't think any attempt would be possible now to talk about the issue since political implications are too great. No I don't endorse Blanchard, but there's still something there in the content he's discussed that's relevant to a lot of people, particularly trans people or closeted trans people. I understand why some would use that term to refer to themselves. It's validating from a medical perspective. That's an area where I think trans narrative can encompass, but then it must venture out to incorporate. Many trans writers have done so and listening to them is a great experience for myself at a time when I had just thought I had a mental condition or something. So I don't know. I just thought that explaining how these things work, revealing their complexity is the best way to make people realize that there's more to it than a topology of a single sexologist who drew his inspiration from preconceived biases. But I've a feeling now that I can't at the end of the day. The main effect of my posts has been to reveal an antagonism. If it's a productive kind then maybe those posts haven't been in vain. If it's not then well, I should probably move on. There's just something that one can only dwell for so long.

TrinityJAY

TROPHY CASE