#or their sexuality is a performance it exists for whoever is watching and perceiving them

[four-rabbit]

Not getting into the dumpster fire that is the shota chilchuck discourse but I think one very important thing that sets him apart from the average "looks like a kid but is much older" anime character, shows that his portrayal was made in good faith and with actual thought put into it is that Chilchuck is completely in control over his sexuality throughout the manga, it doesn't feel like he exists to be appealing to the viewer or the other characters.

Like, he's not sexualized, but he's still allowed to be sexual and do whatever he pleases with his sexuality, whether it is sharing it or keeping it to himself.

It never feels like a performance for the audience, when he makes a sexual joke the gag is that's its pathetic and awkward and doesn't land, he sees the succubus as a horde of hot blondes because of course he does and all we get is him there in the corner of the panel getting his dick sucked we don't see anything because its not for us to see.

It's just a normal, almost boring detail, because that's how he prob sees it, just a normal part of his life, has been for the past sixteen years or so.

I don't really know what I'm getting at. I guess I'm glad Chilchuck is allowed to be horny in a tired middle-aged divorced way.

[vampiremeerkat]

If you could rewrite any movie which one would you choose and what would you make different?

Difficult to say, there are alot of bad movies, or worse; movies that had potential.Today I still feel disappointed by Ed, Edd n Eddy’s Big Picture Show. Unlike most of the movies I find bad, I was looking forward to this one. I’m sure that influenced my judgement. I remember it leaving me unfulfilled after watching it for the first time, though it took me a while to realise why.The movie’s production gave Antonucci’s team the opportunity to explore the more undeveloped characters in the cast, like the Kanker sisters and Nazz, but they squandered that chance by making some very odd decisions. I was not charmed by the heavy focus on Edd and Eddy’s friendship, which was filled with..well..homosexual undertones not many fans can deny, while Ed mostly stood in the background, not being much of a serious participant in the very serious drama. It’s a role he ended up playing alot in the series, but it’s not a role he deserved to have in what was supposed to be HIS movie as well.Anyway, there would be quite a few things I’d rewrite. I’d start off taking away all the mystery. When you write a movie for a TV series, it’s supposed to answer the mystery that already exists, not create more or ignore it. I would’ve shown what’s under Edd’s hat, just to be done with it, and make it very clear what it is the Eds have done to deserve getting hunted down like animals. Since they already performed so many scams where they destroyed the neighbourhood and severely hurt their customers, it’s hard to guess what they could’ve done that’s so much worse than their previous antics. When looking at the damage in the intro, I don’t even consider it worse than the previous scams. Somebody needs to be in a coma in order for it to be worse. Sarah and Jimmy were still happily doing their own thing while all of it occurred, so I’d say it was not yet Armageddon. Speaking of which, these two and they disaster tourism didn’t add anything to the story, so maybe they should’ve made themselves useful and be in that coma. Or at least perceived as such by everybody. This would immediately give Ed a bigger, more sincere role as well, since he cares for his sister and would be heartbroken over it. I’m aware it would’ve been a different movie if the carefree dolt turned sad and serious, then again, the original plot is not one you’d tie to a comedy, either. Maybe the fact that it is, is another problem. Why were the Eds this upbeat during their exile? Should the movie even be about children fleeing for their life if you want it to be a comedy?Anyway, the gist is that we need something that makes this scam worse than all the others, and have the characters properly respond to it.I’d also change up the romance with Nazz and Kevin. It was a tedious performance, thanks to Kevin, but I also consider the cheerleader/jock combination to be a cliché we need less of. I would’ve had her go for Eddy, or based on useable hints from the show, Edd.Besides that, I think Nazz’ parts could’ve used flashback scenes to her obese days, where we’d then learn more about who she is and the relationship she shared with whoever she started showing affection towards. That could still be Kevin in this case, but if it was one of the Eds, maybe she could also secretly boycott the other children’s journey to finding them.It also would’ve been cool if in some flashback scenes we’d see Nazz from previous episodes, defending and promoting the Eds or decreasing the damage of their scams behind the scenes, showing how big her influence was. Like the 3rd Lion King movie. Just anything to increase her importance, I guess.If Kevin stays her crush, I would scrap the bike obsession and actually have him respond to her advantages in a believable manner.The role of the Kankers in the movie was fine, but it’s disappointing that their efforts of protecting the Eds from the others were not acknowledged by anyone, and that they did not bother saving Edd and Eddy from Eddy’s brother’s violence. That was strangely out-of-character. I’d have them beat him up and the Eds openly accepting them afterwards, since they saved them twice by that time and have proven their feelings to be genuine. Of course this needs proper dialogue to go with, but I think when this level of seriousness comes from characters like the Kankers, it’ll have a bigger impact than when it comes from a character that’s already emotional most of the time. Like Edd.Then for Eddy’s brother, who I truthfully have no problems with; he could’ve benefited from a character redemption, even if it’s just to humanize a villain for once. We have way too many unmotivated villains in fiction and we still don’t really know who Eddy’s brother is.In the movie we see the Kanker sisters dragging him inside his home, off committing sexual assault by the looks of it, which I find an improper way to end the story of a man we only just got introduced to. He’ll still be Eddy’s brother at the end of the day, so what will these two boys say to each other at the next family dinner? Not much good when you end things this way.So, after I’d have him beaten up by the Kankers and Eddy had his talk with his unusual saviours, I think it would be good if he approached his floored brother and directly asked why he is bullying him. Eddy’s brother would then confess that he’s upset because their parents preferred Eddy over him after he was born. He’ll add that he tried to teach him bad things in order to get him in trouble, and on other days just shoved him around in his state of bitterness, but his intention was to become the #1 son again. But now that he’s an adult and living on his own, he realises it’s pointless to keep going and he’s lost the game of winning their love long ago. Nobody has to feel sorry for him at that point but Eddy.The problem with the movie is that it’s all pretty much about Eddy, with Edd playing the other main part. These two had the most story-progressing dialogue.I don’t know why Eddy is the only character that got explored, we already know who he is. If the less exciting travelling scenes - so most of them in my opinion - were replaced with exploring the other characters, I think we’d have a more interesting movie.Not saying his character exploration is bad, but why did they choose to discuss Eddy’s relationship with his brother? Why not also Ed’s with his sister and parents? And Edd’s with his parents? There’s so much that’s left undiscussed, and I don’t think Eddy’s relationship with his brother was the first and only thing fans were curious about. Show off the parents, show off more children, reveal some last names; this alone I find more interesting than Eddy’s brother.The Kankers were the only allies from beginning to finish, but they got zero praise, Nazz was obviously supposed to star in her own little romance plot, but the movie ended without the romance ever being mentioned again, Kevin was horrid, Rolf and Wilfred were fairly unpleasant towards each other, and the villainous role Jonny was given was insulting towards his character; it’s like nobody received the minimal best treatment from this movie.I also would’ve inserted different music tracks for the dramatic bits. The music was consistently jazzy and cheery, it was weird to listen to.Fans say to have cried when Ed and Eddy sank through the mud, but the background music already spoiled that it was all just gud lulz. It and the sound effects did not take these scenes seriously, while you can clearly see that the animation did. The ball was dropped at many areas.

[shirlleycoyle]

Fucking in Public Reveals Who Public Spaces Are Really For

“If something exists, there is porn of it:” Welcome to Rule 34, a series in which Motherboard’s Samantha Cole lovingly explores the highly specific fetishes that can be found on the web. If you’ve thought of it, someone’s jerked off to it.

The links in this article may be considered NSFW.

Dahlia Drake's most memorable moment of exhibitionist sex involved fucking against a parked car at 2 a.m. It was dark, but she and her partner were in full view of a business's security cameras.

"We got out, started making out, and things got hot and heavy quickly, and we ended up having sex against the side of the car as well as on the hood of the car," she told me. "The idea of risking getting caught sends an adrenaline rush and really gets people hot and bothered. It’s that excitement that interests people and really gets them into it. Personally, I don’t think there’s anything more thrilling than performing a lewd act in a very public area."

As a cam model, Drake is used to showing off her sexuality in front of others. Usually, this means performing in front of a small audience watching a stream, or sending videos and pictures to paying customers. On her own time, however, she enjoys getting lewd in public.

"The main reason I do it isn’t necessarily because fans request it, but because I legitimately enjoy public play," she said.

"It makes sex into an adventure and that adventure ends in passion," Raven Risque, an art model and fetish model who often plays publicly, told me. "You are nervous and scared but delighted and turned on… Everything feels heightened because of the adrenaline of being caught, of being seen. Sometimes I even want to be seen."

Every once in a while, a video of people getting intimate in public goes viral. Tabloids pick it up, and suddenly everyone has an opinions about public sex. Last month, it was a duo on a New York City subway platform. In the past, it's been bus riders, a guy with his ass out trying to copulate with a pile of leaves, or Yankees fans.

Sex in public can be fun. It can be gross, regrettable, thrilling, passionate, and inadvisable all at once. But in a time when everyone has a smartphone ready to record or post your sexcapades to the internet, it's a lot harder to get away with it without going viral.

FUCK THE CAR, CALL THE COPS

In 2018, a drunk Kansas man refused to stop fucking the tailpipe of a car until someone tased him. Was he horny for cars, confusing the car with a person's orifice, turned on by the public nature of the car-fuckery, or just very drunk? It doesn't matter—he was charged with "lewd and lascivious behavior." Because in this country you can't fuck anything, let alone someone else's vehicle, in broad daylight.

If you're going by the rule of law in the U.S., your right to have sex outdoors varies from state to state. In most states, sex in public is a misdemeanor under public lewdness and indecency laws, but the definitions of "public" and "lewd" vary, and are often ambiguous. For example, in 1991, a New York court ruled that sex in a car wasn't considered sex in public unless passers-by could see it from outside.

Sex on the beach, while logistically difficult, is one of the most common fetishes, according to some polls—despite being super illegal if you're on a public beach. The 1953 classic From Here to Eternity may have set the mold for sensual beach scenes, spawning a whole trope for romance films.

Pop culture tends to draw a hard line between this dreamy, passionate, thrill-of-the-moment public sex, and "exhibitionism," which conjures images of a man in a trenchcoat flashing people, or nudism and extreme extroversion. But the desire to toe that line—to dawdle in the possibility of getting caught, but not too brazenly—is a common fantasy.

Justin Lehmiller, a research fellow at the Kinsey Institute, surveyed more than 4,000 Americans about their sexual fantasies during research for his book Tell Me What You Want . Forty-two percent of participants reported fantasies of having sex in public. But the majority of those who described public sex as their all-time favorite sexual fantasy said that shocking other people wasn't the goal.

"Rather, what turned them on was the idea that either (1) they could potentially be observed, but weren’t actually being observed, or (2) that other people might watch, but would enjoy what they were seeing," Lehmiller said. "In other words, most people with public sex fantasies don’t want to do something non-consensual, which makes them different from the clinical exhibitionists—the ones who get off on other people’s shocked or disgusted reactions."

David Ley, a clinical psychologist who specializes in sexuality, told me that it's important to distinguish between public sex as a fantasy, and exhibitionism for the sake of shocking others without their consent. "The place where this becomes a problem, illegal and disordered, is when people violate the rights of others, forcing them to observe their sexual behaviors without consent," Ley said. Exhibitionist disorder is clinically diagnosable, according to the DSM-5, and is defined as "exposing one’s genitals to an unsuspecting person or performing sexual acts that can be watched by others."

Public sex is primal and natural in an unnatural world that looks down on public intimacy.

"In assessment and treatment of these issues, I tend to be more interested in the levels of empathy, impulse control and antisocial tendencies, than in the sexual fantasy itself," Ley said. "Someone who is doesn’t care about the rights of others, the possibility of being arrested and charged as a sex offender, or potentially exposing children to their sexual behaviors, are the people I worry about."

Most people don't take their fantasies that far, or even want to. A public sex enthusiast named Lukas (who spoke under the condition of anonymity—this aspect of his sex life is illegal, after all) told me that although he likes to play outside, it's not because he might get caught. The best sex he's had was while hiking in New Zealand with his girlfriend.

"I like feeling peacefully connected to the world during sex, and nature gives me that," he said. "When having sex in nature, I worry about being caught, because whoever catches me would probably not feel happy about it. Being transgressive can be part of the thrill for me, but only against perceived rules, not some passerby. Under ideal circumstances, I’m in a spot where there is no real risk of getting caught and I don’t have to worry about it."

Many people don't even take it farther than their browsers. Searching "public sex" on most porn sites returns hundreds of pages of videos featuring people doing it in cars, on beaches, in parks, at festivals, parties, and bars. There's even a video from circa 2011 of two people having sex during a skydive. Even if most people don't actually have sex in public, it's clear that many of us find the fantasy appealing. On Pornhub, one of the most visited porn sites, Public Agent and Fake Taxi, two porn channels focused on public sex, are the fifth and sixth most popular channels, where they've gained billions of views.

But sex in public isn't just a sandy daydream, and it's often not a perverse or malicious thrill, either. For a lot of people, it's a reality of life.

WHO IS PERMITTED TO FUCK IN PUBLIC?

Unlike blueberry porn or farts-as-fetish, exhibitionist sex is a topic that brings up a lot of questions about capitalism, bigotry, and class struggle. In order to have a conversation about sex in public, we have to discuss who is privileged to enjoy this kink as a fun, potentially-risky taboo, and who can't.

There are the issues surrounding class inequalities that likely result in many of the videos of public sex gone viral. Many homeless shelters segregate genders and don't allow couples, even same-sex couples, to stay together—who then face the choice of separation or living on the street.

How to define "public space" (and how the inside of a car isn't, until it's in someone's view) is a legal question, but it's also a cultural and societal one. Hostile architecture, like spiked wall edges or sloped benches, makes it impossible to simply sit and chill—let alone cuddle up with another person. Pseudo-public courtyards and parks creep into the few shreds of commons we have left, and those areas aren't policed by the local government but by private security guards. These places are often not public to people who have nowhere else to go, and who aren't the types that those private developers want to attract.

Then there's the not-unrelated topic of survival sex, and the ways being a sex worker in public spaces is policed and criminalized, especially in the U.S. After the 2018 passage of FOSTA, a bill that made platforms liable for sexual solicitation, sex workers were pushed offline and public places were the only option for many sex workers to make what they needed to survive. This, obviously, isn't kink—it's oppression.

Public sex is also fraught in terms of queer history: Who is allowed to display their sexuality in public, without repercussions? Gay men, especially, have been stereotyped as being promiscuous in public places, and have been treated with suspicion in bathrooms or for simply being in public places after dark. This might sound like a shameful relic from the 90s George Michael era, but police still launch massive undercover stings to entrap gay men and charge them for "lewd acts."

Sex and gender activist Gayle S. Rubin grapples with similar questions in Culture, Society and Sexuality in 1998—and also hints at the ways we're surveilling ad censoring each other can be in the same vein of class brutality as landlords and cops:

"The general public helps to penalize erotic nonconformity when, according to the values they have been taught, landlords refuse housing, neighbors call in the police, and hoodlums commit sanctioned battery. The ideologies of erotic inferiority and sexual danger decrease the power of sex perverts and sex workers in social encounters of all kinds."

In part, the culture that vilifies things like cruising or simply displaying queer sexuality in public forced them, too—it's sometimes the only place the queer community can enjoy the anonymity and relative safety of the commons, outside of oppressive and bigoted households or neighborhoods.

Sex work activist Liara Roux told me in a Twitter message that when they were a teen, before coming out, it was the only option to explore their sexuality.

"I was so worried my parents would kick me out if they caught me doing anything so there was no way I was doing anything at my house or at my friends' houses," they said.

Roux said they've had numerous experiences with public play since then. "Usually it's me fingering another girl in a public place where it can look like nothing is going on! Like sticking fingers up a skirt when they are wearing nothing underneath," they said. "Once my partner fingered me on the BART coming home from SFO after a long trip, was very hot… And one of my favorites was sticking my foot into another girls pussy under the table while we were drinking tea at a very tranquil teahouse."

People assume they're platonic friends and don't look more closely than that, they said.

Just because sex forced into the wild is a complex topic doesn't negate the existence of sex in the wild for the sake of celebration. But to do it properly, you'll want to stake out the right spots, and ride the thrill in a reasonable, respectful way—ultimately, away from the suspicious and unsuspecting eyes of the public.

"It can be done easily or it can take much planning," Risque said. "I've been in moments of sheer lust that I don't care where I am, the clothes must come off. And other times it's a date with someone I love. We plan a day of it… Public sex is primal and natural in an unnatural world that looks down on public intimacy, nudity and sex in general. So for me it brings me into my animal nature in a way I thought lost to me."

Fucking in Public Reveals Who Public Spaces Are Really For syndicated from https://triviaqaweb.wordpress.com/feed/

[duaneodavila]

Publius, The Mutt

Dogs hump. This will not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with dogs, or even most people who can spell dog. So it was a natural subject for a “scholarly” journal named “Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography.

This article addresses questions in human geography and the geographies of sexuality by drawing upon one year of embedded in situ observations of dogs and their human companions at three public dog parks in Portland, Oregon. The purpose of this research is to uncover emerging themes in human and canine interactive behavioral patterns in urban dog parks to better understand human a-/moral decision-making in public spaces and uncover bias and emergent assumptions around gender, race, and sexuality.

When you run out of rocks to look under for proof of rape culture, you apparently sit at the dog park and watch, making keen observations like this:

Specifically, and in order of priority, I examine the following questions: (1) How do human companions manage, contribute, and respond to violence in dogs? (2) What issues surround queer performativity and human reaction to homosexual sex between and among dogs? and (3) Do dogs suffer oppression based upon (perceived) gender? It concludes by applying Black feminist criminology categories through which my observations can be understood and by inferring from lessons relevant to human and dog interactions to suggest practical applications that disrupts hegemonic masculinities and improves access to emancipatory spaces.

What this has to do with Black feminist criminology is a mystery, but then, I’m not the author, Helen Wilson. And based upon some investigation by Toni Airaksinen, neither is Helen Wilson.

The publishers and editors of the viral academic article on “rape culture” in Portland dog parks admitted Monday that the author may have breached the publishing agreement by misleading them about her credentials.

Helen Wilson submitted her study—“Human Reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at Urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon”—to Gender, Place, and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography in 2017, claiming to editors that she held a doctorate in Feminist Studies.

Yes, doctorate in Feminist Studies is a thing, whether you think it should be or not. But Wilson’s bona fides wasn’t merely based on her claimed degree. She had more.

Wilson also claimed to be the lead researcher at the Portland Ungendering Research (PUR) Initiative, but upon further inspection, it appears that the website for the initiative was only published four days after Wilson submitted her article. Since then, it has only ever existed with a disclaimer that it was being “taken down,” and is now completely defunct.

What else would one do with that doctorate but be a lead researcher for a non-existent group. Well, it might be unfair to call it non-existent, since it could exist even if it was just her and lasted for a few hours. If it’s good enough for someone testifying as a forensic science expert at trial on the efficacy of duct tape identification, why not?

But even if Wilson didn’t turn out to be who she claimed to be, to possess the qualifications required by the journal’s editors for publication, what of the content of her(?) study?

In her article, Wilson claims she spent nearly 1,000 hours of “public observations of dogs and their human companions” at three dog parks around Portland, claiming that during her sojourns, there was “one dog rape/humping incident every 60 minutes.”

“Dog parks are microcosms where hegemonic masculinist norms governing queering behaviour and compulsory heterosexuality can be observed in a cross-species environment,” Wilson concludes.

Due to this, Wilson worries that dog parks remain “oppressive spaces that lock both humans and animals into hegemonic patterns of gender conformity” and that they “magnify toxic themes…intrinsic to the gender binary.”

Whether you are now motivated to start a petition to eliminate dog parks by this stirring and forceful condemnation of oppressive spaces is up to you. Personally, it suggests to me that “dog raping/humping” might not support the conclusion that dog parks “magnify toxic themes,” but reflect a rational natural inclination on the part of dogs, whether humper or humpee. But then, I don’t have a dog, so I rely on scholars like . . . whoever this person is.

Does it matter what Helen Wilson may not exist? Or may have falsified her qualifications to spend 1,000 hours observing dogs humping? And before any of you wags suggest it, could Helen Wilson have been a pseudonym for a certain senior Teutonic judge who used feminist geography to place the dog parks in Seattle rather than Lincoln to throw you off the scent? Toni Airaksinen tried her best to find out.

For her part, Wilson—whose email address returns an auto-reply indicating that she is not responding to messages “due to intense harassment”—would only tell Campus Reform that “I don’t want anyone to know who I am.”

To the extent people spend their days trolling to end social injustice, consider whether this constitutes research of serious utility, and if not, whether its author matters a whit. This is the level of discourse, and the level of concern about whose observations inform the discourse, that is fueling the passionate advocates of social justice. This is Black feminist criminology, if you can make any better sense of that than I can.

This is utter gibberish, of no utility to anyone and only to be take seriously by people who have lost all touch with reality. Who wrote this gibberish should matter to no one, as it’s still just gibberish. And the reason it should be of concern to you is that this sort of gibberish, written by someone who may be no more qualified to express a scholarly thought than the dogs observed, is filtering through the heads of people in desperate search for new and improved ways to be outraged about rape culture as demonstrated by the toxic masculinity of humping dogs.

Rape? That word should strike a bell for most lawyers. As words like “rape” become increasingly distant from any cognizable definition, though it continues to be used to destroy the lives of the accused, realize that this is the sort of nonsensical gibberish that guides the outrage and excuses.

After all, if dogs rape, and we love us some dogs, does that not prove the reality of rape culture and toxic masculinity? Helen Wilson says so, whoever she is. And if her observations are true, and only a misogynist would doubt someone who obviously identifies as a woman, what difference does it make if she’s using a pseudonym to protect her identity from the Patriarchy?

Publius, The Mutt republished via Simple Justice