Beth Mann's Blog

Beth's Urban Tales of Wonder and Decay

Beth Mann

Beth Mann
Long Beach Island, New Jersey, USA
November 11
Hot Buttered Media
I'm a writer and creative consultant. I have years of experimental comedy and strange theater under my belt. I surf. I cook. I love wine, men and song. And puppies. I effin' love puppies.

Editor’s Pick
APRIL 22, 2010 5:14PM

Boobquake and the Cutefication of Feminism

Rate: 85 Flag



Over coffee this morning, I saw a few FB posts from female friends, excited about showing off some cleavage for "Boobquake" this Monday. While I wanted to be happy about some counterculture movement, this one just made me sigh.

In case you haven't heard, Boobquake was started by Jen McCreight, a blogger at Blag Hag, in response to an Iranian cleric who recent issued a statement that read:
"Many women who do not dress modestly... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes."
McCreight encourages you (meaning women, of course - men can be the continual spectators) to:
... join me and embrace the supposed supernatural power of their breasts. Or short shorts, if that's your preferred form of immodesty. With the power of our scandalous bodies combined, we should surely produce an earthquake. If not, I'm sure Sedighi can come up with a rational explanation for why the ground didn't rumble.
It has turned into somewhat of a phenomenon. According to McCreight:
So what started as a joke and somewhat sarcastic reply to the ludicrous notion that women's immodesty causes earthquakes has now exploded. Seriously, internet, you scare and amaze me sometimes. The Facebook event already has almost 14,000 attendees (and 60,000 invited) in just over 24 hours. The wall is getting comments so quickly that I had to disable Facebook email notifications because my inbox was getting flooded.
I appreciate McCreight's intentions behind this; she meant it as a feminist response to a ridiculous statement. Unfortunately, it seems to be turning into something else, with many men chiming in, with their "show us your tits" camera-ready attitude. Women on parade again...sigh.

Since when did we "stick it to the man" by wearing low-cut shirts or short shorts? When women burned bras back in the day, there was a statement there, full of boldness and righteous anger. This type of happening feels like feminism lite, "cute" feminism or "male friendly" feminism.

It got me thinking about the current state of the dirty "F word" as I try to figure out why people thought this was such a good idea that they'd join in droves. Hasn't overly sexualizing women been done to death? Literally? Doing it even a joke doesn't strike me as particularly funny - just overkill.

Though apparently that means I just don't have a sense of humor. You see, when you take a feminist stance, you're instantly tagged as some sourpuss who just doesn't get it. That kind of social shaming doesn't work on me. I do funny quite well, thank you.

Or you are told to "relax" or "get off your high horse." Why must I relax, I wonder? Women have been objectified to such an extreme point that even our so-called feminist undertakings include more objectification. I don't relax when I find something disproportionate and unfair. Nobody should.

Reviewing the hundreds of comments that continue to pour onto the Boobquake FB page, many women apologetically replied, "Sorry, I don't have enough cleavage to show" or "I'm as flat as a board...sorry!" A movement that encourages more body issues! Yay for us. Go team go.

When anyone interjected with an opposing view, they were met with anger and shaming. "You must have no tits." "Calm the fuck down." "Shut the fuck up and get off this page." It's shocking to see people say such hateful things so cavalierly.

Hence why objectification is so dangerous in the first place: pretty dolls with hot racks should play nice and shut the fuck up. In short, any worthy political movement or happening should be open to opposition without such ignorance and ire.

Women should be able to wear what they want. That's a given. Women should be able to sexually express themselves how they see fit. Of course. And underneath it all, I guess that was Boobquake's intention.

Unfortunately, we live in a world that sees that kind of freedom of expression as a photo opportunity or another cheap thrill. All parties must be on board and in celebration of the cause in a way that doesn't include lasciviousness, latent female hatred or sexual over-saturation.

If not, then all we've got is Girls Gone Wild with a cause slapped on it.



Thanks to friend Ruby T. Lawrence, for input and overall incitement!


Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
I've seen several references to Boobquake the last couple days but had no idea what it was. I see that I wasn't missing much.

"Girls Gone Wild with a cause slapped on top of it."

Pretty much. "Order your Boobquake video NOW and we'll throw in Hot Grrl on Grrl Action for FREE!!!!!"
Those little boys in Teheran are really funny until they're not.
I had no idea about this. You have done a thoughtful analysis of this and got me thinking. I had posted that Iranian cleric statement on my somewhat political face book. I got some indignation from women but not from the numerous male politicians, film makers, news personalities. Kind of makes me think about the reaction to this on many levels. Rated.
What, they don't cause earthquakes?
Let them announce a "Dickquake" and we'll see how many of the guys think it's funny. Guys, raise your hand if you think it's funny! Gee, only Mr. Roethlisberger raised his hand.
What Cranky Cuss said. And quite frankly, seeing all those men showing off their packages wouldn't interest me at all. Excellent post. Good to see you back and you haven't lost your bite!
Thanks all. I get a little nervous jumping into the political arena in any regard. There are so many people here who do it so much better. But your votes of confidence help!
If you wear revealing clothes because it makes you feel good about you, cool. If you wear revealing clothes to please *anybody else,* not cool. Feminism has been totally co opted into an excuse to get women to be 'sexy.' Because, you know, that's what we are, and if you don't like it, you musn't be a 'real woman.' ICK! Where does that leave modest women, skinny women, women who define themselves as something other than an appendage to masculinity?

Exactly where the (bad) men want us. Lovely post. I rarely use all caps, but the strength of my ick was intense.
I wonder why a 'race to the bottom' is surprising on any unmoderated social networking site. The only way to go from ironic to viral is to tap into popular sentiment, which is unlikely to get the subtle distinctions in the original post.

Today is the 40th Earth Day, and Feminism has been around longer. The Earth has been severely challenged in those 40 years, and I would call the entire movement a failure.

As for Feminism, one idea was that freedom=happiness. It is undeniable that there have been some significant improvements since the days of Mad Men, but I'm not seeing a lot of happy campers.

I suppose I could go on and on, but prefer to let the various tribes of 3rd wave feminism go after each other. They are way better at it than me.

Not to say I don't like your post, Beth. Rated and appreciated, etc.
I actually hadn't heard of this until I read your post Beth! Who knew the female body had so much power?!!! But wait! By stating that, aren't all of those fundamentalist men admitting how completely weak they really are? Hmmm...
Had no idea this was going on. Boobquake? Honestly?
Let them all follow Cranky Cuss's idea if they wish to. Made me laugh out loud, that one.
Beth you're missing the point. Jen does not propose that women dress immodestly as a form of protest against the loopy cleric (that may be redundant since he's Iranian). She's a science geek. She is proposing conducting a scientific experiment. That dimwitted man says women doing that causes earthquakes. She wants to show that he's wrong by having a large number of women dress in a way he wouldn't like, and crossing her fingers there isn't a large earthquake somewhere on Earth that day. Of course she is pretty tongue in cheek about it.
I agree with you. This is so stupid I can barely stand it.
First of all, I got the deep level seriousness of this even as I laughed and chuckled from start to finish.

Still, it occurs to me that instead of proving that cleric wrong by having thousands of scantily dressed women assemble without any natural and epic disaster ensuing, his demented beliefs ought to be confirmed.

With a little editing you could easily create a short video of a woman lifting her veil and winking at a male passerby, just before the demolition of a skyscraper or sports stadium - which would occur in the background, of course.

Send this to him.
I bet he laughs.
I understand your point but if you've ever worn a low cut blouse to a night club then it seems a bit silly to get worked up over this. The bad male behavior portion is another matter and, frankly, it's a shame.

Cranky, Ms. McCreight never suggested showing tits let alone coochie, so your dick analogy doesn't fly. All she said was that she was wearing a low-cut blouse, as in her sexiest night on the town blouse. She said for others to do what the feel comfortable with.

I saw it as just making a point and having a little fun in the process. It's kinda sad that folks can't do that without it being shamed. In the interest of solidarity, okay and fun, I do plan to participate. I hope others who are, don't end up feeling bad about it, or feel like bad feminists because of this.

Nana, if you ever visited my posts, you'd have known about this, you friggen' suckup.

All in all, this post just makes me sad.
Very well written and fun to read, when I wasn't seething with contempt for these "boobquake" people.

For a long time it's become some fake feministic thing to be a potty mouth or to "love porno," or other dreadful bullshit like this. It's a mess.
I'm with you all the way. It's amazing to watch huge groups of people getting scammed and they don't even realize it. Yeah, don't tell me to relax.
My first thought, when I heard about this, was: okay, interesting idea. Then when the men started jumping in with a leering "you go girl" I was aggravated . . . I mean, I get it . . . boobs are beautiful . . . but Jesus. The whole thing, now, just feels completely stupid . . . and God help us all if there's a siesmic event that day.
good thing cranky cuss got here before the rest of us -- saves wasting any energy thinking of better words to use.

somehow i sadly expect we'll hear about this on the news. gah.
Beth, Right On, Thank you for saying this. GGW "with a cause." There is freedom of body expression - and I - of course don't care who shows whom their tits where there is a consensual agreement but let the marketers have a hey day with this. It won't free anybody in Iran. It reminds me of a similar subtext behind the breast cancer awareness campaign called "Save The Boobs." Forget about the woman, just save the boobs. If you haven't seen it you should Google the video. I thought it was a joke at first. I wish it was!
"I wonder why a 'race to the bottom' is surprising on any unmoderated social networking site. The only way to go from ironic to viral is to tap into popular sentiment, which is unlikely to get the subtle distinctions in the original post."

-Nick Carraway

This bears repeating. Depressing but true.
we must thank our cousins in the iranian caliphate for pointing out the connection between female immodesty and earth-quakes. in retrospect it should be clear that god doesn't like immodesty, calvin and savanarola said as much when they were instructing us in how to live. and if god is unhappy, well, destruction looms.

except that the tangshan earthquake, most destructive in modern times, happened when chinese women were wearing mao suits, pretty much like the men. possibly god's will is not so easily known.

aside from the political implications, i suggest we all wear mao suits. not only does this save us from the consequences of female immodesty [earth-quake is not the worst ], but also we will be spared the the sight of male buttocks twinkling down the street in tight jeans. i can't think why this possibility did not inspire remonstrations about male immodesty, perhaps a lack of imagination among the ayatollahs?
What channel is it going to be on?
I agree and sigh with you 100 percent! "Boobquake" seems to be just another venue for pimply giggles and arrested development from supposed adults. Also, I suspect ,a way to demean and depower women. Could we get a Psychiatrist/Social Scientist on-board to discuss the implications?
Well.....This is one of those situations where it would be best if I just kept my mouth shut. But thanks for the information on something I might of otherwise had no idea about.
Just a pet peeve: I cringe at the use of the word "tits," from either a man or a woman, but especially a man. I work with too many men who like to use it with a sneer, and roll around in the leer of it. And I don't mind profanity in general...
Sigh. When will women have equal rights>? Our boobs at least provide food for baby boys too...despite what goofs some of them turn out to be. I suppose it is our fault too.

Nice post.
Really! I consider myself to be a sex-positive feminist but I'm no dupe. I'm sure as heck not going to flash my feminine blessings (or even just a bit of cleavage) all over the internet, in the interest of feminism or science or...whatever.
Beth I can't add to this. Rated.
Very thoughtful, well-written essay.

If any immoral human behavior could cause earthquakes, it would have to be the abuse or molestation of children. Sorry, my mind can't be changed.

As my dear, late, John O'Reilly used to say to me when he was being romantic, "Tits oot fer the bhoys!" I miss him; it was like being married to Groundskeeper Willie (accent on the willie.)
Another idea that was better on paper. I won't be participating. If there are young women who do, and find themselves moved by the experience...well, then that's okay too.
One quibble with your post...

"When women burned bras back in the day..."

Uh, that event never took place. The bra burners where snarky guys making fun of the women involved with the feminist movement. It's an irritating lie right up there with Mama Cass choking on a ham sandwich. Total fiction.

Other than that - rated!
Great post, Beth. I pimped it on my blog, which I am now pimping on your blog. Anyway, big thumbs up!
Boy. This does amount to 'girls gone wild' with a 'cause.' (And what a stupid way to express a cause.) I have never been able to articulate this, but I have long held an idea that women's rights have often merely caused them to think, "I will act as openly whorish as SOME men always have." For example, I had several great uncles who had no self-respect, tomcatting around all the time and bragging of their exploits, not caring whom they hurt. All the while, their sisters (my grandma included), were made to believe that women were responsible for lust in a man, were not to be trusted, and were worth much less than a man. Now, instead of men and women showing equal amounts of self-respect, women are letting themselves be used as if it is a joke and part of being 'one of the guys' and even castigating other women who won't join in. Just because you have the freedom to make choices doesn't mean you should continually make poor ones.
Excellent points, thanks for writing about it so well. I'm more worried about the Tea Party, though.
You have to take into account some male culpability with all this....I think any self respecting cleric should take into the account the power of the "male fanticization processes" around the globe. In some of the strip clubs I have been told about (I would never visit one in person of course) I have heard about the floors bouncing even when there is no stripper on stage.

Consider the Great San Francisco Earthquake of1906. You could probably examine lots of photographs of that time and see guys with their hands in their pockets.....
So has anyone seen any explanations from the Iranian Clerics on the volcanic eruption in Iceland? Someone somewhere must be showing a lot of something. Great post-sadly I agree that feminism has been co-opted and marketed as being about a young woman's "hotness" and that seems pretty okay with a lot of young women. Rated.
QUOTE Most excellent post, especially this: Though apparently that means I just don't have a sense of humor. You see, when you take a feminist stance, you're instantly tagged as some sourpuss who just doesn't get it. That kind of social shaming doesn't work on me. I do funny quite well, thank you.

Or you are told to "relax" or "get off your high horse." Why must I relax, I wonder? Women have been objectified to such an extreme point that even our so-called feminist undertakings include more objectification. I don't relax when I find something disproportionate and unfair. Nobody should. QUOTE

I am really sick and fucking tired of hearing this self-serving BS trotted out to defend crappy behavior.
Girls are anxious to exploit their sexuality, since society has taught them that this is an acceptable way to broker power.

Pity that this currency has such a short expiry date.
Not that women really need an excuse to be encouraged to compete sexually. This reminds me of what Halloween costumes have devolved to.
Actually, having lived through it, I thought bra burning was pretty silly.
The expression ' rack,' - where did that come from ?
I first read it here on OS, and when I figured out what it meant I vowed to avoid that person's posts from that day forth.
I broke my vow, because the least I can do ( as a male ) is keep abreast ( no pun not likely ) of derogatory language. Especially american derogatory language - we each have our own.
I've learned a lot. I've learned breaking vows can make you feel sick, but unless you do, you're stuck with what you thought you knew.
Still like to know who coined ' rack.' An abattoir worker ?
Thanks Beth. Truly the grossest way to describe a woman's breasts.
Worse that tits.
Thanks america.
Well done, Beth. No one wants me to take off my already incredibly sex turtlenecks and scarves. We've had enough natural disasters without my contribution. xox
We cause Earthquakes??? I can't complain about my share of mammary glands and I live in California, but honestly, I always thought earthquakes had more to do with the San Andreas Fault...

It's a pity that the good intentions I trust were at the back of Boobquake got smothered with yet more stupidity.

I sure hope this means the GOP won't be expecting Girlie entertainment from ME!
I had a discussion with someone up on the various thoughts and sentiments within the college feminist crowd around clothing. I was commenting that otherwise attractive young women were wearing clothes that were not flattering. I meant tight pants that allowed for a modest amount of pudge coupled with midriff bearing tops, for example. Different clothing would not necessarily highlight such stuff on attractive kids. In short, I was questioning why folks dressed in ways that shall we say highlighted weak aspects of one's appearance?

The rebuttal was somewhat an in-your-face. Yeah, I have a bit of a gut and here it is. In short the provocative dress was empowering. They were not slave to body image or society's view of what was attractive. They were happy with themselves, wanted to wear such stuff, and who cares. Perhaps it is the reverse of objectification? They know, or sense, society saying "cover up the gut" so they opt to highlight the muffin top? Almost giving the finger through dress code as young folks have done for generations?

Seems odd to me, but "whatever" I guess. :)
Well, i'd say the odds are there could be a big earthquake somewhere on Monday. then what?
Should I be offended?
Hey...this wasn't about sticking to the man, it was about sticking to the imam. Sigh.
You must have looked REALLY hard to find any 'shut the fuck up' posts because people, men and women, are just having fun with this and there are hundreds of posts that relay that feeling. (The big outrage was aimed at a person who accused those wanting to join in as wanting to be able "to dress like sluts" . That's what the imam thinks too. .)
I quote you " Women should be able to wear what they want. That's a given. Women should be able to sexually express themselves how they see fit. Of course. And underneath it all, I guess that was Boobquake's intention."
Gee, yah think? Yet you have to go on and see the possibility for "lasciviousness, latent female hatred or sexual over-saturation." What year are you in 1842?
Come down to Coney Island as my guest next fall for the Mermaid Parade. It's fun and feminine and if some jerks salivate nobody gives a crap.
We're trying to make fools of men who believe females behaving in ways not to their liking cause earthquakes.....trying to slap them with some slapstick burlesque. Nothing more.

Is Boobquake juvenile? Yep. But it won't be earthshaking.
And I need to ask, what is your best idea on counteracting the real repression of women by hypocrites pretending to be Islamic?

I sincerely recommend Hollan Peterson's OS Post on Feminism as an adjunct to this post.

Among other things, it references a professor of gender studies, Kelly Finley, who considers her breast augmentation surgery a feminist act.
You're right Beth, there's just something off about this protest. If muslims cleric really had control over OUR sex lives that would be one thing. But I'm not sure how a Girls Gone Wild protest really puts us in solidarity with women who really are repressed by these clerics. There's just something that's more attention seeking than constructive about the whole exercise. I think it's a great idea to bare you boobs or sex it up because you want to. But when people do it just for negative attention it's never really sexy. More like desperate.
Dunno. I was going along yeah yeah yeah until I came to Cap'n Parrotdead's comment. Now I dunno. I'd be less unknowing if I thought the Rightwing Rev. Pat Pufferbill Robertson was somehow involved with this, considering that he has single-handedly diverted the approach of killer hurricanes from Virginia Beach. I somehow doubt he publicly likes boobs, though. rated with open mind, and saving some for Cap'n Parrotdead
I'm torn. On the one hand, a feminist cause that catches fire with so many people is cause for celebration. On the other hand, it's the pandering and offensive nature of the event that is getting the press and the support.
You've said a lot of things that needed saying, and in a wonderful way. So please jump into this and other political arenas again soon.
women baring their breasts certainly cause earthquakes for me at least =)
The power of cleavage is well documented.
the body of a goddess is truly "earthshaking"
this reminds me of whats his name... pat robertson saying that the haiti earthquake was due to ... what? I forget. sinning? whatever. it would seem that the fundamentalists of all stripes are not so different from each other.... and by the way, women who believe that showing significant parts of their bare bodies in public is unwholesome, both for themselves & for others.... strike me as near-fundamentalist. and yeah, there are definitely near-fundamentalist feminists.....
all the ladies that choose to participate, go to room A. all the ladies that choose not to participate, go to room B. all the ladies that choose to criticize ladies in room A, go to the windows & complain. we've arranged soundproof/bulletproof glass =)
Why do women use the word, "boob?" It's also used to mean an idiot. Breast is a perfectly good word and has never been used as an insult. Chest works, too.

Boob is never used when breasts are talked about in a non-sexual context. We don't boobfeed. We don't get boob cancer.

Using the word 'boob' turns women's bodies into sexual objects to be viewed by men. Let's call them breasts.
Here's one feminist who doesn't really give a rat's ass if the boys are enjoying all this. To me, the cleric's statement is another instance of men blaming women for men's misbehavior and lack of control, and adding on a whole 'nuther layer of fault: now we're responsible for the earth's misbehavior too. Seriously?!

Pat Robertson and "pastor" John Hagee said that the gay pride parade held in NOLA shortly before Katrina caused the hurricane. It's just as ridiculous. If GLBTQ folks and their straight friends turned out in droves to celebrate themselves to prove that they don't "cause" hurricanes, I'd be all for it. I'm all for this too.

Just one dissenting 2 cents' worth.
I'm waiting for "DickQuake" when guys can walk around with their dick out. Now there's something can unite both east and west in ire.
"If you wear revealing clothes to please *anybody else,* not cool"

Why? Men and women both dress to attract. Puritanism is stupid whether it's from the right ot the left. As is treating bodies as temples, when they are are nothing but packaging for the mind.

Neither extreme is particularly healthy in regards to sex. Puritanism and fetishism are both signs of poor mental health, both displaying obsessive behavior.

So much so that I rarely discuss it because it is as natural as eating or sleeping. What animals do to please themselves.

As for objectification, there are only two kinds of men, those who objectify women and homosexuals. The part of the brain that responds to sex does not respond to logic or reason, any more than your tastebuds do. People like what they like.

But I see obsessive thinking on the matter from Jesus Freaks, fetishists, uptight feminists, or "doctors" who study the subject by attaching wires to people in action, as if that is supposed to be accurate measures of things people generally do without someone a lab coatlurking behind a window.

The more you intellectualize the subject, the less human you become.
Granted, that may sound hypocritical coming from Martha Stewart in bondage gear.
@GeeBee.... you said Beth you're missing the point. Jen does not propose that women dress immodestly as a form of protest against the loopy cleric (that may be redundant since he's Iranian). She's a science geek. She is proposing conducting a scientific experiment. That dimwitted man says women doing that causes earthquakes. She wants to show that he's wrong by having a large number of women dress in a way he wouldn't like, and crossing her fingers there isn't a large earthquake somewhere on Earth that day...

I dunno. I call BS on that. According to the US government, there are 500,000 detectable earthquakes in the world each year. 100,000 of those can be felt. Wouldn't you think a "science geek" would know the odds of *not* having an earthquake somewhere in the world on any given day? Girls gone wild with a cause is at least plausible.
' ... there are only two kinds of men, those who objectify women and homosexuals. '

Martha with respect I think you missed one - the kind of man who regards the use of words like ' rack ' as a slap in his daughter's face.
The more I read these comments, the more I understand the other side's hatred of liberals. We can be so damned self-righteous.

Maybe I'm just taking this personally since I did a post about this a couple of days ago but the shaming and smugness here is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
"When anyone interjected with an opposing view, they were met with anger and shaming. "

In other words, a burqa of social shunning was hung on them. It's amazing the endless ways people (including other women) have of trying to control women.

Great essay, Beth. Loved it.
I don't think it is so much a matter of "sticking it to the man", as it is a matter of exercising your right to dress - or not dress - however you want, without any fear of social or religious intimidation.

If you are always afraid that your boobies will be caught on film or video, then you are not really free of social and religious intimidation, are you?

How much do really care if men take pictures of your boobies?

How much do you really care if the men around you know what your boobies look like?

Are your boobies your friends or your enemies?

Are you proud of your boobies, or are you killing them nicotine?

I love my testicles, women can photograph or shoot video of them as much as they want, and I am not letting anything near them that might be carcinogenic.
I absolutely agree with fetboy's first paragraph:

"I don't think it is so much a matter of "sticking it to the man", as it is a matter of exercising your right to dress - or not dress - however you want, without any fear of social or religious intimidation."

But everything he said after that...he's on his own.

The joke turned into a grass roots statement...I think is to be applauded, it has made far more people aware of the ongoing persecution of women in Teheran and I always have a weak spot for people fighting the insane with the absurd. It always seems to act like a reality mirror check.

And since this has been covered in the international press as well...thinking about how disgusted and pissed off those clerics must be about this news makes me very, very happy.

That being said...even though I may not fully agree, I do love reading any piece that's well written and passionate. Nicely done.
"...Girls Gone Wild with a cause slapped on it ..." works for me. Religion; I'd say this response is on the proper level, if any response is given, at all.

This was a hilarious read; thanks.

So that's where the old adge "did the earth move for you" comes from!
I'm afraid that my comment will have to be a post of its own. Let me say this here, it is well thought out and well done.
Rated for being thoughtful. Although I might check my wife out to see if she's participating. Sorry, I couldn't resist that last part.
Seriously, you make a very good point.
I'd heard this mentioned quite a bit, thanks for clarifying.

"Neither extreme is particularly healthy in regards to sex. Puritanism and fetishism are both signs of poor mental health, both displaying obsessive behavior."

Yes, in full agreement.

Nick, will check out that post.

Gary, I can't wait to see you quake images!

Jonathan, it's not 1842? Damn, I must have been sleeping for a long, long time. No wonder my electric bill is so high!

Please, you're preaching to the converted, baby. I've been to Mermaid parades, Burning Man, Rainbow Gatherings, marches down Castro street, orgies, strip clubs, you name're schooling me on sexual freedom is silly and completely unnecessary.

And really, are you SERIOUSLY asking me what better way to counteract Islamic sexual repression than Boobquake? Ha! I refuse to answer on the grounds on sheer idiocy. Get thee to a political science class.
The reaction to opposition ("you must have no tits") reminds me of when, as the sole woman among 12 public defense attorneys, I expressed disdain for the tradition of having the annual office holiday party at Hooters- the two other women in the office (both support staff) reassured me not to worry because I was actually more attractive/buxom than most of the waitresses. Where does this idea come from- that feminism, or even merely opposition to sexism and objectification, is really just misplaced resentment stemming from a feeling of physical/sexual inadequacy?
Not too long ago we had a poster on OS who was a young breast cancer survivor who was upset at the sexualization of breast cancer with some of the new "save the ###" whatever's, stickers and things on cars. The comercials showed young beautiful models not breast cancer survivors. Why? I have never seen a "save the balls" sticker for prostate cancer or a man getting a prostate exam on a billboard as I have seen beautiful woman sideways in a mammogram machine on posters.I know this is about the breastquake but same thing to me.
I think the characterization of boobquake as a girls gone wild is unfair. The suggestion was to wear immodest clothing, not full frontal nudity. Thus, the assertions about penisquake in some of the comments are unfair as well.

An observation - the thing that causes earthquakes, according to the cleric (the way I understand it) , is the corruption of men, not the immodest clothing themselves. That goes against any claim that the reaction men to the immodest clothing doesn't matter.

I also want to clarify an exchange on Twitter. When I suggested that perhaps men ought to ignore boob quake ala godiva, I didn't mean to compare boobquake to godiva, but instead suggest that the appropriate action of males in this regard should be to ignore it. We know they won't. But, of course, if men do ignore it, the test is a fail. No corruption of men, no earthquakes. But to participate, we *have* to engage in 'Girls Gone Wild' behavior (assuming thinking dirty sexual thoughts and corruption are the same thing).

So, in the end, I think I buy what you are saying, although my personal opinion is that the real 'battlefield' in the feminist movement needs to focus its attention on the sort of overt oppression of women made by religious fundamentalists and less on protecting the vague ideals of the 'feminist movement' itself.
Yay for us.
* sigh*

Go team go.
* waves make-shift banner *

Can't wait for the Fox News un-coverage...
Thanks for this, Beth. I agree: it was a funny reaction to bad religion, and a well-intentioned idea. That doesn't mean it was a good one.
Good one, Beth. Thanks for the update. I not laughing either. Must be my Women's Studies degree rearing up. Again.

#Rated for Real education
"I don't think it is so much a matter of "sticking it to the man", as it is a matter of exercising your right to dress - or not dress - however you want, without any fear of social or religious intimidation."

THIS is social intimidation.
Way back in the 60's my friend Rusty's college roomate had Playboy foldouts on the wall on his side of the room. Rusty hung up pictures of topless women from National Geographic on his side.
It's like nude beaches. It will always attract people with questionable motives. Oogling women and using unapproved words is less a matter of respect than maturity. It is waaay to politicized and moronic, taking attention away from things like opportunity or pay. Boys will be boys is not just a saying, it's tautologically indisputable. Getting people to act differently will not change their basi nature anymore than camps to get queers into women. It is an exercize in futility. The politicization of sexual attraction is a silly waste of time and effort.
I have always found it interesting that women are offended by the slang terms used for their body parts, but men are never offended by any of the slang terms for theirs.
Wedding tackle
Trouser's snake
None of those words are ever considered offensive
But words like
Tuna Toca
Pearl tongue
And Boobies are
"I've been to Mermaid parades, Burning Man, Rainbow Gatherings, marches down Castro street, orgies, strip clubs, you name it..."

"Boobquake" would fit quite nicely in your list ;)

*don't slap me... you know I love you!
The Human body is beautiful and no one, male or female, should be ashamed of that fact. Showing it as akin to showing a Monet or Rembrandt, the body truly is art.

My Female friends tell me they ogle at a man's tight ass, flexing biceps, and other bulges.

So my question is why did the enjoyment of beauty become Politically Incorrect and why?
@fetboy: "I have always found it interesting that women are offended by the slang terms used for their body parts, but men are never offended by any of the slang terms for theirs."

In your original comment, you use the word "boobies" quite freely, yet call your own body parts "testicles," leaving the frat boy, heh heh stuff for women only. Very telling about you.
in response to an iranian NUTJOB... "Many womens who do not dress modestly... leads young mens astray, corrupt their chastities and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes."
To The Good Daughter
Do you really want me to talk more about my balls?
Trust me, I use the words balls and nuts quite a lot.
And usually in my Svutlov posts I use the word breasts, but I used the word "boobies" in this thread because the word "Boobquake" was used in the topic's title.
Boy, the SPAM is getting out of conrol here. I've had to delete like 30 of them so far.

Anyway, sheesh. Where to begin?

Amanda, cuz I'm thinking of you: I've been to those events and often wondered the exact same thing: why, in a supposed counter culture movement do women still seem exploited on some levels? So women go to the desert to be free and themselves, which really translates into them dressing sexy. It's not very out of the box, is it?

Listen, I LOVE looking sexy. But more so, I love FEELING sexy. And I guess if the idea is to "let it all hang out" then men should be doing as well. It's not the act of being sexy that I find wrong - god, of course not! It's the constant over sexualization of women by men and by women that I find more than just wrong...tiresome after a while.

My god - it's "boobquake" every fucking day, isn't it? Just open a magazine, turn on your TV, go out to a club.

Hats off to fetboy for composing a killer list. It's like an Arthur Jamesian comment, just a little.

Ryan, thanks for your clarification and jumping on OS. I understand much better what you're saying. And you're right - there's no comparison: if men had a "penisquake" there could be no objectifying them like we can with women. It's impossible. Really - it's damn impossible, even if it were dicks dangling.

It is quite easy to do that to women. So there is no comparison. Which I know wasn't exactly your point. I'm just giving you my take on "Penisquake" and how it couldn't really do any damage, even with full nudity. Which is unfortunate - and somewhat the heart of the problem of which I speak. Men are beyond objectifying. Women are not. They are constantly. So a "riff" on that theme for the sake of a political message just doesn't resonate with me.

And come on, short shorts? Strangely, it was when I read the short shorts aspect, I was wholly turned off. I mean, truth be told, I would have been happier with full nudity. There's something less silly about it.

More to say but have to get ready for the LBI Film Festival tonite!
More to The Good Daughter
I also try to put the words vulva, clitoris, cunnilingus, and orgasm into as many posts and personal blog entries as I can.
To Beth Mann
What slang term do you prefer for your lady bits?
And do you have nicknames for lady bits? Don't give out the nicknames, if you have them, as that is something you should keep private.
When I used the dictionary terms for female organs and orgasms, people claim I am being too clinical, and when I use the slag terms people claim I am being offensive.
It is like I can't win for trying to convince women to take pride in their sexuality, sexual skills, sexual experience, and sex organs, no matter how hard I try.
I bet you give you an absolutely awesome blow job, Beth Mann, but would you ever admit it, or take pride in your absolutely awesome blow jobs?
The dumbing down of society continues--:)

I was vaguely amused by Jen McCreight's basic concept; I thought it had a certain agitpop wit. But when it became a movement, it fouled - in the same way certain musicians are fouled when they become stadium acts. Add several thousand drunk college students to anything and it's fouled, as far as I'm concerned.
Well, well... isn't it sad how everything is now politically charged, or at least has a little too much spin put on it?

In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking...

sign me, another old hippie
I have a feeling it won't be too many winters until my boobs cause an they hit the ground after I take my bra off :(
Nice analysis. But I take issue with the notion that if people cheapen it, it shouldn't be done. Why does everybody have to get it for it to be worthy? When I go out in my tightpants, there are three reactions: 1) "ho"-as in men thinking, ooh she wants it. 2) whatever- as in love it, hate it other people's clothes are their deal. 3) "ho"-as in women thinking, why must she objectify herself?. 1 and 3 are equally uncool. I think the appropriate response to both my jeans and Boobquake is #2-whatever. We do it because we can. If people want to be jerks about it, well fine.
Weirdly, if you bracket out the insane earthquake comment, Beth and the imam are pretty much in agreement. Women shouldn't dress in a manner likely to provoke lustful ogling from men. And both engage in a double standard. The imam blames women for the sexual expressions of men; Beth defends the right of women to express themselves sexually and then blames men for responding to said expression. How tiresome.
I guess the difference between Boobquake and Girls Gone Wild is Boobquake doesn't employ sleezy, manipulating men who prey upon young, drunk coeds. It seems to me that the point of Boobgate is choice and pride in the female body. Of course men are going to get excited (some disgustingly so, but there are idiots everywhere) at the sight of breasts- we're men for God's sake.
libertarius, I'm quite sorry for "tiring" you out. Please take a nap after this. As for my similarities to the cleric, that's comically stupid. I'm a very sexually expressive person and have been my whole life. As I pointed out, if you have a feminist point of view, the first "go to" insult is prudishness or humorlessness or moral restrictiveness, none of those labels work on me. But keep trying. My issue - if you had bothered reading a little more carefully - is not with the woman's idea in and of itself, but the reaction and lowest common denominator is devolved into.

PJ, if the point is to celebrate the female body, than why not nudity? Again, I would have understood nudity. Low cut shirts and short's too close to what woman do all the time to try to fit into some sexually saturated norm we've created.

fetboy, i give an AWESOME blowjob. its one of my favorite sexual acts.

monsieur, nice to see you. and yes, i'm in agreement with what you said. my focus was meant to be on the devolving aspect of it more than the idea itself. the woman who created it seems intelligent and fun.
"fetboy, i give an AWESOME blowjob. its one of my favorite sexual acts."
You make me proud.
Actually I'm glad anytime I hear a woman express pride in her sexuality, sexual experiences, sexual techniques, orgasms, or sexual organs.
Also I agree with you; "Boobquake" was pretty stupid, I just thought you had it wrong as to what the protest was behind the movement (not about sticking but exercising wardrobe freedom).
In general I think a woman baring her skin as a political stunt, rather than simply as a choice, doesn't accomplish much, other than turning on fratboys.
A better and more productive stunt would have been for women to send out anonymous letters and e-mails containing detailed accounts of their sexual pride to random Iranian men in Iran.
You do know you can delete the spam advertisement comments on your blog post, right Beth Mann?
Please do us a favor and delete them.
They are not paying you anything, and I doubt you are a fan of their products.
"if men had a "penisquake" there could be no objectifying them like we can with women. It's impossible. Really - it's damn impossible, even if it were dicks dangling.. Men are beyond objectifying. "

Oh Really. You lost a lot of credibility here. You may want to review the difference between objectification and eroticization. The penis is the most objectified human body part there is.
Beth- the point isn't nudity. The clerics say women must be covered. The reaction is to uncover, in whatever way the woman participating wishes- be it low cut shirt or nudity.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
And your last line: exactly!
beth is quite confident she gives great BJs. maybe she can find a recipient and post his review on her blog. or maybe at least point us to her concept of "sex positive" somewhere. & lets all try to figure out how it doesnt contradict the above post.
is it just me or does the guy in the picture beth included at the top of her blog have a remarkable resemblance to john edwards?! wink
beth, maybe the thing to do would be to go to your female friends FB pages & flame em instead of editorializing on open salon. just an idea. I suspect your real annoyance is that some of your g-friends were admittedly "enthusiastic" about the idea. if they hadnt been, maybe there'd be no story here. & the other compelling, obvious question is, why are you out of step with your own friends on the issue? birds of a feather flock together, usually..... maybe you should switch friends and get some more.... strugging for an adjective here.... uh, repressed? =)
man, this really does feel like its descended into farce with beths BJ braggadocio. but, I admit there is a deep question at the heart of this post which coincidentally Ive been musing on recently, having run across various links.
heres the issue.
not sure exactly how to best phrase this, but maybe its something like this:
how do you reconcile "sex positive" with "modesty"? this is a particularly intense quandary for women, and feminists, and mothers it seems.
at heart, the two concepts seem to have inherent contradictions.
and, the answer seems to be messing up or tormenting multiple cultures. both fundamentalist christians, and moslems. and even those that are not religious are struggling with this paradox.
"maybe she can find a recipient (her BJs) and post his review on her blog. "
No, no, vzn - Gentlemen don't release that information.
To do so is a form of sexual harassment.
You can write about how great a BJ was, but you can't release the name of person who gave the BJ, as that is just rude.
But also it is not important how Beth Mann gave a particular BJ, what is important is that she likes giving them.
It is always better to give than receive when it comes to sex or sex acts.
Beth Mann takes pride in her breasts and her BJs, and that is all that is important.
Whether or not men think, or don't think, Beth Mann has great breasts or gives great BJs is irrelevant, because who give a shit what others think?
Beth Mann's breasts and BJs are hers, and she shouldn't care what others think of them.
BTW, Beth Mann
If you think you got bad breasts or give a bad BJ, I would like to give a second opinion.
If you are proud of your breasts and BJs, then both are magnificent.

"how do you reconcile "sex positive" with "modesty"?"

I'm not sure, because I don't know how they are related. Personally, I think these discussions tend to get off the track because of the notion that anything related to sex involving women is potentially a feminist issue.

It seems to me that a lot of these things are simply human issues that have uneven or different impacts on men and women. To some extent, that is simply a function of the fundamental differences.

But unless the issue is fairly sharply defined, it seems to me better to label an issue as simply a human issue rather than a feminist issue. Feminism has been most successful to the extent that their agenda has been focused, limited to issues with a high degree of materiality, and where the issues are strong with respect to people's sense of fairness and justice.

For example, whatever one's feeling regarding whether women are fairly paid in the workplace, I have not heard an argument that, in principle, "women should be compensated differently than men." Or that an occupation should be closed to women. Or women can't compete in sports.

To me, something like this, to repeat myself, boils down to a race to the bottom in an unmoderated forum. Something that isn't unknown on OS.

However, the notion of reasonable manners, taste, wit, humor, and courtesy are the real issues. The internet has freed us to be better people. It has also freed us to be jerks, to the extent that we choose.

The fact that there is more freedom almost guarantees that there will be a general coarsening of discourse. The second that television ownership became ubiquitous, it became the 'idiot box' for good reason. Original drama was replaced by 'The Beverly Hillbillies.'
Exactly what about your posts has been "gentlemanly"?

Nevertheless I must add that, if "gentlemen" shouldn't kiss and tell, then I'm pretty sure that "ladies" shouldn't slurp cock either... And for that matter neither do real feminists. Blow Jobs are just a little too "male friendly".

Anyway. Sophomore year in college, I had a dorm mate that was more talk than walk. I offered her a simple bet that she could have easily won had she been truly uninhibited. VZN is just calling Beth's bluff. I'm curious how quickly she's gonna fold.
To Nick Carraway
I think you are overlooking, or omitting, the fact that women have - for a long time now - been on the short end of sexual double standards.
Men, especially single professional athletes, actors, and Rock Stars, are praised for scoring with as many women as they possibly can, but women - all women, but celebrity women even more so - are quickly demonized if their sexual history ever comes to light, and not just by Relgious Zealots.
Why was it that the insane Iranian theocrat said nothing about the inability of men to control themselves, but was quick to demonize women's immodesty?
To say that the unfair sexual double standard that adversely affect women is not a feminist issue, is foolish.
It should be feminists top priority to address the unfair sexual double standards that adversely affect women.
Why is it that single men can sleep with any women they want without fear of damage to their reputation, but women have to live in constant fear of their reputation?
Why is it men can dress as cheaply as the want - blue jeans and a tee-shirt, but women are socially required to buy expensive fashion, put on tons of expensive makeup, and spend small fortunes at beauty salons?
Why can a man proudly get away with yelling out he "eats pussy", but a woman can't ever proudly say that she likes to suck cock?
Why are abandoned single mothers called "welfare queens", and not enough is done to get dead beat dads to pay child support?
Those are all feminist issues.
Personally I think we should be encouraging women to show more pride in their sexuality, sexual experiences, sexual techniques, orgasms, and body parts, not less.
The thought behind "Boobquake" was a good one, it just got used against women by fratboys, and it should be noted that women don't need to bare their skin to random men as a political stunt or a means to show sexual pride.
Women can simply have sexual pride.

Sexual double standards are a problem for both men and women. As such, I don't see them as a feminist issue but a human issue.

Perhaps this is putting too fine a point on it, but men and women are stuck with each other as potential sexual partners and lovers and spouses. Therefore the problems you cite adversely impact both men and women.

In addition, they tend to be subjective and complex. I suppose a person could refer to them as feminist issues, but that adds almost nothing, and actually seems like it would hinder finding solutions.
"Sexual double standards are a problem for both men and women. As such, I don't see them as a feminist issue but a human issue.

Perhaps this is putting too fine a point on it,"
Actually I though you put a rather obtuse point on the problem.
At least you admit that there is a problem.
What would make you think that feminists shouldn't address "human issues"?
Can we agree that feminists shouldn't shy away from addressing sexual double standards that adversely affect them?
To taintedlove
In all my posts and blog entries, either here or on salon under the handle Svutlov (or anywhere else), I have never listed a past sexual partner's name (or given identifying characteristics).
Never accuse me, or imply, of not practicing what I preach.
None of us "western women" need to dress any differently today to offend the fundamentalists or cause and earthquake. My seismic elbows showing should do nicely in reference to the cleric's statement.

I can't stop laughing at your preachings long enough to even care what you practice. In your world do you really get to qualify as a "gentleman" even after asking a woman online if she sucks good dick, just because you keep your little black book private? And in your world of ladies and gentlemen what is "ladylike" behavior ?

I also think this whole thread is ironic as western women have more clothing freedom than western men... especially in public. I dress for work and only my hands, neck & face are visible. It's called a suit. I would love to wear shorts to work, but whatever. Burqaland is thousands a miles away. So boobquake is a little "troll-ey".

I was hoping that someone would bring up the concept of uniforms as it relates to the topic of female modesty. I have never heard of a prisoner, soldier or healthcare worker who has ever died from her outfit, so the whole public skin as divine right sentiment doesn't pass my sniff test.

What saddens me about today's event is that Jennifer McCreight reinforces what Iranians have being saying about western women all along. That they use sex to manipulate and as a form of power. And guess what the ground aint' shaking, but television sure is.

It is telling that the most cleavage revealing shirt that this young lady owns is one she likes to wear for a night out on the town, rather than one she would wears at home for her lover.
Woe is me. The world's oldest profession lives on!
Now that I'm seeing boobquake in action, I'm more certain that Beth was, unfortunately, right. I'm seeing women being coaxed into taking pictures of their cleavage -- ('okay, for godsakes I'm going to show my cleavage willyouleavemealone?') -- to 'prove' their support for the cause. That's the evidence I need to make me think this was all a mistake - it's not enough that women wear revealing clothing, they need to find a worldwide audience for it.

Re: penisquake. I think the reaction to a penisquake would be similar (maybe slightly less anxiety-causing) to a vaginaquake. In order to compare apples-to-apples we need something a little less blatant - but also something that would 'corrupt' women. A 'moobquake' probably would not work, because it would only work sexually if the men were physically fit/attractive. Maybe something like encouraging men to stuff their pants - although that would be supporting the stereotype of 'man as doofus' rather than really promoting an actual sexualization of men. Even 'Full Monty' was seen more as a joke than it was a sexual thing.

There are two ways to see the difficulty of sexualizing men here. The first is that women are sexual objects according to society. The second is that women possess control of the sexual standard. My guess is that women would have a great voice on whether penisquake (or whatever) would work. I also think they would have a great voice in boobquake whether or not men decided to be involved. There's precedent in other areas of 'good causes' (eg. breast cancer, women's health etc.) to support the latter.
To Taintedlove
To make the obvious point; it is too early to tell if "Boobquake" will shake things up.
Quite possibly socially it will.
"I also think this whole thread is ironic as western women have more clothing freedom than western men"
Were you able to keep a straight face when you wrote that?
I believe you are missing a significant aspect of the protest. It isn't just about showing flesh to piss off an imam. Read the words of the cleric carefully; there are three equally critical conditions that he claims lead to earthquakes.
A) scantily dressed women
b) men tempted by scantily dressed women
c) scantily dressed women and men engaging in adultery

so here's the thing: If the women engaging in boobquake do _not_ titillate men, the experiment isn't going to work. However, if the scantily dressed women do not have sex with the men they've lead astray, the experiment isn't going to work either.

That said, it is indeed the point of the experiment of dressing immodestly to attract mens attention. If, as another commenter noted, men simply simply ignored it, the conditions of the experiment would not be met.

Look at it another way - how often have we heard the old tale that masturbation makes you go blind? There's really only one way to disprove that.....

It all comes down to basal instincts. Heterosexual men will always look upon women as sexual objects on some level. The more civilized amoung us can control the instinct for expression in the appropriate time and place, but when it comes down to it, we have one _real_ purpose in life, and that is to reproduce. Sex is critical to that, and as the instinct to have sex influences our behaviour we will act in manners that some people feel are not appropriate for all situations, and that is _clearly_ subjective criteria.

So you can feel these woman are somehow being played, you can feel that your feminism is somehow being violated by the pubescent antics of a group of college girls. I personally don't think though, that you have any more right to demean them for their behavior than the imam has to force muslim women to wear burkas.

I don't think it's feminine or feminist to somehow demean another woman for expressing her sexuality, (as long as it isn't the result of any coercion). Unfortunately, that's what I got from this post and from your supporters. You don't approve of their method of protest, so you criticize. I know you claimed to have looked at the issue intellectually, but I feel you let your emotion take over. Or are you just upset it wasn't your idea?
To zen cycle
I didn't get it at all that the Iranian Imam was holding men at all responsible for adultery or other lascivious actions, and rather he was placing the blame entirely upon women's immodesty.
The whole thing (the Imam's BS) was actually a ploy to derail Iranian politicians efforts to shift Telran's population out of the very seismically unsafe region.
If Telran gets hit with an earthquake, which is inevitable even if every Iranian woman spends their entire lives in their homes, potentially millions of people are going to die.
Mexico City and Telran are considered two of the most vulnerable cities to earthquakes, and the governments of both Mexico and Iran would do well to move their populations to safer ground.
The elected Iranian government, which is powerless against the Iranian theocracy, is writing up plans to shift populations to safer areas, but of course the Imams don't want to foot the bill.
The Imam's call of feminine modesty to combat earthquakes is much like the American Christian Right's denial of global warming.
The Christian Right doesn't want to foot the bill on measures (such as CAP AND TRADE) that will discourage the emissions of CO2, so they have pushed the ploy that global warming is not man made, but is in fact god's will.
The Christian Right was quick to blame Hurricane Katrina on abortion.

"Were you able to keep a straight face when you wrote that?"

No. I wasn't able to keep a straight face. I texted several friends to ask them how many shoes they owned etc. The responses were hilarious.

Nevertheless, by a typical definition of freedom the statement "western women have more clothing freedom than western men" is true. But I wouldn't have expected you to concur give that the meaning you ascribe words can be very unorthodox. On the other hand a "list" guy like yourself should probably agree with me. Oh well. I guess you have a blind spot.

Also, Beth
I said I bet you give awesome BJs, I didn't ask if you gave them.
I asked if you gave lady bits nicknames (I meant to ask if you gave YOUR lady bits nicknames), but I then told you not to give them out.
I've been trying to respond all day and having trouble because I included a shortened URL apparently (thanks fetboy.) Here's what I had to say earlier:

Nick and fetboy, I think you two did a really smart job exchanging ideas. Good, healthy discourse. Your exchanges could be a post. Fetboy, your comment starting with "To Nick Carraway, I think you are overlooking...." was dead-on for me.

vzn, I was unclear of your point somewhat. But my BJ braggadocio was posted for a reason: to highlight that women can own their sexuality and still have their own particular feminist views. Lucky for me, I'm a sexual, fun gal - so its tough to peg repressed, humorless, etc. on me. You can try though. Hit me with your best shot, baby.

vzn, as for editorializing, why wouldn't I do that here? Isn't OS a platform for that? I also posted it on my FB page as well. My friends don't need to be in step with boring would that be?

fetboy asked me about my sexual preferences from a place that didn't seem smarmy so I responded in kind. Context and intent are everything. If he asks again, I might get annoyed. Because the context and intent may have shifted.

I do understand your points re: modesty versus expression.

taintedboy, you "betting" someone to showcase their sexual uninhibitedness is that kind of poor intent and context I'm talking about. You would have gotten nothing from me either.


tomreedtoon, you don't go unnoticed by me! I concur with your point and especially liked:

""Our sexism is better than your sexism."

Wish I would have thought of that!
Precious Beth Mann
You can delete my posts of your writing, as they were just my efforts to troubleshoot the issue.
Troubleshooting such issues is actually what I do professionally.;)
Also delete the adds, please.
"taintedboy, you "betting" someone to showcase their sexual uninhibitedness is that kind of poor intent and context I'm talking about. You would have gotten nothing from me either."

Beth Mannic,
It's not surprising you would run. I only reserve betting for the loudly faux uninhibited. And typically they chicken out with some version of "context" for an excuse as if they forget that the truly uninhibited are the least of all to hide behind "context".
I mean other than bad musical taste, or bad breath, pushing "context" puts you immediately into the category of inhibited, not uninhibited. And let's not even talk about punishing me for not "asking nicely"

So can you tell me how bragging that you suck a good dick to prove you're a "real feminist" is different than a woman flashing cleavage to a cleric to prove that she owns her sexuality?

I mean seriously, "cheap thrill" and lasciviousness are not terms that uninhibited people use. Stop confusing your impulsiveness with being uninhibited. It's so not the same.

I don't agree with Boobquake either, but not for the bad reasons you gave.
Zen cycle, you got me. Thanks for uncovering the REAL truth: I'm just upset I didn't think of the idea first. My deeply-held ideals on feminism are most definitely secondary to my need to come up with a kitschy boob-based event.

And yes, yes, yes, for the umpteenth time, I GET the concept. Boobs will be shown, no earthquake, ergo cleric's flawed thinking. I get it!

I will refer to tomreedtoon's comment (which I DO wish I would have thought up first):

This is a case of "Our sexism is better than your sexism."

That is my point.

Zen cycle, I'm also done with the "we're men, we reproduce, that's our hard-wiring" B.S. Who the heck do you think you're reproducing with? Paper dolls? The male-dominated society in which we live caters almost solely to male sexuality. It's overfed, like a fat cat. It's about male domination, not about male hard-wiring.

It goes back to what's often said about rape: it’s about power, not sex. It's the same thing when a "show us your tits" mentality arises. There's nothing sexual about it. It's flat-out demeaning and a power play.

Ryan, I'm sorry you feel that I'm "unfortunately" right, but somehow I'll turn that into a compliment.

Again, in a male-dominated society, it's near impossible to objectify a me, I've tried! It's like making a king act like a servant for the day: he knows and you know his ultimate power so the game is cute, more than proving anything.

zen, I didn't "demean" anybody for their behavior per se - I questioned it. As a feminist and as a woman, I wondered what greater cause it served. And whether wearing short shorts is really a genuine expression of sexual freedom. Why not G-strings? Or pasties?

It seems to me that this concept of sexual freedom usually means women being sexually free by a man's definition or a woman's version of a man's definition. Men and sexual freedom? Well, that's a given, I suppose.

For women, sexual freedom shouldn't be reduced to short shorts and photo ops. Do I even have to say that? It's weird to even have to say that, truthfully. It's weird to defend this point.

I'm curious how many of the men out there would bear your genitalia, in one form or the other, for a cause or to make a point. But see, even if you did, it wouldn't be the same thing. You're not in the same objectified position as a woman. And chances are: you wouldn't anyway.
"I'm curious how many of the men out there would bear your genitalia, in one form or the other, for a cause or to make a point."
For a cause, no. To make a point, yes.
There is a difference between the two.
I have gone to nude beaches more times than I could ever count, on four continents and in about dozen nations, and I did it because I enjoy going about naked.
But I am never going to expose myself as part of a political stunt.
Women should be able to bare their breasts because they want to, which is proving a point, but baring one's skin as a political stunt isn't going to accomplish much.
fetboy, thank you so much for your help today. You were totally right. It was that shortened URL. And yes, I deleted the repetitive comments.
No problem, love.;)
And thanks for getting rid of the ads; those are annoying, and space consuming.
'Unfortunately right' means that you predicted Girls Gone Wild behavior and, unfortunately, I'm seeing enough evidence to support that claim. I hoped (didn't expect) for people to prove you wrong.
"Since when did we 'stick it to the man' by wearing low-cut shirts or short shorts?"

That sums it up better than anything. Well done.
I am seeing boobies (snark) and feminine cleavage all over the place, and all I can say is...
See? I gave your post new life yet I sense that you don't appreciate my efforts to send it viral. Hmmph!
Right on, Beth.

All Boobquake does is trade one set of patriarchal expectations (modesty) for another (objectification). Pretty dumb, really.
To Kasey Everly
Objectifying the human body is a part of human nature, but modesty is an invented concept.
The opposite of modesty is not indecency, but rather pride.
If one is immodest of their work, then they are taking pride in their work.
And no, pride is not a sin, vanity is. Though, pride often leads to vanity.
In less rigid and/or dogmat cultures, the concept of modesty doesn't exist.
In cultures where women go around topless, such as Papua New Guinea, modesty is not an asperation.
I think sometimes intelligent people think too much.

I think that some men particularly the cretins, will always jump into anything involving breasts and bodies.

as I see it: just like interracial relationships, friendships and love affairs and marriages that endured the hard hatefilled stares in restaurants and theaters and driving in cars (and getting killed in the process) even innocently holding hands or simply walking together down the street, eventually, over decades, it is so commonplace, it is beautiful.

In fact, one of the most beautiful things I have seen in my lifetime is the intermingling of our children with all races, all sexes and persuasions, the mindless walking along without any thought to it, cars filled with men and women, straight and gay, black and white and every color in between. my heart sings for this because I helped to make it happen.

it starts somewhere. it starts with arrogant actions like this.

because there are tits and tits and tits and asses and more asses and coochies of every conceivable shape, size, color, whatever you want, need, desire, all available, all to be seen, all here or there or there.

this little boobquake fest was nothing compared to the mammouth boobfest that occurs every single day in the world, on the internets.

those clerics in tehran can spew whatever they dream and the young people go home, boot up their hardware and gaze at whatever they want. provincialism is slowly dying and everyone knows it. they're fighting desperately but time and information technology will win. slowly yes. but we are winning because losing isn't an option. women ARE equal. we're different. we're equal. we CAN'T lose.

one day, women will show whatever...elbows or boobs for fun and everyone will shrug and laugh and look and go on with their business (except the cretins). because nothing is static. everything changes.

just like that.
"one day, women will show whatever...elbows or boobs for fun and everyone will shrug and laugh and look and go on with their business (except the cretins). because nothing is static. everything changes."
In that future will it be acceptable for a man to suckle on a woman's nipples while he sits with her on a public park bench?
fetboy, that is one strange response to my words. I have no idea where or how those pearls of wisdom sprung forth.
To Foolish Monkey
I love suckling on a woman's nipples while I sit with her on a park bench.

good luck to you then!
Whatever, Fetboy. I want what he's having.

Anyway, it turns out Boobquake was epic fail anyway considering the fact that, oh, we had an earthquake in Taiwan today:
To Kasey Everly
Lower case f.;)
I don't know everybody.. I just had a baby and am nursing, I'm pretty sure my boobs could cause an earthquake at this point... at the very least knock a few things off of counters and table tops
"Objectifying the human body is a part of human nature. "


You say smart stuff as above and still you hang out with folks that say stupid stuff like this... "it's near impossible to objectify a me, I've tried!"

Boobquake is not about pride. It is about the propensity of women to use "skin" as a power trip. That this phenomenon was the twisted idea of a young, white college woman with an enormous rack is telling. That her peers are mostly male science types is even more significant.

Muslim countries think western women are whores, but that's mostly based on how western women use dress and not fashion specifics. A lot of us Westerners conveniently forget that the burqa is only a public garment. Women do not wear them in private.

Boobquake and the "no peace, no pussy" counterparts that emerge so frequently, reinforce bad female behavior. Such publicized events send the message that it's acceptable to use a sex as a form of control and manipulation in a civilized society. This is why I am fundamentally against this type of display.

That so many males would turn Boobquake into a Boobquest is a given. Heterosexual men love female breasts... go figure. But that you get called a "cretan" for you enthusiastic interest in public cleavage is noteworthy. Such name calling indicates the sexual dominance that women posses in our society. How megalomaniac is it for a woman in push-up bra to command how you "should" react to her tits being pushed in YOUR face? They must tirade in art galleries.

Even if I were ever so inclined to flash my cock in public, I find it hard to believe that I would have the audacity to demand people respond to me as only I see fit. Or the balls to label them pejoratively. I would expect a variety of responses. Some would stare. Some would photograph. Some would laugh. And some would try to get my number. Call me crazy!

"A lot of us Westerners conveniently forget that the burqa is only a public garment."

Shew. What a relief. I can only imagine how comfortable those women feel once at home, behind closed doors.

You're calling me stupid and you utter:

"Such name calling indicates the sexual dominance that women posses in our society."

We're not witch doctors casting some spell on the village. Women aren't societal cockteases, dangling our tits and ass to lure men into...into what? What do we gain from this so-called power you claim we have? What? Please inform me so I can leverage that power asap.

foolish monkey, I see your point to some extent. Hateful stares (which "show us your tits" mentality ultimately is, in my opinion) are existent when anyone tries to make a change. But the cause must be just in the first place...and I'm not sure whether I can compare an interracial couple walking hand in hand down the street to boobquake. There seems to be some undeniable differences there.

tainted love, I will agree with you on this point: we have no right to demand that people respond in one particular way when people make "stands" such as this. You can't dial up public reaction to suit your political agenda...if I can even call this event truly politically inclined.

Laurel, congratulations! Power knockers, you have!

foolish monkey says:

"one day, women will show whatever...elbows or boobs for fun and everyone will shrug and laugh and look and go on with their business (except the cretins). because nothing is static. everything changes."

amen to that.
This (especially the comments) kinda objectifies all of us, doesn't it?
foolish monkey, I see your point to some extent. Hateful stares (which "show us your tits" mentality ultimately is, in my opinion) are existent when anyone tries to make a change. But the cause must be just in the first place...and I'm not sure whether I can compare an interracial couple walking hand in hand down the street to boobquake. There seems to be some undeniable differences there.

bethmann, these young women are fighting the delusions insane religious fanatics would foist upon their sisters in Iran by claiming such magical powers in their breasts. their struggle may seem trivialized but I don't think so. they're making a statement to that clergy and a tainted religion:


you can lust for them and you can fear them, but the truth is, the only power they have is the power you assign them. they're just mounds of our flesh.


beth, I could go into this. maybe talk about the truth that we as a species are more drawn the female body than the male. I could talk about the power of our bodies, because our bodies in their most beautiful form ARE extremely powerful. I believe it's simple biology.

but should we be defined by our bodies? imprisoned? held to laws that diminish us? demean? destroy us and our sexuality? no.

I believe that's what these women are trying to do, with humor, a little sex, youthful spirit and energy, they're trying to diminish a foul and deadly message about women.

that's my take on it.
I wrote this a couple of months back on breasts:

Breasts, what's so special?

Well, everything about the female body is magnificently special, and its magnificence is proof that there is a god and she wants us to be happy.

I remember the first time I was turned on by exposed breasts and nipples, I was six years old and I was sneaking peeks at an older, fully developed, female relative while she took a bath. Later that day I told my mother I wanted to marry that relative, to which my mother replied that it was wrong to marry relatives, and then she gave me a long lecture on inbreeding (she was born in the South, so inbreeding was a topic of concern for her). After the lecture my desire to mate with anyone, temporally, dissipated, but my infatuation with exposed breasts and nipples continued. For my entire life I have been in love with women; all women (not girls, though I love them in a non-sexual way) regardless of age, weight, height, race, creed, religious beliefs, educational level, economic background, or even breast size – or even if she has lost them to a cancer operation.

My love for all women (with the exception of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and the other women of their ilk), and porn, has created problems for every sexual relationship I have been in, and prior to having proposed to my wife - at nearly the age of 26 – I would state that, though I would never cheat (and I defined cheating as not being honest about women I would sleep with), I had no intention of ever being monogamous. Becoming infecting with terminal monogamy was something that took me entirely by surprise (talking with my then GF about raising kids with her probably played a big role in contracting that infection), and I have been happily married to my wife – and our sex life is great – for over ten years now, but I still love porn and looking at women’s exposed breasts and nipples.

My wife would hurt me really bad – and not in the fun way – if I gave her breasts size in a blog post, but I can say that her breasts are not large, and since having actually touched, felt, licked, caressed, rested my head upon, curled up next to, buried my face in, took shots off of, and slide in between adult women’s breasts, I find small more athletic breasts to be more appealing, and the real fun with breasts is with women who are totally comfortable with the breasts they have.

Every woman should be comfortable with her breasts, as there is no such thing as a bad boob. I have never been with a woman who had undergone a radical breast mastectomy operation, but I had been with a woman (one of the few women I have been with who wasn’t more than a year older than me) when I was 18 who had suffered an abnormality that had caused one of her breasts to improperly form. She had had a tough time in her teen years, which had adversely affected her confidence and self image, and it didn’t help matters much that she had a kid before she was 17 years old, but everything about her was beautiful; her personality, her sense of humor, her tight round ass, her luscious thighs, her smooth skin, her silky hair, her moist and warm vulva, and even her breasts, one of which didn’t properly form.

There is beauty in imperfect, and most people would say that quirky uniqueness is actually more beautiful than standardized perfection.

But back to breasts.

I don’t know what it is about women’s breasts and nipples that catches my attention, excites me, enthralls me, arouses me, and makes me drool, I just know I love them, and I am not going to deny that I love looking at them, touching them, feeling them, kissing them, licking them, sucking on them, caressing them, resting my head upon them (especially after a hard day of work), curling up next to them in bed, burying my face into them, taking shots off of them, and sliding in between them.

I have often gotten into trouble for asking women who are smoking if they love their breasts as much as I do, but I had to say something, because it really makes me sad to see women I love (which I mentioned above is every woman, with very few notable exceptions) destroying their beautiful breasts with cancer causing tobacco. Personally I think a tobacco smoking woman should be legally required to expose her breasts while she smokes, so that the world can get a last glimpse of their magnificence and beauty before she starts destroying them.

Breasts; they feed children. Breasts; they are sexually exciting (don’t deny it). Breasts; they have inspired artists and poets since the dawn of humanity.

Breasts; they are a product of nature (whether produced by god or evolution). Breasts; they taste good when licked or sucked, and licking or sucking a breast will always make a person feel loved and happy.

And we know you women love getting your breasts and nipples licked and sucked as much as we love licking and sucking them.
foolish monkey, good points. and in fact, again, my issue predominantly was the fact that this event devolved so quickly - not the event itself. i understand the fresh take, the humor, the energy behind it. i was almost a little excited at first when i read about it, until i got to the short shorts. that turned the tides for me. I understand the intention behind the event...for the most part. the reaction surrounding it became smarmy and same-old, same-old.

and maybe that, in essence, is the problem. that these young, expressive and fun women can't showcase their take on this cleric's comments without it being doused my objectification and "show us your tits" mindsets.

but its not just the dudes...i also saw women with their own limited mindset joining in, just because they knew it would be a real crowd pleaser. because they've been trained to showcase their shit when needed. for attention, for inclusion, for whatever.

as for evolutionary psychology, i have too much to say about that. as I think you do. i do NOT buy into most of the "we're just hardwired that way" approach, created god knows how long ago and fostered and kept alive for all sorts of ulterior motives. again, a bigger topic than I want to address right now. but suffice it to say, "men are just built like that" mentality is reductionist crap, in my opinion.

i do NOT believe we as a species are anymore drawn to the female body. we just idolize and fetishize to such an extent, it becomes an object. a thing. a trophy. a "you can't touch" toy. the humanity goes right out of the equation.

okay, to library!
Beth Mann,
What I wrote to fretboy is probably blasphemy for someone with your viewpoint. So let me explain.

The two strongest and most primal motivators in humans are pleasure and pain. As such, the control of desire and fear has been an endeavor of homo sapiens since our inception. Like you, I am not a witch doctor either, but I know I can easily dress and walk in a way that will make fellow pedestrians move to the other side of the street. Can women use fear? of course. My grandmother was a foster parent and I know of several horror stories about abusive moms. Still we know that fear while not even predominantly male, is still a male power.

Which brings me to my next point. Of course many women in Muslim countries don't feel safe behind closed doors. Those countries do not stigmatize the use of fear, only the use of desire. The burqa is a social convention that limits the use of desire, but there is no equivalent mechanism against the use of fear. Accordingly you get gang rapes and honor killings. But you sure don't get Boobquake day.

Way more importantly, you also don't female teachers fucking their 13 year old male students, but serving no time or getting a slap on the wrist. Or strippers that make more than a graduate of a top 5 American university. Or for that matter billions spent on pouty lips, implants, high heels and miniskirts by women who will later deny that it's to lure men... all while dressed like a call girl.

You think women are not sexually dominant, but you would be mistaken. Because you (as an individual) have not tapped it, does not mean women as a group don't possess it. Attention is power! Be it hits on a website, viewers of a TV show, or listeners at a concert. That a 20 year old undergraduate, who didn't cure cancer or save anyone from a burning building could generate so much press today is telling. And all because she has big tits, knows how to use them, and was willing to do so.
To taintedlove
"Of course many women in Muslim countries don't feel safe behind closed doors."
I would have to seriously disagree with that presumption of yours.
Having spent a lot of time conversing - both openly and secretly - with married and single Muslim women living in Muslin nations, I can say that Muslim women feel a lot more safer at home than do on the streets.
With the exception of a few, Muslim nations have made it nearly impossible for women in their country to do much more than raise children, keep house, and shop for groceries.
Like American and Western women, Muslim women of Muslim nations like raising children, keeping house, and shopping for groceries, but terrified of ever doing anything else, because their outside world is pretty scary.
Western women have it pretty good compared to the women of the third world and Muslim nations.
Though in a few Muslim nations women don't have it so bad, namely Malaysia, Indonesia, Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, UAR, Bahrain, Turkey, Albania, Kuwait, Qatar, and to some extent Pakistan.
I have always wondered how Muslim women deal with being married to a man who has other wives, and they have interesting and intriguing answers to that question, especially Malaysian women.
Interesting how no one ever suggests that we cover up head to toe, Muslim style, to make another point: how dispiriting it would be to the culture, to not be able to deal with women face to face, to hide not just their bodies but their very selves. That might be an interesting experiment. Showing my tits? Not so much. Joe Francis took away whatever 'empowerment' that act could ever have.

Great essay Beth. And by the way I FUCKING HATE IT WHEN THEY TELL ME TO RELAX!
"I would have to seriously disagree with that presumption of yours (that many women in Muslim countries don't feel safe behind closed doors)."

While surely not the best sentence I've ever penned, I included "many" versus say "most" for a reason.

That Muslim women feel way more safer in private vs. in public is the point of all the religious fear mongering. And also what person on the globe doesn't feel more safer in familiar surroundings just in general?

Yet how safe is a Muslim wife, really, if a husband can legally beat her? Particularly when there are extremist clerics that advocate it. Do most American husbands beat their wife? Nope. Can most American wives beat their husband, nope. Wives are more likely to emotionally or sexually abuse, yet most don't. Still spousal abuse laws should exist, and the most enlightened of these restrictions include penalties for both the male kind and female kind of abuse. On the other hand we have places that are tolerant of abuse by husbands with no laws at all, or places that are tolerant of abuse by wives that push a "violence against women" taboo into code.

From everything I have read, from the people I have known, and from the places that I have visited, it doesn't seem as if many Muslim countries have strong anti spousal abuse laws or histories and so the status quo potentially shields husbands and risks wives. Do you not agree?

As for the other type spousal laws in various countries, I have found an interesting trend regarding marriage, gender, and sex. The laws follow a general pattern linked to the sexual power of the women over the men in that country. And by sexual power I most succinctly mean which gender for the most part controls the "when" of sex. Beth, are you reading? Anyway, In countries/cultures where women are mildly sexually dominant there are fewer laws against multiple wives. Though sometimes written consent of the wives is required. In countries where women are significantly sexually dominant, you find legal restrictions against polygyny. In cultures where women are extremely sexually dominant, prostitution is legal, but paying for sex is an jail-able offense.

I know several women in non-traditional arrangements, but of course none of these are legal under US law. I am interested in your take on how women, like those you've mention, who are in official multiple partner marriages view their families.
Congratulations on the mention in the "Village Voice!"
Congratulations on the mention in the "Village Voice!"
Or "The Village Voice!"
To Taintedlove
"Yet how safe is a Muslim wife, really, if a husband can legally beat her? Particularly when there are extremist clerics that advocate it."
I would have to seriously disagree with that presumption as well.
From what I can tell, and have read, spousal abuse is extremely rare in Muslim nations.
Probably because Muslim men can't drink alcohol, and spousal abuse is one of the few grounds in which a Muslim wife can file for divorce.
The biggest fear for Muslim wives is to end up a war widow (unfortunately there are a lot of them in Muslim countries). And for unwed Muslim girls their worst fear is getting raped prior to their first marriage (and unfortunately too many Muslim girls have gotten rapped, usually by invading soldiers or tribesmen).
sandra, i'm so glad you checked in! it's not a party till sandra is here, people! and I concur with your point wholeheartedly.

508880, thank you! That was exciting. Though I must confess, it's a little strange getting so much notice for something called Boobquake. I wrote this piece in a half hour. There are pieces I've spent DAYS on! Lesson learned, I suppose.

tainted love, fetboy, etc. I have to work for a while. I would love to respond, but truthfully, I've spend so much time conversing about this topic throughout the week that I'm very behind on that crazy thing that pays my bills.

i will read your comments when I have some spare time...but I want to say this:

thank you. i'm perfectly happy agreeing/not agreeing with your opinion because: a. you have made excellent points. so much so that I've had to examine my points more thoroughly and b. you've been polite and cool about it.

i honor that and just wanted to relay that to you. in our own way we experienced, i believe, some of the growth we spoke about, simply by example. by healthy discourse. by humor. by our own sexual natures. by intelligence.

hey beth. somehow I agree that there is an unhealthy objectification of women, and that will never go away, and we should be respectful at all times. but theres this thing about feminism & womanhood that is a SUPER DRAG. its where women act offended that guys like their attractive bodies. I have news for feminists. this is part of the perpetuation of the human species. Im serious about this. its not a joke. its not funny. guys liking hot girls is what keeps homo sapiens alive, procreating, and continuing-- its the same in other species. its a basic aspect of evolution. its part of the basic motor of human reproduction. and of course it goes both ways, male to female, female to male, although it manifests in different ways depending on the direction. it will be here as long as there are living beings on planet earth. lets figure out a way to deal with it. Ive seen very few females/feminists acknowledge this basic reality.
I hate to engage fetboy, but he said something kinda weird & nonsensical, apparently with a straight face... "Beth Mann's breasts and BJs are hers, and she shouldn't care what others think of them." the obvious point is, suppose a woman thought she gave GREAT BJs, but every guy who ever had one from her thought it wasnt. whats wrong with this picture? this is just a hypothetical scenario, wink. & ps the roles could be reversed.... anyway it would seem that just as love is in the eye of the beholder, so are BJs, or something like that, you know what I mean, wink :p
fetboy has this very trollish side, ack, but I gotta commend him for eliciting this response from beth--
"fetboy, i give an AWESOME blowjob. its one of my favorite sexual acts. "
somehow, I doubt beth thought she was gonna write something like that when she wrote the post.
doncha just love cyberspace?!?!
I congratulate/commend beth for letting it all hang out in the comments and not deleting any, even of the embarrassing clowns. it takes some major, uhm, balls to pull that off. =)
because, as much as I dislike the open salon Supercilious Matriarchy, I will give beth an official certification that via her laissaiz faire, almost-anything-goes attitude, she's certainly not in it =)
on the other hand, emmapeel writes...
"You see, when you take a feminist stance, you're instantly tagged as some sourpuss who just doesn't get it. That kind of social shaming doesn't work on me. I do funny quite well, thank you."
can anyone point me to a post or comment where emma peel actually displays a sense of humor?? there are rumors about this all over the place, but so far, as far as I can tell, its just an elusive urban legend.
beth writes:
"Again, in a male-dominated society, it's near impossible to objectify a me, I've tried! It's like making a king act like a servant for the day: he knows and you know his ultimate power so the game is cute, more than proving anything. "
I disagree with this vehemently. the objectification of men is just as rampant in the culture, its just that the MALES dont COMPLAIN about discrimination.
in the form that another poster suggested-- net worth, status, measured in dollars. assets. bank accounts, cars, house(s), servants, employees, etcetera
Im not suggesting this to be ironic! Im not kidding. its a scientific fact. esp to anyone who has done a basic study of the emerging field of evolutionary psychology, which of course I recommend to everyone writing here to learn more about hardwired psychological issues/inclinations in BOTH sexes.
hey fetboy, re your ode to breasts.. nice work. [side note-- you sound "polyamorous" to me].. anyway geez dude, as they say sometimes, "get a room", maybe you should "get a blog". oh! you have one! well, post on it!! that little soliloquy deserves its own blog. & a lot of your other thoughts on here. Im taking my own advice too. in case anyone is interested, try this on. including 2 links, "best boobquake videos" and "how I started boobquake" by jennifer mccreight, the founder, about how her post went viral
on boobquake, quickies, viral posts, beth mann, EPs & BJs
To vzn
If there are people out there who don't appreciate Beth Mann's Boobies and techniques at giving BJs, then those people should be discarded as jerks.
There is no such thing as a bad boob or bad BJ.
All Boobies and BJs are great.
More to vzn
It was on my blog.
I only keep writings on my blog for a short period of time, but I keep them saved on my HD.
Viva la boobie!
Vive la BJ!
Still more to vzn
Polyamorous to an extent in that I still love every woman I have ever had sex with, and a lot of women and men I have never had sex with, but in the past eleven years I have only been sexually active with my wife.
Also you should take a long look in the mirror when you call anyone trollish.
vzn, as I've stated, I'm hardly a big fan of evolutionary psychology. it was a "scientific fact" that drilling holes in a human head helped alleviate certain mental illnesses.

to go down the "hardwired" path requires an entire separate piece on my behalf, which i'm entirely too lazy to write at this moment. but suffice it to say, i think - for the most part - it's blather. and again, i said for the most part. bigger issue, not enough time.

but people like you make huge assumptions about people like me, such as thinking i don't like being looked at by a man or i don't think women should be looked at in a sexual manner by a man. what a HUGE assumption to make from this piece. and hence why i hesitated writing it in the first place; nowadays, you can't have any feminist views without being sweeping generalizations being smeared all over you.

and isn't that a technique, really? isn't that a "shut the fuck up" technique? can i have ANY issues as a woman that you would deem valid or would your same old assumptions pop up first?

we ARE discriminated against. it's not an effin' myth....come on. look around you. you'd be blind not to notice it. when we voice our opinion about it, then the "feminazi" shaming occurs. when can we speak out? how can we do it in a pleasing, gentle manner so as not cause any waves? I'm tired of pink-painting my views.

anyway, i digress. if you were a woman (read that again) you would know the different kinds of looks you receive; some are welcome and come from a healthy sexual place and others are filled with frustration, ugliness, hatred, power. you can tell the difference as easily as telling the time.

nobody likes being leered at...nobody. and if you were a woman (read that again), you would know the discomfort and invasive quality of unwanted sexual attention...that, to me, doesn't even feel sexual.

a little bit on men being "hardwired": in this world we live in, it's akin to gluttony. at what point do we separate that human instinct you speak of from a marketing machine meant to diminish women and saturate men sexually?

if an overweight person was surrounded by chocolate every day, would you say, "well that person is just hardwired to eat sweets. they can't help themselves." a kinda poor analogy, but that's what you get first thing in the morning, pre-coffee.

plus, let us not forget the puritanical society in which we live (isn't that part of our hard wiring as well?) which teaches us about forbidden fruits, shames our bodies, instills in us the idea that sexual urges are ungodly, etc...only accentuating this "natural instinct" you speak of.

in short, a man's sex drive - in this society - has become spoiled and overfed to an extent that how could we possibly say that it's just "natural hard wiring"? there's nothing natural about the way we're all being manipulated.

we're NOT cavepeople. there are too many other factors that come into play at this juncture of our evolution.

interestingly, if the male sex drive can't be stopped because of its need to procreate, then perhaps it should. cuz we have too many effin' babies! perhaps our overpopulation is a perfect indicator of sexual overdrive run amok.

vzn, it's interesting that you said certain directions in feminism are a "SUPER DRAG." i'm curious if you'd say that about the civil rights movement, for instance.

are we being party poopers? i thought sexism and its various incarnations that i experience every day of my life were supposed to be champagne and roses! sorry its not living up to your fun standards. we''ll work on that.

as for males being objectified as much as females, you're joking, right? you must be. i can't even respond to that. oh...yes i can: no you are not. not to the same extent. not even close.

okay, let me get back to being a dour, humorless and sexless feminist. it takes work, especially the dour part.

VZN is no Sherlock Holmes, and he does make some big assumptions about you, but there is the matter of guilt by association.

Using the word "Feminist" is not akin to using the word "foodie" to describe yourself, but more like "Christian" as a self label. A "foodie" is someone that enjoys food.. a lot. "Foodies" are a group of people that enjoy food .. . alot. Yet, "Christians" are not just simply a group of believers in Christ. So when the Vatican hides pedophiles, "Christians" take a hit. When their religious symbol is burned by people in white hoods, "Christians" take a hit. Such is also the case with women who call themselves "Feminist".

What other "feminists" DO matters... for the group!

So when Gloria Steinem pens her infamous NY Times oped, and then America gets a black president before N.O.W. does ,smart people scratch their heads. And so it is not just those that scream "feminazi" who dislike feminism. The list of "haters" also includes, many poor, non-white women, liberal men, and minority males, who too often feel marginalized, demonized, or scapegoated and rightly so.

Currently, the web is full of "feminist" bloggers and for the most part they are not a very eros, race, or male friendly lot. And they characterize "feminists" as the current Pope does Catholics.

Take for instance Amanda Marcotte...

While working for John Edwards presidential campaign, she had the genius idea to attack some religious constituents. Not a great way to help your candidate win a nomination, regardless of how you feel about religion eh? Accordingly she was fired.

Her first book was attacked because many considered the cover to be racist. In the subsequent edition the image was changed, but she continues to use word "Jungle" in the title, whose offensiveness is still obviously over her head.

She is one of your fellow "feminists". And there are many, many more like her.

So what does that make VZN et. al think about you? Bad, bad things! But, I've seen your type before and I know a "tomato" feminist when I come across one. You look like a vegetable, but you're really a fruit! And I mean fruit in the most complimentary of ways. And vegetable in the least complmentary of ways.

You are more pro people than your peers, but occasionally you slip up with anti male, anti-sex jargon like "cheap thrills" and "objectification". And are men really over titillated (trust me we are not overfed) or is it that marketers do not titillate women enough? Or is it that female titillation takes a form that you overlooked? Or is it that women prefer to see men flirting over cocks spurting? I am still surprised at how many women read their porn.

I smile that you post about inclusive topics like rock, New Year's resolutions and surfing, rather than compulsively trolling world news to post about people with penises behaving badly. I also appreciate that you don't delete/ban for "blasphemy" or dissent and that I haven't seen you type douchebag, Niceguy (tm) or choad in any of your comments. You still have a gaping blind spot when it comes to understanding sexual power and how much women. but hey, nobody is perfect. And I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually. Have a nice one.
"Feminism" was a name/label given to a cause/belief that sought to overcome a mindset in our culture that marginalized women. Jobs, education, laws, personal value, etc. were the issues. Often, women working for or believing in a change for the better in our society, who knew the damage of sexism, called themselves feminists. Feminists don't necessarily hate men or have an attitude about male culture that is blaming all men for all wrongs. Most feminists I know simply want to promote fairness for women, and seek a positive change in our society. There is still work to be done and the personal/social issues are the toughest things to change, just like racism. Men and women can share this world as equals. I love men in general. I do find statements like one made here about Beth Mann having a "gaping blind spot" in her understanding of sexual power, annoying. Is Beth Mann a "t0mato" feminist? I get this feeling of arrogance and condescension reading that..........
You all take yourselves way to seriously.
That is why I stopped hanging out here, and stopped posting blogs.
I like fat women, I like skinny women, I like tall women, I like short women, I like blonds, burnets, and redheads, I like Asian women, I like Latinas, I like white women, I like black women, I like older women, and women over the age of 18:

In short; I like women.

If the world was populated only with the "model type", the world would be very dull, but that doesn't mean models aren't gorgeous.
I like breasts
I like nipples
I like vaginas
I like vulvae
I like hands
I like thighs
I like feet
I like lips
I like sensitive ears
I like moon light picnics on the beach
I like sex in secludes meadows
I like the look on a woman's face when she is having an orgasm
I like intellect, intelligence, personality, character, and wisdom.
I like independence.
I like living life:
ooooh, man, Ive been read the riot act, my ears are burning, my pride stinging, and ..... Ive gone limp =(
"nobody likes being leered at...nobody. and if you were a woman (read that again), you would know the discomfort and invasive quality of unwanted sexual attention...that, to me, doesn't even feel sexual. "

"unwanted sexual attn" == guy who winks at you .... and doesnt drive a MERCEDES
hey beth, yeah, maybe I was mistaken, maybe you really ARE sex positive... as long as a MAN is not involved
yeah you spoke of your BJ prowess [and goodness gracious, heaven forfend that would subject you to any "unwanted sexual attn"] but never really did clarify your sexual orientation. but to quote seinfeld-- not that theres anything wrong with that!! =)
@ 508880

I only wish feminism was the name for a cause then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Pacifism is a cause. "Abolitionism" was a cause. Feminism is a religion and with its associated dogmas, ideologies, priorities and values has more in common with scientology, or Latter Day Saints.

So the feminist who simply wants to promote fairness for women" is very much like the Mormon who "simply wants to save you". Each is on a crusade. And each is armed with a directive that makes specific implications and fosters a certain mindset among its members. We know what the Mormon creed implies... that everyone else is sinner and Mormonism faith is the only way to be saved. So what does the feminist creed imply? Three main things:

Only women are victims of unfairness ... worth feminist intervention.

Fairness is up to interpretation... by a feminist.

Women never benefit from unfairness... that needs addressing by feminism.

And how these teachings manifest themselves in feminist behavior can be quite obvious. When a university student was recently caught red handed by the police in a lie about her being raped, feminists were either conspicuously silent, or argued it's not fair to have the students name released because she had made a "youthful indiscretion". None prominently argued that she should do any prison time, or at a minimum pay back the investigation costs.

That feminists keep preaching much "we love men" is all well a good, but actions speak SO much louder than words. And so tons of men realize y'all are full of shit. The Catholic church preaches "we love God", and yet they cover for pedophiles.

I am not surprised that my comments annoy you. It seems that you have other negative reactions to men, such as cringing. What was that you said about not hating us, again? And then rather than debate, you criticize style as if arrogance ever prevented someone from being correct. If you think I'm wrong about female sexual dominance, then have the "tits" to debate me, but don't get all "feminist" on me and whine that I'm not being sensitive enough.
To Taintedlove
That is first time I have ever heard feminism be called a religion, and said to be akin to Mormonism and the Church of Scientology.
I am beginning to think you lack conviction to anything you write.
"vulvae"? sounds like aliens from another planet.
men are from mars, women are from venus.
reign it in, fellas. vulvas, feminism as a religion, blow jobs...oh, and i'm gay now too right? good to know, since i'm going to nyc this weekend and i want to know what team i'm playing for.

508880, i'm in agreement with you. the derogatory tone in which feminism is spoken about (like here, now) only showcases the belittling tactics. again, what other civil movement requires its members to win a popularity contest before one can enter? see...get this: nobody should give a rat's ass what you like about the feminist movement. this isn't for your kingly approval.

as for defending my sexuality, etc...why bother? people like vzn, etc. believe what they want anyway...well, they try to convince me they believe it. again, shaming technique 101. sure, i'm gay. i have three breasts (fetboy would be happy), my daddy was mean to me, i'm angry all the time, i'm ugly...what else? go ahead. hit me with your best shot. it won't stick (except for the 3 breasts thing...tough to find bras.)

unwanted sexual attention and blow jobs don't go together - that might be really, really tough for you to understand, but one can enjoy oral sex AND not like unwanted sexual attention. sit with that for a bit. i know its a tricky one to, uh, swallow.

tainted love, your slip is beginning to show. now you're comparing feminism to organized religion? sheesh. bottom line: you just feel contempt for feminists, no matter what they say. even in a piece like mine, which is hardly that fist-shaking.

what would you prefer? feminism to go away completely because it doesn't suit your tastes as far as social movements go? again, the whole point behind it? nobody should care what you think about it. that's the glory. THAT'S the freedom. nobody is asking you. because its not about you. and you don't get it because you're not in the position nor will you ever be.

you're not disenfranchised, objectified, raped, beaten (like at this moment), belittled (as in what you and vzn are doing in your comments), shamed, paid less, forced into societal positions for the sake of survival...and the list goes on and on and on. or perhaps you've had your genitals mutilated lately? i forgot to ask.

ah, the glory of all that sexual power we possess!

oh i guess a grandmother doesn't possess any sexual power, right? does she not "rank" in your opinion? or what about a handicapped woman? or one you don't think has any sexual power (she's just too ugly!) so who has the sexual power? pretty girls? wow. that's truly empowering for women everywhere.

no one needs to make the feminist movement pretty and cuddly for you. luckily, its in such a piss poor state right now, you're getting your petulant needs met anyway. in short, we're shutting up and showing out tits. isn't that what we do best do best anyway?

okay, i'm outta here. off to the big apple. gonna score me some pussy, beings that i'm gay now and all.
hot damn, Beth is switching teams!!
excellent commentary! you are dead on, beth
Awesome article. I had to share it on FB -- your subject has touched upon something I debate nonstop with my younger friends...feminism is not about men. And, I too, have quite a wonderful sense of humor :) Loved your writing, too. Thank you!
On that note, I'm closing the comments. I feel like we've covered a lot of ground. Thank you all for your input. It's been a crazy, little ride!
Comments are now closed.