Can a Carny Really Consent to Sword-Swallowing?

Jesse Walker | February 23, 2005

At a panel following a screening of the documentary Inside Deep Throat:

[Elvis] Mitchell looked on helplessly as [Catherine] MacKinnon did her thing, claiming that the film we had just watched was promoting the acceptance of rape. At one point, however, her righteous zeal became unhinged when she claimed that it was not possible to do deep throat safely, that it was a dangerous act that could only be done under hypnosis. "What's so funny?" she snapped as the audience rippled with mirth. Todd Graff's hand shot up -- "I can do it," he said, and the room echoed with a chorus of gay men going "me too!"

[Via Catallarchy.]

Comments

|2.23.05 @ 2:20PM|#

If Catherine MacKinnon is right about what helpless victims women are, doesn't it mean that they need BIG STRONG MEN to protect them?

|2.23.05 @ 2:21PM|#

OK, whoever was recklessly (and wrongly) throwing around the "C" word regarding Cathy Young a couple of days ago, where are you now that we need you?

Warren|2.23.05 @ 2:42PM|#

HA! Thanks Jesse, that's the funniest thing I've read all month. I can totally picture the stunned "What's so funny" look on her face. The loony left is so used to having their paranoid delusions swallowed whole, that whenever any light manages to penetrate into their world, it never fails to produce the 'deer in the headlights' response.

|2.23.05 @ 2:51PM|#

"And after that, everyone wound up at the after-after party at The Cock. Except Catherine McKinnon."

Methinks that harpy doesn't do cock.

|2.23.05 @ 2:56PM|#

That reminds me of the classic joke/urban legend about the girl in a college biology class who asks why semen doesn't taste sweet if it has sugar in it.

|2.23.05 @ 3:00PM|#

"McKinnon was not to be discouraged; she claimed that emergency rooms were filled with women victims of throat rape, not to mention the ones who hadnt even made it that far and had died in the act."

I find this claim extraordinary. Has anyone ever even heard of this happening?

...outside of a prison I mean?

Micha Ghertner|2.23.05 @ 3:07PM|#

If Catherine MacKinnon is right about what helpless victims women are, doesn't it mean that they need BIG STRONG MEN to protect them?

If libertarians are right about what helpless victims individual citizens are when faced with systematic state coercion, doesn't it mean that they need a BIG STRONG STATE to protect them?

|2.23.05 @ 3:07PM|#

Um, a dude is in a particularly vulnerable situation when being serviced in an oral manner. I don't know how it could be done without the consent of the other party. CHOMP.

PintofStout|2.23.05 @ 3:09PM|#

The loony left is so used to having their paranoid delusions swallowed whole...

Ha. hahaha. BLAHAHHHHH!

|2.23.05 @ 3:09PM|#

Brian, Thanks a F*cking lot for killing my chubby. At my age, I never know when the next one will happen.

|2.23.05 @ 3:12PM|#

i want to know if anyone actually taped this, because i have doubts that even someone as anti-porn as mackinnon would believe that people would have to be hospitalized due to penises injuring their throats.

|2.23.05 @ 3:20PM|#

If libertarians are right about what helpless victims individual citizens are when faced with systematic state coercion, doesn't it mean that they need a BIG STRONG STATE to protect them?

No, it means they need the absense of the state.

|2.23.05 @ 3:20PM|#

"i want to know if anyone actually taped this, because i have doubts that even someone as anti-porn as mackinnon would believe that people would have to be hospitalized due to penises injuring their throats."

This broad, along with that hideous cow Andrea Dworkin, made common cause with fucking Ed Meese in the 80s, and you can't believe she's this much of a delusional nut?????

|2.23.05 @ 3:22PM|#

I can do it too. :)

|2.23.05 @ 3:25PM|#

i can believe people are delusional nutbags, sure.

but, at the same time, it defies belief. maybe i've had too much of that rousseau guy gaius is always talking about. but injurious penises are a little bit beyond the pale.

especially all that shit about hypnosis. and most especially in the context of gay porn. it's just...ya know?

|2.23.05 @ 3:27PM|#

"No, it means they need the absense of the state."

which is what i believe the essense of mr. ghertner's retort was.

|2.23.05 @ 3:41PM|#

"which is what i believe the essense of mr. ghertner's retort was",

What I got from that exchange is that Micha Ghertner was a chick.

And a bitter delusional feminist lesbian one, who's penis envy was making her angry at the claim that a woman needs a man.

I could be wrong though.

|2.23.05 @ 3:44PM|#

--i want to know if anyone actually taped this, because i have doubts that even someone as anti-porn as mackinnon would believe that people would have to be hospitalized due to penises injuring their throats.

I take it you've never seen a Max Hardcore film.

|2.23.05 @ 3:46PM|#

Remember what they taught you in health class: nothing smaller than an elbow should go in there.

And leave it to the cliterati to protest throat rape while not saying a word about the epidemic of mammillary suffocation.

|2.23.05 @ 3:46PM|#

I'm an intelligent, independent-minded feminist woman, but I'll freely admit that I need my boyfriend in my life. Otherwise, I'd have to open all my own jars myself.

|2.23.05 @ 3:54PM|#

"McKinnon was not to be discouraged; she claimed that emergency rooms were filled with women victims of throat rape, not to mention the ones who hadnt even made it that far and had died in the act."

I find this claim extraordinary. Has anyone ever even heard of this happening?

It happens all the time. In the "rape vans" that continually prowl our cities.

|2.23.05 @ 3:56PM|#

Jen,
You could get a huge bull dyke chick, with popye forearms, if you leaned that way.

Reincarnation dude,
I don't believe I a have seen a Max Hardcore film. Does it feature poeple getting choked on penises?

Pavel,
Amen, what about all the breast to mouth rapes commited by desperate housewives? How come there is no outcry about that? What about all the poor unsuspecting delivery boys suffocated by huge mamarys?

Jeff|2.23.05 @ 3:58PM|#

I amazed that there isn't a crummy urban legend about a guy going to emergency room with a dead woman clamped onto his member...

|2.23.05 @ 4:00PM|#

Stevo Darkly,
Now I feel like a jackass making a joke about something I though was a feminist fantasy.

Are you for real? Does this really happen?

I have heard about 'Bang Bus', but never heard of a rape van.

|2.23.05 @ 4:05PM|#

ms. ghertner then.

"I take it you've never seen a Max Hardcore film."

sure, but in order to actually damage someone's throat you'd have to go far beyond the usual gagging bullshit. we're talking hospitalization, not discomfort and distress.

yes, yes, i know. she's somewhat unhinged. but still...

Warren|2.23.05 @ 4:14PM|#

"If libertarians are right about what helpless victims individual citizens are when faced with systematic state coercion, doesn't it mean that they need a BIG STRONG STATE to protect them?

No, it means they need the absense of the state.

I disagree with the above retort. I would say that, yes in fact that is exactly what it does mean. Libertarians are not anarchists. Indeed a cornerstone of libertarian philosophy is that the people constitute a government for the express and sole purpose of protecting their individual rights. Said government must necessarily be strong enough to deter and oppose existing and foreseeable threats to said rights (thieves, marauders, invaders e.g.)

When the government strays from it's just and proper function, it is incumbent on the people to rise up in opposition to the trespass upon their inalienable rights.

|2.23.05 @ 4:17PM|#

Jennifer,
I'm no good with opening jars (tennis elbow). But I'll gladly help you with that box.

I may be too old to cut the mustard, but I can still lick the lid.

|2.23.05 @ 4:18PM|#

Hey Jennifer you can just get one of these:

http://www.jaropener.com/

|2.23.05 @ 4:24PM|#

The only reference in the news that I have ever heard concerning the "deep throating" danger, was a dan savage article a ways back. All I can remember is that he suggested that it increased the chances of getting aids due the minor tearing of the membranes of the throat. I first saw the reference to the male members of this audience in the nerve.com site. Come on, I have too many friends (both male and female) who are proud of being able to do this. No doubt more difficult to be mastered then the tricks my tongue has learned in relationship to the female anatomy, but rape? You can tell she doesn't have any male gay, or adventurely heterosexual female, friends. (as a matter of fact, thanks to the nerve article, and one of my friends blogs, I now know exactly which of my friends are proud-and rightly so-of this particular talent.)

How much difference is there between MacKinnon, a good example of a left wing hater, and your average right wing fundamentalist? Not much really. Hate and delusion, and dogma.

|2.23.05 @ 4:34PM|#

BTW Jen,

I am not a big strong dude, I am average and average, But I can open any jar out there.

So a girl doesn't really need a big strong guy.

And I can protect a girl from any of the bad big strong men, because none of them are bulletproof.

|2.23.05 @ 4:34PM|#

http://www.jaropener.com/

Yep. That and the manpillow. Men are basically expendable at this point.

|2.23.05 @ 4:35PM|#

ps,
and I would never send a girl to a jar opener website.

|2.23.05 @ 4:47PM|#

But there's a *lot* more to our relationship than just opening jars, guys--I've also own some heavy, heavy furniture.

Besides, could a manpillow and I have long conversations discussing the theory that the Cylons on the new 'Battlestar Galactica' view themselves as some quasi-religious purifiers of humanity? Probably so, back when I smoked a lot of pot, but not anymore. Could a jar-opener give me really, really hot sex? Maybe in one of those movies Catherine MacKinnon's always bitching about, but I'm not that kind of girl.

|2.23.05 @ 4:48PM|#

Make that, "I've also GOT some heavy, heavy furniture." Embarrassing typo.

|2.23.05 @ 5:06PM|#

Kwais --

Sorry, bro, I was being sarcastic. The "rape vans" are a bogus rad-fem urban legend from the 1980s, as I recall. I can't remember the name of the persyn who made them up, briefly making them the subject of the latest media-driven "crisis." (Attempts to Google more info have left me shaken, so I can't give you a supporting link to supplement my memory. There don't seem to be many references online anyway -- such is the fate of urban legends that are already discredited before the coming of the WWW.)

I'm just showing my age. Sorry to make you uneasy. Watch your back, dude; you rock.

|2.23.05 @ 5:18PM|#

Comment by: Warren at February 23, 2005 04:14 PM

Great summation, Warren. I cut and paste that one as a keeper. Thanks. :)

Micha Ghertner|2.23.05 @ 7:08PM|#

My gender should have no bearing on the validity of my argument. For the record, it is Mr. Ghertner.

Libertarians are not anarchists.

A great many of us are. If I had a dollar for everytime a minarchist made this mistake...

It's a real shame that this thread turned into a MacKinnon bash, when the original Catallarchy post referenced by Jesse Walker is all about how libertarians could learn a lot from MacKinnon and Dworkin.

|2.23.05 @ 7:10PM|#

"What I got from that exchange is that Micha Ghertner was a chick.

And a bitter delusional feminist lesbian one, who's penis envy was making her angry at the claim that a woman needs a man.

I could be wrong though."

You're wrong. Micha is a male and a libertarian. I have no idea where you would get the idea that he was a radical feminist.

|2.23.05 @ 8:49PM|#

I find it hard to believe that only gay men were laughing. c'mon sisters, step up and raise your hands. also, it's unfair to leftists to suggest that MacKinnon is somehow representative; everyone thinks she's nuts. lots of radical feminists I know think she's nuts because they're all "pro sex-worker" and wanting to legalize prostitution and unionize sex workers. there are 100 anti-sex nutballs on the right howling about Janet Jackson's breast for every one MacKinnon. wait, the ratio has to be way higher, cause there's only one of her...

Micha Ghertner|2.23.05 @ 9:25PM|#

I am a radical feminist. And a male. And a libertarian. And an anarchist. I'm lots of things. :D

|2.23.05 @ 10:10PM|#

Micha is a male and a libertarian. I have no idea where you would get the idea that he was a radical feminist. - Xavier

I blame The O.C. When actresses like that Barton chick start getting famous using a previously male name it tends to spread androgyny even further than it has already gone.

At least "James King" is now going by "Jaime."

Kevin

|2.23.05 @ 10:23PM|#

Micha,

I think you misread the post, it seems to say just the opposite, that MacKinnon could learn a lot from libertarians "feminists and others should extend this idea to its libertarian conclusion: the only hope lies not just with freedom of the vocal cords and what can be produced with those vocal cords, but freedom of the whole body and what can be produced with that body." And also quotes J. Blumen "But, as an attorney and law professor, Mackinnon must, to accomplish her goals, place herself squarely in confrontation with free speech."
Don't see what a libertarian could learn here, except how to make an ass of yourself and alienate you allies.

|2.23.05 @ 10:32PM|#

Micha,

I really wish I did understand your thoughts though, because I was brought up to be a radical feminist when it comes to the rights of women. And I have some pretty heavily leftist views, yet somehow Mackinnon strikes the same terror into my heart that my fire and brimstone pastor did when I was a young man. I am having a really difficult time seeing her in any positive light, and her comments just seem to reinforce that for me.

|2.23.05 @ 11:15PM|#

"For the record, it is Mr. Ghertner."

see?

i think you recuse her too easily. dworkin is another matter entirely - "Intercourse occurs in a context of a power relation that is pervasive and incontrovertible" says enough on its own, frankly.

there are lessons to be learned from all sorts of people, but there are less inflammatory, and in the case of mackinnon, less insane advocates.

for the most part, a straight male cannot read their words, which despite your protests do not read like measured arguments even within context, and not have a similar reaction a jew would have upon reading the protocols of the elders of zion. to realize that this is still taken seriously - as my wife often enjoys torturing my sense of the innate goodness of humanity by recounting tales of her doctorate work in literature about equating tutoring students with "verbal rape" - is disheartening. dworking in particular takes a giant shit on romantic love or even joyous sex. which may be her intention, and perhaps a function of her time, which is clearly before mine.

but that anyone would be so far gone as to say what mackinnon did in an audience of gay men is an indication of something deeper, rhetorical device or not. maybe it is chronic rage - or maybe it's an inability to change from old positions, but its not worth any more time than patter about the biblical role of women as second class citizens from an adherent to that view.

it is something of a tragedy because the point is still important, if far more fluid in many cases than our old understanding of feminism often permits. (hence the rise of the sex poz and the like)

the protocols is obviously the wrong example to use, but i cannot think of any other not nazi-related, and that horse is thoroughly rotted. but if you want some fun, take a random passage, replace "male" with "jew" and "intercourse" with "banking" and so on.

grendelkhan|2.24.05 @ 12:09AM|#

kwais:
Okay, if you've never seen nor heard of a Max Hardcore movie, go ahead and read about him. (That link is not work-safe.) His schtick is to see exactly how demeaning one can be towards women and still not get shot or arrested. The stuff he puts out... squicks me. But, hey, I support his right to do so and the right of my fellow pervs to buy it and jerk off to it.

figleaf|2.24.05 @ 8:54AM|#

"...anti-porn as mackinnon would believe that people would have to be hospitalized due to penises injuring their throats."

Of course deep-throat is possible. Even I was able to figure it out (on inanimate objects anyway) so I could show someone I wouldn't ask her to try anything I couldn't (technically) do as well.

Having done it, though, I'm also aware how easy it would be to bruise or tear something if one or both parties didn't know what the hell they were doing. I'm skeptical that "emergency rooms are full" of victims, but I'm equally skeptical that it's unheard of.

Sure, McKinnon's shrill and irritating but no more so than someone who imagines it's a risk-free no-brainer just because she says otherwise.

Crankiness aside I also hope there's video. Though I'm not as unsympathetic as some, I want to see the look on McKinnon's face when Graf and the others bluntly contradicted her. Are there links yet? Daily Show maybe?

figleaf

|2.24.05 @ 9:14AM|#

Actually I don't believe that a woman NEEDS a man. In fact I subscribe to Steinem's fish/bicycle schtick.

If you didn't get the point, forget it.

|2.24.05 @ 11:00AM|#

"McKinnon was not to be discouraged; she claimed that emergency rooms were filled with women victims of throat rape, not to mention the ones who hadnt even made it that far and had died in the act."

Evidence please. Would she care to name one peer-reviewed medical journal to back up that statement? Could she give us actual numbers?

Nope... I didn't think so.

Micha Ghertner|2.24.05 @ 2:09PM|#

Skeptikos,

I think you misread the post, it seems to say just the opposite, that MacKinnon could learn a lot from libertarians

I wrote the post, so I don't think I misread what I wrote (although that is a remote possibility). I did indeed say that MacKinnon and other radical feminists could learn a lot from radical libertarians, but the other half is that radical libertarians could learn a lot from radical feminists. That's the central theme of Roderick Long's and Charles Johnson's article referenced in my post.

I really wish I did understand your thoughts though, because I was brought up to be a radical feminist when it comes to the rights of women. And I have some pretty heavily leftist views, yet somehow Mackinnon strikes the same terror into my heart that my fire and brimstone pastor did when I was a young man. I am having a really difficult time seeing her in any positive light, and her comments just seem to reinforce that for me.

Reading the above mentioned article put MacKinnon and Dworkin in a much more favorable light for me. It's more of a historical accident, and not a necessity, that modern radical feminists looked to Marxism rather than free market views to bolster their criticisms. This can be seen by looking back at the radical feminism of the 19th century individualist anarchists.

Micha Ghertner|2.24.05 @ 2:15PM|#

dworkin is another matter entirely - "Intercourse occurs in a context of a power relation that is pervasive and incontrovertible" says enough on its own, frankly.

Not really. She is critizing the context of power relations as they currently exist; she is not criticizing heterosexual intercourse. See: "Andrea Dworkin does not believe that all heterosexual sex is rape"

|2.24.05 @ 7:05PM|#

Y'all want a real laugh? Read Ghertner's Dworkin link above.

Turns out that my wife has imbibed the Kool Aid of male supremecist culture (as manifested in science, literature, commerce, animal husbandry, salad bars, etc.), and thus enters the realm of sexual intercourse from a position of relative powerlessness.

That's why she's so eager to fuck when I get home from work. She doesn't know any better.

This tripe is so very 1989.