A sex worker shows how sex work destroys her.

Though the original purpose of this blog was to give voice to Donatien, it also is to seriously discuss my thoughts about sexuality, especially the darker forms of it. Usually, I'll be making these posts under "Charles." The "Donatien" identity is more of a license to be ruthlessly obnoxious, and that wasn't what I had in mind for this post. However, he'll pipe up occasionally even in this post.

"Cruel Bitch" on Livejournal: Jen is a Buzzkiller

Sometimes I let Donatien search the web for me, just to see what he comes up with. Tonight he felt like searching on "bitches choking on my cock," which is about par for the course for him. Anyway, I did find an interesting site called Gag on My Cock. Well, the first video you see is kind of interesting if you're into the sick shit that Donatien is into. Unfortunately, Donatien gets quickly bored with it, because as deranged as he is, he likes art and creativity as much as any other cultured guy, and the moron behind this site has a pretty jejune formula. The insults are all the same. The modus is always the same (strangle, slap, shove a cock in there). It's just...well, bland. But what did he expect from a site called "Gag On My Cock?"

Do I even need to mention how grotesquely horrifying this site is? I mean, I am sure there is sexual assault going on in these videos. In one, the "actress" even says "please, stop" and the "actor" says "you just don't get it do you?" Predictably, he grabs her by the hair and shoves his cock in her mouth. This is so not good.

Anyway, I took control back from Donatien and modified the search to: "gag on my cock" feminism. Donatien had a really good chuckle at that, and I told him to STFU. Anyway, I found this "cruelbitch" journal, written by someone calling herself "Jen." Holy crap, is this the most confusing thing ever, or what? Here we have someone identifying herself as lesbian but calling herself asexual. Yet she makes her money (or at least some of it, can't tell competely) as a stripper. She has pictures of herself posted there--yes, I can see how she makes pretty good money at it. But this is just WTF-level betwildering.

I suppose I support the right of anyone to self-identify however they want, even if it is maddeningly bewildering. She makes a few posts elsewhere in the journal trying to explain this inexplicable decision as if it should make perfect sense to someone who is the least bit intelligent. I don't identify at all--it would be if I self-identified as a fire truck and demanded to be taken seriously. I mean, OK, I guess, but good luck with that.

[Then again, here I am blogging about sharing my brain with a wannabe sexual predator, so it's not like I can be all high and mighty about it.]

The story she told in this post (now 2 years old) is horrifying. Yet, not all that unusual--it's my firm belief that at least 9 out of 10 sex workers are seriously harmed by their work. Jen is no exception, though it's curious to me that she soothes this pain by becoming lesbian and asexual rather than doing whatever it took to find another line of work and heal whatever semblance of sexual identity she has left. But, she's a big girl, I'm sure she knows what she's doing.

She gives a harrowing account of her encounter with a guy--an encounter amounting to sexual battery at the very least. Finally, the guy tries to strangle her. He leaves a big welt on her neck. She extorts $200 from him. He apologizes and begs her to make love to him. Yes, both Jen and I go WTFWTF to that, but it must have been six orders more WTF to actually be there.

She posits that pornography is behind this nonsense. This is a good guess, but I have a problem with her high-level analysis. Then again, she makes a number of well-thought-out points about the porn industry. I thought I'd step through a few of the with you.

(Before we begin, though--it's interesting she had to modify her rant by fending off charges of heteronormativity, of all the goddamned things. This just shows you how silly identity politics are. Of course, Jen seems to revel in it, so she accomodates this foolishness. It's really interesting to try to figure out the reasoning behind what she chooses to tolerate and what she does not.)

1. The blatantly simple-minded objectification of bodies set the precedent that the actors are carnal realdolls and nothing further. Essentially, this is true to the detached and uncreative viewer, but adamant knights for the exploitation industry tend to forget that these "fantasies", are in fact, happening to real people. The female body, the vehicle of receptivity, is a two-dimensional soul made flesh, possessing holes that can - and will - be entered. And reducing the male's presense to nothing but a cock attached to a mysterious alien pelvis. None of this.

Boy, that sure does capture "Gag on My Cock" pretty well, doesn't it?

From Donatien: I think she confuses cause and effect. Objectification certainly helps the average non-introspective moron engage in this sort of fun, but simply banning objectification isn't going to protect the world from people like me. I am turned off by ojectification. It actually undermines her suffering. Though the process of objectification itself might be fun to watch, of course, but once she's there, well what the hell fun is that? Please.

2. Body punishing sex scenes, let's address those. This includes anal penetration of a woman (the primary thrill emphasized in these videos is that, in fact, that it hurts her and she hates it - so this is especially highlighted as horrific). Very frequently, indications of her pain are not edited out. Surely you can guess why. In a culture that is appalled by real-life sexual abuse, I find it very curious that many videos marketing "consensual" punishment go out of their way to make it appear nonconsensual. Acknowledge the tragedy in the actress tensing her body up against the slamming, rigid as a board, not limber and supple with pleasure as she moans artificially.

Yes, and this is where exploitation comes in. A good working definition of exploitation is "getting consent to harm someone by fulfilling one of their basic needs." Since we need money to survive in this fucked-up society, providing a huge chunk of cash to a late teen with no education or job skills probably gives her some desperately-needed financial relief. It's exploitation. Of course, if she blows it on meth or clothes or whatever....well, never mind, this gets too hard to discuss without going on for pages, and this post is going to be tl;dr as it is.

In my own play, I make sure the women involved get something out of it other than having a basic need met. Affirmative desire is required--this removes exploitation from the equation.

5. Throat-gagging, or any of the principles of "gonzo" porn that is florid with the undeniably sadistic hatred of the reciever, capitalizing on ruining her emotionally and physically. A lot of emphasis they place on gag factor websites is that the messier and sloppier the blowjob, the better. The more her face contorts as they ram their misshapen penises down her throat, the more she chokes on resists with panicked reflexes and the more her trachea ruptures, the hotter it is. The males in the films always, without fail, encourage their victim to cough up her viscious saliva, to drool up unto her own lipsticked face, to vomit. One ten minute amatuer video I watched featured an infantilized young girl saying "I'm going to make this cock grow with the love of a woman", followed by the guy immediately thrusting his pelvis up into her face, shoving her head down and violently forcing her to puke up for ten minutes while his friend took pictures. And they do, in fact, proudly label it as "abuse". In the video mentioned, the subtext is "the way for a woman to show her love is to endure physical agony, primarily for the sole pleasure of the reciever". I think most of us non-sociopaths are all set with that shit.

From Donatien: A delightful image, yes. However, as I said earlier, dehumanizing is cheating. These guys are pussies. Do this to a self-confident woman who has some presence about her, and then I'll be impressed. Turned on, even.

6. With all this established thus far, I believe firmly in taking what you're dishing out, my friend. If a man is pressuring a woman into such acts of dominance like receiving his cock up her ass, he must be prepared to take the same type of "pleasure". What's funny is how very unsusceptible men are to being penetrated in sharp contrast to their desire to penetrate. The solidifies the subliminal gender roles, the eroticization solely placed on female subordination. The fact that it not-so-subtly mirrors gender roles that already exist in society, presently and historically, is the very thing that alarms me and fills me with an unnameable disgust. In a society that presently permeates inequality, how does the pornography exist in a vacuum? It is simply another way of keeping an entire gender of people down, down, down, similiar to the way women are catcalled and harassed while walking down the street, entering the public. To be shoved back into their place - their place is to be sexualized, to be scrutinized, not as an individual human - but because is female, because she is.

This is why I insist that the very little porn I pay for comes from enthusiasts. Yes, it tends to be BDSM-oriented, but that's really the only way you can tell it comes from enthusiasts. I wouldn't say "amateur", because these are often professional operations, but the models usually practice BDSM in their personal lives and also are not generally acting when they are filmed. Thus, Jen might want to check in to sites like Men In Pain and InsexM.

From Donatien: Eh, Charles is a pussy. But I go along, because the stuff Charles buys is at least somewhat interesting. What would really thrill me is probably illegal. Which doesn't stop it from thrilling me, but a man's got to know his limitations.

11. Suggestions of child-fucking. I do not give the slightest of shit that you consider it roleplay. The same way the modeling industry is promoting shapeless, infantilized forms is dangerous (and telling) of society's expectations of what is romanticized, likewise is pornography's depiction of "amateurs". Speaking of which, as this gets mentioned often here: having your body is a personal choice; some prefer it, others don't, but the point is there shouldn't be pressure to succumb to removal of it for the sake of some bullshit pre-determined expectation of "hygeine". The over-glorifying of small, breakable, hipless childlike frames sends a vile message. And before you proclaim that's discrimination against naturally petite girls, let me just say this: I'm naturally skinny, and it's fine to be that way, but don't capitalize on your very own anatomy to promote pedophilia. You heard me: Pigtails, braces, schoolgirls, ruffly babydoll outfits, sucking demurely on lollipops while you are being fucked on Care Bear bedsheets. "Barely Legal" should be ignited and charred into the ground. The fact that it's illegal to perform these acts on a child but perfectly legal to impose the same acts on an adult imitating a child for the pedophile's benefit shows how much we desire to shelter ourselves from the cinematic disgraces that socialize and normalize the fact that 3 out of 4 girls is sexually molested before the age of 18. Are these videos making a joke out of this reality, or are they providing fucking intructional tapes for their perpetrators?

I have to agree 100% with this. Fanciers of Barely Legal porn and "Daddy/Little Girl" fetishists are fucking pedophiles, and women who go along with it are enabling pedophiles. There's no two ways about it.

From Donatien: You're not going to believe this, but I agree with Charles on this. Of course, the nature of what I am means that I wouldn't feel bad about being attracted to children if I were. But fortunately, I am not in the least. If I feel like it, I'll explain why at some other point--it has to do with the day I was born, which was when Charles was 14. I am about as heterosexual as they come, but if I ever got curious about what it would be like to sexually torture a man, I would choose a pedophile.

16. Cherry-popping, "first time" videos are particularly loathesome. The propagated myth used to bait people into consent is that it is "empowering" and intimate to have your first experience occur on video; it's exciting, fun. However, let's debunk this with the unfortunate reality: if this is your first time, you have no concepts of your boundaries and borders, so this can be very damaging both physically and psychologically. Also, the main reason is that the exploitations of a girl's demure innocence, the art of her virginity, is not that you're out for her sexual freedom or liberation - but because viewers want to watch the debasement and dominance implied in deflowering her. Turning her out into a whore, so to speak. Another problem is that in many "first time" videos, it shows the woman trying to dispel or reject the penis that is hurting her, but she is pushed through it because the first time is "supposed to hurt", and also because the pleasure of it is that she has to learn to accomadate the girth despite her protests. The subtext? "Keep hurting her until she likes it."

Donatien has a confused idea of the notion of innocence. Because of the way he was created, he would generally view this sort of nonsense with equal disdain. Then again, he fantasizes about sexually torturing random women he sees on the streets.

From Donatien: I have to wonder about the premise that constant exposure to the "keep hurting her until she likes it" idea has any impact on a man who didn't start out believing that. I mean, I felt this way from day one. I didn't need any help from porn.

So, she makes a number of good points and a number of not-so-good points, but closes with a bewildering piece-de-WTF:

If you blame it on the industry I'm involved in, I'll laugh in your face. There are plenty of decent, civil men who come into my job and do not inflict their psychopathic mommy issues upon me. Imagine that!

Go ahead and laugh, Jen. Your very trade reduces sexuality to a parody of itself that is commoditized and sold very cheaply. And you have the gall to say that it is not interrelated with the things you point out above? This is what we call "denial," honey.

Who is Donatien?

This blog will generally be written from the perspective of "Donatien". I feel the need to explain who Donatien is, though, so you'll understand why he is so thoroughly awful. To really understand Donatien, though, you'll have to understand Charles, which is the name of the "complete person" behind this blog.

To all outward appearances, Charles is a fairly normal guy in his late thirties. Most people think of him as caring and sensitive, if a little obnoxious occasionally. He could be any man you know--he could be the guy sitting in the cubicle next to yours at work. He could be the guy who smiled at you on the train. He could even be the guy you dated last week. He seems pleasant enough, but there's something in the way he looks at you that both excites and terrifies you. Yet you're reasonably sure he wouldn't harm a fly. Reasonably sure. Hm, maybe you're not quite so sure.

That's because Charles is not alone in his head. Charles shares his head with Donatien. It's misleading to think of it as a dissociated personality, though. Rather, it's as if Charles hears two internal voices at all times--the voice he thinks of as "his", and this malevolent presence. He hears them both nearly all the time.

To give you an example of how this works, say that Charles sees a woman on the train whom he finds attractive. He may reflect upon her physical beauty, maybe make eye contact and smile. He might even let his thoughts wander about how nice it would be to touch her, maybe even to have sex with her. But these are just fleeting thoughts--she is, after all, a woman, a human being, and not a sexual object. Generally, Charles would rather go back to reading his book or listening to his iPod or perhaps thinking about his plans for the evening with one of the women he loves dearly.

That's about the time Donatien pipes up. Usually, the first thing he tells me is, "I wonder what it sounds like when she screams?" Next he thinks of ways that she could be easily restrained--if she is petite, he thinks about how great she would look with her elbows and wrists bound together, maybe her upper arms as well. This would force her to jut out her breasts so that he could roughly knead them in his hands while he thinks of ways to flay them from her body.

He then wonders whether he would have more fun today if he beat her behind black or viciously raped her. Or maybe he wants to beat her feet until they are bloody. Or hit her in the face repeatedly until she loses consciousness. Or pull her hair so hard it comes out at the roots. Or kick her up and down that section of the train. Or grab a pair of pliers and start pulling and twisting her nipples and clitoris until they are rasped and bloodied. After all, she is a woman--not a human being at all, but a sexual object to be taken, restrained, consumed, and destroyed.

And on and on like this for about 60 seconds. That's about how long it takes for Charles to convince him to knock it the fuck off. Donatien finally relents: "You fucking pussy." And then he's silent. Until he sees the next woman. And the next.

While Charles wonders about political issues, social justice, or perhaps an exciting new software technology, Donatien occasionally pipes up with great new methods of torturing a woman. Or maybe he pulls women out of his memory banks and enacts his fantasies on them over and over. Usually both occur. Charles is so used to Donatien "acting out" in his brain that he can often perform other tasks at the same time.

This leads to some pretty hilarious incongruities, such as Charles posting to a political forum standing up with the ideals of feminism while Donatien fantasizes about anally raping feminists while melting their breasts off with a blowtorch. Pretty much a typical day in the life of Charles' head.

Donatien is never allowed to rule the body. He has never been able to act upon these foul urges. He has never been allowed to harm anyone. Charles will never permit this to happen. This is not to say that Donatien doesn't have an outlet--yes, Charles engages in very edgy BDSM play, play that is certainly fueled by Donatien's madness. But don't be confused about this-it's always Charles who is in control. Always.

There have been a couple of close calls. Let me tell you about one of them.

Charles somehow got involved with a hypersexual psychopath in her early twenties about a year ago--we'll call her "S." S got to Charles while he was suffering the loss of another relationship and a host of other mental problems. He was very vulnerable. Donatien could not stand to see Charles show this weakness to such a stupid little girl any longer. He nearly wrested control of the body from Charles. If he had succeeded, S would've had a supremely miserable day. The last day of her life, in fact, and what an awful way to go. After all, no one wants to be found by her boyfriend with clitoris and nipples burned off, her heart stuffed in her vagina, her eyes gouged out and stuffed with rose petals, her entrails strewn throughout the apartment, and her dead kittens stuffed variously in her throat and asshole.

Charles responded to Donatien's offensive by taking 90 grams of lithium. Donatien learned--if he ever pulls a stunt like that again, Charles will kill them both. Fortunately (?), they both survived this.

Charles has been blogging a lot lately. Donatien is sad that Charles gets to do all the writing. Donatien has a lot to say as well, and he couldn't care less about Charles' effete ramblings on social justice and a better, more life-affirming world. Charles is finally tired of listening to Donatien complain about this, so Charles stayed up late one night and gave Donatien his very own email address and blog.

Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce you to Donatien. He has a lot to say. It will be pretty hard to listen to him; doubly so if you are a woman; and triply so if you have suffered at the hands of a man anything like him. I am sorry that men like this exist. I guess I am a man like that, too, though unlike the others, I own the harm that I am capable of and would give up my very life to stop it.

I would give anything if I could "kill" Donatien and live life only as a basically decent man. I fear, however, it's like that silly episode of Star Trek where Captain Kirk got involved in a transporter accident and got split into two different people--an agressive, homicidal maniac and very weak but gentle man. I am afraid that there is more to Donatien than his base sexual urges. I think he powers a lot of my strength and passion, as well. As I said in the beginning, he's not truly a dissociated personality.

Donatien, the floor is finally yours. Well, maybe tomorrow, actually, as we both need to sleep. Yes, Donatien is just fine with drifting off to images of women screaming in agony.

Sade, dit-moi.

Where does this blog get its name? From the 1990 song "Sadeness (Part I)" by Enigma. Yes, cheesy, but it speaks to me.

Sade, dit-moi
qu'est çe que tu vas chercher?
le bien par le mal
la vertu par le vice

Sade, dit-moi, pourquoi l' évangile du mal?
quelle est ta religion où sont tes fidèles?
Si tu es contre Dieu, tu es contre l'homme

Sade, dit-moi, pourquoi le sang pour le plaisir?
Le plaisir sans l'amour.
N'y a t'il plus de sentiment dans le culte de l'homme?

Sade, et tu diabolique, ou divin?

Or, in English:

Sade, tell me
what is it that you seek?
The rightness of wrong
The virtue of vice

Sade, tell me, why the Gospel of evil?
What is your religion? Where are your faithful?
If you are against God, you are against man

Sade tell me why blood for pleasure?
Pleasure without love?
Is there no longer any feeling in man's Faith?

Sade, are you diabolical, or divine?

No, I am not Donatien Alphonse François, marquis de Sade. But I share his affliction. "Donatien" makes a great nom de plume, to boot.