Invitation of a Feminist Critique of the Process Forum

whiteflame · 02-01-2014

I am going to keep this laconically short compared to my normal modus operendi for the sake of opening up debate, but:

It would seem that the Process Forum's structure and function can be criticized severely from Feminist, LGTBQ and Queer Theorist perspectives. I am not going to offer up any extended critiques myself, as the topics and issues are, at the very least, obvious and ostensible.

Before everyone mans their posts with "the sexual preference club cannon" please consider the idea that preference need not exclude reasonable consideration of agency nor does preference entail objectification of one's preference.

The questions to be raised are:

Is gender distinction a legitimate moral foundation for an art, subcultural and fetishistic social website such as this? In other words, is vehement exclusion of all male depictions and topics to a separate category with limited internal demarcation and representation, (arguably "separate but equal but not actually equal"), justifiable? (Consider the category title "Everything Else" which doesn't just pragmatically include obscurer topics but the entirety of male-focused media.) Does the topic of "process of women changing" constitute a morally legitimate foundation for a network of social interactions?

Does the Process Forum actually "celebrate" its subject matter by embracing all variations, expanding boundaries and questioning itself to better improve its ethical treatment of its subject matter, or does it "objectify" its subject matter by establishing rigid categorization and treatment and disallow self-identification that may contest its viewpoint? Does favoritism constitute prejudice? Or does the forum qualify for favoritism as opposed to exclusion and exclusivity? Where does one draw the line between preference and objectification?

What is the functionality "the female form" or "femininity" in the context of this forum? (This question may elucidate answers to previous questions.) How does "female" operate here? What is its dialectical function, if any? Or, if it doesn't have any, is this problematic?

Is this website hetero-normative? If so, on what basis and does that constitute a justifiable foundation for a social media site? How does "transgendered" function within the site? Is it an identity allowed a concept of agency? Or is it objectified: is transgendered functioning as a subconcept of "objectified femininity"---the transformation from male to female being a role enforcement mechanism utilizing the sadomasochistic spectrum?

----

Of course, the phrasing of some or most of these questions is not rhetorically neutral because I am trying to simultaneously illustrate the points of contention while inviting polarized debate. I personally believe that the site's structure as a whole is problematic, and I am not attempting to veil this feeling with neutral discourse. I am, however, posing these criticisms as questions because I would rather take a step back and allow the site itself to have an introspective debate than present my views as some form of "force-fed aggressive enlightenment pomposity".

Rachel Bronwyn · 02-01-2014

A feminist response:

Of course it’s heteronormative. The vast majority of fetish material online (and everywhere) is heteronormative. It’s justifiable on the basis the same opportunity exists to those whose preferences/orientation lie outside the limitations of heteronormativity to produce such a space and discriminate based on those specs. I see nothing inherently wrong with exclusion of content from privately own and operated forums. It may be the case that the content being permitted within a given forum is absolutely revolting but I’d sooner critique what they do permit than their choice to exclude. It’s definitely an example of exclusivity though.

Transgender as a fetish doesn’t leave room for agency at all. It’s not about the person. It’s about the process and, maybe, the physical outcome. I will not pretend otherwise because it makes me uncomfortable that things that, in meat life, are very ugly also get people off. This is why I’ll never use the label “sex-positive”. If anything I’m “sex-neutral”. I will criticise what gets people, including myself, off. Kinks like transgender are objectifying. Some of what gets me off is dehumanising as fuck too. The subject matter in much of the art seen here is not treated ethically or even given personhood, much less celebrated as an individual with agency because there is no line between preference and objectification in these cases. The preference is inherently objectifying. I accept that.

Here’s why I’m neutral though: I don’t have to delude myself to believe what gets me off is empowering in order to condone and engage in it on the strict basis it occurs within the confines of consensual interaction where it’s being done for mutual satisfaction. Once dehumanisation based on kink transcends those consensual bounds, we have a problem. In my experience, people are generally terrible and, no, it wouldn’t surprise me if lots of people here do exactly that (nothing to do with this particular site or these particular people, just my take on a lot of people in general as being stupid and awful – I would say the exact same about any other group) but I’ve got no evidential support for it and, as misanthropic as I am, people are innocent until proven guilty in my world.

I’m going to call “process of women changing” as a foundation for a network of social interactions amoral. I don’t think it has any relevance to morality. I concern myself with ethics, not morality, but if we’re working within the confines of morality, I’m going to say this forum’s foundation is without relevance to morality because I can’t qualify a behaviour as immoral without it harming someone non-consensually. The “process of women changing” as a kink being the basis of congregation and social interaction isn’t inherently harmful to anyone. It’s a shared interest. I will call it exclusive and discriminatory but only in the sense choosing who you date is exclusive and discriminatory because the people you tell “no thanks” possess the exact same opportunity to reject you.

I can’t tell you what the forum’s official or unofficial stance on “femininity” or “the female form” is. I can tell you it’s probably narrow, reflecting social constructions of gender and their associated physical characteristics. That being said, I’d argue there’s a wider range of body types accepted as “feminine” or constituting “the female form” in this particular crowd than in the general public just because you see appreciation for fat women and muscular women here. Fat lovers are treated almost as badly as fat people in the general public so it’s not something people are very open about outside exclusive settings.

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve drawn attention to as problematic. Discrimination is a problem. Objectification is a problem. Our very narrow, limiting constructions of gender are a problem. The assumption of heteronormativity is a problem. I am viewing this through a particular lens though and it’s one that specifies a) the space is private hence the owners’ entitlement to dictate what content is permitted and b) the objectification and limited definitions of “femininity” and “the female form” and assumption of heteronormativity is occurring within the forum’s fetish content and not a part of human interactions.

I will say though all these things have been real life problems for me and I’m sensitive to them. I remember bursting into tears after giving a several hour lecture I’d worked for weeks on which I was very proud of and my instructor’s response was “I like your hair”. Nothing to do with my performance, just my appearance because that’s what mattered and was the most relevant to him. It wasn’t the first time that sort of thing had happened. Being forced and trying to exist within the limitations of what constitutes “feminine” by the general public’s standards has made me utterly miserable my entire life as neither my natural behaviour nor interests or my face fit the bill. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve had to tell people “Being female doesn’t mean I’m submissive and, if I am submissive, it doesn’t mean I’m submissive to you”. It was a contributor to my lack of enthusiasm with the BDSM crowd. I have had people ejaculate on my leg on the train. Everything you’ve mentioned has the potential to do real harm and I have experienced it first-hand. We are talking about these things within very specific parameters though and I believe, so long as these things remain within the confines of a private setting or art and consensual interaction, they’re not causing harm.

Drachen · 02-01-2014

I'm trying to imagine this series of questions being asked of a Camaro-lovers forum:

Quote:

Is F-body distinction a legitimate moral foundation for an art, subcultural and automobile social website such as this? In other words, is vehement exclusion of all model depictions and topics to a separate category with limited internal demarcation and representation, (arguably "separate but equal but not actually equal"), justifiable? (Consider the category title "Everything Else" which doesn't just pragmatically include obscurer topics but the entirety of Mustang-focused media.) Does the topic of "process of racing and restoring" constitute a morally legitimate foundation for a network of social interactions?

Does the Camaro Forum actually "celebrate" its subject matter by embracing all variations, expanding boundaries and questioning itself to better improve its ethical treatment of its subject matter, or does it "objectify" its subject matter by establishing rigid categorization and treatment and disallow self-identification that may contest its viewpoint? Does favoritism constitute prejudice? Or does the forum qualify for favoritism as opposed to exclusion and exclusivity? Where does one draw the line between preference and objectification?

What is the functionality "F-body" or "Camaro" in the context of this forum? (This question may elucidate answers to previous questions.) How does "F-body" operate here? What is its dialectical function, if any? Or, if it doesn't have any, is this problematic?

Is this website F-body-normative? If so, on what basis and does that constitute a justifiable foundation for a social media site? How does "engine block replacement" function within the site? Is it an identity allowed a concept of agency? Or is it objectified: are powertrains functioning as a subconcept of "objectified self"---the transformation from V6 to V8 or supercharged being a role enforcement mechanism utilizing the sadomasochistic spectrum?

Vengeance1701 · 02-01-2014

Me? I just like pretty girls, no matter their starting form, male or un-/not-as attractive female. Not much more beyond that.

wasurenai · 02-01-2014

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drachen

I'm trying to imagine this series of questions being asked of a Camaro-lovers forum:

I have not laughed so hard all week.

tea · 02-01-2014

It's porn, the women depicted are objects for the consumers sexual gratification.

tghawk555 · 02-02-2014

Quote:

Originally Posted by whiteflame

I am going to keep this laconically short compared to my normal modus operendi for the sake of opening up debate, but:

It would seem that the Process Forum's structure and function can be criticized severely from Feminist, LGTBQ and Queer Theorist perspectives. I am not going to offer up any extended critiques myself, as the topics and issues are, at the very least, obvious and ostensible.

Before everyone mans their posts with "the sexual preference club cannon" please consider the idea that preference need not exclude reasonable consideration of agency nor does preference entail objectification of one's preference.

The questions to be raised are:

Is gender distinction a legitimate moral foundation for an art, subcultural and fetishistic social website such as this? In other words, is vehement exclusion of all male depictions and topics to a separate category with limited internal demarcation and representation, (arguably "separate but equal but not actually equal"), justifiable? (Consider the category title "Everything Else" which doesn't just pragmatically include obscurer topics but the entirety of male-focused media.) Does the topic of "process of women changing" constitute a morally legitimate foundation for a network of social interactions?

Does the Process Forum actually "celebrate" its subject matter by embracing all variations, expanding boundaries and questioning itself to better improve its ethical treatment of its subject matter, or does it "objectify" its subject matter by establishing rigid categorization and treatment and disallow self-identification that may contest its viewpoint? Does favoritism constitute prejudice? Or does the forum qualify for favoritism as opposed to exclusion and exclusivity? Where does one draw the line between preference and objectification?

What is the functionality "the female form" or "femininity" in the context of this forum? (This question may elucidate answers to previous questions.) How does "female" operate here? What is its dialectical function, if any? Or, if it doesn't have any, is this problematic?

Is this website hetero-normative? If so, on what basis and does that constitute a justifiable foundation for a social media site? How does "transgendered" function within the site? Is it an identity allowed a concept of agency? Or is it objectified: is transgendered functioning as a subconcept of "objectified femininity"---the transformation from male to female being a role enforcement mechanism utilizing the sadomasochistic spectrum?

----

Of course, the phrasing of some or most of these questions is not rhetorically neutral because I am trying to simultaneously illustrate the points of contention while inviting polarized debate. I personally believe that the site's structure as a whole is problematic, and I am not attempting to veil this feeling with neutral discourse. I am, however, posing these criticisms as questions because I would rather take a step back and allow the site itself to have an introspective debate than present my views as some form of "force-fed aggressive enlightenment pomposity".

I'm going to attempt to answer some of your questions too, but seeing as it's late and I tend to flub up in situations like these, my answers may not be the best...

In regards to the whole "gender segregation" issue, it's like others have said: it fits the purpose of the forum to feature women. I mean, it's not like you could just walk into a Doctor Who convention and complain about the lack of MLP characters. (I mean, you could, but since the point of the convention is Doctor Who...) That being said, I think we could be doing worse. I mean, we're actually providing a place for male transformation, even if it is thrown in with Everything Else. Some of the categories don't even work for men, like Breast Expansion. I'm sure that, if there were a larger demand for and a greater number of male transformation media, The Governor would create a section for for it. (It's hard to promote equality between the two when there's so little of one and so much of the other, too.)

On the topic of a moral reason for creating a forum... Well, it's kinda hard to talk about. I mean, morals are different from person to person and from country to country, so there's no real set moral values, so to speak. Is it "right" to have an interest? This particular interest isn't exactly wrong, per se, but that doesn't mean that it's automatically right, either. So... Kinda?

For the most part, I'd say that the forum is much like the majority of society: we don't like change. (I know, that's kind of a joke, and I don't speak on society's behalf, but work with me here, ok?) Would the forum accept it if an artist decided that a man turned into a woman who happened to be pansexual? Odds are they'd just see her as either bisexual or a lesbian, since those are the only options, right? (That's a hypothetical question, not something I believe.) Ethical treatment doesn't usually come into play either, what with kinks/fetishes like humiliation and the like. And yeah, objectification is definitely an issue. I would guess that a large number of people here really only care about what ways they can change the women, much in the same way that a little kid changes a doll's clothes or a Mr. Potato Head's body parts.

In most cases on this forum, women are seen in much the same way that western society has perceived women for years: skinny, big boobs/butt/hips but not too big, subservient, sexual but not too sexual (but perfectly willing to suck dick at the drop of a hat, the harlot), likes wearing sexy clothes, not too smart that she's smarter than the guys (but some guys like their women smart), etc. (Yes, that whole thing was partially a joke, partially a representation of how it actually is. In other words, I don't think women who suck dick are harlots.) There are no sexualities other than straight and lesbian (I'd say "gay," but since there's so little in the way of male material...) and sometimes bisexual if it makes things hotter, and the gender binary is strong with this forum (the guys don't like anything that isn't 100% female). So yeah, I'd say we might have a biiiiiit of a problem (and again, I'm not speaking for anyone/everyone, but rather, I'm generalizing).

Yes, the website is hetero-normative. As I mentioned before, there's no real variety in sexual orientation when it comes to the material, but it's hard to speak on behalf of the members. I'd guess that most of them are heterosexual and that they guess that as well. As for the term "transgender," I really think we need to come up with a different term, since the way this community uses the term and the way it's used in the real world are definitely different. And yes, it's very much objectified. *sigh*

...I probably got a little off-topic during my responses, but like I said, it's late, and I flub up. Hope I helped a little!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tea

It's porn, the women depicted are objects for the consumers sexual gratification.

I disagree: not all of this is porn. Porn relates to sexual material, and not all content posted here is of a sexual nature. Besides, just because women are "depicted as objects for the consumer's sexual gratification" in some media doesn't mean that it's right.

Xanderfox · 02-02-2014

After much thought and retracting the beginnings of several posts, I feel I can only offer one real opinion on these matters. That it should be remembered that this Forum is about Female Transformations for a reason, to differentiate it from a Forum that is about general transformation. I don't believe I can offer a unique perspective as to transformation and it's relation to feminism or human behavior. This forum is about transformation involving females or transformation of non-females into females, lets try to NOT derail things ok?

tea · 02-02-2014

Quote:

Originally Posted by tghawk555

I disagree: not all of this is porn. Porn relates to sexual material, and not all content posted here is of a sexual nature. Besides, just because women are "depicted as objects for the consumer's sexual gratification" in some media doesn't mean that it's right.

It's definitely porn, I think you're being pedantic. I think complaining about objectification is also thoroughly ironic considering bimbos are quintessentially objectified women (other than perhaps, women transforming into literal objects)

Ilovebe · 02-02-2014

Without whipping out a bunch of Foucault and Frankfurt school 'n stuff, I honestly don't think it's that deep. It's my impression that this forum exists because its members are looking for a specific subject matter, and it's a more efficient way of locating it than visiting a bunch of sites that cater to broader tastes. Is it trying to perpetuate heteronormative hegemony? I don't think so. I don't get the impression that most of the posters are trying to marginalize anybody. They understand that other people are interested in process material where a male is the subject matter. They just want The Process to maintain its brand identity, so to speak.

Ilovebe · 02-02-2014

Quote:

Originally Posted by tea

It's definitely porn, I think you're being pedantic.

+1

While I'd argue that a lot of furry art is not porn, I'd say the majority of the stuff that gets posted here falls under the banner of "porn" (albeit, porn in the nontraditional sense).

vid · 02-02-2014

I will say as far as gender-stratification that this site and others does seem to mainly cater to the male perspective. However, I have seen, from both men and women, an aversion to men being included in the specific genres that would normally "star" women, but not so when it's the opposite - macrophiles are ok with SM but loathe Giants, microphiles like Giants but refuse SM - and will voice their distaste whenever the subject crops up. There has been discussion lately on multiple fetish sites (I haven't seen it here but I may have just missed it) of understanding what women would enjoy. One perspective on GtsCity was that we could use more emotional content rather than just strict sexual stimulation and an added emphasis on the thoughts and appearance of men in the situation, especially with SM.

As for ethics and real life interactions with women, I'm pretty sure a good number of us have our priorities straight - we don't feature content with minors and related pages like AR/AP is monitored, while producers like Missa and Veronica are treated with respect. Personally, I would never look at content if I knew an actress wasn't comfortable with one of her roles.

Even though we're not perfect, I think our capacity for self-reflection and adaptation is improving and fetish work is becoming more open-minded, and isn't that the point of places like this?

02-01-2014	#1
whiteflame Eccentric Equine w/rhyme Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Somewhere over the rainbow Posts: 54	Invitation of a Feminist Critique of the Process Forum I am going to keep this laconically short compared to my normal modus operendi for the sake of opening up debate, but: It would seem that the Process Forum's structure and function can be criticized severely from Feminist, LGTBQ and Queer Theorist perspectives. I am not going to offer up any extended critiques myself, as the topics and issues are, at the very least, obvious and ostensible. Before everyone mans their posts with "the sexual preference club cannon" please consider the idea that preference need not exclude reasonable consideration of agency nor does preference entail objectification of one's preference. The questions to be raised are: Is gender distinction a legitimate moral foundation for an art, subcultural and fetishistic social website such as this? In other words, is vehement exclusion of all male depictions and topics to a separate category with limited internal demarcation and representation, (arguably "separate but equal but not actually equal"), justifiable? (Consider the category title "Everything Else" which doesn't just pragmatically include obscurer topics but the entirety of male-focused media.) Does the topic of "process of women changing" constitute a morally legitimate foundation for a network of social interactions? Does the Process Forum actually "celebrate" its subject matter by embracing all variations, expanding boundaries and questioning itself to better improve its ethical treatment of its subject matter, or does it "objectify" its subject matter by establishing rigid categorization and treatment and disallow self-identification that may contest its viewpoint? Does favoritism constitute prejudice? Or does the forum qualify for favoritism as opposed to exclusion and exclusivity? Where does one draw the line between preference and objectification? What is the functionality "the female form" or "femininity" in the context of this forum? (This question may elucidate answers to previous questions.) How does "female" operate here? What is its dialectical function, if any? Or, if it doesn't have any, is this problematic? Is this website hetero-normative? If so, on what basis and does that constitute a justifiable foundation for a social media site? How does "transgendered" function within the site? Is it an identity allowed a concept of agency? Or is it objectified: is transgendered functioning as a subconcept of "objectified femininity"---the transformation from male to female being a role enforcement mechanism utilizing the sadomasochistic spectrum? ---- Of course, the phrasing of some or most of these questions is not rhetorically neutral because I am trying to simultaneously illustrate the points of contention while inviting polarized debate. I personally believe that the site's structure as a whole is problematic, and I am not attempting to veil this feeling with neutral discourse. I am, however, posing these criticisms as questions because I would rather take a step back and allow the site itself to have an introspective debate than present my views as some form of "force-fed aggressive enlightenment pomposity". __________________ Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Last edited by whiteflame; 02-01-2014 at 04:10 AM.

02-01-2014	#2
Rachel Bronwyn Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 4,002	Re: Invitation of a Feminist Critique of the Process Forum A feminist response: Of course it’s heteronormative. The vast majority of fetish material online (and everywhere) is heteronormative. It’s justifiable on the basis the same opportunity exists to those whose preferences/orientation lie outside the limitations of heteronormativity to produce such a space and discriminate based on those specs. I see nothing inherently wrong with exclusion of content from privately own and operated forums. It may be the case that the content being permitted within a given forum is absolutely revolting but I’d sooner critique what they do permit than their choice to exclude. It’s definitely an example of exclusivity though. Transgender as a fetish doesn’t leave room for agency at all. It’s not about the person. It’s about the process and, maybe, the physical outcome. I will not pretend otherwise because it makes me uncomfortable that things that, in meat life, are very ugly also get people off. This is why I’ll never use the label “sex-positive”. If anything I’m “sex-neutral”. I will criticise what gets people, including myself, off. Kinks like transgender are objectifying. Some of what gets me off is dehumanising as fuck too. The subject matter in much of the art seen here is not treated ethically or even given personhood, much less celebrated as an individual with agency because there is no line between preference and objectification in these cases. The preference is inherently objectifying. I accept that. Here’s why I’m neutral though: I don’t have to delude myself to believe what gets me off is empowering in order to condone and engage in it on the strict basis it occurs within the confines of consensual interaction where it’s being done for mutual satisfaction. Once dehumanisation based on kink transcends those consensual bounds, we have a problem. In my experience, people are generally terrible and, no, it wouldn’t surprise me if lots of people here do exactly that (nothing to do with this particular site or these particular people, just my take on a lot of people in general as being stupid and awful – I would say the exact same about any other group) but I’ve got no evidential support for it and, as misanthropic as I am, people are innocent until proven guilty in my world. I’m going to call “process of women changing” as a foundation for a network of social interactions amoral. I don’t think it has any relevance to morality. I concern myself with ethics, not morality, but if we’re working within the confines of morality, I’m going to say this forum’s foundation is without relevance to morality because I can’t qualify a behaviour as immoral without it harming someone non-consensually. The “process of women changing” as a kink being the basis of congregation and social interaction isn’t inherently harmful to anyone. It’s a shared interest. I will call it exclusive and discriminatory but only in the sense choosing who you date is exclusive and discriminatory because the people you tell “no thanks” possess the exact same opportunity to reject you. I can’t tell you what the forum’s official or unofficial stance on “femininity” or “the female form” is. I can tell you it’s probably narrow, reflecting social constructions of gender and their associated physical characteristics. That being said, I’d argue there’s a wider range of body types accepted as “feminine” or constituting “the female form” in this particular crowd than in the general public just because you see appreciation for fat women and muscular women here. Fat lovers are treated almost as badly as fat people in the general public so it’s not something people are very open about outside exclusive settings. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve drawn attention to as problematic. Discrimination is a problem. Objectification is a problem. Our very narrow, limiting constructions of gender are a problem. The assumption of heteronormativity is a problem. I am viewing this through a particular lens though and it’s one that specifies a) the space is private hence the owners’ entitlement to dictate what content is permitted and b) the objectification and limited definitions of “femininity” and “the female form” and assumption of heteronormativity is occurring within the forum’s fetish content and not a part of human interactions. I will say though all these things have been real life problems for me and I’m sensitive to them. I remember bursting into tears after giving a several hour lecture I’d worked for weeks on which I was very proud of and my instructor’s response was “I like your hair”. Nothing to do with my performance, just my appearance because that’s what mattered and was the most relevant to him. It wasn’t the first time that sort of thing had happened. Being forced and trying to exist within the limitations of what constitutes “feminine” by the general public’s standards has made me utterly miserable my entire life as neither my natural behaviour nor interests or my face fit the bill. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve had to tell people “Being female doesn’t mean I’m submissive and, if I am submissive, it doesn’t mean I’m submissive to you”. It was a contributor to my lack of enthusiasm with the BDSM crowd. I have had people ejaculate on my leg on the train. Everything you’ve mentioned has the potential to do real harm and I have experienced it first-hand. We are talking about these things within very specific parameters though and I believe, so long as these things remain within the confines of a private setting or art and consensual interaction, they’re not causing harm.

02-01-2014	#4
Vengeance1701 Modest Moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 3,998	Re: Invitation of a Feminist Critique of the Process Forum Me? I just like pretty girls, no matter their starting form, male or un-/not-as attractive female. Not much more beyond that. __________________ Meh. Cranky and old.

02-01-2014	#6
tea Lurker Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 15	Re: Invitation of a Feminist Critique of the Process Forum It's porn, the women depicted are objects for the consumers sexual gratification.

02-02-2014	#8
Xanderfox Process Master Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 589	Re: Invitation of a Feminist Critique of the Process Forum After much thought and retracting the beginnings of several posts, I feel I can only offer one real opinion on these matters. That it should be remembered that this Forum is about Female Transformations for a reason, to differentiate it from a Forum that is about general transformation. I don't believe I can offer a unique perspective as to transformation and it's relation to feminism or human behavior. This forum is about transformation involving females or transformation of non-females into females, lets try to NOT derail things ok?

02-02-2014	#10
Ilovebe Frequent Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 288	Re: Invitation of a Feminist Critique of the Process Forum Without whipping out a bunch of Foucault and Frankfurt school 'n stuff, I honestly don't think it's that deep. It's my impression that this forum exists because its members are looking for a specific subject matter, and it's a more efficient way of locating it than visiting a bunch of sites that cater to broader tastes. Is it trying to perpetuate heteronormative hegemony? I don't think so. I don't get the impression that most of the posters are trying to marginalize anybody. They understand that other people are interested in process material where a male is the subject matter. They just want The Process to maintain its brand identity, so to speak.

02-02-2014	#12
vid Frequent Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 284	Re: Invitation of a Feminist Critique of the Process Forum I will say as far as gender-stratification that this site and others does seem to mainly cater to the male perspective. However, I have seen, from both men and women, an aversion to men being included in the specific genres that would normally "star" women, but not so when it's the opposite - macrophiles are ok with SM but loathe Giants, microphiles like Giants but refuse SM - and will voice their distaste whenever the subject crops up. There has been discussion lately on multiple fetish sites (I haven't seen it here but I may have just missed it) of understanding what women would enjoy. One perspective on GtsCity was that we could use more emotional content rather than just strict sexual stimulation and an added emphasis on the thoughts and appearance of men in the situation, especially with SM. As for ethics and real life interactions with women, I'm pretty sure a good number of us have our priorities straight - we don't feature content with minors and related pages like AR/AP is monitored, while producers like Missa and Veronica are treated with respect. Personally, I would never look at content if I knew an actress wasn't comfortable with one of her roles. Even though we're not perfect, I think our capacity for self-reflection and adaptation is improving and fetish work is becoming more open-minded, and isn't that the point of places like this?