Playboy-Conservative Hate-Fuck

Apparently Playboy had an article about the top ten conservative women the author would like to hate-fuck. It has since been pulled so I cannot link to it. I can link to this conservative take from Michelle Malkin’s cronies, she having been on the list.

Conservatives, as ever, don’t get sex:

Let’s be clear about terms here. A “hate f**k” sounds like something perhaps just short of rape, but degrading enough to entertain the perverted twerps at Playboy. The fact that the magazine published this piece of effluvium should be enough to show that everyone in the editorial process, from the writer to Hef himself, don’t want women empowered. They want silent sex objects, and when confronted with women whose opinions differ from theirs, want them humiliated.

I’m so glad conservatives have taken on the mantle of feminism. But I’d like to point out that a hate fuck bears no resemblance at all to rape. It is in fact a reference (mostly fictional) to sex that combines a mutual hatred into highly passionate sex, that may or may not include scratching and other sources of S&M. One can imagine this could actually be quite pleasurable for both parties.

As to the question of not wanting women empowered…preferring a woman be a silent sex object, this would actually ruin the hate fuck mojo, which relies on a woman being empowered and noisy enough to draw one’s ire. The fact is, part of being a man is finding any reason to make something sexually appealing. Normally, it is nice to cite intelligence and personality, but since we are talking about far-right conservatives, these traits are notably lacking. How then to make a wingnutess sexy? Enter the hate fuck fantasy. And from the bits of the article that were quoted, it seems pretty funny.

Is there a broader feminist complaint to be had about this attempt to fetishize everything? I don’t really think so. I think the “objectification” critique is one of the most inane artifacts of feminism. It attacks a highly natural result of testosterone (i.e. tries to make into a social construction what is biological) and frankly implies that sex is bad. To view as a sex object does not imply one views merely as a sex object. One can simultaneously see sexual attraction and see other aspects of a person. And I think it is under-appreciated the benefits of being viewed as a sex object, something men are not often enough privy to (relative to women). If I were Robert Pattinson (to pick one MTV Movie Award winning example), and I knew that there were all these women with deep carnal desire for me, it would be pleasing…until they started stalking me. Alas, moderation in everything, but a little sexual objectification is healthy.

Update: I’ve found blogs with more extensive quoting. Most of the specific statements tied to the women on the list are not funny. They are inane shock comments. My fault for having the only funny one be the only one I saw initially. Still, I have no problem with the concept of the article, just its execution. I think the whole hate-fuck thing has been blown way out of proportion.