Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 130542454997.jpg (117KB, 500x500px) Image search:
[Google]
117KB, 500x500px
Ok /sci/ - I need you to explain this, as one anon to another
because...
http://glq.dukejournals.org/content/20/4/439.abstract
>Black Anality
Abstract:
>“Black Anality” argues that “black” and “anal” are rendered ideologically, discursively, and representationally synonymous, and that black female flesh becomes the material space on which this convergence occurs. Drawing on an archive of online, widely accessible black pornographies, I develop the term black anality to describe how black pleasures are represented as peculiarly and particularly oriented toward the anus, and thus as peculiarly and particularly attached to anal ideologies. In doing so, I depart from black feminist scholarship, which has long examined the buttocks as an imagined locus of racial-sexual difference and which has developed a set of analytics that now predominate in the study of black female sexualities: spectacularity, excess, grotesquerie, and display. “Black Anality” offers a new set of analytics for black feminist work on sexuality: spatiality, waste, toxicity, and filth. These analytics, I argue, allow black feminists to consider how black female sexuality is imagined to be rooted in (and perhaps generative of) certain kinds of filthy spaces, particularly the ghetto; how black sexuality is constructed as literally and metaphorically dirty; how black sexuality is posited as toxic, non-productive, and nonreproductive; and how black sexuality is imagined as wasteful. In turning attention to this understudied and overdetermining space — the black anus — “Black Anality” considers the racial meanings produced in pornographic texts that insistently return to the black female anus as a critical site of pleasure, peril, and curiosity.
I need an explanation. What kind of madness is this?
>>
>>8558439
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56bhvW0DCR8
The author basically thinks the black anus is the window to the soul. This paper is peer reviewed and funded so that this woman could watch a few fetish porn videos or black chicks getting anal. Don't over think it.
>there are people who think there is nothing wrong with social science
>>
>>8558439
>What kind of madness is this?
It is called feminism.
Feminists are... weird. I would compare it to a rebel militia who opposed a government but then, to achieve peace, are invited to join the government and are given some sits in parliament to legitimize their new political party.
Imagine that happened... but the rebel militia kept their armed people and kept conducting terrorists attacks, even after being recognized as a fellow political party and given honest political power.
That is what happened. Feminists were always publishing this madness but originally it was just about getting the vote and whatever. Then the governments came and said "Ok, you get to vote and now every right will be given to citizens, not only males."
At that point, feminism should have been banned. Absolutely banned. Because feminism won. In other words, after given them political power, we should have taken their more radical and violent form of power, which is feminist """research""".
But for some reason we didn't ban feminism and now we have feminists on one side with honest political power, as government officials, and on the other side feminists with dishonest political power. Those political activists that claim all men are pigs and for some reason have a large following of other feminists.
Feminism should be banned.
>>
>>
>>8558439
Do you not understand the English, or what?
>>
>>8558439
>Be OP
>Looking for Ebony Anal porn on google
>See an academic journal in the search results
>formulate a semi-rhetorical question and post it on sci
>>
>>8558439
>GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies
W-what else did you expect from journal with name like this?
>>
>>8558439
Looks like the type of journal that accepted Sokal's famous article.
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2