BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Eating Sushi Off Of Naked Female Models

 
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
Matthew Fluxington
06:13 / 05.09.02
Looking through a recent back issue of Time Out New York yesterday, I happened upon this article about a catering company in NYC which is in the business of putting together upscale parties based around serving food off of the bodies of naked female models. The article mentions that this is also a trend in Japan, and I've read about similar restaurants in Russia which have women strip while lying down under glass in a box that people dine over.

This all strikes me as being obviously degrading, especially in the case of the Russian example. What really got to me about the Time Out article is the tone both the writer and the caterers take on, that there's nothing objectionable about this; and since this is done in accordance with what they would consider good taste and class, it's fine. The distinction that 19-20 year old frat guys wouldn't "get it" or enjoy their gourmet cuisine and the assertion that this is nothing at all like a strip club are particularly dubious - why is that they can rationalize this as unquestionable because it has artistic pretenses and plays to a wealthier, privileged class?

Also, what do think it really means that based on this company's experience, there is no demand for male nude models? Is it really cos men's bodies aren't as widely appreciated as banquet tables, or is this just a classic example of the 'male gaze'?
 
 
Jackie Susann
08:30 / 05.09.02
why is that they can rationalize this as unquestionable because it has artistic pretenses and plays to a wealthier, privileged class?

Aren't you answering your own question here?
 
 
Harold Washington died for you
08:32 / 05.09.02
What is so obviously degrading about this? Not my particular kink and cannot imagine anything particulary artsy about eating food from a person (except the art of a beautiful naked human) but that doesn't mean it's somehow immoral or demeaning.

I think men would be too hairy for a proper food platter.
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:41 / 05.09.02
After me and my friends have eaten a meal off your naked body, you can ask what's degrading about it.
 
 
No star here laces
11:39 / 05.09.02
I'm game. come round to my place, crunchy, it's only the other side of the planet...
 
 
Bill Posters
13:01 / 05.09.02
Hmm, well, each to their own, but 'punters' do molest and vomit on these human plates, at least according to one of them who was interviewed.

(Y'know, if the sexism could be got rid of, which would involve women eating off naked men (who would have to be depilated), then I think the 'art' side of it could be quite interesting... combining the gastronomic with the erotic... quite Roman, perhaps. Or could just function as a massive critique of sex (and sexism) in food advertising in the way Ballard's Crash criticised the use of sex in the car ads.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
13:05 / 05.09.02
I think it would be different between friends.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:32 / 05.09.02
I agree with Nick - most obviously, friends would not be a part of a financial transaction in which one gets to treat the other like an item of furniture, in exchange for paying them.

Bill - the reason women are used is because, as I understand it, women have *always* been used - this is hardly a new idea. And that is because men have always had the money and the power to show off their control over women to the people they had invited to eat with them by using women as furniture. I'm really slightly surprised that noone has heard of this before. Reuters, Oct 8th 1998 -

A German restaurant has been attacked as "tasteless" for serving sushi on naked models lying on top of tables. Brigitte Vollmer-Schubert, ombudsman for women's issues in the central city of Hanover, said she was appalled that the restaurant used naked women as huge "platters" for the Japanese dish, dubbed "sushi ala Jungfrau (virgin)". But the restaurant owner was quoted by Bild newspaper as saying the dish had been a huge hit and the evening-long meal, costing up to 400 marks ($250) per person, was booked out for weeks in advance.

The models, usually students in their 20s, wear nothing but see-through veils over their heads and a thin floral decoration between their legs. They are required to lie motionless on the table in the extra warm room. The sushi is spread out all over their bodies. Bodyguards dressed as samurai warriors make sure nothing gets out of hand. "They aren't entirely naked," wrote Bild. "Caviare is stuffed into their belly buttons, sword fish sushi is stuck near their armpits and between their legs is raw tuna fish sushi awaiting the hungry guests." "It's a great way to earn some pocket money," a model named Kim told the newspaper, saying she could earn up to 800 marks per night.


Incidentally, what's with this "men too hairy" bullshit? Is that the most pathetic excuse for not getting wasabi on your wiener since records began?

You may not have been aware of this, but the models that "Raw Catering" are using will be depilated. Their armpits and legs will be shaved, their pubic hair will be trimmed, bleached or removed, their forearms and lower belly will be waxed, quite possibly along with the skin between their breasts, their eyebrows and nipples will be plucked, their top lips sugared....there is no genetic predisposition to being a good sushi platter. I'm sure that given a straight razor and a steady eye we could make Morocco our nori-laden girlfriend in half the time....
 
 
Bill Posters
16:00 / 05.09.02
Oh, I too would agree with Nick. For example, any vomit in this instance which happened to splash onto young Lyra would be luminous blue, and that certainly qualifies as different in my book.

800 Marks a night? Fuck...

*thinks deeply*
 
 
Harold Washington died for you
17:08 / 05.09.02
Still not sure I see the problem. Telling me to try it and see how I feel is no kind of answer. Please spell out how this is demeaning. Are nude models for some art class (who probably get payed a lot less) similarly degraded as human beings?

And I am very very hairy. I would be willing to be a food platter (for 500 bucks a night) but I would have stubble growing in by the time the coffee came around.
 
 
The Apple-Picker
17:44 / 05.09.02
Uh... I thought that Haus had spelled it out. But I think we can hear about it from one naked serving model to you:

"I can't imagine it being sexual," says model Carrie Surface, who was recently decorated for a New York–area party. "It's more like having a nice serving tray."

Isn't it a little degrading, being a nice serving tray? And just because she's not critical of this practise, doesn't make it less degrading.
 
 
lentil
17:57 / 05.09.02
Well, nude models for art classes may well be degraded in some way, especially when you consider it in the context of the history of nude painting, the male gaze etc., female nudes used as porn/erotica, sexual objectification of nude models (good ol Pablo), and yes they do get paid a lot less.....
.... but, in my experience the relationship between artist and model is a communication rather than one using the other. In between poses the model gets up and walks around, interacts with the artists, comments on their depictions of her (obviously nude models are not always female but we're talking about whether women are degraded by theses situations), and generally leaves the role of "naked service provider". I find it hard to imagine that the nude "platters", with veils over their faces, are allowed any interaction with the diners, or that the diners see them clothed and functioning as humans outside of that role. Also, whereas eating your sushi off of a laydee rather than a plate has some cachet of status or decadence, drawing a female nude has no similar status in comparison to, say, a still life.

There's also the fact that (again, in my experience) life drawing classes are attended by an evenish gender base.

If women did consider life modelling degrading, maybe they wouldn't accept such comparitively low pay for it?
 
 
Fist Fun
18:22 / 05.09.02
How does being paid to act like furniture compare with other transactions. Being paid to dispose of waste, do a mind numbing job, clean toilets, serve food and smile for minimum wage. Is this more degrading because of the sexual aspect?
 
 
gridley
18:34 / 05.09.02
I personally have no problem with this idea. I mean, it’s obviously decadent, but like most decadent things, I think I’d like to try them out first before I form any strong opinions.

As to it being demeaning, I don’t think it’s that much worse than any other job. A friend of mine gets paid to dial the phone for surgeons who think they’re too important to place their own phone calls. It’s all relative. Frankly, I know a lot of people (male and female) who would get off on the idea of strangers eating food off their bodies.

Obviously, in cases of people being molested and vomited on, there’s a problem, but that can happen in any line of work. Both happened to me working as a clerk in a bookstore.

By the by, I find the view that if would be ok, if there were male models as well not really applicable, because most women I know (even the most glaringly hetero) agree that the female nudity is inherently more beautiful to look at, and that male nudity is best restricted the actual sex act or carefully conceived photography. Obviously there are some women and many gay men who think that male nudity is just as lovely, but I don’t think that’s the predominant view.
 
 
Rev. Orr
18:35 / 05.09.02
Erm, possibly because it takes a human being to collect rubbish, clean toilets, perform menial duties, but a piece of furniture is an object. Person with a shitty job versus lump of inanimate wood, might be a difference here.

Degrading? Well, yes. "Hi, you're a waitress, hand these crudite around" is a step away from "Hi, you're a tray, get your kit off".
 
 
Harold Washington died for you
18:44 / 05.09.02
Exactly. I worked as a waiter in a restaurant for $2.17 an hour plus tips. I was not a special little snowflake to the people I served. I do not understand how adding a sexual component or a female component to the objectification of any lowly job in the capitalist system makes it any worse.
 
 
The Apple-Picker
19:03 / 05.09.02
Other than what Orr said about this (which was both funny and right on):

How does being paid to act like furniture compare with other transactions. Being paid to dispose of waste, do a mind numbing job, clean toilets, serve food and smile for minimum wage. Is this more degrading because of the sexual aspect?

I find it interesting that the duties here listed as being degrading are ones you'd likely find in the daily chores of a homemaker. Minus the minimum wage part, of course. Just a thought that struck me, that's all.

By the by, I find the view that if would be ok, if there were male models as well not really applicable, because most women I know (even the most glaringly hetero) agree that the female nudity is inherently more beautiful to look at, and that male nudity is best restricted the actual sex act or carefully conceived photography. Obviously there are some women and many gay men who think that male nudity is just as lovely, but I don’t think that’s the predominant view.

Well, I don't think it would be okay if male models were doing this. It's still human beings being objectified, and that grosses me out. I'm not a big theory weisenheimer, much as I'd like to be, so I can really only speak from my feelings on this. But I wonder why the men (excuse me) flopped. Who are the clients? Who is paying for these naked lady soirees? Also, people had to be encouraged to go on! go ahead! eat off her body! They were uncomfortable with it. That indicates, to me, that they thought there was something wrong about it.

As to why I'd be more likely to eat off a naked woman than a naked man? A naked woman in a public place seems vulnerable. A naked man in a public place threatens me.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
19:18 / 05.09.02
Using another person's naked body as a serving tray or a piece of furniture is degrading because it asks for the person being used to be less than human, to be simple object for the petty sexual/sensual stimulation of a privileged class. Being a secretary, a trash collector, a custodian, a waiter - these are simply not analogous. While those are not glamorous jobs, they are occupations in which the people still retain the dignity of still being a human being and not dehumanized object. They are also born of necessity - there is no reason for women to be used as sushi trays other than to be a lascivious novelty for yuppies.

I think that it's very disheartening that for so many people, it really just comes down to "well, it pays well, so it can't be THAT BAD!", that the money and percieved classiness of the events makes this all a more respectable and less demeaning thing. Is that all that matters, the money the girl is making? It's okay for the rich to treat people as THINGS as long as those people get paid a respectable sum for providing the service of being a sexy table to be ogled?

Think about it. When you have a shit job, your body and sexuality are not part of your job description. Lying there, vulnerable like a cross between a floral arrangement and a decorated cadavar is not a part of it. Even if cleaning other people's messes makes you squeemish, at least you still have the dignity of not being a THING for other people's amusement.
 
 
Fist Fun
19:34 / 05.09.02
This does sound demeaning but I think, tragically, being dehumanized and objectified is common to many mainstream occupations.
What is the importance of sexuality and body here? Is trading on your intelligence less demeaning?
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
19:48 / 05.09.02
Well, your intelligence is part of your humanity. It's part of what makes you YOU. It's an interaction between yourself as an individual and other people. Your body is just a thing - this sushi job is all about being a passive sexual object in the most literal of terms. You are not meant to interact, the person is figuratively just a tray, this is not mere symbolism. There's a big difference between this and stripping, for example - a stripper is dancing, being a human being, and has control over hir body and how it interacts with hir customers. There's very little control for Ms Sushi Platter - her job is to lie there still and be passive, leaving herself open to the whims of the diners. There's an obvious invasion-of-personal-space issue here too - even under the best of circumstances, having someone take a piece of food lying on your pubic mound has a level of discomfort for both the person taking the food and the woman who is having strangers take the food of of her. Even if the person is okay with it, it's still not quite right. I begin to wonder if the girls occasionally flinch...

Buk, I challenge you to tell me one mainstream non-sex industry, non-celebrity culture mainstream profession in which part of the job description is that one must be sexually objectified or treated like a literal object.
 
 
gridley
20:00 / 05.09.02
why do they have to non-celebrity mainstream, jobs, Flux? These women are models, and there aren't many mainstream jobs that compare to being a model in any way. All models are appreciated for their looks, including sexual appeal. Look at fashion models.

Clothes that would ordinarily seem lackluster or ordinary become much more saleable when you put them on a fasion model. In this respect, you're paying a model to have clothes put on her and let people stare at her. I don't think paying someone to lie underneath your ordinary food and therefore make it seem more exciting is all that different.

Obviously I wouldn't want anyone forced to do it, but naked food tray is still a better gig than twelve hour shifts working the assembly line at a factory.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
20:17 / 05.09.02
This is what I understand from yr posts, Gridley:

1. It's perfectly fine for lower class women to be treated as objects as long as they are being paid better than they would if they were physical laborers. Jobs that require physical labor and are lacking in glamor are disrespectful, simply because they do not pay as well as being a human conversation piece for yuppies.

2. It's perfectly respectable for someone to be little more than a novelty object for the amusement of the rich. It's acceptable for higher classes to use people of a lower class, and the higher the class, and the more money offered to those being used, the better.

3. There is no difference between being represented in visual media and in being a passive live object, and the separation between the objectified and the audience is about the same.

Try to think about the implications of what yr saying, man - I understand that on the surface it looks like a great way to make cash, but there's a lot more to this than just being a way for attractive college girls to make some quick money.
 
 
some guy
21:09 / 05.09.02
I challenge you to tell me one mainstream non-sex industry, non-celebrity culture mainstream profession in which part of the job description is that one must be sexually objectified or treated like a literal object.

Sexually objectified? No, but then no one has sufficiently demonstrated sexual objectication in the human tables, either. People are using them as platters, not having sex with them. And from the gist of the Time Out article, it seems that wandering hands and the like aren't happening. So unless we're going to accept an Ashcroftian handwave, you've got some explaining to do if you want to posit a sexual (and sexually exploitative) link.

Treated like a literal object? I don't suppose you'd accept wearers of sandwich boards, construction road crew who have to stand motionless functioning as stoplights, factory workers whose jobs can literally be replaced by robot arms...

There's an obvious invasion-of-personal-space issue here too - even under the best of circumstances, having someone take a piece of food lying on your pubic mound has a level of discomfort for both the person taking the food and the woman who is having strangers take the food of of her.

This is an assumption based purely on your personally experience and is possibly lightyears from describing the people who actually participate on either side of this experience. Why are you writing for these people you've never met?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the "This is so horrible, using a person as a table!" argument. Um, why? Is everyone forgetting that these are contextual episodes, in which the various players voluntarily agree to perform roles in what appears to be a quasi-artistic expression in what is clearly designated by all as a fantasy space? You people who are up in arms over this: Do you honestly believe the customers actually view women as inanimate objects?
 
 
The Natural Way
21:18 / 05.09.02
Yes. That's part of it. Do you mean to say yr so anaesthetised to the sexual currents running through all of us to that you've never gotten off on the thought of an individual as a sex object? That's ridiculous. It's obviously part of the "experience". S'not to say that there aren't other ingredients informing the participants appreciation of the event, but please....
 
 
Fist Fun
21:42 / 05.09.02
I challenge you to tell me one mainstream non-sex industry, non-celebrity culture mainstream profession in which part of the job description is that one must be sexually objectified or treated like a literal object.

Flux, I said objectified rather than sexually objectified. I'm sure most people can think of a huge range of professions where intelligence rather than the body is laid out as a demeaning platter. Harnessing the mind as a programmed machine to work for the highest bidder. I don't believe that there is a large difference between bodily labour and intellectual labour.

You have to ask who defines acceptability. Are there concrete standards? Is Flux right to say :

Even if the person is okay with it, it's still not quite right.

Which is effectively to transfer control from the individual to an external moral authority.

I think there are many occupations that have the potential to be demeaning but that potential doesn't depend on an external morality. It depends on the feelings and the will of the people involved. If I wish to use my body or my mind in a certain way for certain rewards then, if it doesn't harm others, I am the only person who can define what is right and what is demeaning.

Which brings up another question for this example. Do the actions of the people involved affect only themselves or do they have the potential to harm others? Which would create the need for an external moral authority. So perhaps I agree with you Flux...
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
21:44 / 05.09.02
? No, but then no one has sufficiently demonstrated sexual objectication in the human tables, either. People are using them as platters, not having sex with them.

Okay, so why must these human platters be nude female models? Why must they be naked? Are you trying to say that the nudity part is irrelevant?

If so, I think you're very mistaken. Just because groping the woman is strongly discouraged, and no real sex act is being performed, it does not make this an unsexual thing. Sexuality, specifically female sexuality, is an integral part of this.

Do I think that these women are being viewed as inanimate objects? Of course - they are playing the part. I think what you really mean to say is, do I think that the people at these events view the girls as being less than human? I would say that those who play along with this do disassociate the person's humanity from their function as a kinky tray for fish, and I think that's very problematic.
 
 
gridley
22:13 / 05.09.02
Flux: This is what I understand from yr posts, Gridley:

1. It's perfectly fine for lower class women to be treated as objects as long as they are being paid better than they would if they were physical laborers. Jobs that require physical labor and are lacking in glamor are disrespectful, simply because they do not pay as well as being a human conversation piece for yuppies.

I think it's perfectly fine for ANY class of women or men. Yes. At the end of the day, I bet most of these women go home with more self-respect than a woman who spent all day doing other people's laundry.

2. It's perfectly respectable for someone to be little more than a novelty object for the amusement of the rich. It's acceptable for higher classes to use people of a lower class, and the higher the class, and the more money offered to those being used, the better.

If my pal Bob is willing to be my footstool for twelve dollars an hour because he's trying to pay off his student loan and I'm some rich twat who's willing to pay it, then YES, there's no problem with it. And if we agree that it would be worth twenty dollars an hour if he did it in a g-string then all the better!

3. There is no difference between being represented in visual media and in being a passive live object, and the separation between the objectified and the audience is about the same.

Morally? No. It's all about the same.

Try to think about the implications of what yr saying, man - I understand that on the surface it looks like a great way to make cash, but there's a lot more to this than just being a way for attractive college girls to make some quick money.

Well, what I'm saying (and what some others are saying) is that there's some disturbing moral subtext underlying just about any human interaction, particularly those that involve money. And this isn't hugely worse than others. It's provocative, sure, but that's it's charm. I really doubt anyone's going to come away cheapened or scarred by this five minute fad in rich guy culture.
 
 
some guy
22:16 / 05.09.02
Are you trying to say that the nudity part is irrelevant? If so, I think you're very mistaken.

I don't think the nudity is irrelevant at all. Sensuality, eroticism, sexuality - these are different things. To pluck food from a nude woman at a party is certainly sensual and quite likely erotic, but sexual? Not unless there's more going on that Time Out indicates. Please don't let's Ashcroft this discussion by confusing these differences. This is a small step from caged gogo dancers at Hollywood parties (and before you ask, I can totally see nude male tables happening at ubercultural soirees).

Sexuality, specifically female sexuality, is an integral part of this.

Explain how. There doesn't appear to be any sexual behavior happening here. If you automatically translate all nude interactions into sexual situations, frankly I suggest therapy.

Do I think that these women are being viewed as inanimate objects? Of course - they are playing the part.

Come on, there's obviously more going on here than that. The men who go to these parties are unlikely to view these women as brainless physical objects any more than you are likely to view a traffic warden that way when the stoplights are out. It's very simplistic to spin this as though the models are all victims, the caterer an oppressor and the guests leering single-minded pigs. It's easier than thinking, yes, but not very aware. Do the guests rest their cold drinks on these women without coasters? Do they prop their legs on them? Flick cigarette ashes? In short, do they exhibit any of the behavior party guests show toward physical objects, short of picking a California roll from the woman's thigh instead of the serving tray in her hand?

I think what you really mean to say is, do I think that the people at these events view the girls as being less than human? I would say that those who play along with this do disassociate the person's humanity from their function as a kinky tray for fish, and I think that's very problematic.

Yes, but do they do it outside of the mutually agreed-upon fantasy role playing of the contextual event? Do they, in other words, continue to disassociate the other person's humanity waiting for a taxi after the party, or indeed have a skewed perception of their girlfriend back home? If the answer is no, then we're obviously dealing with a healthy example of erotic fantasy. As with all erotica, it becomes bad or "kinky" if it's not our individual cup of tea.

I would argue that we create momentary fantasy spheres in which behavior that would be unacceptable outside of such role playing is valid and healthy - these fantasy spheres range from Las Vegas shows to Chippendale performances to slash fiction to the occasional swinging experience. Eating food from a human table in the setting described by the article would appear to be another one of these momentary fantasy spheres. Certainly exploitation, unwilling invasion of personal space and sexual interaction appear to be completely absent from the scenario.
 
 
Stone Mirror
23:03 / 05.09.02
Anyone who feels that they'd be degraded by doing this is free to forgo the 800 Marks an evening and find other means of gainful employment.

I didn't see any indication that anyone was being threatened or blackmailed or otherwise induced against their will into serving in this capacity.
 
 
Lurid Archive
02:59 / 06.09.02
I have mixed feelings about this thread, so I hope you'll excuse me if I explore what I feel a little.

A couple of months ago, I was reading a book about the history of prostitution written by a prostitute. She argued many things, but amongst them I think it is fair to say that she felt a certain pride in her profession. She resented people defending her "rights" since she thought this was an excuse to destroy her profession and disempower her colleagues. So I think that there is a traditional, perhaps puritannical, aspect to our objections which have little to do with protecting the vulnerable and more to do with enforcing a dubious set of adopted morals.

On the other hand, when I detect tones of free market ideology like,

Anyone who feels that they'd be degraded by doing this is free to forgo the 800 Marks an evening and find other means of gainful employment. - Stone Mirror

I do tend to think again. I was arguing the other day about black market organ transplants and I strongly took the view that paying someone for a kidney could never fail to be exploitative. This would be an extreme act at one end of the spectrum of economic desperation. But I think it serves to illustrate how not all decisions are equally balanced.

So the question for me is really about choice. It is a delicate judgement call, since we are asking whether or not a person is making a "reasonable" choice or whether they are being forced into an exploited role by circumstance and society. If the latter, then it is our duty to protect them. If the former, then I am not sure what right we have to criticise.
 
 
Lurid Archive
03:04 / 06.09.02
Obviously there are some women and many gay men who think that male nudity is just as lovely - gridley

Not wanting to threadrot or obssess too severely, as a hetero male I'd like to register a voice of dissent to that sentiment. Of course, I'm still in the minority...
 
 
bitchiekittie
03:33 / 06.09.02
I think the most insulting thing is people are looking at these girls and what they are doing, questioning their motives, the validity of the transaction, all the potential rights and wrongs of the thing. these are adult women, completely able to make their own decisions. in the event that they are not, let the tongue wagging and legal proceedings commence.

if a woman sees her sexuality, her appearance, as a commodity - thats her business and you should leave her to it. just like any other sexual or erotic trade, as long as its legal, there are willing "models" and willing hosts, all this shocked wailing about degradation and exploitation and sexism is simply moot, and more than a little offensive

Ive posed nude for a friend. I enjoyed it, and felt that the experience opened things in me. thats my reasoning, and I wouldnt appreciate anyone questioning that. if Id done it for money or some other reason, Id expect that people who might not necessarily agree with my decision to at least respect it. I think thats the least we can offer one another, regardless of our personal feelings for the act in question
 
 
bitchiekittie
03:41 / 06.09.02
Id like to add that I think this is part of what keeps sexism alive. women are the delicate and easily led flowers which must be protected from the sex crazed beast that is men. while it may be true that men are the primary consumers of the sex trade, I dont see how that necessarily puts the man in an automatic position of power over the woman
 
 
cusm
03:42 / 06.09.02
Whether or not it is degrading is a matter decided by the women involved. That is is objectifying however, is unquestionable.

Now if only I could get an ice-cream sunday served that way...
 
 
Jack Sprat
05:29 / 06.09.02
Ach. The degrading part is the sushi, which is raw fish forgodzsakes, being served in a superwarmed room from a warm body part. I won't even eat raw tuna from a sushi bar unless I can watch it being prepared. Food poisoning is ungood.

As to the dehumanization of the women, I think that is mainly taking place in this discussion. You think these "serving trays" don't get what it is they're doing? To assume that they're not smart enough to figure that out is truly dehumanizing. I think it's fairly clear that they grasp the quid pro quo and engage in it freely.

I also think that it is the humanness of the women that makes it worth $250 to the customers. The fact that this woman is willingly presenting herself in her sweet, breathing, thinking nakedness is what tastes so good.

My own experiences with human trays have been in kinky contexts. I have eaten food I wasn't particularly interested in off women I was very interested in. It was all about the woman's will power as she struggled not to squirm when I sucked the cherry off her nipple, or dragged my fingers from her ankle to hip to armpit to chin, then made eye contact as I licked my messy fingers. By her submission, she exerted the ultimate power over me. I was TAKING HER. She was LETTING ME. We were both empowered. (And cusm, part of the spread I'm thinking happened to be a sundae. Hate me, go ahead.)

Just imagine how much more empowering it is with the addition of (what the "tray" obviously considers) good money.

This is an entirely consensual interaction. Imposing our interpretation on it says nothing about the transaction, but says a lot about us.

So basically, give me the horny sushi-eaters any day over the if-you-do-sex-work-you-must-be-stupid thinkers.

Love,
Lydia aka Jack Sprat,
a horny old feminist who's been getting herself
into trouble this way since the 1970s...
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply