Female judge busted for taking pee pics in men’s restroom!

Women and women’s Sexual Voyeurism are coming out of the closet–and bathroom stalls. Female judge busted for taking pee-pictures in men’s restroom!

Long after lesbians and other female sexual ‘deviants*,’ like sex positive feminists have revealed themselves as normal people who are biologically homosexual, or just intellectually kinky, it is no longer a surprise or an anomaly, but just a fact of life–hey, guess what? Women vary in their sex drives and fantasies like racing Matchbox cars, and their kinks are all over the Kinsey scale!

Now STFU!!

Or not: real equality of the sexes demands that we explore womens actual sexual deviance and ‘perversity’–by the same standards that men have been judged, and imprisoned, by for centuries.[Marquis de Sade, etc]

[If feminism has anywhere to go after the charade of ‘elevatorgate’ it is in examining women as human beings, with both human functions, and dysfunctions.]

Florida Traffic court Judge Rhonda Hollander, 47, was arrested for trying to take pictures of a man using the urinal at here courthouse.

Part of the profile of women’s deviance is that they are at least as capable as men of most of the sex acts and ‘sexually deviant behaviors’ defined by the DSM-4. But we don’t actually or ‘actively’profile, investigate, suspect, or prosecute women as such, and so we have the occasional woman getting caught by random chance doing what human beings often do: spying on others sexual and quasi sexual practices.

Female voyeurism is perhaps as old as time, and all of the stereotypes apply,yet there is a biological twist involved: women, long idealized as ‘nurturers’ and ‘concerned, maternal protectors’ are revealed at times in the modern society as mere voyeurs.

Why? Is it because a womans ‘drive’ to ‘nurture’ has long included the role of examining sexual organs for medical necessity? Is it because women have for so long been cast in the role of mothers that they cannot help themselves but desire exposure to genital functions? Is it the lack of intimacy, and a whole range of other dysfunction that makes women thus?

Or is it an innate drive or sense of ‘allo-licking’ behaviors that all female mammals share, that drives them to bathroom stalls, and their childrens bath-tubs[…] to examine genitalia and nude humans, with human body functions?

We may never know, but one thing IS certain: women’s sexual ‘deviance’ is once again being examined, and the questions above are just a starting point.

The currentr tendency is to ascribe deviant sexual behavior to male bodies–sexual deviance is constructed as the exclusive territor of men and boys, because for all of history, women’s sexuality has been repressed, or suppressed by social forces, according to the literature.

Whereas the societal expectation and indeed, encouragement of men’s sexuality has been profiled, criminalized, and penalized, women’s sexuality has been mythologized, idealized, and stereotyped into behaviors that exclude ‘perversity’. And as of this writing, most women, and especially feminists, derive direct benefits from, appreciate, and endorse that reasoning, despite claims toward equality.

In fact, it would be accurate to say that feminists as a whole not only exclude women’s actual criminal deviance as a topic of discussion, but work actively against engaging in the topic in public forums, and social discourse.

However, the future is not so bleak: many women in the social services have taken notice, and do stand up against female sexual deviance in its true, egalitarian manifestations, like rising rates of incarceration for female child sex abusers.

Here are some links to truly sex-positive feminists and resources that examine women’s sexual deviance:

http://feministing.com/2011/04/09/clpp-2011-sex-positive-feminism-101/

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/05/09/towards-my-personal-sex-positive-feminist-101/

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Sex-Positive+Feminism-a01073863023

*deviants: defined by prevailing social and psychiatric models, deviance is roughly, anyone and any behavior that is outside of ‘normal’ constructs; defined by standards that ‘we all agree’ upon, sans political affiliation, gender, sex, race, etc.

Comments
  1. […] who gets it has a sense of humor too. Hell, I thought I was the only one out here writing about perv’s.… Are some scientists really just pigs of another […]

What do You think about that?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s