Liquid Plumr

Please see our “About,” “Why Radfem?” and “The Gears” pages for additional information about this project.

Common themes represented here:

Normalize porn/prostitution.  Standard — albeit oldschool at this juncture — porn trope, whereby various servicemen arrive at a woman’s home and are invited in for sex.  Notice that there is no consent-negotiation and that the circumstances do not imply consent from the perspective of either the porn-viewer or the male-actors; where there is no communication of consent, and the circumstances do not reasonably imply it, we have rape.  Full stop.

Under consent-rhetoric, where the woman’s sexuality or desire and the harms to women of PIV are not considered, the only thing stopping this kind of “surprise sex” or any pornographic or indeed any PIV-centric scenario from being a criminal act is what the woman is thinking in the privacy of her own mind — actual verbal consent is never uttered and need not be genuine, even if it is.  So the pornography-viewer is going on nothing but faith that what he is watching is sex, and not rape; however, given the coercive circumstances of porn, that assumption is simply unreasonable.  In fact, the porn viewer is demonstrating by his actions — the action of watching and consuming porn — that at best, he simply does not care whether it is rape or not.  And it is entirely likely that it is in fact rape, considering the problems of economic coercion, human trafficking and rape-slavery, drug and alcohol abuse and other circumstances that are antithetical to legal or moral consent but which are rampant in the so-called sex industry.

And even if a verbal consent-negotiation takes place off-camera, the male porn “actors” cannot have a reasonable belief that the consent is genuine, and not coerced, considering the circumstances: there are many people in the room, including many men; the women are being paid and probably economically coerced; there is a likelihood of drug and alcohol abuse; the women are not known to them and could be underage or otherwise unable to legally or morally consent (remember Traci Lords?); and the women are actors and are acting a part, among other things.  The men penetrate the women anyway, in what could easily be a rape.  The male actors are demonstrating at best that they simply do not care whether it is or isn’t; either is equally acceptable to them.  We are left to conclude the following: it is likely that any one pornographic encounter and the resulting image is both real-life rape and the documentary evidence of a real-life rape.

And this horrifying reality is normalized and invisiblized by commercials for banal consumer items, in this case, a chemical drain opener.  From a woman’s perspective, having a plumber (or more than one) show up at your house and then being penetrated by him (or them) is actually our worst nightmare coming true: it is stranger rape and stranger gang-rape.  Consensual sex under these circumstances is a kind of urban legend that does not exist; that it persists in both porn and commercial advertising is a rape-normative fantasy, and is intended to and in fact does normalize rape, because men like rape and benefit from it both individually and collectively, at women’s obvious expense.  Because rape supports male power.

See also Male entitlement; PIV-centric narrative— Rape and rape culture.

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,

9 responses to “Liquid Plumr”

  1. ibleedpurple says :

    From a woman’s perspective, having a plumber (or more than one) show up at your house and then being penetrated by him (or them) is actually our worst nightmare coming true: it is stranger rape and stranger gang-rape.

    They gloss over this by making the men so attractive that it is suggested to the viewer that no woman would say no to them. The whole ad wouldn’t work if they had replaced the male models with average schmoes. There is also the equation of cleaning with sex to make housework attractive to potential female buyers. Back in the day, cleaning meant you were a good housewife to your husband, nowadays women do not fall for this anymore thanks to the feminist movement so cleaning means you get to sex two attractive men although, and I think that’s important, you are a bespectacled wallflower. Cleaning = sex for every woman. It castrates the female sex drive to a passive vicarious enjoyment, you only get the fantasy and not the real deal and as a bonus the fantasy reduces the woman to a porn stereotype. (So that the ad becomes non-threatening to men.)

  2. cc5050m says :

    How utterly gross. Not only are women shown as drains and toilets…we’re filthy and backed-up to boot. But this is super sex and hawt, right?

    And…double impact = double penetration.

    Aaand…men coming to the rescue with their dicks as cure-all, when the opposite is true.

    Aaaaannd…the creepy, knowing looks–“Oh yeah, baby, we know what you need.”–so she is seen as walking sex even while shopping for household items.

    It also occurs to me that some sinks have garbage disposals attached, but apparently they didn’t think that through.

    (Clearly, this touched a nerve for me for me…sorry if that was a rant.)

  3. FCM says :

    I love a good anti pornography anti misogyny rant. Rant away. And well said.

  4. ibleedpurple says :

    Yeah, cc5050. Right on! The whole penetration allusions are supposed to be cute, doncha know?? *rolls eyes*

  5. FCM says :

    Yes, the idea of being penetrated by that hideous sharp instrument, and having chemical drain cleaner poured inside my vagina is totes “cute.” Ugh. This one is necrophilic as well isn’t it? It’s just unimaginably sickening.

  6. cherryblossomlife says :

    It’s one of those scenarios where male reality gets pasted over female reality– and voila, men are just innocent bystanders in the secret world of women’s fantasies.

    The first porn movie I ever watched was shown to me at the age of 17 by my then-boyfriend. And I simply DIDN’T GET IT. The scenario was a housewife, who answered the door to a plumber, and they ended up doing it on the kitchen floor. All I could think of the whole time was “how dangerous, how fucking dangerous… to let a man into your house like that.” And “WHY” would you have sex with someone you hadn’t even spoken to”
    NOW, a decade later, I REALISE that the clip was supposed to be a reflection of MY fantasies.
    Needless to say, both my then-boyfriend and myself ended up very confused.

  7. witchwind says :

    This video is so disgusting. I can just imagine the guys who wrote the ads thinking: “which favourite porn movie will we imitate in our next ad?”.
    This is basically encouraging men to sexually harrass women in the supermarket, and making men believe that women enjoy and even fantasise about such menial tasks as unplumbing a toilet, and that they identify to the toilet being penetrated by the plumbing stick and take pleasure from it. Plus it completely eroticises our domestic servitude to men > it’s even worse than the marriage/domestic propaganda because not only do we end up doing the same old shit but on the top of it we have to be constantly reminded of our rapeability and remind men of our rapeability whenever we buy a cleaning product.

    I remember this extract of Andrea Dworkin I read on her online library, when she was telling what it was like to investigate porn images. One of the effect it had on her was to see everything as a potential torture instrument against women, something to be used to penetrate. Because in porn, any object, domestic objects, hairdryers, cell phones, carrots, cucumbers, pipes, bottles, scissors, tubes (anything) is used to penetrate and torture women. Everything becomes a way to threaten women, to remind women of their function as rape-holes. What this ad is doing is telling women that even the toilet plumbing product is there to fuck women. And that women enjoy being humiliated and associated to being a toilet. I remember at school boys would take anything phallic shaped and harrass us with it while imitating the fake porn screams women are forced to do to further their humiliation.

  8. witchwind says :

    Double penetration > spot on.

    The ad is a prototype of a gonzo scenario

    1. Women is any women in the supermarket: “the girl next door”.

    2. This women is portrayed by the pornographer as a “slut” wanting to be penetrated. Men just need to approach her and “her true nature” is supposedly revealed (it tells what men should do to women when they see one).

    3. The men immediately submit the woman to PIV and torture, but she is shown asking for it. The penetrations/torture are filmed closely, she is shown screaming and moaning of “orgasm” (this is a typical reversal because in reality women scream in pain, but the pain screams are pervertly distorted to appear as screams of pleasure – but honestly WHO *screams* of pleasure??? this is a complete LIE)
    In the ad: Penetrated toilet hole + filth in the hole = women
    Cleansing stick penetrating the hole = man

    4. The “money shot” or “cum shot”: the women is ejaculated on or in. Here: the toilet hole is ejaculated in / bleached by the white semen-looking liquid, what men believe to be a sacred ointment and symbol of their complete conquest over women: it symbolises the utter surrender of women to men.

    5. The damages of the woman’s penetraded orifices are shown to the camera like a trophy, for other men to admire: here this is visually represented in the ad by the entry of the toilet hole in 0.43

    6. The women is forced to smile at the camera to make the male viewer believe she loved and enjoyed the torture that men inflicted on her.

    This ad, like any porn, is pre-genocidal hatred propaganda. It caricaturises women in a hateful, dehumanising and demeaning way, encourages men to inflict harm on women and humiliate them, eroticises reproductive harms against women and makes men believe that women are worthy of it and enjoy it. It encourages men to rape, which, against women, is a tool of genocide.

  9. tiamathydra says :

    I was trying to figure out what really bothered me that much about the commercial, as it was obvious that it was a porn/rape-culture expression, but I knew there was something else and you named it Witchwind – the vagina is equated to a toilet. Maybe that’s what made me so infuriated about it that I couldn’t quite isolate, so thank you.