Skip to content

Hugo Schwyzer wants to jizz on the face of feminism, but not why you’d think

Jizz on your face! A FACIAL! Let your guy cum on your rosy cheeks because it is the latest act of feminist empowerment! Moreover, IT’S CLEANSING! Didn’t you hear? Jizz on your face is better than a detox diet! It has “purifying” properties. Or so says Hugo Schwyzer, Professor Feminism extraordinaire in his latest installment at Jezebel, He Wants to Jizz on Your Face, but Not Why You’d Think:

A female student turned to the guy who’d brought up the topic of semen and validation and asked him, “So you’re saying that when a man comes on a woman’s face, it’s not about making her dirty — it’s about making him feel clean?” The young man blushed, the class tittered. “Yes,” he said, “that’s it. And that’s what makes it so hot.”

Only oh, I forgot to mention, the purifying act is not for you, feminist woman, target audience of Professor Feminism’s column. The cleansing is for him!

Wait. Cum again? Exactly how is this defense of the act feminist? Or how is this justification for the act based on its benefits for women? Or how is this a pro woman stance?? HOW DOES THIS JUSTIFICATION PUT THE FEELINGS, WELL BEING AND SEXUALITY OF THE WOMAN INVOLVED AHEAD OF THE “PURIFYING” PROPERTIES FOR THE JIZZER? It doesn’t. And that’s because in spite of all his claims, all his protestations and even his academic position, Hugo Schwyzer is not a feminist. He is a feminist poseur. Which is a very different beast.

I suppose most people are, by now, aware of the very first blogging opprobrium of 2012 involving Hugo Schwyzer and Clarisse Thorn. For those who might not have followed it, it started at Feministe when Clarisse Thorn published an interview with Schwyzer. Harsh criticism over the figure of Schwyzer poured in the comment section; specifically, over his past attempted murder of a former girlfriend. Ms. Thorn closed the thread and a very vocal disagreement over her silencing followed. Caperton published an apology on behalf of all writers at Feministe and allowed the comment section to remain open so that people could continue discussing the issue. Maia posted a response to these events at Alas! and some subsequent discussion ensued there as well.

So, one would expect that this would have died the natural death that follows such storms in the feminist blogosphere. I thought nothing else could be added to the topic by now. However, because Schwyzer strives for the spotlight; and because he seems to need the spotlight, is that I feel compelled to challenge his latest post at Jezebel. Because I am a woman and a feminist, and a writer to boot, it is that I must challenge his androcentric, cis-centric, heteronormative, chauvinist, faux feminism. After all, I am as equipped as he is to claim the label, even if I lack the institutional and media backing that is afforded to him.

Because, unlike him, I do not refer to my participation in feminism as “Herding sluts”. I do not view women as cattle or as receptacles for a man’s semen in some faux empowering act that gives prevalence to a man’s sexuality. Because unlike Schwyzer, I do not seek to profit from a movement towards whose members I show, again and again, nothing but racist contempt.

And since we are on the subject of racist contempt, I’d like to point out a bit of contextual background here. Jezebel was founded by Anna Holmes, a Woman of Color. The Jezebel stereotype often wielded against Black women, portraying them alternatively as sex starving sluts, dangerous, oversexualized and a whole host of other negative characteristics. The fact that Schwyzer published this trite on a site bearing such name, without including any kind of racial context in his promotion of “cum in the face” sexuality is doubly offensive. Because such denigrating acts have been used on WoC for centuries, and while members of the dominant culture can now reclaim it as “empowering”, there are still entire groups of people trying to battle the stereotypes associated with the “Jezebel” label. However, Professor Feminism does not need any racial or sociocultural context in his ideology. Because, as he has already informed us, he is WASPiness incarnated! (and he also has contempt for non WASPs appropriating signs of his culture)

This is also the man who wrote a column nonchalantly outing a woman’s infidelity and his possible paternity of a young boy who is being raised by someone else. PROFESSOR FEMINISM IS REALLY PRO-WOMAN! At least for as long as women can serve his self centered purposes.

That someone who has a predatory past, who has on numerous occasions displayed very racist ideas and who called his participation in women’s rights events as “herding sluts” is allowed to lecture people on what constitutes a healthy expression of sexuality is alarming. And it is shameful that more feminists are not clamoring for his silence on these topics. And if we had any doubt about the nepotism operating in contemporary, mainstream feminism, in his Jezebel article he rewards Clarisse Thorn for the grief she endured through the recent scandal by referring to her as an authority on the subject of female sexuality. Because Professor Feminism wants us all to know that those who stick for him will be rewarded with exposure in mainstream media.

Some feminists cannot understand why many people refuse to be affiliated with feminism. They cannot possibly conceive why someone would feel that they do not belong to a movement that is supposed to be about empowerment, equality and utopia. For as long as we collectively allow someone like Hugo Schwyzer to take central roles as spokespersons for feminism in mainstream media, we should not be surprised when people have nothing but disdain for our movement. If this is the face of feminism that is allowed to lecture women on what constitutes rights, sex and relationships, then we might as well close shop and call it a day. Because we have collectively failed. When someone like Professor Feminism is allowed to declare himself a “leader”, then we might as well acknowledge that the patriarchy and the kyriarchy are running our movement. And nothing would please the patriarchy more than to jizz on our faces.

10 Comments

  1. KittyWrangler wrote:

    @Belledame – “It’s kind of not unlike all his “dear God, why” confessionals all over the frigging Internet. The other person is left feeling soiled and gross, but the important thing is, *he* feels better now for having gotten rid of the nasty nasty dirty.”

    oh snap.

    And another thing: the “male,” aka Schwyzer, POV was “explained,” therefore, according to the tone of his article, that is the objective truth of facials. Um, no. Even IF he laid out an ironclad convincing case that men spew their cum onto ladies’ faces purely to share in the clean, clean joy of body-acceptance, that POV should carry EQUAl WEIGHT as the very common and well-documented experience of many women who feel demeaned or perceive the act as a degrading power-play. Group A experiences an act as “B,” while group C experiences an act as “D.” If the two groups are valued equally, B does not trump D.

    Re: men thinking their penises are gross, I completely agree that the lion’s share of body shame falls upon women. But I took it to mean that many guys think male bodies are gross in that homophobic, “Eew gross I’ll never look at a naked man EVAR,” attitude. I cannot know, but I’d assume that feeling that way about other men’s bodies would not lead a guy to value his own for its aesthetic appeal.

    Monday, January 16, 2012 at 9:07 pm | Permalink
  2. Anonymous for this wrote:

    @Cait, FWIW, I’m probably atypical, as a grey-asexual, virgin male. I find all penises and vagina’s, and porn especially, disgusting. It is impossible for me to imagine anyone ‘desiring’ my penis. Is that lack of self-acceptance? Is my penis not validated until I cum on some woman’s face, despite the fact that sex does not even arouse me? Thank you for mentioning the possible asexual perspective #28, Flavia. It’s rarely included in these types of conversations.

    As to the point of the article: Why is that, even for sexual men, the facial would be required for self-acceptance? Schwyzer’s article introduces the concept, but not the reasoning behind it. His male student, simply suggested the concept but not why. Neither did Glickman and Andelloux. What is so special about the face?

    Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 12:37 am | Permalink
  3. Oh good lord. WHEN will it end, Hugo? WHEN??

    Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 5:38 pm | Permalink
  4. Re: your last paragraph

    While I have read many valid criticisms of HS and other topics, especially racism, from people across the feminist speculum, I have yet to unearth anything well-stated where the speaker/writer distances themselves from feminism as an idea or movement. Whenever I see people rejecting the label of feminist, no matter how good they are at the rhetorical gymnastics, I always seem to be able to determine some aspect of equality or justice that just chaps their privileged ass. Are you saying that someone out there has managed to legitimately and genuinely dismiss the ideas presented via feminism because we’re doing something wrong, like because of HS? Where is this happening? I thought I read a whole lot, but I could be wrong.

    Friday, January 20, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink
  5. Chai Latte wrote:

    Wow. Color me totally disgusted. I’m really not sure which grosses me out more–the idea of a facial, or the justification Schwyzer tries to give it.

    Or maybe it’s the fact that I may never be able to visit a spa and request a facial with a straight face ever again. (Sorry, I have a

    Friday, January 20, 2012 at 4:55 pm | Permalink
  6. Elaine wrote:

    I dunno, I hadn’t know about the murder-suicide attempt before this week and that is highly troubling. Though I do feel more moved towards pity. Suicide is some bad, bad stuff.

    Yeah, the poor, poor, guy, deciding to take the life OF AN UNCONSCIOUS WOMAN WHO WASN’T REPEAT WASN’T VOLUNTARILY ENDING HER OWN LIFE. OR HIS.

    Am I completely off-base here? It just seems that, as problematic some of his attitudes might be, some of the criticisms you’re leveling at him depend on twisty cherry-picking.

    Yes, you’re off base, and no matter how you twist this, there’s a whole damned bowl of cherries. No picking required.

    Jeez. What is WITH some guys? Do their brains just not work when another guy ‘confesses’ to something horrible but seems oh-so-sad about it? Do they really forget that some guys lie or that their point of view might be self-serving?

    Anyway, thank you for this post, Flavia. The willful blindness of some people is enough to make one bang one’s head against the wall.

    Friday, January 20, 2012 at 11:55 pm | Permalink
  7. Autumn wrote:

    Is anyone else confused by the overall “fact” that a majority of men find their penis disgusting/dirty? I am by no means an expert, but in all my life I’ve yet to encounter a guy who didn’t think his penis was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I also don’t think this assumption of Penis = Greatest thing since sliced bread has anything to do with the rest of their sexual expression. There’s every possibility that those men exist out there, but I’ve gotta think they’re the exception and not the rule.

    Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Permalink
  8. snobographer wrote:

    @Autumn – Not confused so much as thinking it’s just another made-up bullshit issue along the lines of bumbling sitcom dads.

    Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 8:09 pm | Permalink
  9. Will Wildman wrote:

    Is anyone else confused by the overall “fact” that a majority of men find their penis disgusting/dirty?

    Schwyzer is a skeeze and his argument is rubbish, but on this point I think there is some truth. Dudes are socialised to treat naked men and in particular other guys’ junk as the most hideous thing they could possibly see. And as noted upthread, there is a strong tendency for men to treat semen as a hideous toxic substance – I don’t think that’s just generated ex nihilo in each guy separately, it’s ‘received wisdom’ from the culture.

    I am by no means an expert, but in all my life I’ve yet to encounter a guy who didn’t think his penis was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

    But that is also the approved male-cultured response to weakness: puff up and demand other people tell you how awesome you are and never indicate that you believe you might be flawed.

    Which is not to say that it compares with the sheer magnitude of body policing and image issues that women face – just that it is also a real and screwed-up thing.

    Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 11:09 am | Permalink
  10. Casey wrote:

    @Will Wildman

    I’m not surprised if that’s the case, heck even women are socialized to think male bodies are gross, albeit to a lesser extent…personally, I feel this whole “men think each other’s naked bodies and/or junk and/or semen is totally heinous” thing stems mostly from internalized and systemic homophobia rather than a weird Schwyzer-esque Puritan notion that naked bodies are dirty and wrong (although it probably plays a part). Y’know, you can’t think a naked guy doesn’t look disgusting ‘cuz THAT MEANS UR GAAAAAAY~! Then again maybe I’m just talking out my butt.

    Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 6:22 pm | Permalink