Why would you call blumkins “sexist”? Are you excluding the idea that gay, bi, and trans people might participate? There are many sexual practices that are degrading. If the partner consents, how is it “sexist”? Lastly, have you considered that a heterosexual female may want a blumkin of her own? I’m a heterosexual male, and I have no idea how you could defecate and remain erect—but to each his own! Your answer was irrational and sexist!
The Problem Isn’t Always Sexism
Go to Urban Dictionary and read every definition for “blumkin,” TPIAS. There are nine of them. We’ll wait.
While almost all of the proposed definitions—including the top one—are gendered (“Taking a nice shit while your woman is sucking your cock”), even definitions that aren’t gendered (“Getting a blowjob while taking a stinky shit”) include examples of usage that are gendered (“Anthony really enjoyed it when Christy gave him a blumkin last night”). While a gay dude could suck his man’s cock while he was taking a stinky shit, and while a trans man could go eat his cis girlfriend’s pussy while she was dropping a deuce, the whole conversation about blumkins—and since blumkins are mythical, TPIAS, the convo is all we’ve got—isn’t about consensual degrading sex play. It’s about the symbolic degradation of women.
And that’s sexist.
It’s like gerbiling: Everyone has a butthole, anyone can walk into a pet store and buy a gerbil, paper-towel tubes are everywhere. But gerbiling is always described as a gay sex act. The fact that straight, bi, asexual, or even deceased people could theoretically have their asses gerbiled doesn’t make joking about gerbiling not homophobic. The anatomical technicality doesn’t exonerate gerbiling. Same goes for blumkins.
So my ruling is final: Joking about gerbiling is homophobic (but funny if done right), just as joking about blumkins is sexist (ditto).
On the Lovecast, Dan and writer Ephi Stempler discuss companionate marriage: savagelovecast.com.
@fakedansavage on Twitter