>a woman wears a mask and silently walks around the beach boardwalk i went to every single year in my childhood. passerbys become fascinated, slowly crowding around her, gawking and wondering why this woman-shaped-thing has its body on display—which their right to view is a given—without its face. this facelessness in itself not only allows but encourages them to humiliate it. it has no identity, therefore they have no obligation to feign respect to it for as long as it is attached to a female body.

>the sight of a woman without a face or voice, at first, causes titillation. strutting and dancing in neon high-heels, men stare at her, touch her without permission, and ask her for sex. some people accuse her of being a man. after all, what "real" woman would not speak when spoken to, what real woman in a tight dress would not consciously display both her body and face for the public to consume, what real woman would not respond to every snide remark with a nod and smile? the false allegations of her manhood first come not from the lechers but from women on the street who understand that their male partners now feel free to be as degrading as they like for as long as this woman remains faceless and silent—and what else can they to do deter them from this threat to their own commodified places of value in the sexual marketplace but join in on the humiliation from an alternate angle, insisting that she is secretly a man?

>people proposition her for sex. she does not react. this angers them. people ask to see her face. she does not react. this angers them. people ask if she is actually a man. she does not react. this angers them. people throw trash and water at her. she does not react. this angers them. people grab at her genitals. she does not react. this angers them. people look at her breasts as she bends and concludes that she must, in fact, be a "real" woman. she does not react. this angers them. people try to push her. she does not react. this angers them. people succeed in pushing her face-first onto the concrete. she lies on the sidewalk like a corpse. she does not react. this angers them. after lying on the ground completely still, she finally gets up, walks towards the crowd, no longer passive. people scream in fear, running away as she holds the mirror closer to them, the illusion of their invincibility in the face of the feminine object annihilated.

>i think the psychological phenomenon on display here—which is, of course, just a manifestation of misogyny taken to a real-life logical conclusion—is part of what makes pornography so profitable, desirable, and infinitely-escalating in its depravity; because in run-of-the-mill pornography, women are not seen as human (by neither collaborators nor consumers), and that stripping of their humanity is what allows for its comfortable production and consumption. otherwise the consumers would also suddenly flee at the abject realization that they had been actively dehumanizing what was in actuality a living, breathing human being—not just a mass of meat in the shape of desirable feminine flesh. in fact, at several points in the film, she is interrogated and asked if she's "being paid for this," asking if she is a porn actress, attempting to find grounds on which to justify further harassment. no one would have ganged up on signe pierce in such a violent way if she had simply had a face and had not been registered as a woman, the latter being the very foundation which made the effect of the former possible. in forgoing both a face and voice as a woman, she was mere meat on the market to them, meant for beating with steel tenderizers, flaying, and eating. with all pretensions dropped, she was treated how they had always secretly wanted to treat her anyway.



That's cool and all, but why is this dumb pseud whore so averse against capitalization? Is her Ctrl or maybe her Caps Lock key broken? If not, what's her excuse?