jump to navigation

Fun! With Numbers! The Sex-Positive Equation September 9, 2010

Posted by FCM in authors picks, books!, feminisms, health, international, liberal dickwads, logic, PIV, pop culture, radical concepts, self-identified feminist men, sorry!, trans.
Tags: , , ,
trackback

assuming i havent just eaten, and if its the third wednesday of an odd month or something and i am in the mood, i kind of enjoy observing, if not engaging, those silly old male-identified liberal progressive fun-feminists.  because every single time i hear one of them speak, it takes me further and further down the rabbit hole.  wheeeee!

twirling, twirling down the rabbit hole of sex-pos double-think, deeper and deeper into the vast cavernous void that passes for “logic” and “reason” in that post-modern dick-pleasing world.  honestly, i sometimes enjoy the ride.  much like engaging in conversation with transwomen in fact, the more i listen to fun feminists speak, the more obviously ridiculous their arguments become.  and this is a good thing.  because i get to make endless fun of them i mean systematically dismantle their “arguments” here, for everyone to see.  of course, most of the time, its literally impossible to figure out just what the everloving fuck they are even talking about.  but sometimes, just sometimes, when the planets are aligned just right…

regarding sex, PIV, and pleasure: the only pleasure fun fems care about is PIV.  its so obvious.  coincidentally, its the only pleasure heterosexual men (including so-called feminist men) care about too.  sure, they might envision a PIV-centric sexuality that includes other acts too, but they absolutely cannot fathom a heterosexual sexuality that doesn’t include PIV, at all.  thus we get the following sex-positive equation:

dont bullshit me people. i know its true, and so do you.

yes, unfortunately, this is what we are left with, when we break down sex-positivism and start seeing it for what it is.  “other” sexual acts literally have no value in a sexual equation, where PIV equals sex.  okay?  they are worthless.  no matter how “diverse” anyone wants to believe their sexuality really is, because they are doing “other stuff too,” the bottom line is that the only thing anyone cares about here is PIV.  its the only thing that has value.  so “sex” positivism is just a bullshit euphemism for “PIV” positivism, or PIV-reinforcive sexual practice.  why is this a problem?  heres why:

again, no amount of bullshitting will change the fact that PIV is dangerous, for women. sorry!

and this is one bitch of a big fat fucking problem.  oh yes it is.  and notice how the second frame actually explains the first:  if female risk is actually what anyone (?) finds pleasurable about sex, then its no wonder that “other acts” that arent specifically and particularly dangerous to women are considered worthless, and “not sex” in this paradigm.  oral is worthless, because it cant get a woman pregnant.  digital penetration and fondling is worthless, because it wont kill her.

now, its worth asking, of course, from whose perspective has all of this been created?  do women actually believe this shit?  or are they just swallowing (!) the same old PIV-reinforcive paradigm that men who like sticking their dicks into women have always maintained is true?  the one, true heterosexuality that all straight and partnered women must adhere to, no matter how disgusting, painful, morbid and ultimately deadly the consequences, to women?

and that PIV is even “pleasurable” at all, when so many women dont even like it, and they know how dangerous it is, and try actively to mitigate its effects, with varying degrees of success, for virtually their entire lives?

now, regarding the old “radfems is conservatibbs!” dodge, this is just a straight up lie, now isnt it?  is there a single fucking thing on this page that a religious conservative would find agreeable?  excepting of course that religious conservatives completely buy into the exact same PIV-reinforcive paradigm that the fun-fems, liberals, and self-identified feminist men buy into too, and that i have just described here.  whatever you do, do try not to notice that.

on that note, i highly recommend sheila jeffreys’ excellent book “the spinster and her enemies,” which absolutely destroys any possible argument that early or modern radical feminists were sexually conservative, and asks the question: from whose perspective would “abstinence” and “deprivation” appear to be the main themes, when women were and are trying to save womens lives, and the quality of their lives, from death, disease, and unwanted childbearing due exclusively to PIV?

that is all.

h/t to sonia, and her excellent guest-post here.

About these ads

Comments

1. factcheckme - September 9, 2010

again, i am not a total math geek. so if i screwed these up, let me know. enjoy!

2. SheilaG - September 9, 2010

PIV = Sex — feminist het men agree with this, conservative men agree with this (as long as it’s within marriage to women–their public posture), funfems go along with this.

Odd how male historians never seem to write about the millions of women throughout time who died in childbirth, or the fact that women once had 10 kids, and again, each time risked death by being pregnant. This means that at the time this stuff was going on in England or New England, the men were so obsessed with PIV, that they didn’t care if they killed the women at all.

I don’t even recall these ideas even discussed in good old 70s women’s studies programs.

So the equation of what sex is, has not been changed in centuries, and all straight males agree on this point– the sex act of PIV is what they all want and all do. And now we have viagra, so even elderly women who finally were free of it have to suffer with PIV now as well.

factcheckme - September 9, 2010

I couldn’t bring myself to link to old liverlips I mean hugos blog, but that’s where these convos are taking place. And old bungholio also linked to a “radfems is conservatibbs!” article this week, which was about the ninth mansplaining male feminist post created especially for MEEEEEE!!!!!111! since he started this little blogwar. Mandos promptly handed Hugo his hat I mean his ass on that one.

Google “Hugo schwyzer liverlips” to visit his blog, if you want. It will show up in his stats. Heh.

3. FemmeForever - September 9, 2010

or the fact that women once had 10 kids, and again, each time risked death by being pregnant. This means that at the time this stuff was going on in England or New England, the men were so obsessed with PIV, that they didn’t care if they killed the women at all.

Once and currently. I just saw this the other day and it just disgusts me

4. berryblade - September 9, 2010

Oh FactCheckMe, your brilliance strikes again! Also, your humour, anyone who thinks that rad-fems aren’t funny, take note ;)

no matter how “diverse” anyone wants to believe their sexuality really is, because they are doing “other stuff too,” the bottom line is that the only thing anyone cares about here is PIV.

Ah this times a million. I have an acquaintance who’s doing sexology (here we go…) and she’s talking about how she learns all about diverse sexuality and looks at many pictures of anuses and vaginas/vulvas. Again, we see that sex is reduced down to intercourse/penetration/filling a ‘hole’, I had a look through her notes once and didn’t really see anything that didn’t involve penetration at some point.

Even the list of sex positions on dikipedia are taken straight from porn, and, therefore, are all about penetration at some point.

dont bullshit me people. i know its true, and so do you.

Haha, I had a good chuckle off the keyboard at this one. It’s so accurate, so simple and so few get it! I’m no maths-genius either, but damn, this shit is pretty basic.

and that PIV is even “pleasurable” at all, when so many women dont even like it, and they know how dangerous it is, and try actively to mitigate its effects, with varying degrees of success, for virtually their entire lives?

The numbers for this are fucking shocking too. I think it was something like only 27% of womyn can orgasm from penetration alone compared to like 78% or something of men (this is just what I have written in my class notes, I don’t know where this information came from, but our lecturer mentioned it, so one would assume it would be fairly reliable)

and then you always get so many womyn who are all BUT I LIKE PIV IT FEELS NICE WHEN MY NIGEL DOES IT. ENTHUSIASTIC CONSENT RAH RAH RAH! Without ever actually stating that they a) orgasm from it, b) would their nigel still be with them if he wasn’t ‘getting a root’ and c) don’t realise that consent is an invented word designed to keep men out of jail.

Odd how male historians never seem to write about the millions of women throughout time who died in childbirth, or the fact that women once had 10 kids, and again, each time risked death by being pregnant. This means that at the time this stuff was going on in England or New England, the men were so obsessed with PIV, that they didn’t care if they killed the women at all.

Totally, and if this point is ever raised one is accused of “taking it all too seriously” as if HUMANS DYING isn’t serious enough. I don’t recall where I read it, but some srs man doctor was talking about how when the fear of death in child birth lessened, womyn began to fear men less as a whole. Or something like that. Which is interesting, because so many womyn DIED in 19th century hospitals just because man doctors were too fucking ignorant/lazy to wash their hands. Personally, I reckon they might have been doing it semi-on-purpose to keep the fear of “god” (men) into these womyn.

That link FF, holy shit. 20th child? Holy shit, we’re not dogs or cats having litters. What the actual fuck.

P.S FCM have you read AntiClimax by Jeffreys yet?

factcheckme - September 9, 2010

its on my shelf bb. havent started it yet.

also, i updated the second graphic to make it more mathy. i didnt like the way it looked, at all. now i do.

factcheckme - September 9, 2010

ok, i have to link to old turdburglar’s post because its just so full of fail, and its exactly what i am talking about regarding the disingenuous radfem/conservatibb dodge. its such a fucking lie! and this asswad is TEACHING. FEMINISM. i hope this guys entire teaching career goes down in flames, i really fucking do. it would be frankly less than honorable to wish otherwise, when he actually believes this shit (? does he?) and is teaching it as if its true, to people who dont know any better. AND he claims to be pro-feminist, and to respect radical feminist tradition! LIES! talk about an abuse of power. if “spinster” isnt on his reading list, and i am sure its not, he should be removed from his position immediately. he also links to another “interesting article” in the post following this one, thats a mansplanation to MEEEEEEE!!!111!!1 about how radfems are really just religious conservatives, in some kind of drag. if drag = an entirely different ideology that shares absolutely nothing with religious conservativism…and if in some bizarro fourth dimension, religious conservatives are ACTUALLY AGAINST PIV (they arent) then sure, why not. i am just a (atheist) religious conservatibb, in drag. but the characterization is meaningless of course, when you add all the necessary qualifiers. which means its a disingenuous LIE, meant to obfuscate the basic truths of radical feminist theory. ie. what it is we are even talking about, and what it is we want.

http://hugoschwyzer.net/2010/09/01/eros-and-its-strange-enemies/

5. mscitrus - September 9, 2010

Oh man FCM, is this a response to that guy on Hugo who was like OMG MS C I SAID OTHER SEXUAL ACTS NOT JSUT SEX JEEEEZ? Hugo had my comment in moderation for so long I don’t think anyone saw my reply to that crap. And then that same moron compared a woman requiring sexual pleasure to a man requiring PIV for a relationship. Um, when women ask for pleasure they usually just mean more “foreplay,” ie can you like go down on me before you stick your dick in? Which is totally the same because making foreplay longer endangers the man or could get him pregnant. Only one person’s request here requires someone to be in danger, yet they can’t see that because all they’re thinking about is the male wanting PIV. Anyways, making everything but intercourse “sexual activity” and intercourse “sex” like that guy did still makes intercourse the main and most important element. Abstaining from PIV for a while to “build up” to it (a la tantric shit that kristina brought up there) STILL makes it the defining act as well. It’s exactly like you describe in this kickass post, FCM.

“Even the list of sex positions on dikipedia are taken straight from porn, and, therefore, are all about penetration at some point.”

Yes omfg. I swear, me and my nigel have found SO MANY awesome and intimate positions without penetration. But unlike with “improving” intercourse so maybe the woman actually has a chance at orgasming, you can’t look this shit up. It’s nowhere. Sometimes I wonder if I should share some of the things we do or whatever because guides on this shit are non-existent.

On his article: Why use “eros,” seriously? Does he have to be so fucking pretentious about it? (well his phD is in philosophy, so yes probably.) I love that I’m quoted in there with my bluntness in the middle of his academic fancy pants writing.

The funniest part of the conservative comparison is I’ve never met a radical feminist who’s Christian, but a lot of liberal feminists are. Oh and if radfems EVER talk to any conservative women ever, they’re totally the same. But it’s ok for libfem’s literally ally with pimps and pornographers because those guys are totes liberal and feminist.

factcheckme - September 9, 2010

Ha! This post has been Twittered. That was fast. No actual arguments have been forthcoming though.

6. Undercover Punk - September 9, 2010

Hahahaha!!! Ms C, you are so funny! Totes!!

Ok, so I’m going to skip the PIV critique (ahem!) and jump right to this Hugo guy who apparently LOVES to talk about Femonade! And he just can’t stop! Interesting. I read (sort of) his latest post and here’s what I learned:

Number 1, he believes in transcending social conditioning. This is, of course, a very convenient position to take– especially for the white man and others who don’t want to work too hard on, like, questioning shit. “Hey, I thought about my racism, like, A LOT and I *know* that I’m like soooo PAST that now. Yeah, I ERASED my brain. I mean, that PART of my brain. I just crossed it out. EASY!” See? Transcendence accomplished! Now, who wants to see my burlesque moves??

Number 2, he has some interest in highlighting the analogies made by HATERS between conservative anti-porn religious zealots and radfem anti-porn rationales. I mean, what is the POINT of the excerpted material? It’s like I said about the trans thing: radfem critiques are substantively DISTINCT from logically bankrupt conservative my-”God”-says-its-Bad protests. (Ok, well that’s not exactly what I said, but that’s what I meant.) And if you can’t tell the fucking difference, you’re STUPID. Is Hugo stupid?? Can’t he tell the diff? And if he CAN, WHAT is his motivation for reinforcing the fallacious connection between radfem and conservative arguments against the sexual exploitation of female bodies?? Oh right, to DISCREDIT YOU.

But you already wrote about credibility, didn’t you? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

7. Undercover Punk - September 9, 2010

Tweet! Tweet! Tweet! That’s what I call “letting the dogs out.”

8. yesindeed - September 9, 2010

Sheila, thank you for bringing up the issue of “historical” PIV entitlement and the fact that it has persisted despite KILLING women by the millions and having serious, adverse effects on their health.

Until you mentioned it on the credibility thread, I had never heard anyone EVER talking about this. EVER! This thought first came to me a few years ago while reading Anna Karenina (written in the 1870s). In the beginning, one of the male characters fucks the family’s governess and then “reflects” on the situation:

He could not at this date repent of the fact that he, a handsome, susceptible man of thirty-four, was not in love with his wife, the mother of five living and two dead children, and only a year younger than himself. All he repented of was that he had not succeeded better in hiding it from his wife. But he felt all the difficulty of his position and was sorry for his wife, his children, and himself. Possibly he might have managed to conceal his sins better from his wife if he had anticipated that the knowledge of them would have had such an effect on her. He had never clearly thought out the subject, but he had vaguely conceived that his wife must long ago have suspected him of being unfaithful to her, and shut her eyes to the fact. He had even supposed that she, a worn-out woman no longer young or good-looking, and in no way remarkable or interesting, merely a good mother, ought from a sense of fairness to take an indulgent view.

I had an immediate, visceral reaction to this passage. I was stunned by the gall of this man to complain about his “worn-out” wife after impregnating her seven times. If her old boring haggardness (ie, the natural result of 10 years of pregnancy + nursing) was such a problem for him, perhaps he could have stopped constantly sticking his dick in her? Or at the very least, decreased the frequency? Taken a break? Perhaps after the first dead child?

He goes on:

“Oh, it’s awful! oh dear, oh dear! awful!” Stepan Arkadyevitch kept repeating to himself, and he could think of nothing to be done. “And how well things were going up till now! how well we got on! She was contented and happy in her children; I never interfered with her in anything; I let her manage the children and the house just as she liked…”

He never interfered with her in any way – except impregnating her seven times. And leaving her alone with the resulting household labor and childrearing. And then feeling wronged and sorry for himself when all of that began to take its toll – on her. He was left with a dried-up unfuckable old hag – how awful, oh dear oh dear! (Men’s made-up emotional pain being equivalent to women’s real suffering, of course).

This recalls a question that FCM has asked many times before: do men know where babies come from?

factcheckme - September 9, 2010

Yes up its true, old Hugo seems to have a wee problem letting things go. And he also starts shit. So from his perspective, I am sure he feels very “busy” all the time. When really he’s not accomplishing anything. Must be nice to only have to work 2.5 hours a week. Guess by definition, you need other things to do when you are a teacher. Fucking students is a nice waste of time, ay?

And YES, its very convenient when all MAABs insist we can all transcend our social conditioning. And the gender queers, the mtfs, and the self-identified male feminists are all doing it. This is not a coincidence. Because if MAABs can transcend their conditioning as violent, entitled abusers, women are then REQUIRED to give them access to us. Its true! They say so.

Also, if MAABs can transcend their pasts, FAABs should be able to transcend ours, too. In other words, forget what various MAABs have done to us, and what they are still doing, and will continue to do to us, in the future. Cause then, we would have no choice but to allow MAABs access to us. It’s true! Because they say it is.

See my “is eminem a transwoman” post for more on that.

Now, as for whether old Hugo is ACTUALLY SO STUPID, that he is unable to differentiate between radfem and religious conservative theory, well the question is very astute. Because old Hugo is probably pretty smart, all things considered. I mean, he’s at least as smart as the stupidest ph.d out there, by definition. Right? So assuming he is able to dissect and analyze even basic theory, and we have objective evidence that he is so abled and probably even more so (his ph.d) the question becomes, why is he getting it so wrong? And the answer is almost certainly, its intentional.

Why might he be doing this? This is not a rhetorical question.

9. kurukurushoujo - September 9, 2010

I just can’t get over the fact that eros is supposedly so very important. It isn’t. AFAIK eros was considered the lowest form of expressing love- you are supposed to evolve to the Platonic ideal of purely spiritual affection. Since refusal of PIV means refusal of engaging in the sex act most would define as sex, the pinnacle of physical affection, you practically transcend eros- and reach a higher form of love. (Socrates would have liked you, fcm.) If they actually have to use the word “eros” they should try to not shoot themselves in the foot.

But then I stopped reading the post you, fcm, linked to in this comment section after he said that your community belongs to what is “sometimes called women’s nationalism”. HOLY SHIT. And then comparing radical feminism to conservatism: the word comes from “conservare” (to preserve). I don’t see radical feminists actually wanting to preserve something. Women’s worth is always dependent on (un)willingness to have sex, it’s never defined as lying outside of sex. So wanting to destroy this is conservative? Yeah, I didn’t know that either. Want to have an example of conservative feminism? Consider the bunch of German women during the beginning of the last century who only supported opening the social work segment of the job market to the female population because of woman’s supposedly natural disposition for caring and nurturing. How were these women called? LIBERAL feminists. WHOOPS. How were the women called who wanted to open ALL of the job market to women? Yes, RADICAL feminists. WHOOPS again.

factcheckme - September 9, 2010

Socrates ay? And old Hugo with his doctorate in philosophy, doesn’t understand the significance of “Eros” and uses it improperly?

The plot thickens.

factcheckme - September 9, 2010

Yesindeed: he let her manage HER children. Her. Children. Wow! Absolutely nothings changed then, from the time that was written. Unbelievable. Tell me, we you still a practising fun fem when you first read that? If so, how did you manage your revulsion? That’s a big part of the fun-fem doublethink. Managing your revulsion, and telling yourself you must be wrong to feel so revolted.

Thanks for that excellent excerpt and commentary. I’ve never read that one. Now, i will make sure i never do.

10. SheilaG - September 9, 2010

Yes indeed, the plot does thicken.

And yes, it is indeed worthwhile to contemplate what men’s attitude was historically to all the women who died in child birth, knowing full well that they were the agents of death. And also the spread of iatrogenic disease when men took over child birth and chased the midwives out of the medical profession.

And, you really ought to read Andrea Dworkin’s essay on Tolstoy, and how he sexually tyrannized his wife, among other things. Can’t recall the name of the book–damn– but it has a series of essays on male literary “giants” among other things, and her superb background in literature, while not often referenced by radfems these days, is a source of her astuteness overall. Someone above mentioned Anna Karenina– just saying…

Wow, so much material here, so powerful. Is it humanly possible for a womens’ studies Prof to truly not know the difference between the human rights of women critique of radfems and how different this would be from a right wing conservative critique of porn, for example. All of it depends on how well you know the porn industry, what trafficking does to women, and what PIV does to women. Remember, no large segment of male society is up and arms protesting the harm PIV does to women. All men– conservative, liberal and radical support full sexual access to women in a variety of ways. Dworkin argued in “Right Wing Women” that conservative women wanted a social structure that would control men, so that they only had to have sex with one man, and not be exposed to a sexual open market where their bodies were fair game for dozens of men… hense their opposition to racial feminism and the ERA. It’s a great Dworkin book.

So either people like Hugo are “playing dumb” or they simply have not thought of the consequences of PIV, nor have they really understood radical feminism. I’ve yet to meet a man who understands it or is well read in the subject; it is just too threatening and exposing of the male agenda throughout history.

Men view porn as harmless, and seem to have no idea how the “industry” treats the “actresses” and how there is virtually no health regulations for the “workers.” This alone should sound a warning bell.

I think women need to be up in arms about men like this teaching womens’ studies, and how women are being short changed by getting such a poor education.

We have to come to terms, as I said before, with the idea that men, in their obsession with PIV, killed women in the past, and continue to kill them today. KILL as in KILL. Ending PIV is so threatening and visionary an idea, that men will fight this tooth and nail. Believe me, I hope women come here, read Hugo’s nonsense, and put out the word.

Men think they control access, they think they control radical feminist arguments and they use the same old tropes — no sense of humor, we’re just like right wing conservatives, etc. It never changes with these guys.

Young women might be even more vulnerable today to male sexual preditors, because they are indoctrinated into “sex and PIV” are no big deal, we have a “hook up” culture out there, and we have a right wing backlash. Keep the girls pure and virgins for their husbands, so the husband can have, you guessed it PIV!

And eros and agape… this philosophical classic white male discussion might be over Hugo’s head too.

11. SheilaG - September 9, 2010

I’m also thinking that one reason women got behind the temperance movement, is that men were coming home drunk and beating up their wives. Back when women were property, they were not able to just walk out and leave home and run over to the nearest corner domestic violence shelter. The men drank up the paychecks, causing women with children to be in precarious situations, to say the least.

Why would women be against the sale of alcohol in the 19th century? When men are drunk, just what do they do? What do they do today?

Why was temperance a feminist issue? So soon we forget the tavern culture, the gangs of males terrorizing women on the streets of large towns.
We forget just how much a husband’s paycheck went to drink, and how this would affect women who could not find work on their own.

We forget that the Settlement Houses served as shelters for women escaping abusive husbands, for example. And that social work was a feminist enterprise in the early 20th century.

When women rise up and form a movement– be it feminism, temperance or anti-pornography, there is a reason for it. Women rise up to save lives, to end death in childbirth, to end violent male rampages in the home.

12. JutGory - September 9, 2010

FCM: “again, i am not a total math geek. so if i screwed these up, let me know. enjoy”

Logically, the first part: sex=PIV, PIV=female, risk, sex=female risk, is correct.

sex=female risk, sex=pleasure, female risk=pleasure is not logical.

here is how your argument is framed (with words changed): God is love, love is blind, God is blind.

God is blind; Stevie Wonder is blind, Stevie Wonder is God.

Stevie Wonder may be really cool, but he is not God.

-Jut

13. rhondda - September 9, 2010

One thing to keep in mind too is that Eros was the god of love who was the son of Aphrodite. Psyche was the woman who fell in love with him and wanted to see his face. For doing that she had to do all these challenging chores to appease Aphrodite who did not think she was worthy of Eros. Eros is a patriarchy myth, depended upon the male idiom of making the woman worthy of him. I always imagine that when she finally finished the chores, she realizes that it was not worth it and finds herself. What men call Eros is their own desire and has little to do with Psyche, other than trap her.

14. Undercover Punk - September 9, 2010

@Sheila:

KILL as in KILL.

Hahaha! You’re funny. But the death of women is not. And THAT is the radfem interest in limiting the sexual exploitation of women by men (aka porn, etc)– to protect women from the tangible, life-destroying harms caused by having male sexuality FORCED upon us by any means possible.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are simply seeking to *preserve* male control over female bodies and reproduction via hetero-nuclear-family units (women=chattle!) and the delusion of our sacred virginity (which men are also entitled to, duh).

DIFFERENT.

Hugo can tell the fucking difference too. He’s hoping that his intellectually inferior audience, however, won’t. Apparently. He’s the Good Guy, you know. Not scared by women’s burlesque dancing and very smart too! Exceptional, even! My favorite! :) So he endears himself to the moronic, narcissistic, and PIV-loving masses; while discrediting you all at the same time. Brilliant!

…as long as no one notices that he’s making a blatantly disingenuous analogy, of course. No self-serving ulterior motive, I’m sure. ;P

15. SheilaG - September 9, 2010

It is the self-serving ulterior motives that make me nuts about people like Hugo, and there are loads and loads of them.

Back in the day, these guys used to fool me. I actually thought men were sincere in their feminism, until, well, until they never seemed to get certain things.

And what is stunning, is that FCM was on to him from the get go, and even before we even read his blog or his admissions of guilt– sex with the students, we just knew he had been up to no good.

Again, men teaching women’s studies is highly suspect. In situations where women are young and vulnerable these preditors are always trolling the waters. They believe that being 30 or 31 and having sex with a 20 to 21 year old woman is causing no harm to her whatsoever. I don’t think women easily recover from this stuff, as you will find out by talking to friends decades later.

Four wives, and all this sexually preditory behavior should be reason enough not to be allowed to teach women’s studies ever in my book, and people like that should atone by “recusing” themselves, but men will never do that unless forced to do so.

Imagine if this guy really accepted the challenge and invited all of us to debate HIM on HIS blog about all of this, and then we’ll see just how open to feminism he truly is. The feminism ends at the sexual access — in fantasy life as well as in real life — with women. Imagine taking a class from this guy, knowing full well that he is still thinking sexually about his students in a women’s studies class no less.

I don’t know about you, but I took a few early women’s studies classes in the late 70s, one from a nationally revered pioneer women’s historian. The classes were a complete revelation, and I never forgot the caring, the scholarship, the electric nature of the lecture hall, and how those women cared about all us students. We were taken seriously, and never once did we have to worry about a sordid history of sexual use of young women from them, never.

Men should be ashamed forever for this behavior, and yet, they feel nothing because they are sociopaths of a sort. And they’ll make more inroads into departments where women aren’t aware of their pasts.

factcheckme - September 9, 2010

Wow! An actual challenge to one of my proofs! Let me take a look at it and bbl.

16. thebewilderness - September 9, 2010

Every time a woman demands the men get their boot off our neck some guy immediately changes the subject to how the boot is positioned on our neck.
The idea that we want neither a religious boot on our neck nor a pornographers boot on our neck or any other bodies boot on our neck is just too much of a threat to the dominance submission paradigm that they are dependent upon.

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

i love, love, love all this paradigm talk. its exactly what the fun-fems are missing from their discourse: actual THEORY and a map of how the world works. the thought of paradigm-shifting is one that i have to consciously keep in the front of my mind, or it gets lost, for months or even years at a time. for example, the talk about female pleasure existing OUTSIDE the realm of sex, and specifically outside the realm of PIV-centric sexuality makes me so, so happy, and its where the “on credibility” thread ended up. and i am so glad it did. no one, and i mean NO. ONE. is talking about this stuff, anywhere else. radfem blogs are where its at!

re: my proofs, upon review i still believe that they are true. and i am pretty well convinced that old “jutgory” is a troll.

but in case anyone is wondering, what i couldve done is put the “example” after the first part of the second frame, because the first part of the second frame is really what the example illustrates: A = B; B = C; therefore A = C. its a classic logical proof and theres nothing wrong with it. what it DOESNT DO, and what NO logical proof does, is prove that the ASSUMPTIONS i asked everyone to make in the first part of the second frame, are true in the first place. all a logical proof does is make sure your conclusions follow from your asumptions. in this case, they do. in the article, i also suggested that the ASSUMPTION that sex is pleasurable, for women, is a faulty assumption in the first place. and my assumption that “piv = female risk” is an assumption that the fun-fems would dispute. they have a terribly weak argument, but i guarantee they would NOT accept this assumption. oh well. the proof is still true.

in short, in the first part of the second frame, we have A, B, and C equalling each other. say they are all 7. sex (A) = 7. piv (B) = 7. female risk (C) = 7.

then in the second part of the second frame, i add the additional assumption that pleasure also equals 7 (it equals sex, which is A in the proof, and A = 7). so now everything equals each other: they all = 7. so pleasure does, in fact, equal female risk, which we already said equals 7 (female risk is C in the original proof, and C = 7).

but all this god and stevie wonder talk makes me seriously suspect this guy wasnt serious, in the first place. i mean really. i am not spinning a very fantastic yarn here. all these things just equal 7. thats all. what i strongly suspect happened was that someone saw that i admitted that i am not a fucking math genius, and he saw an opportunity to drop a bomb in here, and get me all riled up and unsure of myself, and to create doubt about the validity of the post. but thats why logic, and logic proofs are so great: you dont really have to be a math whiz, you just have to be able to walk through it, and get to the other side. they can try to confuse you with stevie wonder is love, and god plays a mean blues piano, but in the end, they out themselves as trolls.

17. thebewilderness - September 10, 2010

I have no clue what a logic proof is. All I know is that whenever women object to rape, men ask them why they hate sex.

Actually I do know what a logic proof is. I looked it up.

18. dbd - September 10, 2010

SheilaG – I just wanted to tell you how brilliant your comment #11 is.

FCM, thank you for providing a forum for discussing these issue.

Hugo: if you’re reading this, I am highly amused at how threatened you and your ilk are at the very idea that women might not need men and PIV in their lives. I’m done with PIV and deal with men sparingly, on a case-by-case basisc. I wonder why my quality of life continues to improve…

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

Well said bewilderness. And you don’t have to diagram everything, that’s for sure. In the end, its the content of what radfems are saying that’s the problem, not the delivery. But when it came to this topic, this day, I was moved to diagram. Yes I was. This sex poz shit is a fucking nightmare, and it needs to end. Now. And I am 100% onto Hugo, as an aside.

19. dbd - September 10, 2010

Yikes – sorry about the spelling errors there.

20. Katie - September 10, 2010

Hi FCM! Let me introduce myself. I followed Hugo’s blog over here because I was starting to get really irritated with his privileged bullshit and I thought, “wow, he’s seriously mansplaining to some woman… I bet I’m going to like whatever she has to say.”

And sure enough, I loved the stuff you were saying and have added your blog to my Google reader. “Femonade” seriously describes it. Like, all of the concerns I’ve been having in the fun-femosphere that I never quite articulated, here you are saying them so clearly and just, YES!

Anyway, I thought I’d chime in here in response to the issue with the logic that JutGory pointed out. Actually, JutGory is incorrect in that there is any difference between the two parts of your second example. Both make use of the Transitive property, which works mathematically but not logically. That is, if the equals really just means “equals” in terms of value, then it works. Example:

if: 2a = 4b
and: 4b = 3c
then: 2a = 3c

and if d = 3c, then also d = 2a, and d = 4b

However, when you take it outside of math, it doesn’t always work, because the = now means something different than equal numerical value. In JutGory’s example the equals sign means something like “has the characteristic of.” So that’s a fallacy because you can’t say

sky =[has the characteristic of] blue
water = blue
therefore water = sky

But numerical value isn’t the only thing that = can mean. I think if you say “necessarily involves” then it probably still works.

sex necessarily involves PIV
PIV necessarily involves female risk
therefore sex necessarily involves female risk

Though I’m not entirely sure about the pleasure piece–I’d have to think on it a while.

But whatever, because I completely agree when you say that it’s the substance of what you’re saying, and not the vehicle for saying it, that is what is threatening. They’ll jump on any little teeny tiny piece of something that possibly looks like it might be off to attempt to discredit you so they don’t have to listen to substance of your argument.

21. FemmeForever - September 10, 2010

the one, true heterosexuality that all straight and partnered women must adhere to, no matter how disgusting, painful, morbid and ultimately deadly the consequences, to women?

A tragic and depraved Dateline report: Dangerous Connection
(An hour program split into 6 video parts. With autoplay):

Warning, this will piss you off. Greatly!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/211345/vp/38775415#38775415

22. FemmeForever - September 10, 2010
23. Chel - September 10, 2010

From a math perspective, your argument is solid: sex=female risk (a=b) & sex=pleasure (a=c) -> female risk=pleasure (b=c). Use symmetric property on the first one, so female risk=sex (b=a), and you have classic transitive property: (b=a) & (a=c) -> (b=c).

JutGory’s example uses equivalence where it should use if-then statements. Being God is not the same thing as being blind although blindness may be a characteristic God possesses. “God is blind” translates to “If it’s God, then it’s blind” (G->b). Likewise “Stevie Wonder is blind” translates to “If it’s Stevie Wonder, then it’s blind” (W->b), and the conclusion “Stevie Wonder is God” to “If it’s Stevie Wonder, then it’s God” (W->G), which is a logical fallacy. Strangely this is not much different from the radical/conservative argument from the libs, which basically goes “Conservatives are anti-porn. Radicals are anti-porn. Therefore, radicals are conservative.” Also a logical fallacy.

Anyway, the question for your proof is whether you are arguing that (e.g.) sex and female risk are the same thing (equivalent) or rather that sex necessarily involves female risk (a->b). If the former, your proof is fine; if the latter, it needs a little tweaking.

BTW, did you see Hugo’s comment about PIV in that link you posted to his blog? In case you missed it:

“And for what it’s worth, Mandos, I’ve appreciated your comments here. PIV is indeed problematic, more problematic than any other sexual activity of which I can think. Its centrality in our consciousness; the refusal to take seriously the potential negative consequences for women, the focus on men’s pleasure rather than women’s — all of this is important. It’s not an argument against PIV, it’s an argument against thoughtless PIV, against a culture of entitlement to PIV. I’m right down there with y’all on that one.

But I still contend that education, empowerment, and access to the full range of reproductive and contraceptive services can radically reshape how we think of PIV (and all other forms of sex). In the end, the gulf between the sides in this argument ain’t as big as folks seem to think, purple prose notwithstanding.”

And who do you suppose is going to do all that educating and empowering? It’s not like he was talking about the seriousness of the consequences to women or his problem with the centrality of PIV (“enveloping” crap notwithstanding) before he came across your blog.

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

i absolutely love the thought of people (a few of them anyway!) jotting down these equations and trying to solve them, at home. thanks for looking them over chel and katie! although you both seem very astute with teh numbers, and probably didnt do any actual jotting, just ran them through in your heads, yes? i had to jot three times. twice in preparation for the post, and once lastnight when i was trying to figure out wtf “jutgory” was talking about. still not sure about that one actually. usually when someone pipes up over a proof, they actually know of what they speak. jutgory, not so much. bbl.

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

heres my other logic post. with diagrams! in case anyones interested.

http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/this-is-what-a-glod-looks-like/

24. JutGory - September 10, 2010

Yes, I criticize your logical proofs, so I must be a troll.
Ugh.
Simply put: the first part is logically valid; the second part is logically invalid.
Even if what you are saying is true, the form of your syllogism is flawed.
-Jut

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

Also, re whether my intent here is to use the “equals” sign literally, to signal equality rather than “necessarily includes” I think there is an excellent argument actually that these things really are the same. Not just similar, but identical. For example, piv equals sex equals piv is pretty clear. And sex equals pleasure equals sex is also pretty much a given. Understanding of course that I am desribing how things actually ARE, and not how I wish they were, or how they should be.

And in the “intercourse” series, the case is made very well that fucking and female subservience are the same thing. I think that the harms of piv are specifically female harms, in that this is the only area i can think of, in life, anywhere in the world, that the harm or possible harm is not spread over all of humanity, or even unequally shared by women and men. These arent shared by men, AT ALL. Which makes them female, only. So a piv-centric sexuality is, in fact, the very literal definition of a specifically female harm. So yes, sex equals female harm.

Pleasure equals female harm equals pleasure is the extremely sick conclusion that follows from these extremely fucked up premises. Unfortunately, the premises also appear to be true. Which can’t be proven mathematically of course, but any sentient human would probably agree that these are the premises (or something close to it) under which we are all living, at the current time.

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

Uh oh! Someone’s fee-fees are hurt! How about responding to my extremely detailed explanation about why my numbers DO work? And to both chel and katie, who also addressed the issue at length? You know, instead of making it all about you?

Also, your speaking to me as if I am a complete dumbass, as well as the sheer ridiculousness of your little stevie wonder analogy outed you as a troll. Sorry. And now you are proving me right too, and making it too clear that your intent was to impress everyone with your big brain, rather than considering that was I was saying could actually be true, AND in the correct form, too.

Note the glaring difference in the ways chel and katie responded to the proofs, as compared to jut, too. As if I needed any more reason to believe that men are essentially worthless to these discussions. Did jut add anything to the discussion? Did he add as much as anyone else here, including chel and katie, who were addressing the exact same thing? No. He didn’t.

25. JutGory - September 10, 2010

Are my feelings hurt? No.

Was I making this whole thing about me? No. Actually, the people who immediately called me a troll did.

Do I agree with the content of your statements? No.

Is it worth arguing THAT point when there is little likelihood that either of us will be persuaded by the other? No.

Did you ask for comments on your math? Yes.

Was my comment meant to “mansplain” things to you. No. While you think the Stevie Wonder analogy outs me as a “troll,” it was more of a light-hearted way to make the point. It is the exact sort of analogy I have used in teaching deductive logic. The first syllogism is valid, regardless of the content of the statements (as you acknowledge). The second syllogism is invalid, again, regardless of the content.

Did I add as much as Chel or Katie? Maybe. It furthered the discussion, as their comments responded to mine. But, I did not feel the need to respond to them. They were looking at it from more of a mathematical perspective; I was looking at it from the perspective of deductive logic (partly based on your earlier venn diagram example, where your analysis would not work). As both of them appear to point out, and I agree, you can get different answers, depending on what you mean by the equal sign. I think deductive logic is more appropriate for the analysis you are describing, but I thought they made some perfectly valid points, so there did not seem to be a need to respond.
-Jut

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

Oh goody! Another teacher. Who has a wee problem with perspective, and seeing things from anyone else’s, instead of always from their own. So tell me, did it even occur to you to use both logic AND math, to see where I was coming from? Especially since I specifically said these were MATH related? Or that i intended my equals signs to mean equals? Considering that the first frame is entirely about math, where the equals sign literally meant equals too?

I have absolutely no problem with a thorough analysis of my work. None, whatsoever. Particularly when I take the time to diagram them, because that’s kind of the whole point in presenting these things in the language of math, and logic. So get over yourself. You are not a threat to me, at all, and that’s not why I called you a troll, at all.

26. Undercover Punk - September 10, 2010

Oh, so much to say! @FCM: TRUE. Jut added nothing, nor did he appreciate the NUANCES of the [=] sign. It can be used as a stand-in for any number of concepts–as you brilliant women have been discussing– for example, it can mean “equivalent to” or “necessarily includes” b/c it “is a subset of” or “is characteristic of.” Men are sooooo boring.

Secondly, while the proof may be logical fun, it’s really BESIDES THE POINT. The point is that men not only eroticize, but heteronormativity is ABOUT fetishizing female pain/risk/submission/suffering. THAT is what het sex and male supremacy is about. The proof is great, but regardless of how flawed it may or may not be, the social TRUTH REMAINS.

Next, interesting comment from Hugo, quoted by Chel @ 23. I have this bumper sticker on my car that says “If we can risk nuclear war, we can risk disarmament.” I think this goes for PIV too. Education and “doing it right” will NOT eliminate the risk. The RISK of pregnancy, disease and injury to women, still exists. WHO will do the education? WHO will hold the line against those who refuse to learn? WHO is dependent on the other party’s willing cooperation? WOMEN! And how about those contraceptive services?? SIDE EFFECTS FOR WOMEN! Wow, this PIV is awesome. Someone remind me again why I’m a lesbian!

@Sheila #11, I was thinking about your temperance analogy last night. It’s perfect for this! YES, sometimes radicals and conservatives seek the SAME result. For example, the neo-cons finally decided that we liberals were right about wanting to protect the/”God’s” planet. The critical point is that the ends DO NOT justify the means when it comes to women’s LIVES. WHY we seek the end is critical! It is THEORETICAL nuance that someone with a PhD should be able to understand. Granted, some feminists ARE willing to work with conservatives to reach a shared goal. History has shown that this is not effective towards OUR purposes and ideals. So again, highlighting the fact that radfems and conservatives seek a similar END is not instructive of feminism or feminist theory IN ANY WAY. But thank you anyways, SIR.

And finally, again @ Sheila #15, do I understand correctly that Hugo HAS HAD SEX WITH STUDENTS?? And has been married FOUR TIMES?? Not even gonna start. It’s a painfully obvious an abuse of power. DUH.

27. Bill - September 10, 2010

A mathematical equivalence like 2a = 7 is really two if/then statements together:

If 2A THEN 7 and
If 7 THEN 2A.

Sex = Pleasure isn’t a strict equivalence, because both criteria aren’t fulfilled. While

If Sex THEN (necessarily) Pleasure is true,
If Pleasure THEN (necessarily) Sex is NOT true, because you can get pleasure from lots of things. Like ice cream, or music, or reading.

If you add in an (unobjectionable) statement like, “reading good books = pleasure”, which follows the same pattern you’ve established, you could make an argument like “reading good books = female risk”, which is demonstrably false.

This, I believe, implies that either your premises must be false (if you are using a mathematical definition of “equals”) or that your conclusion must be invalid (if you’re using a deductive definition).

28. Undercover Punk - September 10, 2010

Sorry for commenting on the proof. I’m not really interested in that convo, just saying that the point is that male sexuality/PIV FETISHIZES female pain/risk, etc.

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

Bill, read the fucking article, and the “on credibility” convo, where we specifically address pleasure, and the very demonstrable problem of men not caring about pleasure at all, except the kind they can stick their dicks into. And as far as the sex equals pleasure assumption, I have already said that I think its false. From women’s perspective, of course. Not mens. Which is precisely because of another false assumption: that piv equals sex.

Again, these are the assumptions we are all living under, every single day. It’s not the way I wish things were, its the way things ARE. The only assumption I added that wasnt already there, is that piv equals female risk, which is true, either way or any way you slice it. It’s why sex-pos is such a problem, and not surprisingly, its the one thing the sex-poz never address.

29. JutGory - September 10, 2010

FCM: Actually, I am not a teacher; I am much worse than that.
I don’t have a problem seeing things from another point of view. My problem was that I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Using the equal sign in the mathematical sense makes no sense (for the reasons Bill pointed out). The topic you brought up is much more nuanced than the mathematical equal sign can handle.
But, no, I look forward to your attempt to make Venn diagrams of these thoughts. They will be much more complex than using simply the transitive property.
-Jut

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

I never said i was going to turn these into venn diagrams. What the fuck are you even talking about? And I already addressed bill, and why HIS problems with this material are HIS problem. Ie. He didn’t fucking read the article, or my comments, where I specifically address WHY yes, in fact, sex DOES EQUAL female harm. In the mathematical sense! And how piv in fact DOES EQUAL sex. In the mathematical sense! In fact, everyone is discussing nuance here, EXCEPT you. And i am ALSO talking straight-up mathematical equality, and how we actually think about and LIVE as if piv and sex are the same.

This shit is interesting, bro. But you keep bringing the convo back to YOU. What YOU do for a living. That YOU want to see venn diagrams next time. But guess what? You are only interesting to YOU. Sorry.

30. Ben - September 10, 2010

Hello, I just wanted to say that I recently came to your site after reading a negative, superifical-seeming critique of it on a liberal feminist blog. I’m not sure how you feel about men commenting on your posts, as you believe in female seperatism (at least for the purposes of feminist discourse). Anyway, if you’d like me to not post in the future, just tell me, and this will be my last post.

Much of what you say is difficult for me to read, since I strongly identify with men as a class. But I try to stay conscious of the nature of my emotional reactions and maintain an open mind. And I’ve found you have a lot of important insights. I had never thought of PIV as being uniquely dangerous for women as contrasted with oral or digital sex. And yet obviously it is so. So conceiving of specifically PIV as specifically dangerous is eye opening for me.

Perhaps you think it is impossible for a heterosexual male to accept the delegitimization of PIV. But I am already committed to not helping produce any biological children, mainly due to a concern for the environmental impacts of overpopulation. I believe PIV has its high status in society (among almost all straight men and some women) due to pronatalism–the need to increase the human population for the purpose of economic expansion. But I’m totally against pronatalism. So why should I continue to have a high regard for PIV, the sexual act associated with it, when PIV is also more dangerous and rarely more pleasurable (for the woman).

I’m not in a sexual relationship right now, this is something I will be thinking about, and will talk with the woman about. Elsewhere, you have indicated (I believe?) that MAABs and FAABs can’t transcend their past social conditioning. I agree that social conditioning can never never be completely unlearned. But I also hypothesize that it’s possible for men to decrease the intensity of their sexist thought patterns. It’s something I have just started trying to do on myself. So far, I’ve noticed I’ve been treating women with more respect than previously, and I’ve noticed psychological benefits for myself as well, such as being better able to understand social dynamics and having a fuller appreciation (and therefore compassion and admiration) for the unique experience of each individual.

Anyway, sorry this post is so long, feel free to moderate. One particularly ingrained MAAB tendency of mine is to be a long-winded pontificator.

31. Ben - September 10, 2010

I need to proofread. The first sentence of my 4th paragraph should read, “I’m not in a sexual relationship right now, but next time I’m in one, this is something I will be thinking about, and will talk with the woman about.”

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

Wow! This post is really bringing out teh menz. Gee whiz mister Wilson! I wonder why??

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

Granted, it probably has something to do with all the fun fem publicity I’m getting lately…but that alone wouldn’t account for the lack of oh say FEMALE fun fems commenting here, now would it? Just thinking out loud here.

32. thebewilderness - September 10, 2010

So then last week it was all about not enough women dying as a result of PIV for anyone who matters to care, and this week PIV is sorta problematical for women but yanno any minute now “we” can change the way “we” think about it back to the way “we” already think about it because thoughtful PIV with contraception will make it so.
Criminy! That Hugo is teh enormous mendacious disembodied anus of the first water.

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

Yes, that about sums it up I’d say. And any change in his perspective on this issue has been due to mandos, and his comments. WE are all still verily insane. Especially me!

33. Katie - September 10, 2010

This all just makes me so sick. Especially because for so long I thought Hugo was TEH AWESOME!

Partially because I am a Christian and there are not a lot of Christian feminists out there blogging.

But over time I guess I’m getting more radical because his privilege started to really creep through and now I can’t believe I ever thought he was anything but just another privileged guy out to maintain the status quo and mansplain away the inconvenient arguments of feminism while affirming the ones he likes—just enough to get admired and keep his stolen job and maintain his male privilege while also earning cookies from funfems!

Thank god I found this blog.

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

I should say alleged or possible change. What he’s actually saying is “status quo, yippee!”

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

Also, for anyone who wants more reading on “pleasure” cause they, you know, just showed up here without reading SHIT and decided to jump right in…start with “men are sexual beings” and work your way forward. We have been discussing these things for months, and you all are way behind. Srsly.

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

Katie, men like hugo are skilled manipulators. That’s number one. So if you feel badly about having been duped, well, DO feel what it feels like, to have been duped, by a skilled manipulator. Don’t NOT feel badly about it: that let’s old Hugo off the hook once again, for leaving victims, real female victims in his wake.

But after you feel your feelings about that, know that you aren’t the first one. Hugo has had many victims in his life, and he’s making more. Now, maybe you will know what to look out for. Or perhaps you will get cynical, like me I mean like SHEILA. Haha. Anyway, welcome. Im actually pretty happy to have a Christian math geek reading. You might be the first!

34. Bill - September 10, 2010

“And I already addressed bill, and why HIS problems with this material are HIS problem. Ie. He didn’t fucking read the article, or my comments, where I specifically address WHY yes, in fact, sex DOES EQUAL female harm. In the mathematical sense!”

With all due respect, I feel like your second assertion is incorrect. Sex does not equal female harm in the mathematical sense, because women can get harmed in many other ways. For example, broken legs, and headaches, and bullet wounds are all also things that could lead to female harm but are not considered sex.

Thus, both sides are not valid:

If Sex THEN Female harm but NOT
If Female Harm THEN Sex.

Thus, the equal sign should not be used in a mathematical way.

As far as your first diagram goes, I believe that mathematical language is uniquely unqualified to discuss a nuanced word with shifting definitions. An example:

(I think that all of these premises are valid from a radfem perspective, and they lead to the same conclusion):

Oral = Sex
Oral + Digital = Sex
Oral + Digital + Mutual Outer Masturbation = Sex

Q: What is the value of Digital?
Q: What is the value of MOM?
A: Nothing.

Because oral and digital are both sufficient but not necessary conditions for sex, any strict syllogism of that sort is going to come up with the conclusion that one of them is worthless — or both! — which I think we would both agree is false.

I should point out, perhaps, that none of this invalidates(what I saw as) the central thesis of this piece, that male sexuality/PIV-centrism is dangerous.

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

Bill, “female harm” means harms that are uniquely female, as i have already motherfucking explained. READ! LISTEN! Fucking shit. We are not talking about “oh dear, shit happens, could’ve happened to anyone” types of harms. And piv IS, as in LITERALLY EQUALS, IN A MATHEMATICAL SENSE, female harm. Female. Harm. Get it?

Read the comment again, where i specifically state that, and explain it in detail. It’s impossible to refute, but you haven’t even tried, beyond just saying its not true. Which is why its infuriating me that you are continuing on and on. It does make perfect sense though, because “oh dear, shit happens” kinds of harm are THE ONLY harms that men experience. This IS how YOU experience harm. But guess what? This post is not about you. Check your privileged perspective, and keep reading, if you can.

35. Bill - September 10, 2010

“And piv IS, as in LITERALLY EQUALS, IN A MATHEMATICAL SENSE, female harm. Female. Harm. Get it?”

I’m afraid I still don’t. Because, “PIV literally equals in a mathematical sense female harm” means

PIV always entails female harm AND female harm always entails PIV.

While I understand the argument for the first part, it is not at all clear to me how “female harm always entails PIV.”

I apologize for the stupidity, but is your argument just: “every uniquely female harm is a direct result of PIV?”

In that case, it is your premise I disagree with and not your use of mathematical “equals.”

You asserted that you were being nuanced in your interpretation, but a mathematical symbol is inherently without nuance. In this case, I think using one undermines any possible subtlety and leaves the argument vulnerable to semantic disproof.

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

Dammit! I got out the MF on that one. I think that’s a first.

36. Bill - September 10, 2010

Sorry if this is an overcomment, but I’ve read everything here for the past 9 months or so; I just felt compelled to comment on this piece in particular because it seemed like you were inviting dispassionate analysis of your usage.

I suspect that might be the cause for the spike in male comments, in general.

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

Because unwanted pregnancies are always caused by piv. That’s why. Also, I believe I initially used “female risk” not female harm, but its splitting hairs at this point. Anyone who wants to understand this, already understands it. Or, they are reading more, and not asking me to answer idiotic questions that we have already covered like a thousand times.

Seriously, do you get it now? If not, you have to believe that its YOU. and not me. Privilege. Check it.

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

And Srsly, define “uniquely female.” I’m not even kidding.

37. Katie - September 10, 2010

I’m glad to be here too :) I’m sick of the dispassionate moderation of a lot of funfem blogs as well. I appreciate the community you are creating here where you participate in comment threads rather than just writing the main post and letting others hash it out. That is something I need to do more of (following up with my commenters on my blog).

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

Oh! Okay, I get it now. Old bill has been here the whole time, just waiting for an invitation to be “dispassionate” about the material. THIS material, MY material, that affects me personally every fucking day of my life, and all other women too. He also knows that i dont think men in general are even capable of adding to these discussions. Yet, heres bill.

Look dickwad. Chel and katie both responded to my math, and neither one of them were dispassionate about it, at all. So make sense of THAT with your big brain, if you can. But really, I don’t think you will be able to, now or ever. Care to prove me wrong? Please do. And do it on your own time.

I am done with old bill here. Anyone else want to take a crack at him?

38. Bill - September 10, 2010

I entirely understand this point:

PIV always entails female risk. Uniquely female risk, insofar as there are many risks associate with sex that ONLY affect FABs (or ciswomen, if that’s your preferred term). Risks such as unintended pregnancies, which can cause death. A greater exposure to STDs, which can cause death. Increased risk for cancer, which can cause death.

All of this makes PIV at least problematic.

However, I don’t understand the other side of the mathematical equivalence, namely,

Female risk always entails PIV.

I am not disagreeing with the spirit of the article — that is, of course, not my place. I’m disagreeing with the mathematical syllogism that was set up, and arguing that you used a deductive equals sign as a mathematical one and got invalid results.

39. Bill - September 10, 2010

I have not been waiting for an invitation to be “dispassionate.” I’ve just read enough comment threads to know that it is generally unwelcome when a man comments in a way that is angry, dismissive, or appropriating.

Rather, I have been waiting for an opportunity where I thought I could add something of value that wasn’t inevitably colored by my having privilege.

I thought that this was a fairly objective point in a discussion where even a man could have something to add.

If this assumption was incorrect, I apologize. But the implication that I was simply reading and waiting for an opportunity to be pedantic is unfair.

I never claimed to have a “big brain”; I was simply responding to what I thought was a legitimate request to be factchecked.

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

Bill, this has been explained. Now, I absolutely require that YOU figure this out. It helps if you actually WANT to understand it, too.

Female. Harm. Think about it.

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

It was a legitimate request bill. Don’t blame me if you simply were not up to the challenge.

40. maria - September 10, 2010

FCM- great post as always, the PIV discussions are really getting at the base of things. Dwarkin’s “Intercourse” first brought this issue to my attention, but your succinct PIV = sex makes it much easier to spread the idea around.

Nothing makes me prouder to be a radfem than to see another knock it out of the park with posts like these. =)

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

Omg. Okay, if anyone else is having the same problem bill is, try this. First, define “uniquely female harm.” Then, list one.

If you can imagine being harmed like that in any other way BESIDES HAVING A DICK PUT INSIDE YOUR VAGINA, start over. Because the harm you listed is not uniquely female.

At least, I wouldn’t give it an equals sign. Because its true, you only use an equals sign when its really, really equal.

factcheckme - September 10, 2010

I am already waiting for the “but what about in vitro”!!!!111!!1! Because, like transwomen who cant understand the difference between wanted and unwanted pregnancies, men don’t see the harm in forcing a woman to give birth. Or the fact that there’s no such thing as a “risk of a wanted pregnancy.” There’s risk FROM all pregnancies of course. But they don’t get, and will never get, what the uniquely female risks of piv are really all about.

factcheckme - September 11, 2010

Also, I thought bill making up his own “oral equals sex” equation was…quaint. wasn’t it? Does anyone want to explain to bill why he’s wrong there too? I’ll start: read the paragraph in the text, right before the graphic. I put words there for a reason. Use them.

I am also being extremely indulgent of old bill here, in that I am discussing whether the premises in my proofs are true. Anyone who really knows anything about either logic or equals signs knows that the truth of the premises don’t matter, and dont affect the validity of the proof, at all. I intended my equals signs to mean equals. And as chel said, if that was my intent, then the equations say what I want them to say. Why noone is questioning chel is anyone’s guess…oh wait. Jutgory said he didn’t have anything to say to chel, because chel made some good points. WHEN SHE SAID I WAS RIGHT.

The only premise i even care about is the one i added to the standard, mainstream assumptions about sex, that everyone already has: and that’s the one that says piv equals female harm. And i absolutely will go to the mat on this one, because I think its clearly true. So bring it on. If just the math geeks want to stick around for this one, that’s ok too. But again, the truth of this particular premise, or any of them, has nothing to do with math.

41. FemmeForever - September 11, 2010

This thread seems to be infested with maleness. I’ll come back when the blight has been exterminated.

factcheckme - September 11, 2010

You shouldve seen the ramblings of Ben I didn’t even publish, which followed the ramblings of Ben I did publish. JFC.

They just don’t get it do they? The only reason I’m even entertaining this AT ALL in case anyone is rightly wondering, is that I actually did want feedback on my proofs. I suppose I made the mistake of allowing male persons to comment on EVEN THAT. Because as much as they love to believe they are so fucking smart about teh maths…well look at chels and katies responses to teh maths, and tell me they arent about a kajillion times smarter AND more interesting than any of the men who have made it their business to add their two cents on that issue! Even though they added NOTHING to the discussion! It’s stunning, really. And bill and jutgory BOTH accused me of issuing a disingenuous call to critique my work, when I was actually very serious about it. And I AND CHEL AND KATIE TOO disagreed with their bullshit assessment of my work, and when I told teh old men’s they were both not only wrong but also boring as hell AND stinking the place up with their disgusting male privilege, and their offensive male perspective on the RIGHT, REAL WAY TO EXPERIENCE HARM, and their utter insistence that women experience harm the same way. Ie. The “could’ve happened to anyone” variety. Me, being disingenuous! That’s rich! How about their utter insistence that they had a right to continuous access to this space, even though i actually didn’t invite them in AT ALL, and anyone whose been reading here for any length of time would know that. How about actually reading the material, and engaging it in a real way, so that you understand it, instead of posting again and again how if YOU don’t understand it, then i must be wrong. And nothing about how men as a sexual class are completely invested in not understanding this material, because of their conflicts of interest.

Damn! The good news is, and it is very good news indeed, that chel and katie are apparently both well versed in teh maths. I hope they stick around, because men are just demonstrably unable to critique even the mathiest of feminist work. And part of mathematical equations and proofs will always be bouncing them off of other people.

That is all. In short, the blight has been eliminated. But I may have more to say about the way teh menz have behaved in here. And I will try not to use the MF again, because its a term that offends me, and I used it anyway. THAT’S how mad I was. I guess I brought it on myself though! Or something. By issuing a call to critique my work, and having teh menz think that this in any way applied to them, when the women were so much more capable. Ugh.

42. E - September 11, 2010

Where are you getting the idea that sex-positive feminists think PIV is the only thing that counts as sex? That fucked up misconception is certainly ubiquitous in mainstream media and sex-ed, but I haven’t encountered it from people and organizations that identify themselves as sex-positive–quite the opposite. I often see sex-positive frameworks fighting the idea that PIV is the One True Sex Act. Take a look at sexual health research from a sex-positive perspective, for example, and you’ll often see sex explicitly defined as “anything that can lead to an orgasm” or something similar along those lines, which seems like the kind of definition that does precisely the kind of work you’re looking to do toward decentralizing PIV. Yes, sex-positive feminism generally disagrees with your assertion that PIV is inherently anti-feminist, but it doesn’t follow from that that sex-positive frameworks consider non-PIV sex acts worthless.

Also:

Apples = fruit
Apples + strawberries = fruit
Apples + strawberries + pears = fruit

All accurate. But those statements don’t imply that the value of strawberries and pears is zero, or that they’re not fruit.

43. factcheckme - September 11, 2010

for anyone who feels this thread has been sullied by ballsweat and arrogance…just skip over the comments left by jutgory, bill, and ben. seriously. the conversation works just fine without them, which should tell them something. of course, they will never hear it.

factcheckme - September 11, 2010

make yourself understand where i am coming from. we have 2 math geeks here who say my proofs are mathematicaly sound. and jutgory very reluctantly conceded that they were right, so that makes 3. MAKE YOURSELF SEE WHY. i absolutely insist that you engage with this material, and do some actual work. your bullshit “equation” is not the same as mine. i insist that you figure out why. and dont come back until you have.

factcheckme - September 11, 2010

i absolutely love how many people have shown up here with bullshit analogies and logical fallacies, and used them to show that MY proofs are wrong. they are making up equations that arent like mine, and then using the incorrectness of theirs to show that mine arent true. its stunning. it really is.

regarding the first frame, MINE WORKS. yours clearly doesnt. MAKE YOURSELF SEE WHY MINE IS RIGHT, AND WHY YOURS IS WRONG. make yourself see how yours is different from mine, and its the difference that makes yours wrong. if yours was the same as mine, yours would be right too.

they just cannot accept that i might be right. they cannot do it.

factcheckme - September 11, 2010

Also, jutgory is STILL commenting here (directly into my spam folder now) that “yes your math is right, but your PREMISES are wrong!!!111!1!” Well guess what dickwad? Men were never invited here to discuss the truth of the premises. I asked whether my MATH was right, I never asked MEN to comment on that, but whatever. I allowed it. Now, they want to stick around, beyond the scope of my initial consent i might add, and mansplain to the radfems why radfem theory and my theory here, specifically, is wrong.

The math part was easy. And I did it right. So, all teh menz can leave now, and leave the real work to the feminists.

44. Undercover Punk - September 11, 2010

Thank you, FCM! Ugh, I was starting to fall asleep there. Men and math are both fucking boring, predictable, and way too easy. Let’s talk about how radfem theory interacts with real women’s LIVES. There are CRITICAL distinctions between sex-pos and radfem terminology and goals.

@E #42, I agree that sex-pos often seeks to EXPAND the kind of acts that can be reasonably considered sex-ual. It wants to make a huge umbrella that encompasses all sexual behavior. That’s fine. Whatever. HOWEVER, my conplaint is that it still substantially fails to address the HARMS that this all-important “sex” causes women whenever penises are involved. Which is still *usually.* Sex-pos lacks any political insight or criticism as to WHY it is necessary for us to work *so hard* to think beyond PIV, or even to see PIV as it really is: inherently harmful to female bodies. Additionally, sex-pos fails to draw boundaries around the sexualization of VIOLENCE in any way. No boundaries! I suppose that pedophilia is still mostly bad according to sex-pos, but only because it’s a social taboo, not because there’s any intelligent analysis about *abuse of power.* (s/he consented, it’s all good! I love to eroticize power– I wonder why? Oh, let’s not think about!) Sex-pos is narcissistic, self-indulgent, self-gratifying, and consumerist. It is NOT feminism or feminist. Even if some women “benefit” from it. That alone is NOT enough to qualify as feminist or as politically valuable. Sex-pos is mind-numbingly obsessed with personal pleasure. It’s hedonistic, not political!

AND AND AND: The PRIMARY beneficiaries of sex-pos practice are MEN. *Why* do men specifically embrace this kind of “liberal feminism”??? Because it literally SERVES them. It is now VERY COMMON for women to fantasize about being raped! And it is now socially acceptable for people to use “rape talk,” to JOKE about rape. I consider this a direct result of a culture infested with sex-positive refusals to criticize ANYthing “sexual.” Even those practices that DIRECTLY, and obviously, HARM female bodies.

45. berryblade - September 11, 2010

‘Anything that results in orgasm’ being you know, totally not problematic on any level. What’s the bet E is a man, a deluded male who thinks he’s a woman, or a sex pozzer?

I hate maths, but I love the real discussion being had here, and well, it made sense to me and anything more than a year 10 level algebra does my head in.

factcheckme - September 11, 2010

Yes good catch there bb. Because rape causes orgasm, usually in the rapist. That’s how the rapes and murders of women that are solved, are solved: by the rapists dna being left at the scene. From semen. But the sex-pos crowd probably prefers to believe the dna came from the rapists bubble gum being left behind. Sure, that must be it.

46. Undercover Punk - September 11, 2010

YES, berryblade! Orgasm=unconditional goodness. That is sex-pos.

47. berryblade - September 11, 2010

Okay, i’m so I’m at work at the moment and i work as the door womon at a bar right, my manager just told me i have to let womyn in for free for the next hour because in his words ‘its a sausauge fest’ … Here is the piv entitlement again, and female harm being connected. We never normally do this and i thought my outrage at this shit might add something to the discussion here. I’ll give this and all the posts i’ve been meaning to respond to some work after work (winkwinknudgennudge undercoverpunk)

factcheckme - September 11, 2010

they also seem completely in the dark about the fact that MOST WOMEN CANT ORGASM FROM PIV. so PIV should NOT even be on thier list, if they believe that anything that causes an orgasm is sex. unless they only care about male-gasms of course. which in fact IS all they care about. duh. women have been complaining about PIV for centuries people! its because it doesnt feel that good, or it doesnt feel that good COMPARED TO HOW RISKY IT IS.

another example of this risk/benefit analysis would be food allergies. i have food allergies, but they arent that bad. i wont die from eating the food that i am sensitive to, but it will make me ill, some more so than others, some more immediately than others. i avoid all the ones that make me severely ill. some of the others i will eat on occasion, but very infrequently. it took me a long time to get the hang of this, and to put my own physical wellbeing at the top of my list of priorities. but now, i dont miss many of the foods that i onces absolutely loved. well…i dont miss them enough to actually EAT them, ever again.

when it comes to PIV…well imagine having a deathly allergy to seafood…and your fucking husband insists on taking you out to a seafood restaurant every night! or once a week. or once a month. whatever! ANY amount of taking a seriously seafood-allergic person out to eat at a seafood restaurant is extremely selfish, and its dangerous as hell. stabbing her in the thigh with an epi-pen before every meal would, of course, be sadistic, selfish, short-sighted, and cruel. and it wont even always WORK.

i wonder too if giving up so many of my favorite foods for the sake of my health and comfort has made me see some of this PIV shit for what it is too. i would completely and totally eat an entire pizza topped with a dozen bagels with a chocolate cake for dessert, if i didnt know i would be sick for a week from the first bite. its just not worth it. if i dont care how i feel, or if i feel like crap every fucking day of my life, who will care? this is a serious question. and i have to get up and go to work every day, regardless of how i feel.

and many if not most of the things that are wrong with us are just like this: things we are actively doing to make us sick, that if we stopped doing, we would feel better. this consumer culture of ours is very convincing, when it tells us that if we are ill, its because of something we ARENT doing, or something we need, or need more of. cha-ching! rather than telling us the truth, which is very often that its something we ARE doing, or doing too much of, thats making us sick, and that we should JUST STOP.

JUST. FUCKING. STOP.

factcheckme - September 11, 2010

another thing thats really interesting is that there are people here who have allegedly been reading for months…and they are STILL HERE READING. why would that be? if you came across a blog where someone was just clearly insane, and wasnt making a lick of sense, would you keep reading? for months? i wouldnt. would you endlessly talk about them and quote them and link to them and argue with them? if they were LITERALLY INSANE? nope. i think there are people here who think i might be onto something, in many ways. with trans. with pop-culture shit. with domestic violence. BUT when it comes to PIV…well now i am just nuts! imagining a heterosexuaity that doesnt include PIV AT ALL? now thats just crazy talk!

same thing happened to mandos over on old bungholios “eros” thread. apparently, mandos is some kind of internet superstar (and a legend in his own mind too, but i will let that slide). the liberal peeps love him, AND he has extra street cred with them by taking on the evol radfems, when he thinks they are wrong. well, in this case, old mandos thinks i am right. and instead of saying “wow, we know mandos is really smart and he doesnt take shit from the radfems, and yet he agrees with them on this one…could there be something to this?” no! they say “wow mandos, we are really disappointed with you, maybe you arent as smart as we thought.” same thing happened to me here on this thread. old jutgory basically said my venn diagrams on the “glod” post were impossible to argue with…so he knows i know logic, and i know how to think, and i am not stupid. and yet here, on this thread, where i am suggesting that PIV need not be included in het sexuality, all of a sudden i am unable to be logical, and i am just not making any sense, at all. EVEN THOUGH HE ALSO SAID MY PROOFS WERE MATHEMATICALLY CORRECT.

sheila jeffreys noticed the same thing in “spinster.” she observed that the early feminists were notably progressive in other areas, and even today they are recognized as such, IN SOME AREAS. they cared about women, they were honest, and brave, and smart, and stood on solid theory. but when it came to being PIV-critical…now they arent progressive anymore at all. now they HATE women. now they are religious zealots. now they hate men too. now they are unable to think critically about anything. now they are stupid cunts and bitches, and shut the fuck up.

in this ONE AREA, no matter what else they might think about anything, and how much credibility they have earned as decent thinkers, anyone who is PIV-critical is simply unable to be believed. even people who are already known to be trustworthy, and able to critically think, and have womens best interests at heart…suddenly are liars, and unable to be rational, and HATE WOMEN. they just cannot imagine that we might actually be right about this, too. because they dont WANT us to be right. because anything that gets in the way of a PIV-centric sexuality is simply not an option. if our being right costs them their right to mandatory PIV, the cost is TOO HIGH.

factcheckme - September 11, 2010

thats right, i said EARNED. credibility.

48. m Andrea - September 11, 2010

Btw, I am quietly lurking and totally loving this post!

But I do have an off-topic question for Sheila Jeffreys, if she comes over here too, and I am absolutely dying of curiosity…

49. SheilaG - September 11, 2010

I feel that FCM has done a huge service to the cause of radical feminism. I have long intuited that men have never given a damn about what they do to women. They seem permanently unable to truly engage in women based on who we are, and always insist on controlling the conversation.

But this conservation about how men absolutely have no idea that PIV might be deadly for women, or that they could stop this sexual behavior completely never crosses their minds.

I must admit, I never gave this much thought either, and have been completely ignorant of what men really do sexually to women. As a radical lesbian, the very idea of PIV is horrifying to me, as is the idea of having a man in bed with me. Just totally creeps me out. Men are bad enough IRL but to have them live with you is shocking beyond belief.

Anytime I make new women friends who are straight in particular, it is only a matter of time before they tell me about being abused by men as kids, being abused by ex-husbands or boyfriends, being so abused by men that they must still be in a state of PTSD.

After reading this blog in particular, I have more of an idea of just what kind of war zone my straight women friends have actually lived in for most of their lives.

Since women sense my absolute commitment to separatism… I live it mostly and am somewhat cautious about talking to straight women about it, because they can freak out and get defensive and male defending. But somehow, as I’ve learned from this blog, they seem to sense that I now know somewhat of what they have suffered.

That men never think of women’s suffering and persist in demanding this kind of sex is extraordinary to me. As I’ve said about history, the very fact that death in childbirth was one of THE major causes of death to women throughout the majority of human recorded and pre-recorded history, and that men never started a huge movement to put a stop to male killing of women, speaks volumes about men’s total lack of consciousness about the profound violation of women’s bodies and human rights.

The math equations, which I think are an excellent way to get at this, open up this knowledge to men reading this. That they are potential killers of women, that they infect women with STDs, that they have raped women— and not fully comprehended this causes all the men who come here to get radically uncomfortable. They now know what it is that men do. It has been very concretely explained, and yet they still will get defensive, because then they’d have to admit that they have committed all these crimes against women they said they loved– on a good day.

I am almost beginning to believe that men aren’t fully morally human. They have been so evil to women for so long, have killed so many women in childbirth– both with the poisonous medical profession, with drugging women (birth control), with raping women who are drunk… with keeping women pregnant not once but dozens of times, and still losing no sleep over this behavior.

In fact, they are going to argue till the end of time that they love women, or that they are not harming women, or that PIV is a “choice” women engage in. That women actually enjoy, they really enjoy PIV.

The idea of what makes women completely happy is so utterly alien to men. They have been so egocentric, so brutal, so amoral, so selfish, so narcissistic, there is no redemption for them ever IMHO. I believe they have proved themselves worthless to women, and I regard them more and more as something closer to simeons.

Can any man ever come here and really think about this? No, not likely, because they would have to admit to the women they killed, used and raped. They would have to confess these crimes and think of the implications of their entire view of sexuality.

Women’s pleasure. Well I have described that a day in the park, or listening to lovely music at sunset, being with women friends over fine wine at a good new place. That is heaven. Places where all women gather to talk happily together free of male interference or male presense is a burst of happiness for me. Hey, when I get a huge paycheck, knowing that men won’t get a penny of it, and that it was hard earned… that makes me happy.

Seeing Hugo for all the truth of his horrifying behavior toward women, and the fact that he can’t face these crimes… knowing what we all know, I don’t think any woman should ever take any of his classes ever again. You can completely boycott a professor like that, and make his crimes known to all.

I feel for the young women conned and manipulated by guys like that. So if any good comes out of this, I hope it really gives good information to young women. I’d hate for you all not to know about this, or to have never been exposed to this point of view.

It is a great service of straight radical feminists, because I have always known that women have no safety or no real life as long as they continue to associate and become dependent on men.
As long as the enemy, the PIV killer is in the house, this undermines the cause of women’s freedom.

But I am realistic to know that women are ambivilent, and that men constantly figure out new ways to get sexual access to young women… now they teach women’s studies and pretend to be feminists. In my day, I’d never have dreamed of this tactic. I never dreamt of the day that MTFs would come into lesbian groups either.

Men will stop at nothing to colonize, undermine and contaminate feminist awakening. They have no morality other than their own pleasure seeking, women dominating ways. And so I don’t have a math forumla, but I believe men don’t even qualify as being fully human, because they don’t take moral responsibility for killing women in childbirth, or giving them cervical cancer.

PIV = death, disease, destruction of the female soul.

factcheckme - September 11, 2010

omg i WISH any of my radfem heroes would show up here. the ones that are still alive of course. that would absolutely rock my world. on that note, if i ever disappear for like months at a time…someone call catharine mackinnon. shes a lawyer and a law professor at the university of michigan. no, i am not kidding. thanks.

factcheckme - September 11, 2010

what would you ask sheila jeffreys msandrea? or do you mean sheilaG?

50. SheilaG - September 12, 2010

Yeah it really would be so great if our radical feminist heroines could come and be a part of all of this.

Conflict of interest– men don’t want to give up PIV, because they benefit.
Everything men do they do in their interest, and no powerful group in the history of the world ever gives up its power. The group is overthrown in a revolution in some way. The feminist revolution’s challenge is to alert all women to what men are up to and how they oppress. When we define the inhumanity and oppression, we threaten those in power — men. They will purposely ‘pretend” not to understand anything here, because that is a typical male tactic. Pretend not to hear, pretend not to know the damage they do.

So they have a vested interest in appearing to be idiots, so women will waste time feeling sorry for them or wasting time trying to educate them. The whole point is for them to prevent us from educating sisters, and from creating a viable global movement to end their tyranny.

They have a conflict of interest in everything they do vis-a-vis women. IT’s why they are not a part of radical feminist discourse for the most part for this very reason. They are inherently dishonest always in how they approach this, because if women ever got a clue, their PIV shenanegans would come to an end. It would be the end of male sexuality as we know it, and I think on some level, they fear this.

factcheckme - September 12, 2010

i would say they fear it on EVERY level, sheila. giving up PIV for them would be the end of female subervience too, because it would be the end of inherently female harms that make us vulnerable and dependant on dangerous, PIV-entitled men. and it would be the end of mens victimization of women, AS WOMEN. the entire world would change. every single het relationship would change. the power dynamics of every household would change. everything would be different, if PIV ended. and men would be WORSE OFF than they are now. thats the bottom line.

men dont even care that much about orgasms anyway. this is obvious, when they dont even want to fuck you more than once in a night, as a rule, and “other acts” that cause orgasms are right out, or could be taken or left. they care about sticking their dicks into you though, oh yes they do. so theres a disconnect there, thats only explained by a vicitmization motive, not a sexual one. its so fucking obvious, it really is. they get off on placing women in harms way. so the thought of taking away their precious sexxxay literally hits them where it hurts: in the patriarchal power structure, in the sexual hierarchy, where harming women and keeping us in a permanent underclass via emotional trauma, medical events and childrearing is absolutely critical to mens success.

51. m Andrea - September 12, 2010

Sheila Jeffreys said something about transgenderism and though I wish it were true, I’m dying for more evidence unfortunately.

Only up to the 17th comment so far, but your logic is perfect FCM, the troll was playing a shell game.

Logically, the first part: sex=PIV, PIV=female, risk, sex=female risk, is correct.

sex=female risk, sex=pleasure, female risk=pleasure is not logical.

one to one substitution, easy peasy. But to damper everybody’s fire, if women reproduced with only women, pregnant women would still die.

Gawd I sound picky, don’t mind me. :)

52. m Andrea - September 12, 2010

I think the point is men don’t care that women die. Martin Luthor said “If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that’s why they are there.”

factcheckme - September 12, 2010

If women reproduced with only women, there would be no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy. You are basically saying “what about in vitro!!!11!!1″ keep reading the comments, you will see why I think this is funny. Men can and do rationalize both pregnancy and injury and death in childbirth as a “medical event” that they do not see as sex-specific at all. Because men experience medical events toooo!!!!111!1 (Yes, they are insane.) But an unwanted pregnancy has more connotations to it than a “mere” medical event, and risk of an unwanted pregnancy in itself has no correlate in men’s experience. That’s probably why they can’t see that it matters, and why not a single fucking one of them could fathom the concept of a uniquely female harm, or even a uniquely female RISK, especially one arising from piv.

If anyone was going to take me to the mat on this, I would actually say that birthing injuries in themselves aren’t even uniquely female, because they could be characterized as a medical event, which men experience too. Sure, why not? Even if I allow them that insane concession, they still lose, even when they are framing the discussion in their own terms. Which I love.

Because the risk of an unwanted pregnancy is its own thing, and its uniquely female, and unlike in vitro, which can also kill you of course, ONLY piv carries with it the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, and ONLY for women. And even if no medical event ever occurs, ie she doesnt get pregnant, the RISK was still there. The risk itself is a harm. It’s stressful as hell, and we have to take increasingly dangerous precautions to mitigate the risk! Again, something men have no concept of.

All in vitro pregnancies are, of course, wanted.

factcheckme - September 12, 2010

If we ever get to the point that ANY in vitro pregnancies are unwanted…well I should think that feminism will have failed, and we can all just go home. If we still have any.

Thanks for looking over teh maths, ms a. I was hoping you would!

factcheckme - September 12, 2010

Also, in vitro is a relatively new technology, so anyone who says that because you can get pregnant without PIV now, that piv isn’t the one and only cause of pregnancy is basically conceding that my points are correct through about 1970 or so. Basically the entirety of human history. I would call that a win. At that point I would ask if they honestly believe that in vitro has changed the nature or extent of womens sex-based oppression worldwide, or lessened the harms to women of piv? Which of course it hasnt. So now I get 1970-date too. Heh. It’s just so obviously a disingenuous dodge, but it still doesnt even work, even when you allow them their insane concession.

53. Undercover Punk - September 12, 2010

Word. 1970. FCM, it’s YOURS. And is anyone SERIOUSLY worried about the survival of the species?? Give me a break! Humans are among the most vile creatures alive. We don’t even *deserve* to survive– especially when our survival (in current context) results in the extinction of so many OTHER species. We are not more important than any of them. Duh.

Anyways, anyways, I’m gonna say it again: FCM has this PIV analysis on LOCK DOWN.

FCM’s detailed articulations here of why PIV=female harm/risk/death/stress/pain/oppression is a HUGE intellectual service to everyone who is still thinking with the limitations of the pervasive hetero paradigm (which is nearly everyone, of course). As a lesbian separatist, I must admit that I get very bored of talking about sex with men. Really, that’s what the whole world does all the time! But in unconditionally loving way, of course. The SEX POS way.

Which is why this is such such critically important work: documenting, analyzing, and VALIDATING WOMEN’S EXPERIENCES of PIV. Our entire LIVES are defined by it. Our lives are dictated by when and whether men have “sex” with us– consensually or not. For the first time in documented history, *some* women in *some* places have the opportunity to “safely” decline the PIV-lifestyle. Obviously, there is still danger (rape) and loss of social rewards, but it can be done.

This work, this PIV-critical analysis, is beneficial to all women, everywhere and we cannot afford to ignore it.

WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS TRUE. Why else are they reading?? As FCM has said, I may find The Crazies amusing from time to time, but I stop reading their blogs pretty quickly. It’s borrrring. Lurkers and haters are here cause we’re RIGHT and they’re SCARED.

so the thought of taking away their precious sexxxay literally hits them where it hurts: in the patriarchal power structure, in the sexual hierarchy, where harming women and keeping us in a permanent underclass via emotional trauma, medical events and childrearing is absolutely critical to mens success.

Precisely. HA! FCM, you’re getting just as dangerous as the calls for absolute separatism! Without PIV, men are nothing! Sheila G explains exactly how they will respond @#50. Stupidity, selective hearing, and discrediting us ala the Crazie Suffragists/Separatist. Predictable as fuck. Literally.

We have to keep speaking our Truth or women will be forever entrapped in the harm and the consequences of PIV.

54. veganprimate - September 12, 2010

What irritates me is that once humans figured out where babies came from, then intercourse should have been taken out of the sexuality rotation EXCEPT when reproduction is wanted (by the woman, not the man). I’m assuming that since humans have to be told about sex, that they originally started doing it by watching the animals do it. At that time, they weren’t aware where babies came from.

But eventually, they figured it out. And I can only assume that by the time they figured out where babies came from, they had already figured out manual and oral ways to achieve orgasm.

So, the logical thing would be to stop having intercourse unless you are specifically trying to make a baby. If we were not in a patriarchy, I’m sure that’s what would have happened.

But no, that’s not what we have. Her: “I don’t want to have a baby right now.” Him: “OK, stick this metal implement in your uterus…and we can continue to have intercourse.” Her: “I don’t want a baby right now.” Him: “Well, how about some synthetic hormones about which we have only a crude understanding? Or, I could wrap my dick in something that may potentially be an allergen or irritant to your delicate tissues.”

Here’s a novel idea. How about just not having fucking intercourse if you aren’t trying to make a goddamned baby?

factcheckme - September 12, 2010

Yay! Veganprimate is back.

55. E - September 12, 2010

I’m a math geek too. 1) Katie and Chel both pointed out potential problems with your 2nd example that you haven’t acknowledged (yes, they mostly agreed with your conclusions, but they also pointed out flaws in how you got there), and 2) saying that anyone who points out a problem and doesn’t totally agree with you hasn’t “done the work” or “engaged with the material” is bullshit. You’re responding with dodges, not logic–why don’t you explain how my example is different than yours? Katie and Chel didn’t touch your first “equation,” probably in part because it’s so obviously absurd as you’ve presented it. If the only response you have to criticism is “MAKE YOURSELF SEE WHY MINE IS RIGHT, AND WHY YOURS IS WRONG.” then maybe you need to brush up on your math and actually consider the points other people are making.

I haven’t questioned the validity of your basic premises, so whether or not I agree with them should be irrelevant. What’s relevant is that you’re attributing positions to sex-positive feminists that they don’t hold, and making sketchy conclusions that don’t follow from your starting assumptions at all.

I never said “anything that results in orgasm,” the example I used was “anything that can lead to an orgasm.” Very different things, especially for women, and in the contexts I’m talking about (surveys where people are asked about their own sexual behavior) there are very clear opportunities to differentiate rape from sex. I don’t think “Orgasm=unconditional goodness” or anything of the kind. I do think PIV has been way, way too centralized by mainstream, heterocentric, phallocentric ideals of sexuality, but those ideals aren’t sex-positive either.

factcheckme - September 12, 2010

No, E, you are bullshit, and your bullshit fruit-based analogy is bullshit. Here’s why: people can generally conceive of the concept of “fruit” without any particular fruit being central or necessary to their concept of fruit. But noone in the sex-poz crowd, or in fact anyone except straight radical feminists apparently, can conceive of the concept of heterosexual sex without piv being central and necessary to their conception of sex. So your fruit analogy, isn’t.

Any or all of your fruits, individually or together, would “have the characteristics of” fruit. But say oral or digital would not be sex, unless piv was also present. And I am talking about a single encounter, where piv is central to the encounter as a sexual encounter that could include “other acts too.” And old hugos insistence that we all engage in “mindful piv” to correct the problems with “sex” and its problematical nature for women is the perfect example of exactly what i am talking about.

And none of hugos sex positive fanclub called bullshit on him either, which is further evidence that you generally believe as he does: that piv alone or “with other things” is sex, but other acts alone or together without piv at all, isn’t.

Don’t post here again.

factcheckme - September 12, 2010

Actually its the entire concept of heterosexual sex, isnt it? Where individual encounters “usually” have to include piv, yes, but the sexuality itself “always” does, or eventually does, or is expected to be inclusive of piv at some point. As my own partner characterized it when I told him that i was no longer interested in piv but we could still do “other things,” YOU’RE CUTTING ME OFF????!!!11!1

His is the mainstream response, and its the sex-poz response too. Again, see hugos response to all of this, especially the enveloping crap. My partner also very helpfully reminded me that not having intercourse is grounds for divorce in states that don’t have no-fault divorce. Which is true. I reminded him that we aren’t even married. He thought it still applied, as objective criteria for what makes a sexual relationship sexual. And he’s right of course. Piv IS the standard, and its the sex-poz standard too.

56. SheilaG - September 12, 2010

Yes, what if women did “cut men off” — the end of PIV, the end of risk for women. The risk that women who actually really wanted children would be honored. You’d have special government subsidies just for women who would risk pregnancy, and it would be a big big deal.

I’m guessing that women knew about how babies were made a lot sooner than men, just as women discovered seeds and agriculture began. I think for eons, women hide this information from men, and actually developed many birth control methods in secret. They didn’t trust men at all with this information, because when men went after it, they turned it into the male medical system, they took jobs away from midwives, they burned witches, and they killed women all the time, because the male medical establishment couldn’t even bring itself to wash it’s hands between the morgue and the baby section of a hospital.

I still have to remind male doctors to wash their hands more thoroughally! They don’t like it when women take charge.

57. rhondda - September 12, 2010

In my experience, PIV is ownership, like Don Juan’s notches on his belt. He fucks you, he owns you, except when he has to be responsible for the results. Then it is all the women’s fault. ” She got pregnant to trap me, or more insidious, she cares more for her kids than me. Oh the jealous god. Or, yet again, ‘she is a slut, pass her around. Don’t you agree? Women is evil incarnate. My needs are more important that her health,”
In my 61 years on earth, I have never met one man who put my needs and health ahead of his. Not one, from my father, my brother, my ex, my sons and yet I am supposed to put them first. Go figure. Fuck them all.

58. rhondda - September 12, 2010

Ah, Sheila you are right, but the thing is when you cut them off they get violent. One man with which I did have a decent sexual relationship suddenly told me that what he wanted was a sexual slave. I was so shocked and at the same time I knew because I had let him in my home that he could do whatever he wanted and I had no recourse, after all I let him in so I must have wanted that. I told him that of course he could do what he wanted because he was stronger than me, but he had better go all the way and kill me because if he did what he wanted to do, and did not kill me, he would be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life, wondering if I was coming after him. That freaked him out and he left. I have never been with intimate with a man again. Of course I got this pathetic letter that said I was too good for him, so we should not continue, as if I would after that. The slimy little cad. Oh, he played the good game too, trying to be the daddy to my sons. But, that little episode told me everything I needed to know about him.

factcheckme - September 12, 2010

i absolutely love how people just cannot fathom that i am actually serious. that i intended my equals signs to mean “equals.” they just will not hear it. even self-identified math geeks are coming over here telling me that apples EQUAL fruit, in the same way that i mean that PIV equals sex. but it doesnt. apples are A KIND OF FRUIT, apples do not encompass all that we know as fruit, so that without apples we HAVE NO FRUIT. but this is exactly the situation we have with PIV and sex. PIV IS SEX. without PIV, we have no sex. you could do everything under the sun EXCEPT PIV, and have multiple orgasms with a heterosexual partner, but if someone asked you “did you have sex?” the answer would be NO. if this was all that someone was ever going to do with you, you would say that this person DOESNT PUT OUT. most people wouldnt even be in “that kind” of a relationship, because its NOT CONSUMMATED. and yes, in states where there is no no-fault divorce, ie. you need “grounds” to divorce, not having PIV is grounds for divorce. because noone is expected to be in a SEXLESS marriage.

and the goddamed sex-pozzies are saying the same damn thing with their “enthusiastic consent” and “enveloping” bullshit. that they MIGHT be willing to reimagine PIV so that its not so creepy or whatever, but they absolutely are not willing to take PIV off the table, at all. to even suggest this is “sex-negative.” DUH! old hugo has me in with the religious conservatibbs, because i am so sex-negative, that i dare suggest that PIV should be removed from the table. how dare i!

DO WE GET IT NOW? re-imagining PIV is as far as they are willing to go. to even suggest that anyone go without PIV altogether, for any reason, even to save womens lives, or to be equitable within the context of het relationships where women are unequally burdened with the consequences of PIV, would be sex-negative. BECAUSE PIV = SEX. DUH, AGAIN!

i have said that i mean my equals signs to mean equals, and i wont say it again. and i have said this at least three times: the assumptions i am using here are the way things ARE, not the way things should be, or how i wish they were. this is a key difference between radfems and fun fems in fact, so i am actually not surprised that the fun-fem brigade coming over here cant tell the difference: radfems tell it like it is, without sugar coating, bullshitting, or wishful thinking. and as of today, and in fact throughout recorded history, PIV has EQUALED SEX, in the mathematical sense. PIV = SEX = PIV. so whatever this idiotic reluctance is to see the fucking truth here, get over it. you know its true, and so do i.

59. sonia - September 12, 2010

ditto everything, plus= let alone the fact that all this normative, babymaking PIV is totally responsible for overpopulation, which is the cause of our environment woes, more than anything else.

60. SheilaG - September 12, 2010

What is so hard about seeing how the normative is reduced to a simple math formula FCM? And I notice that when the guys come here with math geekiness, they seem to be able to overlook fact that this little sex equation results in the death of real women in real pregnancies worldwide, and has for centuries. So unlike 1 + 1 = 2 — PIV also = death in many cases as well.

I’d love to know what the actual percentages were century by century of death in childbirth, and how this stacks up worldwide.

And why would people not take this blog post seriously FCM? Did men and sex pozzie women think it a kind of joke?

Have they figured out that this blog opens up possibilities that are not normative, that it doesn’t think normative is worth discussing, because everyone already validates this?

And good point Rhonda. Men can become threatening and weird once you let them into the house. That story of how Mr. Man suddenly asked you to be a sex slave out of the blue…. whoa… but it is a tactic that men prey on women with children, and pretend at first to be fathers to them… a kind of seasoning set-up period. Then they pull something like that, and he thought he’d found a good mark, and that he had a 95% chance of making you a sex slave. I’m so happy you escaped phewww.

Remember, the creation of radical feminism, and I’m not sure who the founding mother of this philosophy actually is, but once this genie was out of the bottle, it upped the anti considerably.
It’s why a lot of men coming here can’t really fathom what this discussion is truly about, and the sudden change in the very definition of sex, so that it has nothing to do with PIV could have men on the run. We could say that PIV of the future could = having a baby. So that hetero couples at the woman’s choosing only could say, ok, this PIV is for the purposes of procreation, but that’s the only time to have PIV.

One thing that always confused me when viagra first came out was over this very belief system. As a lesbian I have never had PIV, not even with artificial “Ps”– so obviously my sexual satisfaction had nothing to do with the normative hetero model. I thought (naivly) that — why would men need viagra, if they could just have sex in different ways, the woman could be made very happy, the man who took up the bulk of the pleasure for the marriage could then decide, hey it’s my wife’s turn to be completely happy, why don’t I give up PIV and focus on her? Yeah, I know lesbians are out to lunch on the hetero front, but I did wonder why men didn’t come up with something besides the penis in sex if they couldn’t function that way anyway? Right?

Well, viagra has now created a new class of difficulty because I’m willing to bet that a lot of elderly women were finally free of the husband’s demands.

I’m drifting here. If we are talking about the health of women as primary, and we want to eliminate death, premature diabetes or other pregnancy related complications, or if we wanted women’s bodies to be free of drugs like the pill, then why would this discussion not be a serious feminist topic, even among the liberal women? Or even among the liberal men like hugo?

The fact that they don’t even want to take this math or this normativity as a serious line of inquiry speaks volumes. They have yet to come up with one 100% pro woman argument in this, because men have an agenda— it is sex always = PIV, and that the health and welfare don’t count if male pleasure is impeded. Now we’re not killing men with this idea, the way PIV can and does kill women. We aren’t advocating harm to men. We are saying that the health and welfare of women should be 100%, and that if this isn’t recognized, what does it say about men? It says that they ultimately don’t give a damn about women if their P is not in the V.

61. FemmeForever - September 13, 2010

In my 61 years on earth, I have never met one man who put my needs and health ahead of his. Not one, from my father, my brother, my ex, my sons and yet I am supposed to put them first. Go figure. Fuck them all.

Wow, rhondda. I couldn’t be more impressed with you. I’m surprised you ever stepped foot (pressed finger?) here on this blog. Usually mothers of sons are the most virulent misogynists but you told the truth anyway. Just WOW!

62. berryblade - September 13, 2010

if you came across a blog where someone was just clearly insane, and wasnt making a lick of sense, would you keep reading? for months? i wouldnt. would you endlessly talk about them and quote them and link to them and argue with them? if they were LITERALLY INSANE? nope.

Exactly! I reckon a lot of these “long time lurkers” have really just shuffled over here from Hugo’s blog where you ruffled a few feathers, apparently. The least they could do is back read.

omg i WISH any of my radfem heroes would show up here.

Don’t we all, that would be so cool. I’d be sitting at my desk frothing with joy.

“If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that’s why they are there.”

Holy fucking shit. I mean, I know men say some fucking hateful shit about womyn, but that just really takes the cake.

So, the logical thing would be to stop having intercourse unless you are specifically trying to make a baby. If we were not in a patriarchy, I’m sure that’s what would have happened.

But no, that’s not what we have. Her: “I don’t want to have a baby right now.” Him: “OK, stick this metal implement in your uterus…and we can continue to have intercourse.” Her: “I don’t want a baby right now.” Him: “Well, how about some synthetic hormones about which we have only a crude understanding? Or, I could wrap my dick in something that may potentially be an allergen or irritant to your delicate tissues.”

Here’s a novel idea. How about just not having fucking intercourse if you aren’t trying to make a goddamned baby?

Yay BBB/VeganPrimate. Huzzuh. Love your analysis of contraceptives, so frickin’ accurate. Don’t forget “Or I can just pull it out, ignore your needs totally and fuck up your sheets.”

Also, E, you sir, are an ass. Because you know, anything that CAN LEAD to an orgasm is TOTALLY unproblematic as well. Your argument has more holes than swiss cheese,

there are very clear opportunities to differentiate rape from sex.

Yeah, but the thing is, most men are quite happy to admit to being rapists as long as you don’t actually use the word rape, therefore, I’m declaring your argument a load of dog eggs.

SheilaG, holy fuck, your wisdom never ends. “You’d have special government subsidies just for women who would risk pregnancy, and it would be a big big deal.” That’s a real dream, why have mandatory PIV + mandatory maternity leave when we could just improve the conditions of womyn worldwide, and make unwanted pregnancy an anachronism.

Now we’re not killing men with this idea, the way PIV can and does kill women. We aren’t advocating harm to men. We are saying that the health and welfare of women should be 100%, and that if this isn’t recognized, what does it say about men? It says that they ultimately don’t give a damn about women if their P is not in the V.

Exactly, all this nonsense about radfems wanting to kill men is just a smokescreen to hide the real problem – men’s entitlement to PIV, and the real harm that comes to womyn as a result. I was listening to the radio on my way home from university and they were discussing the conditions of birth for womyn in third world countries, and how many men just let the womyn die because they can’t be bothered with them now that they have an heir or whathaveyou. No care for them outside of the P in V, as you said Sheila.

P.S apologies if this makes no sense, but, I’ll say it, this thread > my uni class.

Rhondda, fuck, that guy sounds like a creep. Am also glad that you got him out of your life.

63. mscitrus - September 13, 2010

“you could do everything under the sun EXCEPT PIV, and have multiple orgasms with a heterosexual partner, but if someone asked you “did you have sex?” the answer would be NO.”

Pfft. This is exactly the situation I’m in. I had this conversation with a gynecologist I went to recently-I insisted I WAS having sex, just not having intercourse or giving oral. Que raised eyebrows and confusion, and being told that I’m not sexually active. Same as the morons on Hugo’s blog who totally ignored that I actually have quite a bit of sex. Apparently it doesn’t matter I have multiple orgasms because I don’t let anyone put a dick in me.

It was frightening when I brought up clitoral stimulation and people leaped on it, saying you can get that with intercourse blahdeblah…totally ignoring there’s other ways to get that which don’t require female risk. The thing that strikes me the most now that I’ve stopped having intercourse is that sex as most define it is fucking BORING, repetitive, and formulaic as hell. Foreplay, then if the guys nice, he’ll help her orgasm before PIV, and then PIV happens and he finishes and then it’s over. As if because his dick gets soft his hands and mouth stop working. (When do you ever hear of men continuing to have sex after PIV? Never.) Because that’s all they want and care about.

“P.S apologies if this makes no sense, but, I’ll say it, this thread > my uni class.”

I think I can relate bb. :/ I hate uni with a passion. There’s no real questioning of the status quo, even in my women’s studies classes. I learn so much more on here and just reading feminist shit on my own.

Y’all are some of my radfem heroes. <3

factcheckme - September 13, 2010

Yes, well I guess cosmo is feminist now, because they tell you its ok to rub your own clit while your partner fucks you. And they’ve been saying that for a few years now. How empowerfulizing!

factcheckme - September 13, 2010

Of course, the fun fems who have been screaming about this piece acknowledge that “the mainstream” might be a wee bit piv-centric. They just flatly deny that their sex-poz bullshit is too. I would like one of them to define “sex negative” then, and explain why they consider radfems sex-negative, when what they clearly mean is piv-negative. And then they can tell us all how they DON’T use “sex” and “piv” interchangeably.

What a bunch of shit.

64. thebewilderness - September 13, 2010

E: “I do think PIV has been way, way too centralized by mainstream, heterocentric, phallocentric ideals of sexuality, but those ideals aren’t sex-positive either.”

It is a little late to try to redefine sex-positive to exclude the sex, don’tcha think.

65. m Andrea - September 13, 2010

If women reproduced with only women, there would be no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy. You are basically saying “what about in vitro!!!11!!1

Ah, good point. I was thinking more along the lines of females being able to reproduce naturally with other women. And it’s the same dynamic as sexism — women wouldn’t oppress themselves simply for being female unless there was an external force encouraging that. Without men around, sexism would disappear.

66. SheilaG - September 13, 2010

I think the sex poz crowd is just a bunch of PIV defenders… sort of the Viche Government vs. the Resistance.

They equate anti-PIV discussions in radfemland as anti-sex, because they only define sex to begin with as PIV, which they won’t admit to, even when we ask they HOW they are exactly defining sex from a pro-woman point of view.

And if women really had empowered agency, the saying no to PIV really wouldn’t be a big deal would it? Unless there is a hidden agenda that sex poz male apologists and males in general don’t want women to know about, much less discuss in detail on the very few radical feminist blogs that even exist out there.

We are such a minority viewpoint, we have a whole world of patriarchal indoctrination to deal with. The sex poz people just don’t want to admit that they are Viche France, and that the NAZI rule the roost. They keep pretending to be the legitimate government. So Sex Poz + Pro PIV = Patriarchal puppet masters.

What most women don’t want to do is admit that they are supporting PIV, because if they refuse to do it, the male walks out on the deal. And anyway, they can refuse PIV, but then the boyfriend rapes her anyway, but hey it’s conscentual.

And Undercover and the separatist lesbians out there just shake our heads and say, thank the goddess we aren’t straight!

67. SheilaG - September 13, 2010

P.S. And women reproducing without males would not oppress women. It would be women volunteering for IVF, for example, but that is not the same as some man forcing PIV on you, and then you get pregnant.
IVF just doesn’t equate this at all.

factcheckme - September 13, 2010

Sex-pos definition, without using the word “sex”: freedom, and like justice and stuff, and passion for, like, life, and something about authenticity or something. I dont know, I just really love to fuck.

For men!!!111!1

68. rhondda - September 13, 2010

A few things I would like to add. I do love my sons, can’t help that, but they have no idea and even when I ask for help they have excuses not to do so. But I have told their girlfriends not to take any shit from them. Of course the boys don’t like that.
The second thing is the creepy sex slavery guy was in the parlance of sex positives a real catch according to them. He was extremely good looking and very seductive. I knew my women friends who were jealous because I was going out with him would never believe what he said and wanted to do, so I never told them. My cowardice I guess. It would have been all my fault for not compiling and how stupid is that in today’s sexual world. “But he is so good looking and such a nice guy.”
Thanks also fcm for talking about The spinster and her enemies. I am reading it and realize just how I was lied to at university about the Victorian age and all those prudes by my male professors. It is insidious. Makes me mad as hell.

factcheckme - September 14, 2010

Glad you are enjoying the book rhondda. It should be required reading, srsly.

69. SheilaG - September 14, 2010

I think Rhondda, that if we learn anything in radical feminism, it is that it is a grass roots movement of discovery. You don’t find it in an academic setting, because academics are compromised, you won’t find it in liberal feminist circles, because they have a vested interest in “reform” not revolution.

You do have to do your own reading, because oddly enough, even though I did take a few very good women’s studies survey classes in college (late 70s), all the most radical reading I did was on my own.
We did read “The Dialectic of Sex’ by Firestone in class, but I recall it being rather incomprehensible on some level at the time. Radical feminism is complex and visionary, difficult to grasp because it gets so little social validation by even other women IRL. If I didn’t bring up the subject now and then, it would NEVER be brought up. That’s how shut down politically most women are.

It makes me realize that when you are in your late teens and even very early 20s, a lot of radical feminism is hard to understand. Now that we have a group active on campus actually undermining feminism from the inside (hugos and trans of this world), it is different.

So we have to say, that we don’t understand the feminist activism through male eyes, we won’t understand why Victorian women did what they did… none of it, until we grasp true radical feminism like the book “The Spinster and Her Enemies.”

I sometimes wonder what the fun feminist thing is really all about. When I talk to women in their early 30s, I get the distinct feeling that they often say things thinking it will upset me. A kind of smart alec know-it-allness, or perhaps a rebellion against their baby boomer mothers. Since I have no kids, and am an odd late boomer (no drugs, no interest in affairs, not much interest in most rock and roll and pop anything), my level of detachment often surprises them.

The shallowness of the discussion I can’t help. But they do say things that seem kind of weirdly provative for no reason, or just naieve and ignorant. They might as well be a woman of the 50s, but yet they don’t seem to know this.

I think a lot of women are uncomfortable with radical feminism and all it implies, they are reluctant to do the reading, because it is difficult, and they like the flippant, the trite, the provacative. I do hope that blogs like this might actually awaken women to something more than the shallowness of pop culture, or bad porn, or empty lives.

factcheckme - September 14, 2010

I never understood the reform versus revolution stuff, until I started thinking about piv. Seriously, i think this is where its at, and that we could have a full-scale revolution on our hands, if piv came to an end. If we were to make it so. There is nothing worth reforming, nothing so intrinsically valuable with the status quo, that is even worth “reimagining” even though its the only thing the fun fems are willing to consider. And not coincidentally, its as far as the hugos and the academics are willing to go too.

70. rhondda - September 14, 2010

It is very true that reading what radical feminists say really disturbs what the prevailing attitude is all about. I personally think it only happens when a women is at the edge of despair. I know for me that I did not want to know, until I did for my own sanity and life and being open to to that truth. It is a hard reality for there are so many rewards not to know (career enhancement, money to be made, the illusion of protection not to say the attention of men) and it really hurts to know how you have been conned for we all think we know until reality hits like a two by four.
I personally am very grateful for younger women figuring this out. It is a big illusion that age means wisdom. ( we do know some stuff, but each generation has their own issues.) The women I know my age have all acquiesced. Bless you. I have hope now.

factcheckme - September 14, 2010

Wow rhondda, really? Hope?

71. rhondda - September 14, 2010

Yes, indeed. What you figured out is hope for women. You thought through the shit and I bless you for that. I got confused along the way, but you persisted. Don’t ever give up on that.

72. SheilaG - September 14, 2010

It really is something to have one subject or life experience that helps you see the true difference of reform vs. revolution. Somehow, these insights just come to women, and we don’t always know exactly what it all means.

Once women break out of that glass jar, and take off the masks — literally to get the make-up and cosmetic looks out of their lives, things do happen.

Patriarchy is very often smoke and mirrors– the tactics of inducing fear into women so that women can be manipulated. But all of this could end, and it could happen very very quickly.

It is a kind of persistence that I see in the world, and I have been a radical feminist since the late 70s. So year after year, decade after decade, I keep wondering, “when will they wake up?”
“Just what will it take? How much rape, abuse, unwanted pregnancies will women suffer through before they realize that something entirely new could be brought into being.”

Even something as simple as completely rejecting a sex act that women for the most part could care less about.

73. berryblade - September 14, 2010

@MSCitrus

“totally ignoring there’s other ways to get that which don’t require female risk.”

That was the most terrifying part, because it was almost like they didn’t want to imagine it without having some kind of female harm involved, and then all that shit to do with BDSM was brought up – as if it’s totally unproblematic to physically harm someone you say you care about.

“The thing that strikes me the most now that I’ve stopped having intercourse is that sex as most define it is fucking BORING, repetitive, and formulaic as hell. Foreplay, then if the guys nice, he’ll help her orgasm before PIV, and then PIV happens and he finishes and then it’s over. As if because his dick gets soft his hands and mouth stop working. (When do you ever hear of men continuing to have sex after PIV? Never.) Because that’s all they want and care about.”

The same thing happened to me when I stopped fucking a couple of years ago, friends would tell me about and I’m sitting there thinking “How the fuck aren’t you bored stiff?!”

“I hate uni with a passion. There’s no real questioning of the status quo, even in my women’s studies classes. I learn so much more on here and just reading feminist shit on my own.”

Fuck, again, I KNOW RIGHT! I’m sitting there in my unit today listening to these fatherfuckers sitting there talking about how eating animals doesn’t oppress anyone, or how saying that all Aboriginals who come into a bottle shop are pissheads etc etc are totally non-oppressive statements cos they’re all so progressive and empathetic. Pfft. Again, I’m more stimulated here in this comment thread than I have been all day. Second the motion of rad-fem heroes!

” They just flatly deny that their sex-poz bullshit is too. I would like one of them to define “sex negative” then, and explain why they consider radfems sex-negative, when what they clearly mean is piv-negative. And then they can tell us all how they DON’T use “sex” and “piv” interchangeably.”

Oh snap!

‘Sex-pos definition, without using the word “sex”: freedom, and like justice and stuff, and passion for, like, life, and something about authenticity or something. I dont know, I just really love to fuck.

For men!!!111!1′

I think you’ve just managed to do the impossible – summarise sex pos “theory”. Hahaha.

Rhondda, I think you’re onto something. Coming onto this site, and these threads always gives me a teeny tiny shred of hope :0

74. Right Wing Women: Some thoughts | anti social butterfly - September 14, 2010

[...] liberated from the tomfoolery of having what can only be described as – litters of children, as sexual beasts of burden, the myth of womyn’s “natural” inclination to have children are every where. [...]

factcheckme - September 14, 2010

Re hope, I will think more on that. If some of you find hope here, then I accept that. It kind of makes me well up actually. So thanks! I don’t know if i feel the same way though. You all are in a different position than i am, in that you are literally watching a radical life (mine) unfold, before your eyes. I have given up piv right here, and you all saw me do it. I have given up uncomfortable shoes, and all adornments, of any kind. I am going rad, more so by the day. But from my perspective, I am just one person. I don’t feel hopeful that anyone else is benefitting, from any of this, in any real way, or that any of this matters, at all. But I will continue to think on it.

BTW, I stopped the pill 3 days ago. Hopefully nothing bad will happen. Had a killer mood swing this morning, but it went away. Guess that’s the definition of “swing” though. Heh. Guess I’ll see what happens.

factcheckme - September 14, 2010

Also, this isn’t necessarily a call for people to come forward to say how they feel about, or while, reading this material. Although that’s not completely irrelevant. But feeling free, and actually BEING free, are very different things. That’s the thing radfems know, and the fun fems seemingly don’t.

75. mscitrus - September 14, 2010

“BTW, I stopped the pill 3 days ago. Hopefully nothing bad will happen. Had a killer mood swing this morning, but it went away. Guess that’s the definition of “swing” though. Heh. Guess I’ll see what happens.”

Good luck FCM! I really hope it isn’t as hellish for you as it was for me. I dunno what kind you’re on, but I found the super f’d up moods came after I had been off it for more than a week or so-I assume because my body was already used to going without it for the placebo period, and then it freaked out when it didn’t start gettin’ hormones back. And my acne has gradually gotten worse as well-worse than it ever was BEFORE I went on the pill. Even tho acne was big reason I went on it. My moods have kinda changed since I went off it too-now that the hellish period I initially went through is over, I feel more “here” and everything is more vivid, and now it seems like while I was on it my emotions were kinda muted or less intense, if that makes sense at all.

“That was the most terrifying part, because it was almost like they didn’t want to imagine it without having some kind of female harm involved, and then all that shit to do with BDSM was brought up – as if it’s totally unproblematic to physically harm someone you say you care about.”

Yes omfg. That was so creepy! Somehow I have a feeling we might not be called anti-sex if we were against cunnilingus.

76. Undercover Punk - September 14, 2010

Somehow I have a feeling we might not be called anti-sex if we were against cunnilingus.

LOL! I wrote this Love Letter to Hands that I’ll probably never publish, but seriously, penises are such a blunt, crude object to use on THE most a sensitively complex area of the body (anyone’s body, male or female!). Rolling my eyes at boring, repetitive, uninspired PIV!

(I always hated school. I hate being told what to read and how much. And I hate listening to men talk about just about ANY thing they think is smart/interesting. Why don’t we have women’s-only GRADUATE programs???)

FCM, why do you forsake adornment?? The uncomfortable shoes/clothing, I can understand. But self-adornment in general?? Oh dear, the very thought of that depresses my spirit! I mean, a floral toga would be fine with me. I’d love it! Hell, I think I’ll make one. See look, you’re inspiring me right now!!! :)

factcheckme - September 14, 2010

Because adornments cost money UP. That’s my main reason. See the “why am I always so tired and broke?” post for more on that.

77. Undercover Punk - September 14, 2010

Yes, many of them do. I like that post. Especially the picture of the different body-zones and what has been added/taken away to make each area socially attractive.

78. SheilaG - September 14, 2010

Just think of the billions of dollars women spend on make-up alone worldwide! What would happened if we put a stop to that industry and invested that same amount of money into women promoting projects? I don’t know how women can afford all this stuff.

factcheckme - September 15, 2010

They can’t afford it Sheila. That’s the awful truth of it. And women who rely on a male subsidy for these things end up paying for it a thousand times over, in other ways. I think the diet and fashion industries might be the worst though, because the way they work together to drain women of every last dime they have is pure evil. When you are constantly losing and gaining weight, you are constantly having to buy new clothes. And i mean constantly, from the time you stop wearing elastic waistbands as a child, to the time you slip back into them as an elderly person. It’s a constant drain on our resources. And we just cannot afford it, at all.

79. SheilaG - September 15, 2010

I think I really paid attention to this, because when I was much younger, I really wanted to save as much money as possible. That was a number 1 objective. I saw lack of money as being in danger of having men control me, and also, I was worried that if I didn’t get out of rental situations, I could be subject to some homophobe or sexist man throwing me out of my apartment.

So I literally paid careful attention to every dime, and saw most things as just too expensive… including even the little things like going to movies. My pay was low, so I couldn’t figure out where women my age were getting all this money to buy cosmetics and a what seemed like hundreds of outfits, jewelry etc. It went over my head as a lesbian feminist, because I thought all that stuff completely unnecessary. And all the shoes too!

One of my friends got evicted from her house… very long story. Part of it was a kind of mortgage fraud. Even now, I was mystified at where women got all the money for thousands of dollars worth of high heels… and those shoes are SO EXPENSIVE, I can hardly believe it, and so flimsey.

I know, women actually believe that you need all that make-up and high fashion clothing to get jobs or whatever, but I never felt that most serious professions demanded this. It seemed like insane behavior to me.

Early feminism targeted the Miss America contest and had it right from the beginning. And this recession should be a sharp wake-up call for all women. As I see my friends evicted, my other friends doomed to low wage Starbucks jobs, and still other friends who will be destitute at age 65, and a bunch of 60-something 70-something women who are in poverty, the urgency of this message should be an alarm sounding.

factcheckme - September 15, 2010

there was a “sex in the city” episode where carrie realizes she has spent $40,000 on shoes. she didnt even get it until the smart one of them did the math for her. she had 100 pairs of her favorite brand of heels, at $400 each. she said “oh well, thats only $4,000.” she smart one said “no, thats 40,000.” and carrie nearly choked on her latte. carrie was wondering where all her money went, because she “knew she had made some” and yet she didnt have any money for a downpayment on her apartment. which interestingly enough, she needed to purchase from her ex or be evicted by him when they broke up. luckily, the brunette had a $40,000 enagement ring she wouldnt be using, and was able to loan carrie the money.

this was NOT a lightbulb moment for any character on the show apparently. but i remembered it. heh.

factcheckme - September 15, 2010

Ms citrus linked to the same article old Hugo linked to in one of his latest posts, in the comments of her latest post. Now, I don’t have to. It’s another radfems is conservatibbs!!!!111!1 male feminist rant. Boy they sure have a lot invested in that one don’t they?

factcheckme - September 15, 2010

Of course, every single time any of them make that accusation, they are proving my point in this post correct. To call radfems sex-negative, when what they clearly mean is piv-negative, is proof that they use piv and sex interchangeably. Which means that they think that piv and sex are the same. Equal. In the mathematical sense.

Duh.

80. Level Best - September 15, 2010

I’ve been reading this thread everyday, but haven’t had the brain power this week to make an intelligent comment. I’m just dropping by here to say, “Go,you!” to fcm and the regular commenters plus say it’s great to see new women reading and commenting here, too. The blog’s posts have been getting significant numbers of responses. You’ve obviously hit a nerve, given some women hope (that so WONDERFUL!!), and I am wishing that this will get the “PIV isn’t ‘sex’” meme into play in more places. Asexuality finally went public this year, with articles in at least one MSM women’s magazine and a short film on Current, whereas last year I ONLY saw it discussed in web blogs. Will it not be a blast if your arguments about PIV make it through to the public? If the MSM is always thirsting for controversy to sell their wares, well, STEP RIGHT UP, FOLKS!! HERE YA GO!!

factcheckme - September 15, 2010

thanks levelbest!

heres that failicious post that mscitrus linked to. she is taking this doodbro on, too.

http://oneutah.org/2010/09/05/radical-feminisms-strict-father-morality/

note that NONE of the quotes in the article that are allegedly from me, really are, or at least i cant remember writing them, they arent in my style, and he doesnt link to me. they might be from one of my readers, but again i dont even know what thread they are allegedly from, and he doesnt link. (aka. either hes making it up, or hes stealing). he does quote me properly in one of his comments.

81. mscitrus - September 15, 2010

I dunno why I keep taking on these dudes. I guess it’s kinda hilarious in a way to see them not address things. I can’t stand when people get their facts wrong and still think they’re soooo right. (And my college classes are really really boring and I have waaay too much free time and no PS2 here.)

I’m pretty damn sure that ain’t your quote. The only way it could be is if he “corrected’ and capitalized shit but still…the diction is totally off. You don’t talk that fancy. Wait, oh shit: I thought I remembered the post it’s on, and I did-it ain’t yours-it’s from AROOO.
http://aroomofourown.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/my-2-cents/
So are a bunch of the quotes he “can’t remember” where he got them from. Funny how the black woman is erased.

There’s a joke about your name and his need to fact-check in there somewhere. I’m too lazy to make a good one though.

82. diana - September 15, 2010

Late, and not much useful here, but I wanna say thank you and that silly me forgot how much fun it is here and tears streaming down my cheeks from laughing and how much I needed this. So, just a huge big thanks for your whole hilarious, insightful, brilliant blog.

83. Level Best - September 15, 2010

Yes, diana, this is where it’s happening these days, isn’t it? :) Analysis, conversation, REAL IDEAS.

factcheckme - September 15, 2010

I am so glad people are getting lolls here too. I know I am.

84. thebewilderness - September 15, 2010

OMG it’s a mansplainer!
He starts with our language being unlovely when we talk about rape and oppression, suz we really ought to be nicer about it without all that emotion and outrage, yanno.
He goes on to explain that “That passion though is joined to an extreme narrowness of topic, theme and ideas.” Everybody who matters knows that the experience of our half of the population is a very narrow topic.
Once he dismisses radical feminists ability to reason he goes on to declare it a theology and explains how since it is in womens nature to be obedient and since we reject obedience to the patriarchy we substituted obedience to the religion of feminism.
I stopped reading when I got to the part about feminism being a FATHER religion. Yes! Gobsmacked.

This is one incredibly stoopid fella right there. Or it could be the standard forest for the trees problem of willful ignorance that mansplainers suffer from.

He has himself a theory and he will fold spindle bend and mutilate women however much is necessary to support his theory. Sound familiar?

factcheckme - September 15, 2010

That’s an excellent synopsis bewilderness! And yes, it does sound very familiar, indeed.

As an fyi, old liverlips has linked to me again. Is that five or six now? I’ve lost count.

85. SheilaG - September 15, 2010

Well logic wins this time FCM! I kept wondering what the heck these guys meant all the time they were calling feminist “sex negative.” It never made much sense until this blog report hit the wave… all men think PIV = Sex, so anyone who is against PIV or at least its primacy would be called sex negative.

And without knowing it, the guys, liverlips etc. all keep proving this point, and helping FCM argue her radfem case. I find this hysterically funny.

And thanks for the shoe and Sex and the City recap… yeowww $40,000 for shoes. I bumped into women who were getting evicted from their homes and they had huge shoe collections, among other things.

PIV does not = Sex. It equals male entitlement to use women, but it doesn’t = sex. And this blog has hit a great nerve, and come upon a great truth of what men have been afraid of all along… that women will finally start saying enough, we’re sick of being put in danger, getting pregnant or catching your STDs, becoming sterile because of HPV. The list goes on and on.

So if men continue to ignore the implications of this little math rebellion here, I think we have pretty much won the radfem argument big time.

Many thanks to all who have written so sincerely and clearly here, and we have liverlips for entertainment value… hey men as court jesters or as the humor us radfems supposedly don’t have.

Never do I laugh as hard as I do at all the mansplaining and transplaining that goes around the web! :-) :-) :-)

We have to all ask the next time we are accused of being sex negative — “What sex act are you referring to?” “You’ve got to be specific.” :-)

86. delphyne - September 15, 2010

It’s so interesting that you talking about the end of intercourse is what has got all the liberal doods frenziedly responding FCM, because normally they refuse to acknowledge that radical feminism even exists. It’s obviously hitting them in a very painful place.

Its’ a bit like when Andrea Dworkin started taking on and analysing pornography – she didn’t know how important it was, then she came up against massive resistance from the pornographers and the consumers, and all the rad fems realised that pornography must be a keystone of the patriarchy.

It’s great you’re talking about this. You’re right that any rad fem who does speak about this is immediately labeled nuts. The idea of no intercourse is not to be entertained, and most radical feminists have shied away from it because of the abuse they’ll get just talking about it. OK Intercourse by Dworkin is sitting there on the shelf, but most recent radical feminist action and analysis has been around the sex industry and commercialised sexual intercourse, intercourse the heterosexual institution hasn’t really been addressed because everybody knows that the person who does talk about it is going to be labeled a lunatic, (which probably means she’s the sanest person in the room).

I stopped having intercourse quite a while before I became a radical feminist (I was still in a het relationship at the time). When I did become one I knew it had been my first radical act. Women understand this stuff already in our bodies even if we don’t have the analysis to back it up.

factcheckme - September 15, 2010

heres old turdburglar’s latest:

http://hugoschwyzer.net/2010/09/15/radicals-in-the-bedroom-a-response-to-julian/

and heres one of the comments:

Hugo, I have been reading all of this with interest, and I spent some time reading FCM’s blog because of it, to see what she was really saying. At first I was really turned off, because I was reading it through your lens—that she is “anti-sex.” But the more I read in good faith the more sense she is making. And the more troubling it becomes that you keep making post after post about this, but you’re not actually ever really addressing her salient points. You’re arguing with a misrepresentation of her, not her herself.

On top of it all, in this post, you go to another man’s blog (not a woman’s blog) for further justification of your ridicule of the caricature of FCM you’ve drawn? There is so much mansplaining going on here that it’s mind-boggling that it’s coming from someone who calls himself a feminist.

There are not many Christian feminists blogging out there, so I have to say I’m disappointed to find this type of behavior from you. I expected more.

Maybe I am naive to think you will do this, but I’m going to ask anyway. I want to ask you to please go over to her blog and read, really read what she’s saying. Really take it in. Really find some empathy, somewhere in your heart, to hear it from her—from our—perspective. Because some women actually are oppressed by the constant expectation of PIV by men who love us and men who rape us. Some women actually don’t like it very much, and actually do give in on a regular basis because they have to, because their partner demands it. Some women, like myself, don’t even realize they have the option to say no to PIV until someone tells them they do. And then they realize that their husbands will go on raping them anyway if they try to say they don’t want it. Will you read her with some compassion and empathy in your heart for those women?

Or, will you just keep mansplaining and finding other men to justify your mansplainations?

factcheckme - September 16, 2010

old julian real has gotten in on the act too. just what i always wanted: thinking about julian and PIV in the same thought. he has a new post up about erotisicm. i cant read it though, because his fucking blog crashes my computer. no lie. i hate blogger (and julian) with a passion, and so does my comp apparently!

87. SheilaG - September 16, 2010

We got them on the run FCM. And someone up there was right, even Andrea Dworkin had no idea what she’d tapped into when she first started going after the pornographers. Susan Brownmiller said recently about the pornographers: “The aggressors have won.” I was very depressed at that statement.

But, now that we are on an honest to goddess radical feminist roll here; it feels like the collective power of women’s voices is really coming through so loud and clear. With this power, minds will open. Liverlips can’t really respond to this, because it is a challenge to his power, and men never concede power ever. So that’s why he doesn’t have the guts to take women on in their own domains, and he has the male power of censorship over radical women over there. That’s what men do, they shut down women’s talk, nothing new there.

Who’s Julian Real?

88. SheilaG - September 16, 2010

And policing bedrooms. You’re kidding… we don’t police bedrooms, but we do post logical arguments. Do women have an absolute right never to have PIV with any man ever? Do women’s health concerns dictate a more nuanced approach to sex?

And wouldn’t this be a logical discussion, given the idea that the problem is women’s private lives have no protection, that’s why we have domestic violence, incest, rape in marriage, and forced sexual acts that women have to perform to keep a roof over their heads.

What if women did have a police force, and forced or coerced PIV brought in the all woman police force? What if any attack on women was dealt with as swiftly as a fire department deals with a fire in a commercial district?

What if women could police themselves, and not have to deal with men demanding PIV endlessly?

What if men learned how to have sex with women NOT using PIV, and the endangerment of women’s bodies as a pretext to “making love?”

The thing is women have no police force to guard US, that’s what the real issue is. Anytime women speak up and say they’ve had it with male centered sexual aggression or male sexual entitlement, this is considered a police action against men. Hmm, maybe that’s why men haven’t created thousands of violence shelters for men who have been beaten nearly to death by female spouses.

Men just don’t think police are necessary because they believe themselves to be the property owners of women in marriage or in live in relationships.
If women fully woke up to this, we’d see a dramatic shift regarding everything men deem as sexual.

89. Katie - September 16, 2010

There’s ANOTHER ONE? wow, Hugo must be seriously threatened by you. You are touching a major nerve. Let’s hope for the sake of the women in his life that he can find enough humility to figure out what that nerve is.

What’s that? There’s still no forecast for frost in hell? *sigh*

90. berryblade - September 16, 2010

Somehow I have a feeling we might not be called anti-sex if we were against cunnilingus.

I somehow suspect you’re right there, Ms.Citrus.

That Sex & the City episode always spent chills up my spine – who the fuck can afford to throw away $400 on a pair of shoes each time? Also, the $40 000 engagement/wedding ring just made me made. So many people could benefit from that kind of money gah, even if it’s not real, it’s still annoying as hell.

Goddess, that article on radical feminism being like a father-complex was the funniest load of codswallop I’ve read in a long time.

@SheliaG

Julian Real is a male “pro feminist” blogger.

And I think you must have really, really touched a nerve with Hugo.

factcheckme - September 16, 2010

the thing with the xtians, of course, is that their whole anti-sex rhetoric, ISNT. they are completely and totally invested in PIV, as an institution. they just think that if it all happens within the context of marriage, that its ok. as someone mentioned earlier, this actually partially makes sense for women, because at least they are somewhat protected if they get pregnant, and they are “only” the property of one man, instead of all men. but i digress.

i think many xtian men get married just so they can get laid. i had a cousin who did the same damn thing. he bought this stupid little trinket of an engagement ring, and would throw it at any girl who came around. he was engaged a few times before he was even twenty, then was married and divorced by the time he was probably 23. i am absolutely sure all this obsessiveness on his part around getting engaged and married was because he was getting all his ducks in a row. for the sexxay! does old “i’m on my fourth wife” hugo have some kind of a similar complex? probably.

so now that he is hearing that PIV as an institution is problematic (for women) and that the “solution” of marriage doesnt cut it for women…because our main and most pressing problem with PIV is the earthly consequences of it of course, its not a god problem…OH NOES! you mean even married women can start saying NO? PERMANENTLY? why yes. yes, they can.

and yes, they are absolutely on the run. and i am finding it funny as hell that they keep proving me right, every fucking time they open their mouths. HI-LARIOUS!

factcheckme - September 16, 2010

hugo is also very invested in his career. which absolutely depends on fun-fem ideology, and fun-fems buying his shit wholesale. this whole sex = piv thing is extremely telling, in that its now completely revealed for everyone to see, that EVEN THEY are in complete denial about what their own ideology is all about, or what it necessarily includes, or what logically follows from it. which means that its not an ideology, as much as it is just a large piece of bullshit that doesnt even make sense…EVEN TO THEM. which also means…you cant really teach it in a classroom. the study tips i gave wont even work on this material, because i told you how to make a map out of the material so you can see how it all works…AND THIS SHIT DOESNT WORK. at all. anyone who engages with anything old hugo might have to say in the classroom (or on his blog) would realize this immediately.

and all because of a little math, that was SO EASY, i could do it, and do it right, and i am not even a math geek. heh.

factcheckme - September 16, 2010

Hugo is also very repetitive about saying that I have “adopted” Dworkins views. Then he and his commentors repetitively recite that I don’t “really understand” Dworkin, and that i am getting it wrong. They say that my views are not unique, and that this is a part of radical feminist “tradition.” Then they take the parts of my work that are NOT like dworkins, and tell me I am parrotting Dworkin, but incorrectly.

But I am actually taking things a bit farther than Dworkin, arent I? They just cannot fathom that i am having an original thought, or that i understand Dworkin well enough to let her work inspire me to go even further. They cannot make sense of how my work is different from hers, except that I must not understand hers. Because parrotting back other peoples ideas is how THEY deal with the material.

Dworkin is also not the first or only feminist to criticise piv, as Sheila jeffreys catalogs so well in “spinster.” But they have never even read Dworkin, and they have never read spinster either.

factcheckme - September 16, 2010

Hugo also criticizes my study tips, and admits that hes never engaged with any material like that, ever. Which isn’t really a surprise.

factcheckme - September 16, 2010

Anyone who wants to could also post links on this thread, whenever they find a fun fem or male feminist saying that radfems are anti-sex, or sex negative. So it can be documented, here, how everything everyone is saying about radfems proves that i was right about this sex equals piv thing, all along.

91. berryblade - September 16, 2010

Ah yes, that’s it about xtians fcm, you hit the nail on the head yet again. It’s the same with any of the judeo-xtian religions.

Also, it’s the same deal with most anti feminists i’ve found. i had this woman (who coincidentally enough is a fun feminist and supports the ‘plight’ of t(y)rannys) i know critising me because my ‘ideas weren’t original’ either. The other claim these fun fems and their assorted allies love to make is the issues we discuss are out of date, apparently because the texts are. When this is a load of codswallop beacause they:

A) rarely bother to actually read the material and
B) if they do, they read it with negative expectations, and don’t bother to engage with it seriously.
C) lack the intellectual and emotional capacity to ever understand it.

Not to mention, these are the conditions of millions, if not billions of womyn in the lower rungs of the western hierachy, in developing nations globally etc which just shows a huge lack of comprehension in itself. I also doubt they would know of Daly, Adams etc

As for Liverlips critisism of your study tips all I have to say is pfffft. Slobviously he’s never tried it and lacks the energy to try. Those study tips helped earn me my first high distinction mark of the year! So thank you so much for sharing those yet again factcheckme :)

factcheckme - September 16, 2010

That’s great bb! Congratulations.

92. Katie - September 16, 2010

As a xian myself I completely agree that the historical church has taken a very hard anti-premarital-sex line. There are many complicated reasons for this, but they’re not really the point. The point is, they are absolutely pro-PIV in a way that codifies male privilege and male access to female bodies. I definitely know people who got married way too early (and got divorced eventually) because they wanted to fuck.

But, thankfully, there are plenty of more mainstream, moderate, and liberal xians who think that what people do sexually is really none of their business and there are bigger fish to fry. There are even some like me, who think that premarital sex is a good idea and it’s actually preferable to have sex with one’s partner at least a few times before getting married. Not in a “take a test drive” kind of way but because there really is such a thing as true sexual incompatibility.

Of course the idea of sexual incompatibility is a completely foreign concept in a PIV-centric sexuality framework. Does the laydee have a fuckhole (oops, I mean vagina)? If it’s all about male satisfaction, female submission, and/or babymaking, that’s all the compatibility you need!

Now that I’m thinking about this, I don’t think it’s really possible to, as Hugo and his crew are trying to do, even talk about an “anti-sex” stance in general without talking about gender. Well, obviously it’s POSSIBLE, because they’re doing it. But it’s not intellectually honest. But anyway, the point is, conservative religious people of all stripes aren’t anti- or pro- sex, they are pro-male sexuality and anti-female sexuality.

factcheckme - September 16, 2010

I wonder if there are xtian women out there who realize that they don’t even like piv to begin with, and they take this to mean that they are incompatible with their partner, or decide not to get married so soon, or at all? This whole “wait for it” garbage really sets women up, so that they are legally trapped in a marriage before they are ever really exposed to the act and its particular sensations (or lack thereof) and consequences, or to the sexual entitlement of their male partner.

But pre-marital piv also takes away whatever protections women thought they had, by structuring their lives within a conservative paradigm doesn’t it? They don’t have the legal or financial protection if they get pregnant, and they are more or less fair game for all men, and not just one. Like the liberal women are, and like right-wing women specifically seek to avoid. I haven’t read Dworkins “right wing women” yet, but I think those were essentially her observations about conservative women, and why they do what they do.

Women just don’t win, under ANY piv-centric paradigm do they? And its because of the inherent, and inherently female harms of piv that cannot be remedied.

93. Katie - September 16, 2010

Women just don’t win, under ANY piv-centric paradigm do they? And its because of the inherent, and inherently female harms of piv that cannot be remedied.

you hit that nail on the head. If it’s piv-centric, women don’t win, no matter how it’s framed.

I do still think the sex before marriage—so the woman has some idea of what she’s committing to—is a “lesser of two evils.” In fact I probably wouldn’t even think it’s as important as it is if our sexual paradigm was not piv-centric. If men were not SO focused on that as the ultimate sex act as a prescription for “what sex is”, and were instead open to just exploring what works and what doesn’t work with their partner, as a relational act that happens between two unique human beings, sexual incompatibility may not be an issue for as many couples as it currently is.

94. Katie - September 16, 2010

Also, I think women (xian women and really, any women) who realize they don’t like piv live in such a piv-centric world that it’s never really a question of whether you like it or not. I mean, I never ask myself whether I like doing the laundry; I don’t particularly, but like, I have to get it done. I never ask myself whether I like having a bank account; I don’t particularly, but I have to in order to function in this society.

If the expectation that PIV happens in any marriage, to the extent that it becomes synonymous with sex, then I don’t think women really ask themselves whether they like it or not. They either like it, or they find ways to deal with it so it’s not too terrible.

95. rhondda - September 16, 2010

I think that is called disassociation.

96. SheilaG - September 16, 2010

Somebody mentioned frost in hell. My favorite is looking out the window and waiting for pigs to fly on by… that’s where we are with fun feminist male instructors teaching young women.

What if women had 100% sexual agency, and men had no choice in the matter? What if we invented technology to control PIV — put a lock on the P so to speak, and that only women had the power to take it off? Hey, a male chastity restraining device, might work with the christian right too :-)? Think they’d go for it? Bwa Ha ha ha… geez, just looked out the window… was that a pig flying by… oh…. no… just a pigeon :-(

97. SheilaG - September 16, 2010

Myth of the vaginal orgasm– early feminist work.
We are still continuing a basic biological education for most Americans. People don’t even know how the female body works, which is why the trans operations (incert hole etc.) seem so absurd, and where the trans-medical industrial (read profit) complex comes in.

The lack of biological education concerning women continues to be quite telling. Biology is complex, how women deal with medical issues is problematic. Imagine men having to walk a gauntlet of right ring idiots just to get medical treatment outside a clinic?

The ignorance of the male body translates into how men “transition” because they were men to begin with and never understood female biology.

Nor do men ever really concern women with what they really like or not. Most people don’t question the status quo, or whether they like things or not. So the awareness of what women really DO like is hard for women to figure out, since women’s true needs and desires are completely undermined or made fun of in patriarchy.

It’s why the idiot liverlips can’t even really get anything that’s written here, and this willful ignorance of the fact that women might not like PIV at all, and wouldn’t put up with it if women’s needs were fully honored…. Liver lying lips surely sink feminist ships :-)

98. Loretta Kemsley - September 16, 2010

We all know that abusive men project their abusive ways onto their victims. A man who cheats on his wife accuses her of cheating on him and acts with irrational jealousy.

Hugo’s arguments condeming radfems are along the same line. He acts like fundamentalist men who use and abuse women as sex objects, therefore he accuses radfems of doing as he does — as being like the fundamentalist men.

Pretty clear to me.

Interesting reading all your thoughts. Loving them all. Haven’t finished them yet though. Thanks to all the brilliant radfems who post here.

99. Katie - September 17, 2010

Loretta, I think you are spot on. A nerve has really been touched here—he is flailing around too much for this to be purely an intellectual exercise for him, even though he acts/speaks as if it is.

I like how he uses every dodge in the book to avoid comments that are critical, even though people are doing an excellent job dismantling his privileged actions. It’s really quite stunning how self-deceived (or manipulative and pathological) he is, and how he has so many people hoodwinked.

100. Loretta Kemsley - September 17, 2010

The whole “intellectual” guise is just that — a guise to hide behind. The patriarchs do it with their “theology” too. They pretend they are too, too smart and women are too, too dumb to “understand” their brilliance.

It’s just another abusive tactic. And again, Hugo parallels the fundies.

You’re right. He’s flailing madly, as if he’s drowning and is fighting to stay afloat until help arrives.

What he hates most here is that he is being called out and he fears the effect it will have on the dewy eyed vaginas he counts on to be available.

101. Loretta Kemsley - September 17, 2010

I’ve always believed that any college professor who thinks his students are sexual prey is a predator on the same order of a elementary school or high school teacher looking for prey among his students. I knew one in college. He got caught and almost lost his job because he was trading sex for grades. Too bad they don’t all lose their jobs.

factcheckme - September 17, 2010

Dewey eyed vaginas! Ha! Meaning: women equal vaginas equal women. That’s pretty close to the damn truth isn’t it?

factcheckme - September 17, 2010

Hugo just wrote on his own blog that he finds this thread “unreadable.” I do not doubt that, at all. Women here have expressed extreme dissatisfaction with him. Women have also said they find hope here. Katie and chel walked us through teh maths. Sheila said we are on a radfem roll! Rhondda actually made me cry a little. Berryblade got her first high honors at school. This is wonderful stuff, people. It really fucking is. This is thoroughly terrific, life-affirming, amazing moving thoughtful hilarious stuff.

And Hugo can absolutely just go fuck himself.

102. Loretta Kemsley - September 17, 2010

Anyone who can read at eighth grade level can comprehend this essay and the comments. People posting hear use good grammar, punctuation and sentence structure. So how is it unreadable?

Is he saying he can’t read and comprehend at an eighth grade level?

Perhaps he meant he can’t bring himself to read what radfems say about him or perhaps about anything.

Either one is not a good excuse. First, if he’s a women’s studies prof, then he needs to keep up to date on what fems of all kinds are discussing. Second, he has pretensions of being an intellectual, but how can he be if he can’t read what an eighth grader can read?

What he really mean, IMO, is not that it is unreadable (obviously it is readable. All of us can read it just fine) but that he isn’t used to women talking back with authority and confidence, so he feels extreme stress or anxiety when he tries to read it.

103. berryblade - September 17, 2010

This whole “wait for it” garbage really sets women up, so that they are legally trapped in a marriage before they are ever really exposed to the act and its particular sensations (or lack thereof) and consequences, or to the sexual entitlement of their male partner…

Yes, yes, yes! That’s it in a nutshell, no womon can ever win under a piv centric system. You can paint it as many different ways as you like – committed sex, hedonist sex, married sex etc etc, but, as long as you’re still focusing on fucking it’s just not going to work. Right Wing Women is brill by the way. But it’s a pretty distressing read, to be honest. The first chapter, when Dworkin is talking about that conservative womon and her creepy-arse rapiststalker husband just made my jaw drop.

I think that is called disassociation.

rhonnda I think you might be right.

Haha, SheilaG, anyone who thinks that radical feminists don’t have a sense of humor haven’t read that comment about the pig + pigeon and liverlips sinking feminist ships. You made me chortle :D

Loretta, I think you are spot on. A nerve has really been touched here—he is flailing around too much for this to be purely an intellectual exercise for him, even though he acts/speaks as if it is…

Totally agree with you Katie, Loretta is right. Reminds me of when you catch a little kid in the middle of doing anything naughty and they will swear forever that they weren’t doing anything wrong.

I knew one in college. He got caught and almost lost his job because he was trading sex for grades. Too bad they don’t all lose their jobs.

Too right, there was a male teacher like that at my school (which was pre-primary to year 12) who was fucking one of the students in her final year. He got fired. Allegedly they later got married, which is even more messed up. He had probably been grooming her for years before he was caught. Yeuch.

Dewey eyed vaginas indeed! Haha.

Hugo just wrote on his own blog that he finds this thread “unreadable.”

Hahahahhaha, this thread is full of witty banter, intelligent discussion and now this? Oh my, that is priceless. I agree whole heartedly FactCheckMe, this thread is wonderful! One day, if I ever win the lottery I’m going to use the money to help womyn around the world and have an awesome rad fem convention as well, with an unlimited supply of dairy queen hahaha :D

What he really mean, IMO, is not that it is unreadable (obviously it is readable. All of us can read it just fine) but that he isn’t used to women talking back with authority and confidence, so he feels extreme stress or anxiety when he tries to read it.

Oh snap! Got it in one Lorette.

104. berryblade - September 17, 2010

*Loretta sorry, typo.

105. yesindeed - September 17, 2010

ok, I ducked out for a bit when the thread got “infested with maleness” (haha, FemmeForever) but now I’m back.

I just ventured over to ol’ Hugo’s and read a comment by a woman who is “inarticulate with rage” over having been “erased” by this comment thread. Why? Because she likes PIV.

The entire structure of society all around the world demands unquestioned intercourse from women 24/7, often to the point of taking it from them by force, and she feels “erased” by a group of women on the internet who are simply questioning it? Really?

If anything makes me inarticulate with rage, it’s this narcissistic mememebutilikeit! attitude that turns a blind eye to other women, especially those on the lower rungs of the hierarchy.

Okay, you like it – good for you! But what about the women who never get to question it? Who don’t realize they can say no? Who can’t say no, even if they want to? Who live in such a PIV-centric world that in many cases (as Katie/rhonda pointed out above) the only options are like it or dissociate? Who start hating themselves/thinking that something is wrong with their bodies if they don’t like it? Who feel oppressed by the constant PIV demands from men in their lives? The list goes on (and I haven’t even gotten to the uniquely female harms yet).

I recently watched the PBS documentary “Birth of a Surgeon.” In Mozambique so many women are dying in childbirth that the government has started training midwives to do basic obstetrical surgery. In one scene, a laboring woman who has had multiple pregnancies/cesareans (but only one living child) is on the table, obviously fearing for her life. The midwife asks her if she wants to be sterilized (yes) and goes ahead and does it, even though the woman needs her husband’s permission, even though the male head doctor tried to intervene. The hospital is poor, electricity is scarce, they have to reuse gloves. The only sterilization option is full hysterectomy.

But all of that suffering is negated by privileged western women who love having intercourse, right?

factcheckme - September 17, 2010

She also must’ve missed the part about how I’m straight, partnered with a man, and that I “like” piv too. Especially with my current partner, with whom I share a very orgasmic piv-chemistry. Still gonna knock you up though. Still gonna lose your job, of you can’t come in due to morning sickness, while you wait for your abortion. The risks are the same from oral contraceptives, whether you “like” piv or not. And the fact of the matter is, many millions of women, both now and in the past, both here and in other places, have shouldered the immense burden of piv for literally their entire lives, and THEY DIDN’T EVEN LIKE, OR WANT, PIV, once or many times or every time it was done to them. What about them?

Inarticulate with rage made me lol. Srsly. The women on this thread are ARTICULATE with rage, with piv-centric sexuality, and the fun fems and male feminists who push their piv equals sex equals piv bullshit on everyone else, and who can’t even handle an honest and indeed mathematically precise dissection of their views, or of piv as an institution. They just will not hear it. Well…I have said before that mainstream views will go without saying, on this blog. People who refuse to analyze piv are the mainstream, and they are represented literally everywhere. This blog is a place for something different.

factcheckme - September 17, 2010

also, re right wing women and whether they wait or not, my last comment wasnt that clear, sorry about that. i meant that it kind of makes sense for right wing women to go along with the conservative ideology, if what they want out of it are a few (dubious) protections that liberal women dont have: namely, the “right” to be the property of one man only, and not ALL men; and to have the social, legal, and financial protections of marriage in place, BEFORE they expose themselves to the risks of PIV.

so, if right-wing women ARENT waiting anymore, whats in it for them, to continue with this conservative ideology at all? they are giving up exactly what they were getting out of it. and if they arent waiting anymore and are instead trying PIV with their fiances or partners before they actually commit to marriage…well again, whats in it for them? considering how many women just dont like PIV at all, or that much…and how awful many men are as lovers anyway…if they have pre-marital PIV and they dont like it, then what? are they going to believe that they are incompatible with their partner, and not marry him, and keep looking for someone with whom they enjoy PIV (which may frankly never happen)? are they going to not get married at all, because they realize the “wait for it” garbage was just to build PIV (and men!) up in their minds as something great, when in reality PIV (or men!) doesnt live up to really any expectation they had for it , so why get married at all, or so soon?

i doubt it! they are just having PIV with men and not liking it, or at the very least are exposed to all its risks which will never balance the benefits of whatever “pleasure” they may find there, and in the end, they are still entering PIV-centric het partnerships anyway, just like the rest of us. which means that right wing women are letting this PIV-liberalism into thier lives, FOR NOTHING. they are giving up all the good things about their conservative ideology (from their own perspective, not from mine, as i find very little there thats good for women at all, and even these “protections” really arent) and taking on all the bad stuff about PIV-centric liberalism. and of course also keeping the bad stuff about conservatism, as it relates to women too. who does this benefit? this is a serious question.

if the women who dont “wait” anymore arent right wing, but are instead “liberal” religious women, well then, i am not sure what they are getting out of this either, for the same reason. if they dont like it, THEN WHAT? this is a serious question. there has to be a point to having the pre-marital PIV, doesnt there? or is it just another way that PIV-liberalism has seeped into everyones lives?

106. Loretta Kemsley - September 17, 2010

read a comment by a woman who is “inarticulate with rage” over having been “erased” by this comment thread.

Well, damn, ain’t we powerful. We type a few words and — poof! — a woman disappears from the face of the earth.

Of course, that ain’t nothing compared to the three US women that are — poof! — gone from the face of the earth due to the murderous violence of their intimate partners.

Don’t ya just love drama queens? Wonder if she’s ever faced any controversy without getting vapors? Or if she’s ever been faced with real problems, like being battered, stalked, raped, or any of the thousand other variations that men have devised to do harm to women?

107. Loretta Kemsley - September 17, 2010

Sorry. That should have read:

Of course, that ain’t nothing compared to the three US women that are — poof! — gone from the face of the earth EVERY SINGLE DAY due to the murderous violence of their intimate partners.

factcheckme - September 17, 2010

exactly loretta. once again, we see fun-fems telling radfems we are doing violence to them, by calling bullshit on misogyny. of course, if she really were going to be “erased” it would be by a man. and he would probably fuck her first. thats what murderers and obliterators of women do, to women. radfems TYPE WORDS, and DISCUSS IDEAS, and MAKE CHANGES TO OUR OWN LIVES, and ADVOCATE FOR WOMEN, AS A SEXUAL CLASS, AROUND THE WORLD. how dare we!!111!!1

108. Lili - September 17, 2010

Plus, her tactics obscure the fact that abstaining from relationships with men and PIV are the real road to “empowerment” and clarity. If you think about it, all the other stuff, even a college degree and flat shoes, can’t touch what that one simple change will do for a woman’s psyche, soul, life, mind, and body. Feminists spend sooo much time arguing over things that wouldn’t be an argument between us. If women had some sort of unity, we wouldn’t feel the need to rip at each other over things like choice of shoe, etc etc. Relationships with men are inherently disempowering in patriarchy.

109. Loretta Kemsley - September 17, 2010

The idea that they cannot assimilate new concepts is bizarre. So if they take a history class where they are required to read something they’ve never come across before or that contradicts the popular Amercian concept of the same event, then they are “erased” by being exposed to those new ideas?

How tenuous is anyone’s self-concept if they believe that mere words of people they do not know can “erase” them? That’s pretty fragile. It’s disturbing to think that a woman would think that little of herself, her beliefs and whatever she believes valuable.

It’s equally disturbing that she finds herself “inarticulate with rage” because she’s come across a concept she doesn’t like. How often does that happen in her life? I come across ideas I don’t accept all the time. I’ve never been “inarticulate with rage” because of them.

Patriarchy is one of those concepts that I find very offensive. I have to deal with it and its adherents every single day of my life. I don’t think a single one of these patriarchs would say they’ve managed to make me “inarticulate with rage.”

That speaks to a loss of self-control which she implies is the “fault” of someone else having ideas she doesn’t approve of. That’s patriarchal in the extreme when you think about it. Don’t patriarchs go into a rage when a woman dares to have a thought they do not approve of?

I’ve been dealing with a slew of them for several days as they attack me (and then complain my responses aren’t nice) because I refuse to abide by Biblical patriarchy and keep pointing out passages and patriarchal churches that endorse violence against women.

http://an-uncommon-scold.newsvine.com/_news/2010/09/14/5110672-oldest-christian-church-found-with-inscriptions-honoring-women

Should I too become “inarticulate with rage” and let their animousity (aimed directly at me rather than speaking in the abstract) “erase” me?

Not on your life. They could only wish I was inarticulate and could be erased.

factcheckme - September 17, 2010

This “erasing” language is bizarre too. The fucking transwomen say the same thing, when anyone dares criticise them. Perhaps that’s where that poster got the idea? Transpolitics and concepts having completely infiltrated and taken over liberal feminism now. It’s a pretty sneaky tactic too, like much trans nonsense is, because it evokes a very violent image, and violence against women is something feminists generally are pretty attuned to. So they reflexively respond to it, and back down, whenever its used. But referencing the most egregious male violence against women, in which men literally obliterate women, and the bodies are never found, as a response to radical feminist work is just patently dishonest, isn’t it?

And its not as if radfems are the ones erasing anyone’s existences or experiences from the history books either. That would be the men.

110. thebewilderness - September 17, 2010

People are not usually inarticulate with rage, nor do they find a ting unreadable when it challenges what they think. It is only when it challenges what they believe without benefit of thought that the knee jerks.

That whole self examination thingummy is not nearly as popular as I was led to believe in my misspent youth.

factcheckme - September 17, 2010

For the dickwad who is posting and emailing me about how piv is so (emotionally) traumatic for HIM, may i suggest you read my “trauma bonding” post. Then, read anything (everything) here about piv, then read “is eminem a transwoman?” In that order. I think that about covers it.

111. yesindeed - September 17, 2010

That speaks to a loss of self-control which she implies is the “fault” of someone else having ideas she doesn’t approve of. That’s patriarchal in the extreme when you think about it. Don’t patriarchs go into a rage when a woman dares to have a thought they do not approve of?

wow, excellent takedown of the rage/”erasing” language going on here. this is the kind of quality feminist analysis I thirst for!

good catch with the transpolitics language. she also references feminists “denying” her “lived experience”, so I’m pretty sure this is where it comes from. of course, as has already been stated, it’s a fundamentally male/patriarchal idea to equate “being confronted with a displeasing viewpoint” or “not having your experiences be the center of attention” with actually doing violence on your person. fcm, you were really onto something when you pointed out this “made-up emotional pain = real physical violence” meme, the whole point of which, it seems, is to obfuscate who the real perpetrators of violence are.

112. rhondda - September 17, 2010

Well, you are right. It is ‘patently dishonest’. However, if your whole self concept as Loretta says is patriarchial, it becomes personally threatening. You have upset her world view and that means she has to make a choice to try and understand what you have said or completely dismiss it in a ‘drama queen’ way. Usually, I have found that it comes out as a personal attack that is so absurd that I am almost knocked off my feet.
Once I said I preferred the concept of a Goddess to the Christian God and immediately I was called a Lesbian. Not that there is anything wrong in being a Lesbian, but I am not one. No one asked what the difference might be or why or anything like that. Quite threatening to their world view of God. The idea of saying no to PIV is in the same way threatening especially if that is also your only idea of sex. Can you just imagine all these sex pos faking orgasms with PIV and then finding out it was all to naught? LOL. Especially, if their relationships are built upon PIV and not on any kind of affinity, emotional attachment or mutual respect? Why then they might have to become responsible for their own desires and life choices and not robotic reactors/attractors/reflectors of men. My goodness, that is an awful lot to ask and then to even think about other women and what happens to them? The poor dears. You are so mean.

113. Undercover Punk - September 17, 2010

You women are FUNNY!

factcheckme - September 17, 2010

dont believe your lying eyes, UP. radical feminists are HUMORLESS. duh.

factcheckme - September 18, 2010

Also, old Valerie keefe is posting furiously now about how I am “sleeping with” the enemy because I’m straight, even though we no longer have piv. She i mean he has told me before that I should just embrace my lesbianism, insisting that anyone who doesn’t “fuck men” is a lesbian, which is apparently how HE gets to refer to himself as one. Because he still fucks women, donchaknow, and doesn’t fuck men. So the definition works for him, and it does what he wants it to do. Ie. Gives him unfettered access to any woman who is piv-centric and heteronormative enough to accept his definition of “lesbian” which includes himself, and me too. Because neither of us have piv with men.

Old Valerie’s girlfriend is, of course, having sex with a man. Valerie is a man. But because its not piv, its not fucking. Right? What does this sound like?

114. rhondda - September 18, 2010

Do I want to know who Valerie Keefe is?

factcheckme - September 18, 2010

probably not…but in the interest of self-protection, you should know who he is. valerie is a self-identified “lesbian transwoman” who stalks radical feminist bloggers and will not take NO for an answer. he posts under multiple user names, and posts furious and repetetive posts, demanding “to be heard”. dirt did a whole expose on old valerie, and outed him as a 300-lb non-op man who talks to himself, and considers his “old” identity (as a man) to be a metaphorical corpse that he metaphorically drags behind him, ala “weekend at bernies” style. this is how dirt ultimately figured him out: the weekend at bernies reference was so bizarre, and he used the reference in his online ramblings through his male identity before transitioning, and continued to use it after too. oops! i dont have a link at the moment, but dirt really did him in over at her place, in an excellent post that i consider to be a true public service. thank you dirt! if anyone has the link, feel free to drop it.

meanwhile, valerie has stated here that he is post-op, and in very detailed language described how he has a vagina now, and when he looked at his and his gfs side by side in the mirror, they looked identical, except his gf had a cervix and he didnt (kinda a large difference there dickwad). AFTER THAT, he has stated that he is non-op, and still has his dick. which is all very frightening actually. because he is trying to make himself seem harmless, as if he couldnt rape anyone anymore, and lying about his status. then he forgets he said that and tells the truth: that he is still very much endowed. but still demands access to women and lesbians, anyway. cause hes a woman, you know! he is, because he says he is.

115. berryblade - September 18, 2010

Maybe the woman who said she felt “erased” by this thread was a t(y)ranny? The man who felt threatened by this thread is hilarious.

Ergh, Valerie Keefe. Never had a comment-confrontation with him, and I’m glad I haven’t had to.

“meanwhile, valerie has stated here that he is post-op, and in very detailed language described how he has a vagina now, and when he looked at his and his gfs side by side in the mirror, they looked identical, except his gf had a cervix and he didnt (kinda a large difference there dickwad). AFTER THAT, he has stated that he is non-op, and still has his dick. which is all very frightening actually. because he is trying to make himself seem harmless, as if he couldnt rape anyone anymore, and lying about his status. then he forgets he said that and tells the truth: that he is still very much endowed. but still demands access to women and lesbians, anyway. cause hes a woman, you know! he is, because he says he is.”

Wtf?

=\

factcheckme - September 18, 2010

Yes, bb, I wondered the same thing. She sounded very much like a transwoman, in every way. Evol radfems is erasing my lived experience!!!!111!!1

They should just set it to music, and call it their theme song.

116. SheilaG - September 18, 2010

Great comments above. And also, the great thing about radical feminist blogs, is that no man can stop us. It shocks the living hell out of men when they hear what real radical feminists actually think of them and their ideas.

That old liverlips thinks this stuff is unreadable speaks volumes. He has rarely if ever encountered a large group of highly sophisticated and outspoken radical feminists. Even our youngest commenters here are sharp, studying hard and fully able to jump and provide valuable commentary.

This is quite frankly one of THE most invigorating radfem discussions I have had on the net, because it opened my eyes to real freedom for women worldwide. It was stark and right out there with something that I never much thought of before. And probably one reason I never gave it much thought, is I’ve never dated or had sex with men. I found them physically so revolting and mentally so arrogant that I have never been able to figure out how straight women can tolerate this stuff.

Now I’m finding out that straight women don’t really like PIV, but tolerate it for a variety of reasons. Since women don’t have sex for eight hours a day, it might be tolerable to be married to a man in which this doesn’t happen very often. That way they get the het validation and privilege, can quite possibly have access to greater wealth than the average lesbian couple, and have social approval, something I almost never get when I’m out in public with my partner.

Liverlips the fake feminist does not know what to make of this, and most likely is afraid that radical feminists will track him down and start picketing his classes, exposing his awful ideas, and also exposing his inability to real deal with a challenge from the actual people who are oppressed under patriarchy. It would make his “feminist” teaching credentials a bit more tenuous, a bit more suspect.

Men don’t like to be challenged by women. They ban women who disagree with them, they usually can shut down women who speak up IRL, and I have never met a single man who can withstand a blistering radical feminist discussion. They can’t handle a true liberation movement of women, and still fear the kind of revolution women are fully capable of.

This discussion has not been shut down, because for once, men are not in charge here, women are. And we can speak very bluntly against male hypocracy, because we have a tiny bit of freedom of the press. Something men have always had, and they are very very unaccustomed to this kind of critique… they can’t handle the truth!

117. Loretta Kemsley - September 18, 2010

FCM, I’ve been thinking about your remarks concerning fundamentalist women. I haven’t read Dworkin on it and am glad you summarized her thoughts on them.

I’ve long said that they resent feminists because feminists are a threat to a way of life that they’ve learned to make work for them, even though some parts of it are stifling. It’s rather like them being terrified if they lived in a house on stilts, and we were hacking away at the stilts with an axe.

But I had not thought that they felt safer there because they had only one man to deal with rather than risk the many.

From Biblical times to the 1960s, rape was considered a crime against the husband or father. He was the true victim because his property rights had been violated. In Biblical times, if the girl (they were married off at menarche) was unmarried, she was either paid for by the rapist (to her father) or she was forced to marry her rapist, both because she was damaged property.

If the father, husband or villagers didn’t think she had fought hard enough (which would almost guarantee she would be murdered), she could be stoned to death because she was raped.

We still see this same blame the victim today. We also still see victims being discarded by her SO because he’s so “hurt” that he can’t bear to be with her.

There are even (yes, today) men who are offended if their wives see a male gynocologist. They count that as adultery because she shouldn’t allow another man to see or touch what “belongs” to them. I’ve even heard men say it would be better if she died than if she saw an ob/gyn.

These are the type of men that fundamentalist women have to cope with in their house on stilts. But they are so used to being treated as property that they are terrified to bail out as the house falls, even though it is actually safer to be on the ground.

It sickens me that they’ve been taught that their vagina is more important than they are. That a piece of tissue called a hymen they will never see and may be born without is more important then they are. That their sexual status is all that is between them and extreme deprivation via being tossed aside into poverty.

This is why it is important for all women to be able to earn their own living. Being financially capable frees them from this sexual enslavement. As long as they must depend on a man to put food on their table, they must comply with every demand he makes.

If more fundamentalist women are having sex before marriage, it is because the fundamentalist men are putting more pressure on them to comply or be abandoned, if Dworkin is correct. If she is correct, then it would not be a voluntary choice on the part of the women. It would be a decision to comply in hopes obedience brings safety.

factcheckme - September 18, 2010

I have a new post up. Enjoy.

factcheckme - September 18, 2010

There are even (yes, today) men who are offended if their wives see a male gynocologist. They count that as adultery because she shouldn’t allow another man to see or touch what “belongs” to them. I’ve even heard men say it would be better if she died than if she saw an ob/gyn.

wow. i havent heard the “better off dead” remark in that context before. i have heard men say that they would prefer it if the woman died in labor than have an abortion. but this is even more arbitrary, and more extreme isnt it? she cant even have preventative care, or indeed seek treatment for an STD or injury that HE GAVE HER if it means having another man touch her genitals?

the solution for all of this, of course, is NO MORE PIV, ever. thats the only way women arent caught in this horrific double-bind of having to shoulder the burdens of PIV alone, and then being refused fair treatment as non-virgins, pregnant persons, birthing/injured/infected persons, or mothers, due to unfair rules written by men to regulate such things. but no-PIV is not an option, ever, even for those who are allegedly pro-choice. as long as women CHOOSE to keep having the mandatory PIV, they MIGHT let us have abortions, when they knock us up. but refusing PIV altogether is not an option.

118. Loretta Kemsley - September 18, 2010

Here’s a seed on it as Newsvine that drew a lot of them. You’ll be shocked to read what they say. A few of them claim to be doctors.

And there’s a few women who agree with them, stating the most horrific things. One woman claimed she handled her own births, making sure she kept her underpants on until just before the baby came and then putting them right back on again immediately after she delivered. Another who claimed she gave birth, then got up and cleaned the house and made dinner for hubby and kids.

http://bonosrama.newsvine.com/_news/2010/04/15/4163474-patient-modesty-is-seeing-a-male-obgyn-immodest

factcheckme - September 18, 2010

loretta, you are right, the comments on that thread are terrible. and you were right to link to it, as its very relevant to any discussion of mandatory PIV, because its so clear that men think they own womens vaginas, in every context. the assumption that we all live with, every day, is that a male partner or potential partner is entitled to access to our vaginas, that they are entitled to stick their dicks into us, and we arent allowed to question it at all. how does this not just absolutely reek of ownership?

my own partner responded with utter frustration, shock, confusion, and disbelief when i told him i wasnt interested in PIV anymore. he then reacted by saying he might leave, because he didnt know if “thats the kind of life” he wanted, or the kind of relationship he wanted. meaning that if he left me, he would find another vagina that he could access, that wouldnt question his ownership of it or entitlement to it or access to it, in any way. some woman he hasnt even met yet, is in possession of HIS vagina, and he would leave me to seek it out. it was stunning, really. even “good” men feel like they own womens bodies, and specifically their genitals. even women they dont even know! the ownership mentality is clear as day.

119. FemmeForever - September 18, 2010

Plus, her tactics obscure the fact that abstaining from relationships with men and PIV are the real road to “empowerment” and clarity. If you think about it, all the other stuff, even a college degree and flat shoes, can’t touch what that one simple change will do for a woman’s psyche, soul, life, mind, and body. Feminists spend sooo much time arguing over things that wouldn’t be an argument between us. If women had some sort of unity, we wouldn’t feel the need to rip at each other over things like choice of shoe, etc etc. Relationships with men are inherently disempowering in patriarchy. ”

Just Brilliant. I don’t want to mar it with extraneous words.

120. Aileen Wuornos - September 19, 2010

Haha, I think the ‘internet celebrity’ Jefree Star already made it for them FCM.

Also, regarding ol liver lips – he’s at it again, except this time linking to Ms.Citrus & I; regarding that thread fcm posted ealier about that guy claiming how radical feminism is authoritarian, conservative and ‘strict father’-esque (hahahahahahahaha) and how Ms.Citrus & I are wrong (no surprise there.)

The whole time they kept talking about radfems ‘oppression’ of free speech and how saying PIV was mandatory is akin to religious fundamentalism. Pfft.

factcheckme - September 19, 2010

I saw that bb. Once again, old hugo attempts to maintain the illusion that he “respects radfem tradition” by telling us we kinda sorta have a point, and that we kinda sorta deserve to be heard, and that his minions kinda sorta should listen to what we have to say. Unfortunately, he undoes his own platitudes, when he basically calls us shrill harpies and cunts who just won’t leave him alone, and are being so unfarrr and unreasonable, and shrill. That’s a double order of shrill, for anyone who’s wondering.

121. Loretta Kemsley - September 19, 2010

The whole time they kept talking about radfems ‘oppression’ of free speech and how saying PIV was mandatory is akin to religious fundamentalism.

Well, gosh, another testament to our power. By discussing things here, we’ve completely shut down the Internet, the publishing industry and even individuals. No one except radfems is able to speak. That’s the best news I’ve had in a long, long time. ROTFLOL

If you see them, can you ask them to provide direct quotes from fundie literature that condemns PIV? That would be handy to have.

Of course, those dramatic tactics are so old and so predictable that Joanna Russ wrote about them back in the 1970s in her book How to Silence Women’s Writing.

“She didn’t write it. She wrote it but she shouldn’t have. She wrote it but look what she wrote about. She wrote it but she isn’t really an artist, and it isn’t really art. She wrote it but she had help. She wrote it but she’s an anomaly. She wrote it BUT…”

122. Loretta Kemsley - September 19, 2010

Additional thought. Guess Hugo didn’t read that femiist book either. What feminist books has he read? Oh, yeah that one…the only one….that is listed at the rate your professor site…you know that one that he reviewed at Amazon and he’s friends with the author, a funfem who who posted in support at his blog and thinks radfems are just awful.

123. Aileen Wuornos - September 19, 2010

Yeah that’s what I noticed as well. Also, funny how he made those posts directed at you, it failed so now he’s going after ms.citrus and i cos we’re younger and (i assume) he believes that somehow we’ll give up easier, or not put up as much of a debate or that we’ll end up swooning for his mighty manly grasp of feminism. Which I find hilarious.

factcheckme - September 19, 2010

Also, who’s Jeffree star?

factcheckme - September 19, 2010

You and ms.c are also venturing over to their turf, which makes them feel like they can control you. Which they kind of can. I refused to engage them, and stayed over here. I am sure it enrages them that i am staying on top of what they say, but am doing it from over here, where I am the boss, not them. You and ms.c are fighting the good fight too, its pretty impressive. But they are also in charge of the convo, and can shut you down at any time. Hugo actually did shut you down. And the tone is getting creepier and creepier, as they get madder and madder. It’s really something to see.

And yes, I know “madder” is not a word.

124. Aileen Wuornos - September 19, 2010

Hey, madder is *so* a word, you just used it didn’t you? Heh. Jefree Star is some old myspace ‘celebrity’ who is a tranny. He sings songs about how all the straight and gay boys love his cunt (his words) and some crap about being the new miss america. i think he’s actually gone on a couple of musical festivals in america but i’m not 100. Mostly popular with 15 year old gogans (i believe there they’re called ‘mall goths’.)

And as for commenting, well, haha i am on uni break and am into a bit of time killing hahahaha ;)

Loretta, I feel like such a fool for saying this, but that’s the first time I’ve heard of that book, but, I will definitely check it out now. I guess we must be repressing speech while we erase women and leave everyone inarticulate with rage! Haha.

125. SheilaG - September 19, 2010

When have religious conservatives ever advocated the end of PIV? Quote the text, quote the preacher or pastor who said this. Rick Warren, Dobson, Robertson… when have they ever said that women have the right to completely reject PIV in marriage because it is harmful to women?

When have radical feminists controlled the press, the internet or TV? When have all our books actually stayed in print? Who is paying us the big bucks to lecture at Yale and Harvard and Berkeley? What major leftist think tank is hiring us by the dozens to write, research and tell the world about radical feminism?

How many radical feminists do you know are getting as much money to speak as Danesh D’Souza?

Just ask Rosemary Radford Reuther how many of her feminist colleagues still have jobs.

So I don’t know where liverlips and his mineons come up with this stuff, and if they are sincere feminists, I don’t know why they should fear radical feminism at all. Unless of course they fear powerful women who aren’t going to kow tow, and that men are simply unused to a “level” playing field, which is separate blogs controlled by a radfem, not moderated at a man’s blog. Sheesh.

What radical feminist texts have those people read?
Feminism means women are no longer beholden to men in any way. Women have carved out freedom on women’s terms. It means that anything that harms women should not be done to women. And it means that despite the incredible opposition for 40 some years, radical feminism is still as powerful today as it was say in 1968 or 1969. Young women are still amazed to discover it, and we know that the women who fought so hard against porn in its early stages now were completely right.

You have to wonder how radical men still get taught, but radical women get erased, and in whose best interest is that?

126. Loretta Kemsley - September 19, 2010

Loretta, I feel like such a fool for saying this, but that’s the first time I’ve heard of that book, but, I will definitely check it out now.

I don’t expect all feminists to know about it, but I do expect an instructor of women’s studies to know about it and teach its principles. The main reason why patriarchy was able to subjugate women for centuries is because they were denied any voice at all, via refusal to let them learn to read and write, via torture devices like the scold’s bridle and by ridicule of anything they did say when they insisted on speaking or writing.

For a supposed feminist professor to rail against women speaking their truths is unforgivable.

factcheckme - September 20, 2010

Well said loretta. It’s absolutely unforgivable, and noone should forget about this, ever.

127. AileenWuornos - September 20, 2010

Okay so I just googled “scold’s bridle” and holy shit, not even medieval torture devices for womyn are free from pornulation. Again, another thing I have learned from reading Femonade.

128. Loretta Kemsley - September 20, 2010

Yep, porn includes torturing women with a scold’s bridle. But hey, just ask the funfems. Not a thing wrong with porn.

The common scold laws are the reason my column at Newsvine is called An Uncommon Scold. It’s fuck you statement even though most haven’t a clue what it means. But the sentiment they express — many are just outraged that I won’t be silenced — is exactly the same as those that caused common scold laws to be enacted.

The last US conviction under the common scold laws was in 1971 when a woman dared to argue with two men over a parking spot. Of course, they weren’t charged for arguing with her.

An uncommon scold is at:

http://an-uncommon-scold.newsvine.com/

If you ever feel like dropping in, you’d be welcome. If you want to comment, you have to register, but it’s free and they don’t send out any emails unless you want them to notify you of something. I never get any except when someone writes to me using my email link or if someone joins one of my women’s groups.

129. SEVAS TRA – T.R.I.C | anti social butterfly - September 23, 2010

[...] apparently,) on footbinding, chivalry and rape (and how they’re all intertwined) and mathematical genius exposing the phallisified side of liberal hedonism (aka, sex positive [...]

130. FAB Libber - October 26, 2010

A few weeks ago when I discovered your blog I read many of the posts, but not necessarily the threads. This was a great thread, and I have just had one of those “the penny dropped” moments.

I could never understand why I and other radfems were effectively labelled “sex-neg” for our views, we were all like “no no, that wasn’t what we said!”

Given that the sex-poz view of sexuality that is phallocentric & PIV focused (ie PIV-poz), anything that deviates from this (ie PIV-neg) becomes twisted into “sex-neg”. Because of their view that sex=PIV; PIV=sex; so anti-PIV=anti-sex.

So, thanks for my personal little aha! moment today. I can now understand how the funfems & sex-poz get to their stupid malformed conclusions.

factcheckme - October 27, 2010

thanks FAB libber! i think most of the best stuff happens in the comments actually. there are over 5000 comments here, if you can believe that. and almost all of them are really good. i spam them if they arent. heh.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 340 other followers