Fun! With Numbers! The Sex-Positive Equation September 9, 2010Posted by FCM in authors picks, books!, feminisms, health, international, liberal dickwads, logic, PIV, pop culture, radical concepts, self-identified feminist men, sorry!, trans.
Tags: logic, PIV, sheila jeffreys, the spinster and her enemies
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:
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:
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.