The “New Morality,” Faking It, and Marginalizing the Spinster (Aka. Sex-Positivism, Old School Style) October 1, 2010Posted by FCM in books!, feminisms, gender roles, health, MRAs, PIV, politics, pop culture, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: lesbian, sex positive, sheila jeffreys, the spinster and her enemies, WWI
there seem to be essentially two ways that MRAs, anti-feminists and sex-pozzies go about their business of “discrediting” radical feminist work, and derailing the discussion to meet their own ends. and by “discrediting” and derailing, i mean calling radfems lesbians (because lesbians are always wrong) and the “end” appears to be, again, supporting the sex-positive agenda, which boiled down of its endlessly obfuscating rhetoric is approximately “PIV is truth.”
the first one is the logical fallacy, which i diagrammed here. basically, they just make all kinds of idiotic conclusions that dont even follow from their own premises. for example: all lesbians eschew PIV; some radical feminists eschew PIV; therefore all radical feminists are lesbians. LOGIC FAIL! it also doesnt work to conclude that “some radical feminists are lesbians.” this is just completely and utterly false. and thats even without discussing that its also completely offensive to use “lesbian” this way. DUH. diagram it, and see for yourself.
the other is the logical proof that is structurally true, but they fail to examine the premises. that form of argument is diagrammed here. basically: radfems are lesbians, and lesbians are always wrong about everything, and are evil and gross; therefore, radfems are always wrong about everything, and are evil and gross. but their premises are a bit, um, politically incorrect, arent they? i mean, i wouldnt expect anything less from the MRAs, but the sex-pozzies like to think they are better than that. they arent.
theres also nothing fresh or progressive about it. again, we see in “spinster” that women who eschewed sexual relationships with men, even if they werent lesbians, were labelled as sexually frustrated man-haters, even though it was actually a hard-won option and was made possible by womens increasing economic opportunites that made mandatory heterosexual partnerships increasingly unnecessary. which was obviously a good thing for any woman who found PIV problematic:
and i bet they were all ugly and fat too! because those characteristics also render anything a feminist has to say patently false. so we are now on the road to separating spinsters from “normal” women. we also saw a deliberate campaign at the time to encourage “good” women to be “enthusiastic” about their participation in PIV with men…gee, where have we heard that before? and not only were spinsters not having PIV, they were further marginalized from “real women” who not only put up with it, like they had in the past, but also began to “like it.” or you know, to pretend they did:
radfems is bitter and dont like sex! check. real women let their men the world know how much they LOOOOVE PIV. and this “sex positive” business is about as fresh and new as…well, pre-world war 1.
so what is this all about, really? and why did “PIV-positivism” and its attendant celibate-bashing and lesbian-inferring pop up at the precise moment it did? could it possibly be because…some women were about to legitimately cast off PIV (and therefore men) for good? looks like it:
and from here of course, it was but a hop, skip and a jump to the creation of “lesbian” as a deviant sexual category. yes, apparently, that was the beginning of the end of PIV-critical feminism, and it was instigated by male sexologists, and just at the right time, too. issues of morality, sexual expression and orientation splintered feminists into basically 2 camps (care to name them?), and dealt the death blow to any real, earth-shattering feminist work, erasing anything PIV-critical, literally, from history (even the history of feminism):
new categories, based on sexual contact. at exactly the same time that feminists were dissecting PIV, finding it problematic, and becoming socially and financially able to do without it, for probably the first time in history. now why would that be?
and did i say how utterly homophobic and regressive this all is?
and its exactly as fresh as…this lace tea gown, which i found here, circa 1890-1892. it couldve been worn by the first sex-positive feminists! now thats good history.