In Which I Utilize Accordion Techno Illustratively! January 6, 2011Posted by FCM in books!, entertainment, feminisms, international, PIV, pop culture, porn, prostitution.
Tags: heterosexuality, PIV, sheila jeffreys, stereo love
as usual, i am probably the last person on planet earth to have heard this song. i was like “pretty sure thats an accordion!?” so i googled it. and yes, its an accordion. there are a surprising number of accordion-techno songs out there actually, but i wouldnt know that being that i live under a counterculture rock with my favorite reruns and my ipod stuffed with the soundtrack of my fading youth. and sometimes, books. its the only way to successfully avoid accidental encounters with eminem and charlie sheen…and get off my lawn!
anyway, this song is currently playing on every radio station at all times, and there are at least 2 versions of both the song and the video. the above version kind of surprised me actually, because it doesnt feature any men in the entire video, at all (except the accordionist). and…the driver probably. and…well, all the men she is probably fucking in those high-priced hotels she is being driven to in the middle of the night in a black luxury sedan. right? shes a hooker. a happy, shiny one, at that! so this is the fun-fem sexxxay empowered version of the song. you know, or something. okay, i am with them so far.
heres another version:
mkay. this is the “sweetly romantic” version i guess? where she pines away for her man, or some man, and lucky for her he was stalking her the whole time and they eventually “randomly hook up” just like she always dreamed (and like he had planned from the beginning). how creepy i mean completely normal! okay. 2 versions of the same song. 2 takes on (literally) the same narrative.
so…i have been thinking lately that there is exactly one explanation for the existence of fun-fem “sex worker advocacy” i mean pornstitution empowerfulization that makes any fucking sense, at all. and i think its just the latest rationalization of het partnerships to come down the pike, since the first rationalization of het partnerships came down the same pike in or around 1900 or so. when some women were no longer as dependant on men as they once were, and were first starting to cut their teeth on a female-centered reality, being openly critical of aggregate male behavior, especially mens dangerous sexual behavior, and making real progress toward eliminating PIV-centric sexuality, and the sexual abuse of women and children, by men.
and as sheila jeffreys notes, out came the big guns to tear it all down, to literally erase all the good work the feminists had done: the male sexologists, who decided, with science! (despite their obvious bias and conflicts of interest) that women were supposed to enjoy PIV, and engage in it as often as possible. oh crap! we better get right on that then. on, men, or back on them. see, theres nothing wrong with men, and mens male-privileged perspective, whereby they audaciously proclaim the most dangerous and least-pleasurable sex-act to be “sex” and you bitches better keep doing it, you better start liking it, and you better quit making us feel bad. just start liking it, and the problem (of women complaining about it) goes away.
so now that we have the mandatory enthusiastic PIV covered (thanks male sexologists!) it becomes even more clear that hooking and het partnerships share quite a lot in common, do they not? so much so that justifying hooking actually justifies your average het partnership pretty well. perhaps especially the way the fun-fems do it, with their empowerfulized ”happy hooker” narrative, which is actually nothing like the actual experience of your average prostituted woman, anywhere in the world. and where the most egregious violence that prostituted women encounter consists of words, the words of radical feminists who are (and always have been) critical of aggregate male behavior, and the sexual abuse of girls and women, by men.
and the economic and social coercion to partner with men hasnt gone away, and decades of feminist history and PIV-critical work has been erased, making the possibility of a non-coercive and non-PIV-centric sexuality seem frankly bizarre to almost everyone. and the resemblance between het partnerships and “sex work” is even more uncanny in fact since women started faking it. or you know, figuring out how to actually have orgasms “from” PIV, by rubbing their clits WHILE being fucked. (god that just makes no fucking sense at all does it?) and keeping that in mind, always…
i think that this pro-pornstitution empowerfulization rhetoric is just more of the same shit, a covert “lesbians and spinsters are gross” meme that primes women for PIV, and quells the screaming inside “modern” women’s heads, because their relationships with men resemble prostitution in a very fundamental way. isnt it? all this empowerfulment and agency bullshit is really just to justify their nigels porn habit, and het partnerships generally.
because straight women know they are never, and i mean NEVER going to find a partner who *isnt* going to regularly masturbate to graphic images of misogyny. to images of other women becoming impregnated. to images that he doesnt know and cant know where they came from, or even what is going on, or who its happening to, and he doesnt care. damn thats disturbing! and of course, porn serves to normalize mens absolute obsession with PIV, and the way they want to fuck too. and all het men, i dont care how “good guy” they are, are ALL demanding PIV-centric sex from their female partners, and under circumstances that look a hell of a lot like a quid-pro-quo, or a barter, if not an outright sale.
just…damn, do ”empowerfulized” fantasies regarding sex-workers lives, and the average nonviolent (!!!11!1) nonexploitative (!!!11!!1) empowerfulized het partnership, look almost identical. and the way these empowerfulized couples are fucking has been made to resemble porn. yay prostitution, then!!11!!1 yay actual porn! all of this is ok! (you know, or none of it is). yes it is, shut up. it is, because the fucking fun-fems (and male sexologists!) say it is.
A Continuum of Woman-Hatred. Or, What “Flavor” Is Your Misogyny? December 24, 2010Posted by FCM in feminisms, health, international, PIV, porn, rape.
Tags: heterosexuality, misogyny, PIV
this was inspired by 9/2′s most recent and most-excellent takedown of porn. she mentioned how so-called “feminist porn” is so elusive, and it got me to thinking…WHAT IF…
if PIV (or PIV-as-pleasure for the “what about teh babiez” crowd) itself is woman-hating, and i think there is an excellent argument that it is (because its specifically and particularly dangerous to women and not to men) then PIV-centric sexuality and therefore heterosexuality itself as we currently know it exist on a continuum of woman-hating. i think we all know what madness lies at the far end of the continuum (rape-murder…and deaths resulting from unwanted pregnancy) but what lies in between just good old-fashioned “vanilla” PIV (what flavor is *your* woman-hate? mine is strawberry! well it used to be, currently i am off the sauce) and the intentional and sexualized extermination of girls and women, by men?
welp…all PIV-centric porn would lie on this continuum, for starters. and this would, in fact, explain a lot. it would explain why so-called “feminist porn” is so elusive (because it doesnt exist, because nothing feminist exists on a continuum of woman-hate. duh.) it would explain why PIV and rape are nearly indistinguishable in so many instances: where does each lie on the continuum? an inch apart? half an inch? two full inches? color me unimpressed with *that* alleged difference…kinda like the difference between night and…still night. it would also explain why just run-of-the-mill heterosexual fucking (and porn) has become more and more degrading to women over time, and more and more violent, but is still considered “just sex.”
heterosexual “sex” as a continuum of woman-hate would explain why even the united states supreme court has historically had a difficult time articulating any real difference between “mere” porn and material that is so vile and without redeeming value that it is illegally obscene. it would explain why marriage and in fact het partnerships in general resemble prostitution, and why the fun-fems and PIV-pozzies framing all of these issues in terms of “consent” and “agency” are chasing their tails, and why their entire discourse absolutely smacks of double and triple-think. wouldnt it?
in fact…in the interest of time, i propose that we start with the assumption that everything exists on a continuum of woman-hatred, and see if things fall into place. i mean really. whats the sense of resisting this at all, when its probably the truth, and its the short-way around, at that? are we afraid of hurting mens feelings? please. IF ONLY any of this were about “feelings” instead of actual, demonstrable harm, it would make me SO. HAPPY. but i digress.
with specific regard to “sex” and PIV-as-pleasure, i think the continuum framework is clearly applicable. it starts with a man sticking his dick into a vagina because it feeeeels good (to him), and ends in the literal (LITERAL!) death of hundreds of thousands of women annually, now, and millions (billions?) of women across time and place.
so. where does *your* heterosexuality fall on the continuum? where does your favorite memory of the best “sex” you ever had, fall on the continuum of woman-hate? this is why i can barely even masturbate anymore. my own memories of 20-something years of heterosexual fucking, material i used to invoke as a masturbatory aid, are horrifying to me now. and again, the idea of PIV-centric sexuality existing only on a continuum of woman-hate explains a lot. it also seems to be demonstrably true, for anyone who thinks this is just a mental exercise, or a faith-based discourse. its not.