jump to navigation

Men Hate It When Women Remember December 2, 2010

Posted by FCM in books!, feminisms, health, international, PIV, politics, pop culture.
Tags: , , , , ,
trackback

this moron reality seems to have another part to it doesnt it?  story 1 and story 2 are playing all the time, and one is real, and the other isnt.  but women also arent supposed to remember anything.  and at the same time, we are also supposed to have the reasoning skills of very young children, who because of childrens inexperience and not-yet-fully-formed brains fail to grasp the importance of motivation, or the fact that people have agendas.  these both seem key dont they?  incidentally, who else is completely ignorant of history, and motivation?  its almost…or, exactly…as if the perfect (or perfectly compliant) woman is one with a head injury.

regarding memory, when women remember what other men have done, they are bitter.  when a woman remembers what her current partner did in the past, even if it was just last week, she is being mean.  oh noes!  not teh terrible meanness!  and thats just the stuff we have experienced firsthand.

when it comes to realizing and remembering and getting, really getting, what men as a sexual class have done to women as a sexual class, even within our lifetimes and in our own cultures, we are all supposed to be blind, deaf, and suffering from amnesia.  and illiteracy apparently.  because the very last thing we are supposed to do, i guess, is read actual books, written by radical feminists.  books!  its like…a secret treasure trove of knowledge, that exists to disprove just about everything the third-wave and allegedly-feminist men believe is true.  only, its not really a secret as much as we just arent supposed to know about it, even though its right there.  do they think we are stupid or something?  this is not a rhetorical question.

for example…the first “sexual revolution” in the 1920s was an anti-feminist backlash, created in direct response to womens increasing economic opportunities in the west, and feminists work against PIV-centric sexuality and the sexual abuse of women and children, by men.  this is documented.  and male sexologists (sexologists!  since when does engaging in something and liking it, qualify anyone as an -ologist?  they were more like PIV-ologists anyway, or perhaps euphemism-ologists) who arrived on that scene at that exact moment in time, had an agenda.  DUH.  male sexologists had an agenda.  most people, and groups of people do.  some agendas are legit, others arent.

in figuring out how the world works from the perspective of a fucking adult, recognizing motivation is a very preliminary step actually, but women arent supposed to figure this out, ever.  along with remembering and acknowledging that everything has a history, adult humans who are capable of rational thought also realize that something motivates every person, and every group of people, all the time.  and that people, perhaps especially men, dont normally do things that are against their own best interest, out of the goodness of their hearts.  this is really basic.

anyone who doesnt get that by now needs to pull on their big-girl pants, and get real.  once you have a handle on that, then things like this arent as difficult to believe:

from the chapter on “the invention of the frigid woman” in jeffreys “the spinster and her enemies.”  see?  the idea of “enthusiastic consent” is not new.  it was invented over a hundred years ago, to solidify the primacy of marriage and the het relationship, just when women were first able to do without men, and without the mandatory PIV that follows all heterosexual men around like their fucking shadow.  and because men were used to paying prostitutes for fake enthusiasm and fake orgasms, and they felt that fake orgasms were lacking with their wives, who only put up with PIV, historically, because they had to.  what upperclass wives never had to do, before the sex reformers of the 1920s got ahold of them, is to like it.  or, you know, to pretend like they did.

meanwhile, feminists work in lessening PIV-centric sexuality, including the sexual abuse of women and girls, failed.  and something else won out, instead.  this “something else” is what passed as a sexual revolution in the 1920s.  and it passed again, in the 1960s.  and its passing YET AGAIN, for the third fucking time, now.  how many times is this going to play out?  how long will it be, before women remember, and before they learn to recognize and acknowledge motivation, and do something with that information?

i get that there are competing interests here, and there are many forces that, acting in concert, motivate women to not see the truth about men.  fine.  just dont call it feminist, is all i ask.  its acting as if you have a fucking head injury, as a survival mechanism.  thats all it is.

Comments

1. factcheckme - December 2, 2010

i can easily figure out how to make it snow on my blog, but i can no longer add links in any of my posts. thanks wordpress!

2. Undercover Punk - December 2, 2010

Number 1, love the snow. Very whimsical, honey!!!11!!1!1!

Number 2, yes, yes, yes, I will be back for more discussion, I only have a minute right now! This is a VERY important conversation. Especially:

when it comes to realizing and remembering and getting, really getting, what men as a sexual class have done to women as a sexual class, even within our lifetimes and in our own cultures, we are all supposed to be blind, deaf, and suffering from amnesia. and illiteracy apparently.

This KILLS me. Nobody, no ONE EVER wants to admit this. I’m like, uh, “men are the primary perpetrators of violence against women. globally and historically. It’s undeniable, peeps.” and without fail: BUT! I love my nigel. I love my dad. Blah, blah, blah.

My favorite thing is *your* coinage of: AGGREGATE MALE BEHAVIOR. That is the point, people.

3. veganprimate - December 3, 2010

What really irritates me is when the system encourages women to forget what a previous boyfriend did to her and to get back on the dating horse. Therapists, men themselves, female friends, etc. all want women to achieve some level of “spiritual growth” by which they can be abused mentally, emotionally, and sometimes physically by some dude and then run right out and experience it again with a new guy.

I remember watching Diary of a Mad Black Woman (I think it was), and after being put through some seriously heinous stuff, the lead character meets a “nice guy” and he gives her shit for having a wall up. Putting up a wall is a NORMAL protective response, but we’re supposedly “sick” and in need of therapy.

The longer I live, the more I think separatism is the only way to deal with men.

What irks me is that it almost seems like the men are complaining that they aren’t getting their chance to mess with a woman. How dare she take away his inalienable right to fuck any woman over he wishes.

4. NotSo - December 3, 2010

Part of the problem is that when history is taught in schools, it is usually a very basic, sanitized, male-centric version of history.

Anything added by women to the discourse is just not ‘legitimate’ enough to be considered by various education boards (apart from the occasional Bronte or Desai). A lot of the times it’s the same story for higher education. But by then no one is even thinking about the women anyway, not even the women.

I’ve actually had a silly man-friend (henceforth smf or smurf) recently use Foucaultian whatever-the-fuck-it-is to say “Well when you call it oppression you’re just using the language of your oppressors!” Oh well bravo fuckhead smurf, I didn’t know women were supposed to invent a new fucking language before being given ‘human’ status. Or did you mean calling it ‘Dancing in teh Daisies’ will actually turn everything around for us? Gawd, stupid women, as usual.

(Btw this smurf also said: “Women have sexual power over men!” When probed further into the nature of said power: “Women have the power to withhold sex from men.” After laughing a great deal – I always thought it was everyone’s inalienable human right to say ‘No asshole, gerrofit!’ – and then asking where is that power if I’m being raped: “Well just kick him in the balls, man. Or shoot him!”)

Smurf’s right – I should have kicked him in the balls. Too bad I was driving at the time.

Actually I don’t think smurf is even really a friend for me anymore. It should in fact be called ‘a series of exchanges with a misogynist I am socially well acquainted with that are civil because I just don’t have the time/inclination/energy to deal with his balls-for-brain misogyny’. Could “man” work? Too broad, doesn’t imply the acquaintanceship part of it. Any suggestions?

Because there should be a word for that. An honest-to-glod OFFICIAL term, that is recognized and understood by ALL people, EVERYwhere.

Hey, maybe there is something to reclaiming language after all! Does this mean all women are now unoppress- I mean, not dancing with daisies anymore?

*Stomps off to go look for some balls to knee, really hard*

P.S. Thank you for the space to rant!

5. thebewilderness - December 3, 2010

Hoof ’em in the junk, NotSo!

Most of us are, or have been, sick and in need of therapy. We need to be reconditioned to reality, or deconditioned, or wev.
Srsly! This is the conversation we have constantly on the abuse forum. Believe the behavior, not the words. The words do not trump the behavior. You have been conditioned to mental illness and the truth will set you free even though it leaves you screaming and crying and mad as hell.
This is a tremendous struggle for women who have become accustomed to make lemonade or suffer the consequences. The struggle to recognize that you are being handed lemons. That you are in a lemon grove and lemons is all that is on offer.

factcheckme - December 3, 2010

yes, what we are taught in school and what is “common knowledge” is all male centered BS. story 1 and all that. and we are kept busy with mundane tasks and rituals so we dont the time or energy to go seeking this stuff out. i get it. what is pissing me off at the moment is the fun-fems and self-identified male feminists, who cant even be bothered to read, and who with their youthful exuberance repeatedly declare themselves the inventers of the wheel with their idiotic sex-poz rhetoric thats been around (and around womens necks) since before WWI.

and i just finished “spinster” finally, and its the easiest book in the world to read, its not long, and its absolultely profound. it really is. but the fucking sex-pozzies would rather write books than read them. and they would rather have PIV than analyze it, even though they are suffering all the consequences that women have always suffered from a PIV-centric sexuality. they would rather align themselves with dangerous men, than dissect and examine aggregate male behavior. the fact that they are calling it feminist (and FRESH!) is whats getting to me at the moment.

6. truthvscompliance - December 3, 2010

This reminds me of that article where a woman wrote into Dan Savage (I think that’s his name – he’s a gay white male, popular advice colomnist or something like that) about how she was raped during her open marriage with her husband by one of her other partners and after she was raped, she could not have sex with her husband without being triggered. She had a boyfriend whom she could have sex with without being triggered and since this is an open marriage, you’d think that would be okay with hubby, right? (cuz if he “needs” sex, he could get it somewhere else, ya know?) NOPE! He’s pressuring her to have sex with him, even though he’s triggering her (after all, she is HIS, not her boyfriend’s – ugh, women still seen as property – EVEN in “open” marriages). And Savage fucking tells her to stop playing the victim card, to get over her rape, that she can’t just stop being her husband’s wife because she was raped and that she “needs to get her ass into therapy” (making the assumption she hasn’t been going to therapy already – which many men will say to shame rape victims).
Instead of suggesting that the hubby go about this in a different way (like NOT pressure her or changing up HOW he has sex with her, or how HE might need to get some therapy) – he tells the woman to suck it up and put out for her husband, cuz that’s her DUTY! And Mr. Savage was all like, if you don’t put out for your husband, you might as well get a divorce. Grrrr (I agree with her getting a divorce- NOT because she isn’t putting out for her husband tho, but because the husband is clearly an asshole). Then he implies that she’s LYING about her husband triggering her, simply because she can have sex with the bf without being triggered (and ALMOST EVERY MAN echos that sentiment, as if it’s inconceivable that one man could trigger, whilst another not).
And I don’t know the entire story behind this open marriage but it would NOT surprise me in the least if her husband pressured (coerced) her into doing the open marriage thing to begin with (and I question this because he IS pressuring her into sex with him – men who pressure, will do it for ANYTHING they want) – which she might subconsciously be using to blame him for her rape or why he might be triggering her (of course, I can think of a million things men do or demand sexually that could be triggering for someone who was raped).

7. SheilaG - December 3, 2010

This whole thing about contemporary memory and herstorical memory are really key for women. To understand how story 1 and story 2 work, you have to actually know what really happened to women throughout history, or at least get down 100 years backward and forward about what women’s lives have really been like. You want to get to step 1 – 19th-early 20th century feminism, backlash 1– sex poz 1920s, Step 2– second wave feminism, — backlash 2– 1990s sex poz and third wave nonsense.

You have to get the system that radical feminism comes to fore, men get really really threatened, and do back down, because the rage of loads of women does work. Witness women in congress storming the steps of the capital during Anita Hill, and the 1992 election… year of the woman, and how women finally woke up yet again, when they saw all white male senators facing Anita Hill. Hardly a revolution, but it was very powerful.

Powerful spinsters –lesbian and straight really gaining economic power–getting jobs on their own, the new woman of the 1880s, then sexologists coming in to squash this down. We repeat the process again and again and again. What don’t women NOT get about hanging around a bunch of men, drunken frat boys say. We know all men are potential rapists, and that men will wait to take advantage of any weak woman at any time, while male gangs watch and egg on.

Yet frats are still allowed to have beer busts, and aren’t closed down after rape and rape attempts by male gangs (frat boys).

The system of patriarchy and its tactics are repetitive, and the male erasure of women’s lives guarantees this system can and will continue.

What prevents women from reading the radical feminists– Matilda Joselyn Gage, Andrea Dworkin, Sheila Jefferys… take your pick? Again, I can talk to just about any woman IRL out there, and I can guarantee that they have NEVER heard of any of these writers. Day in and day out, I can ask what women read, and the answer is always scary.

Men do everything to create an erasure system, a system that will actually cause women to be afraid to read or discover this stuff. Since women are filled with this fear, the constant male threats that become a part of the air women breath, we get stuck.

And the flappers of the 1920s were rebelling against the “serious” 19th century feminists, just as the fun fems of today rebel against Mary Daly or second wave radical feminists, and on we go yet again.

In a male centric HIStory, men repeat again and again and again
“those who forget history are doomed to repeat it…” they mean “the lessons” of their wars.

But women are in this constant state of absolute denial that they even are in a sex class, and that they are the prey of men, that they are in a system of enforced terror, servitude, and humiliation, and that it can be as blatant as “The Social Network” and how EVERY woman in that movie is treated by Facebook inventors, and NO reviewer even comments on the horrifying woman hatred that is the heart of the movie and the invention of facebook itself. Point this out, talk about it, and a light might go on.

But never in history have I met so many women, so unwilling to read, so unwilling to face Story 1 & 2. Just ask women IRL, ask them… you’ll get those blank looks. One lesbian friend years ago said “We need to start new consciousness raising groups all over again” because we have hundreds of thousands of women born after say 1968, who haven’t got a clue, and who are so male identified, they actually willingly put women at risk who do protest against horrifying male behavior, and that scares me!!

8. Nelle - December 3, 2010

^^Omg,what a fucking asshole that guy is. I don’t believe in that “open marriage” crap to be honest-it seems like polygamy’s raunchy cousin ,and it’s all in the name of a man having his cake and eating it too.

What I don’t get about “fun feminism” is this..isn’t doing everything you want,in spite of the patriarchy,kind of like settling? I think many people would like to adopt popular labels to sugarcoat their views. Calling something Feminist is obviously good and healthy to a lot of females,even those who don’t necessarily identify themeselves as feminists. It’s much easier to sell sexy funtime stripper workout polls ,and for big businesses to get women to buy fashion and beauty products under certain “woman friendly” labels. Also labeling it as “Patriarchy Compliant” will just turn a whole lot of people off,I guess. I really do wish the current generation of feminists would stop calling what they’re doing feminist. I decided to wash my ass today-is that a feminist choice?Being male-compliant ,while being a choice,is not a feminist choice in my opinion.

factcheckme - December 4, 2010

speaking of fucking idiot fun-fems acting like they all have head injuries…behold:

http://thecurvature.com/2010/11/20/on-the-transgender-day-of-remembrance-remembering-why-theyre-not-here/

it takes a whole heap of not-remembering and not examining aggregate male behavior for WOMEN to take responsibility for “cis-violence” against transpeople. fucking christ people. i feel like i got stupider just reading it.

9. thebewilderness - December 4, 2010

Does it strike you as odd that people who have gone to great lengths to be accepted as men or women would have their efforts disrespected by separating them out under the guise of remembrance?
It seems an odd thing to do to people one claims to care about to me.
Rather like making the memorial for an adopted child all about the fact that they are adopted.

10. Social Worker - December 4, 2010

I thought you and Cara were on good terms with each other, FCM, no? Did something change or was I just misinformed?

factcheckme - December 4, 2010

social worker, i have no idea what you are talking about. we arent on any terms, we dont know each other at all.

11. FAB Libber - December 4, 2010

FCM:

yes, what we are taught in school and what is “common knowledge” is all male centered BS. story 1 and all that. and we are kept busy with mundane tasks and rituals so we dont the time or energy to go seeking this stuff out. i get it.

A couple of mechanisms worth remembering; which explain part of the reason that funfems et al are doomed to repeat and neglect to read – an important part of the propaganda war against women actively includes erasing women’s work(s) and discrediting women’s work(s).

On erasing women’s work, women in past feminist movements are airbrushed out of history and forgotten. The easiest excuse given is that the work they did is now “irrelevant” to life today, and that particular period of feminism achieved all of its goals (this latter part is still an active narrative on 70s feminism).

To discredit contemporary (radical) feminist works, the propaganda system must discredit the author (Dworkin is possibly the best example of this happening).

Sheila touched on the above points:
The system of patriarchy and its tactics are repetitive, and the male erasure of women’s lives guarantees this system can and will continue.

And most radfems, when they come to understand the system of oppression against women, come to understand how the various mechanisms and cycles play out, over and over again. Nothing we say now is particularly new (just updated for the contemporary situation). It just gets frustrating when younger (fun)feminists think they are trail blazing some new uncharted territory, when clearly, the “sexual revolution” happened three times in the twentieth century, each time being promoted as new and liberating (these days called “empowering”).

This is why FCM’s PIV series is important, to show that fucking one’s way to empowerfulness won’t work, and is downright dangerous and has many consequences for women. Which in turn exposes the contradiction between Story 1 and Story 2, and which “reality” becomes the accepted one, and what is actually happening, and how often it actually happens.

The contradiction (naming it for what it is, propaganda) is promoted collectively (media), and individually (as per NotSo’s SMF example). It is extremely difficult for individual women to become aware of Story 2, unless some of it happens to them. Even then, it is never a straightforward path to acceptance of the reality, and most will self-blame and write it off as an individual occurrence, rather than a systematic form of oppression for all females. Primarily because “the big picture” is disguised, and individual “failures” are framed as the causes. This is the other mechanism that stops the experiences of Story 2 from being realised (erasure via “individual failures”) so that Story 1 can continue to be the mainstream version of “reality”.

After a while, for some of us, we come to understand (as thebewilderness said) that we are in one (gigantic) lemon grove. Separatism is the only way out if you value your sanity. Even the supposedly “benign” SMFs play their part in denying women’s actual reality. It’s a mindfuck.

I apologise for such a longwinded comment.

12. sar - December 4, 2010

“truth is not the opposite of a lie, it is the opposite of forgetting. Truth is unforgetting” -Andre Brink
what did women tell themselves in the 1920’s? The exact same thing that liberal feminists tell themselves now?(that they are overcoming the stigmas of female sexuality and repression by enthusiastically enjoying sex on male terms). I should read up on this.

I don’t know if you have heard of this new book called “Sex At Dawn”. It is written by partners, male phd, female MD, and yet it is sooo abundantly clear that her voice is silent and the book is a male agenda and that a highly educated, economically free woman, is still fucked by PIV . Its supposed to be a look at human sexuality based on pre-history and scientific study but its all complete bullshit. The authors believe that egalitarian pre-historic “promiscuity” can be recreated in a modern patriarchal context if women just let their men be promiscuous sex, and serve men by being promiscuous themselves. The dude makes a rape joke about sexologists in the 1920’s- portraying them as quaint scientists, instead of the sexual predators they were. Yes, thats right, in a book that ultimately asks women to make themselves more sexually available, the dude makes a rape joke. “This arrangement [in which male doctors masturbate female patients] might strike some readers as the very definition of ‘good work if you can get it’ “, he says, and then reassures us that the doctors didn’t enjoy such predatory practices. I am poised to start a one woman war on this book because it is really being supported and pushed unquestioningly in very liberal circles, and because I feel the need to defend fucked up readings of gender and pre-history. Which also makes an interesting point. Pre-history is before history, before record. It is a forced forgetting of that that came before civilization- of equality between the sexes. This book especially has street cred because of its female co-author. One of its biggest proponents, ofcourse, is a legitimate writer of history- a man- Dan Savage (as mentioned above-ultra liberal sex advice columnist).

13. Sage - December 4, 2010

Wow, lots of things going on here. But I just want to comment on #6 above regarding Dan Savage. He’s often been an asshole on purpose. He started writing for the gay population, and when he’d get hetero letters, he’d slam them meanly, kind of a payback-time mentality for the way straight advice columnists would regard letters from the GBTQ population. He did get over it, though – he had to because of the sheer volume of hetero mail he got from people honestly in need of advice, and he, himself, started seeing people instead of sexual orientations. So, he grew up. Doesn’t excuse his past behaviours, but at least he’s not the asshole he once was.

Also, I teach philosophy, and we just started a unit on Love, Sex, and Friendship. I start by having kids define the three terms to include all necessary and sufficient conditions. Typically when we get to “What is sex?” it’s me against 30 people arguing that PIV sex is too exclusive to be the only way we define it. This year, a first, I had allies in the class. A good third of the class thought we have to start thinking about how we define sex differently. One opponent asked, “What’s the big deal – does foreplay have an inferiority complex because we don’t include it as sex?” I used a game analogy to explain. If we said it’s only a game if we use balls, then we’re wrong because there are lots of games we can play without balls. We’re defining game incorrectly if that’s our criteria. And, similarly, we’re defining sex incorrectly if it’s only PIV because there’s lots of games we can play without balls.

factcheckme - December 4, 2010

its becoming more and more clear to me that anything PIV-centric has male-agenda written all over it. because women know better. women know that PIV is the least pleasurable and most dangeorus sex act there is. we know that every time we engage in it, we could become impregnated against our wills. and we know that our partners dont give a fuck about us, at all. that might be the worst part of it. as i think ms.andrea said on the intercourse series, the heterosexual “act of love” is actually an orwellian hate-fest against women, when you see it for what it is. i cannot even imagine being in the position of the potential impregnator, and ejaculating into someone who did not wish to become pregnant. it would be the most hateful, spiteful, selfish act i can imagine. “FUCK IT, IF YOU DONT CARE, WHY SHOULD I?” is the phrase that comes to mind. and thats under the best of circumstances, where the act is actually desired, or something resembling it. this is what passes as an expression of LOVE in every single het relationship as we know it.

and regarding motivation, i dont suppose it would surprise anyone here to learn that old liverlips is talking about rape again, on his blog. when men talk about rape, this should be a HUGE red flag, to anyone who understands thing one about motivation, and agendas. theres a reason that allegedly pro-feminist men (even the good ones! of which old liverlips definitely is NOT) talk about prostitution and porn and rape, and why NONE OF THEM talk about PIV, or anti-PIV. its because they have agendas too. yes, even the good ones have a fucking agenda, when it comes to PIV-centric sexuality. they like it, and they want it to continue, and they have every reason in the world to frame the issues in terms of “consent” becuase it takes the emphasis off the fact that PIV is dangerous to women, even when its wanted. that PIV is INHERENTLY dangerous, and therefore INHERENTLY problematic, and inequitable to engage in it. they will never frame the issues this way, because its against their own interests to do so. even the so-called pro-feminist ones are guilty as sin when it comes to pushing this one. EVEN WHEN they are framing it as anti-porn or anti-rape they are still pushing a PIV-centric male agenda. it really could not be more obvious.

factcheckme - December 4, 2010

also, regarding “defining sex” i find it increasingly problematic to even include PIV as a sex act anymore, let alone defining PIV as sex, and sex as PIV (ie. the mainstream and sex-pozzie view). i just dont think of penis-in-vagina as sex, at all. its not pleasurable, or at least considering how dangerous it is, its not pleasurable ENOUGH to warrant doing it for pleasures sake. it doesnt even make any fucking sense, if you believe that “sex” should be sexy, or pleasurable, or healthy, or relaxing, or stress-reducing, or any of the things we are led to believe about “sex” and the benefits of “doing it.” because PIV is dangerous, its stresful, it doesnt feel that good, and frankly, the act of penetration signals THE END of the encounter, not the beginning. ever since the first time i engaged in PIV, i realized that being penetrated was the end. the fun stuff was over, the pleasurable stuff was over, and in about 5 minutes, the entire encounter would end. it was heartbreaking, is what it was. and thats always what PIV was for me. it was the end of my otherwise fun night, that i didnt want to end. the really sick thing about it is that the danger was just beginning, and if we had stopped short of intercourse, i would have had all the pleasure i was going to have anyway, without all the worry and stress that the next (last) 5 minutes always brought. and for what? so he could shit all over my fun night, and so i could worry for the rest of the month if my birth control worked. the payoff was essentially nonexistant. SO NOT WORTH IT!

14. veganprimate - December 4, 2010

“…and frankly, the act of penetration signals THE END of the encounter, not the beginning. ever since the first time i engaged in PIV, i realized that being penetrated was the end. the fun stuff was over, the pleasurable stuff was over, and in about 5 minutes, the entire encounter would end. it was heartbreaking, is what it was. and thats always what PIV was for me. it was the end of my otherwise fun night, that i didnt want to end. the really sick thing about it is that the danger was just beginning, and if we had stopped short of intercourse, i would have had all the pleasure i was going to have anyway, without all the worry and stress that the next (last) 5 minutes always brought. and for what? so he could shit all over my fun night, and so i could worry for the rest of the month if my birth control worked. the payoff was essentially nonexistant. SO NOT WORTH IT!”

THAT is it in a nutshell. That is spot on.

Ever notice that when people impart knowledge about the birds and the bees to the next generation, they never have to explain cuddling, caressing, fondling? Those seem to come naturally, but everyone has to be told what to do with regard to PIV. It’s just so stupid. Save it for making babies and that’s it.

15. SheilaG - December 4, 2010

Save it only for making babies… it really is for procreation only, and only on the woman’s terms.
End PIV for all the women who don’t want it period.
Straight women could end it all tomorrow. We’d have to change the rape laws in the meantime, because male rape would escalate (in marriage), it would be a war for awhile.

Once the truth of PIV is finally told, and all straight women are told about it…

16. purpleunderground - December 5, 2010

Straight women could end it all tomorrow. We’d have to change the rape laws in the meantime, because male rape would escalate (in marriage), it would be a war for awhile.

No. It would be an ongoing war, a rapefest. And as men make and enforce the laws, you can bet that the pathetic current 6% conviction rate would plummet to 0%.

A big percentage of het women know that they don’t care for PIV much, they perform it because they know that on some level that is the “deal” you have to make in a het “relationship”. Otherwise the dude will sulk or tantrum to get his way, or worse, take it anyway solely on his terms. At least by giving into it, they get a tiny bit of control in an otherwise shitty arrangement.

factcheckme - December 5, 2010

yes, i dont think i am “telling” het women anything they dont already know, EXCEPT perhaps that this sex-pozzie shit is having its third day in the sun. its not the first time, and theres nothing revolutionary about it, but you honestly wouldnt know that to listen to them, or any of the sex-pozzie bullshit thats in the mainstream and has been since the 60s and 70s with playboy culture etc. i didnt know it, until i read spinster. because anti-PIV work and any headway it makes is deliberately covered up and erased, by the next incarnation of sex-positivism, and the male sexologist agenda to mold women to fit into mens PIV-centric sexuality. this is the THIRD. FUCKING. TIME.

what het women already know is that they engage in PIV for a multitude of reasons, that have little to nothing to do with the pleasure they get from it, which for many many MANY women is something approaching zero. and i know they are afraid of what would happen, if they said no. i know this because i was afraid, and my partner nearly left me over it when i said i no longer cared to engage in PIV, but that we could still do “other things.” i even said we could talk about it again after menopause, or if we decided to conceive a child. and he took this to mean that i was “cutting him off,” and that i no longer “shared his values.” the only reason i was able to do what i did, is that i am not financially dependant on him, and i could afford to have him walk away if he chose to do that. if things were otherwise, i never could have taken the risk. and it IS a risk. anytime theres risk there like that, theres coersion, plain and simple. i know women know that, and i know men know it too.

and i have spoken here several times about what “empowerfulized” fun-fem sexuality meant for me: i wasnt as afraid of being raped, once i started giving it away consensually. i mistook that feeling of somewhat-relief for feeling sexually powerful, and as if i was in control of the situation. which of course is complete bullshit. but i suspect its a common error. nothing new under the sun afterall.

factcheckme - December 5, 2010

also, i find it interesting that this post seems to have brought out the lurkers. i wonder why? i have been sick with the flu for 2 weeks, and barely had the energy to post anything new. i finished spinster, and was in the mood to take a swipe at the fun-fems. so i did. i actually have another privilege-post in the works, but am high on decongestants and its just not going to happen until i come down a bit. heh. thanks for reading.

17. veganprimate - December 5, 2010

“No. It would be an ongoing war, a rapefest. And as men make and enforce the laws, you can bet that the pathetic current 6% conviction rate would plummet to 0%.”

Well, I guess I’ve been hanging around blogs where Sheila hangs around too much and she’s rubbing off on me, b/c my response to that would be: well, then, the women will just have to get fiercer. We’d have to start carrying weapons. Or gang up on a dude who has raped a woman. We could theoretically do it. The question is WOULD we do it?

Yes, if one woman stands up to a rapist husband and does something to him, she’ll probably end up in jail, but they can’t put all of us in jail, can they? That’s the point of a revolution. If it’s coming from all sides, the oppressor is fucked.

18. SheilaG - December 5, 2010

I often have this feeling, well not a feeling really, I see it happening all the time… some man is being awful in some way, women are shifting uncomfortably, pretending not to hear, just enduring… they don’t speak up, don’t tell the man to get lost, just sit quietly and endure the low level verbal abuse.. using a woman hating “joke” or two.

I have a feeling that PIV is like this too. When you total up all the hours in the week, PIV might encompass less than an hour a week total, but say the man is wealthy, the woman has status, expensive clothes, mostly a life of her own while the husband is at work… or kids to care for. To me, this must be the bottom line, just as the straight women endure the “jokes” the obnoxious men, the butt pinching… all the stuff I do not tolerate ever.

This “put up with PIV for several minutes a week” has been going on for a long long time, and that’s why there isn’t a revolution, because women will just do this. They won’t question it, they’ll say, oh that’s how men are.

I am outraged over even one joke, one woman hating comment, which will bring out the sword with me. My anger and outrage is on my sleave, so to speak.
I believe it was Jeffery’s Spinsters that pointed out how common prostitution was early in the 20th century, how many upper class men routinely went to prostitutes, and that these women were used for abusive sex practices that are now enshrined in Internet porn, and IRL… a la what Eliott Spitzer actually did to the prostitute he bought… no condom, choaking… and this was reported widely, yet he is on a news commentary program pretty as you please.

Upper class women might then have “escaped” PIV after they produced an “Heir and a spare”, while the men went and choaked prostitutes, or beat them, or did pornographic demeaning sex acts to them.

The porn industry knew that prostitution was risky, so they switched to trafficking in girls, they produced porn and tried to use it to brain wash young women into being fun femms. And as FCM says… this is the THIRD…. F—— TIME in recent HIStory that this scenario is being played out.

The anti-PIV revolution would be an amazing thing…bill boards, Internet, leaflets on college campuses, truth telling by all women who actually have had PIV, and what it is really like. I haven’t a clue, and can’t fathom how on earth women could ever have sex with men to begin with. Only women who have done this could really expose the whole sham of it all. It would take guts, new consciousness raising, and getting the HIStorical facts in order so that the pattern could be revealed simply… the HIStory put out there in a compellingly simple way… simple MISKA like charts, YouTube etc.

All women who find PIV worthless are isolated. They think they picked the wrong man, or that there was something wrong with them, or their therapist said get over it…. collectively, this information would have to be put out there. And mothers would have to communicate better with daughters than ever before…

It would be a major undertaking…

19. FAB Libber - December 6, 2010

b/c my response to that would be: well, then, the women will just have to get fiercer. We’d have to start carrying weapons. Or gang up on a dude who has raped a woman. We could theoretically do it. The question is WOULD we do it?

Yes, if one woman stands up to a rapist husband and does something to him, she’ll probably end up in jail, but they can’t put all of us in jail, can they? That’s the point of a revolution. If it’s coming from all sides, the oppressor is fucked.

The short answer is no, women in general would not do it. They have also been brainwashed from birth to be non-violent (unlaydeelike you know).

Secondly, in order to facilitate such action (even out numbering the rapist) the women would need martial art or combat training – you are basically going up against someone physically stronger and heavier than you are, with likely a reasonable experience in street fighting.

The next factor is that we still operate under men’s laws, and a hell of a lot of women would be thrown in jail for years, which would make subsequent actions less likely – most women would chicken out after that. Women get custodial sentences for minor offences that men don’t, so major offences would be dealt with harshly. Just look at the sentencing between a woman who kills her abuser (usually a 20 year sentence) compared to the male abuser that kills his wife/girlfriend, they routinely only get 7-10 years.

Basically, there would be a lot of sacrifice before any “revolution” would get off the ground. It would likely be nipped in the bud.

However, I gladly offer up my services, should they be required. I personally would prefer a sniper rifle and to shoot them in the junk.

20. SheilaG - December 6, 2010

You have to fight for freedom. Silence will not save you. Ignorning the situation will not save you. Marrying some stupid guy and not getting an education and independent income will not save you.
There has to be some awakening in the world of women, some breaking point, some line drawn in the sand. Otherwise nothing is going to change. We are dealing with animals, pigs and monsters, we are dealing with oppressors so evil, that no group of men would put up with similar tyranny and threats.
And women believe men love them? You’ve got to be kidding me, the denial and the cool aid drinking have reached epic proportions I guess.
Almost all the time when I stand up forcefully against male sexist degrading comments, straight women are hanging around silent silent cowardly mousily quiet. When are the mice going to roar?

21. joy - December 7, 2010

“well, then, the women will just have to get fiercer. We’d have to start carrying weapons. Or gang up on a dude who has raped a woman. We could theoretically do it. The question is WOULD we do it?

Yes, if one woman stands up to a rapist husband and does something to him, she’ll probably end up in jail, but they can’t put all of us in jail, can they? That’s the point of a revolution. If it’s coming from all sides, the oppressor is fucked.”

I’ve been trying to stir up a revolution for years. Hey, I have nothing left to lose, other than my actual physical life and freedom to move around largely at will as opposed to being incarcerated or crippled (which is a lot to lose, really, but you get the idea).

It’s not going to fly. Women who haven’t already been completely discredited and broken are worried about being discredited and broken. I can’t say as I blame them. It happened to me, and you can live through it, but it isn’t … well … fun.

22. FAB Libber - December 7, 2010

I am not saying, “don’t try”, but I am saying be prepared for heavy losses and casualties, particularly in the beginning.

23. joy - December 8, 2010

I’m the only one who seems ready to go for it, in real life. In other words, I’m not ready to wage cyber war. I’m mostly ready to start a separatist community or something, and defend it heavily. With weapons.

Regarding memory, whenever someone (a counselor, or friend, or funfem blogger, or whoever) says, “Let good things happen” or “Get over the past” or “Stop analyzing” or “Love like you’ve never been hurt,” my brain translates it directly to “Lie back and think of England.”

Call me crazy.

Also, Dan Savage is a mainstream asshole. Saying “he was an asshole on purpose!” doesn’t make it all right, it makes it even worse.

He encourages women to perform sex acts they don’t want to perform. PIV, PIA, oral, everything. He thinks fucking = liberation. And I know he’s gay, but he’s openly and recently said that the vulva (which he naturally called a vagina) looks like a canned ham.

Penises look like vienna sausages with warped mushroom caps, but say that in a nationally syndicated advice column and watch your career go down in flames. Dan, however, had millions of d-bags come out of the woodwork to agree with him. And he’s still going strong. NOT a good guy. NOT okay.

24. FAB Libber - December 9, 2010

No, you aren’t the only one up for it Joy. The problem is there are such small numbers at the moment.

25. joy - December 9, 2010

Also, I missed a point. Or rather, made one and then didn’t point it out.

People like Dan Savage, and all other dudes, and women who pick up what men are putting down, think of sex (which in their terms is pretty much penis or strap-on in some orifice or another) as a performance. That should be a red flag right there.

26. joy - December 9, 2010

Also, yeah, Fab Libber, I know. I’m just not very patient sometimes. (sigh)


Sorry comments are closed for this entry