jump to navigation

Failure of Application vs Failure of Reason December 18, 2010

Posted by FCM in books!, entertainment, international, liberal dickwads, politics, pop culture, race, radical concepts.
Tags: , , , ,

i wanted to expound on the concept of “application versus reason” that i mentioned about a month ago (help!  i’m being repressed!).  analyzing social inequities using the “equality model” is standard liberal dickwad politics 101, in that it allows self-identified progressive males to analyze “unfairness” without being distracted by the ugly realities of male privilege, and the ways that women are and continue to be victimized as women, by men and male institutions.  in the above clip, the monty python players make hi-larious fun of class-based inequities, and their extreme silliness and ability to absolutely hit the nail on the head with regard to analyzing class assures monty python its place in history and in the hearts, minds and living rooms i mean ipods of good liberal dickwads everywhere.  i mean lets face it.  they are funny mkay?  and smart.  and they know it!

but the equality-model as the foundation for modern liberal dickwad politics (ie. liberal politics) was first advanced in the male civil rights context.  in other words, the idea that there is no legitimate reason to treat black men any differently than white men are treated.  but disenfranchised men, and only men, were meant to be included in the arguments against slavery, and all race-based anti-discrimination discourses that came later.  in her essay “reflections on sex equality under law,” catharine mackinnon notes that including women in federal workplace discrimination legislation was an afterthought, and sneaky politicking by a racist senator that was intended to bring about the failure of anti-racist legislation by including teh wimmins in it.  (heartwarming isnt it?)  for some reason, it passed anyway:

but just because women were now technically protected under anti-discrimination law in certain situations, it doesnt mean what we might like it to mean, when the laws were drafted and intended to apply to only men, and in fact have only men in mind throughout.  and where the favored liberal-dickwad argument is “but thats not fairrrrrr, you wouldnt do that to a white man.”  for example, in an employment context: you would never stick a white man in the kitchen of a restaurant instead of letting him wait tables.  or, you would never execute a white man for sticking his dick into someone.  etc., etc.  male-centric anti-discrimination discourse addresses and prevents failures of application onlymeaning: if it makes sense for a white man, it makes sense for a black man.  if it doesnt make sense to make a white man do something, then it doesnt make sense to make a black man do it either.  not surprisingly, unfair-application isnt the issue though, when addressing the ways women are victimized as women, by men.  namely, female-reproductive issues and the sexual abuse of girls and women by men:

what the failure-of-application or “equality” model doesnt address, doesnt anticipate and doesnt care about at all, is the failure of reason that comes into play when any male-centered discourse is applied to women.  for example, sick time, and the 40-hour workweek.  its all well and good (under an equality model, its not “unfairrrr”) to give everyone (or no-one) 5 days a year of sick-time right?  its all well and good (under an equality model) to force everyone to sit at their desks for 8 hours a day, every day, if they expect a paycheck.  but women are subjected to medical events that men arent, just by virtue of being biologically female (care to name them?).  they are also more likely to be the caretakers of the home and of children because they are socially female.  you see where i am going with this.  and it gets worse.

the inapplicability insanity of applying of male-centric disourse to womens bodies and lives becomes glaringly obvious when observing the mental (and legislative) gymnastics regarding the fetus, and its relationship to the pregnant woman carrying it.  the best they have so far been able to do (bless their clueless hearts!!!1!!11  actually, no.  fuck them all.  srsly.) is to regard the fetus as a body part.  because men have body parts tooooo!!111!11  but a fetus is NOT a “body part,” and its in fact completely irrational and unreasonable to regard something as something it isnt:

ignore the dangling words at the end there.

do we get it now?  its not merely unfairrrrr when male-centric discourses are used against women, as women.  its literally insane.  its not rational.  so, when the liberal dickwads snort and knee-slap over the monty-python players in the “witch village” clip, what is being criticised here really?  men murdering women of their own class based on misogynist religious superstition (literally, insanity masquerading as logic) and sex-based discrimination in the legal system?  HA!  not likely:

taken in the context of monty pythons usual social class-commentary and criticism of the ruling elite, this is clearly a criticism of religion and superstition sullying the legal process, which is usually rational, although perhaps unfairly applied, against men, by other men.  whew!  thank (us rational men) this doesnt happen anymore!  except that it does.  this very type of shit happens all the time, when you are a woman.  reason, fails.  logic, fails. 

more examples!  the male-centric discourse surrounding sex, which is that PIV = sex = PIV.  you went over to his house because you wanted to have sex, and he stuck his dick in you against your will…well, sorry, but you actually asked for it.  HUH?  yes!  reality of course being completely irrelevant here, which is the problem when we are dealing in INSANITY.  a mother abusing her child gets an extra-harsh sentence for “abusing a trust relationship” because we are allegedly, as a civil society, horrified when people abuse trust-relationships.  right?  not so fast.  even *if* the male-centric legal system applied this one equally to male abusers of children (they dont), we are still left with a significant problem, in that its not even fucking true.  we *dont* value trust-relationships, at all.  or at least, when a trusted man rapes a woman, its not really rape at all in most peoples minds, because she knew him, and trusted him.  HUH?  the examples of this kind of shit are endless, and the legal frameworks of both motherhood and “sex” are extremely…fertile…ground.

the equality-model and liberal-dickwad politics dont work for us, because they dont protect us in the way we need protecting: from men, exploiting girls and womens biological femaleness for our destruction and their gain. 

and we have to understand that its not intended to.  men create this chaos, this unreasonableness, and force women to live in it, because it benefits men to do so.  our adpoting male-centric liberal dickwad politics isnt going to help us a damn bit, when men *are* our problem, and they always have been, and they fucking revel in it.


1. FAB Libber - December 18, 2010

MacKinnon’s analysis and dissection of ‘fetus as body part [legislation]’ is brilliant. Using the term ‘parasite’ is controversial, but completely accurate in the early stages of pregnancy when the foetus cannot exist outside the host-mother.

At the end of the day, MacKinnon’s theme is that men’s laws, made by men, enforced by men, do not reflect the reality of women’s lives. Hence the title of her book: “Women’s Lives, Men’s Laws”.

There will always be a ‘failure of application’ when ‘universal rules’ are applied by taking into account only a segment of the people they are meant to apply to. It is discrimination, only in this case, it is sanctioned by law. ‘Failure of reason’ just goes without saying!

factcheckme - December 18, 2010

‘Failure of reason’ just goes without saying!

actually FAB libber, you just completely erased the feminist-context and intent in which this was written, and adopted the “universality” of male-centric liberal dickwad politics yourself, with this one line. “failure of reason” does NOT go without saying, because its part of the female-specific experience under the male regime, and i *will* say it.

try reading it again. thanks.

2. FAB Libber - December 18, 2010

I took ‘reason’ as a substitute of the word ‘logic’ not as a substitute of the word ’cause’.

Hence, failure of application is usually due to a failure in the underlying logic (or reason). Meaning it had a crap-ass foundation to begin with.

I am not sure how I actually erased the feminist context of this, so I will re-read. Is it to do with the dual meaning of the word ‘reason’?

factcheckme - December 18, 2010

no, you took “reason” as intended. failure of reason was intended to mean “unreasonable” or irrational. which leaves me astounded that you still managed to completely miss the point. (?) IF you understand my point and accept it, that “unreasonable” treatment is reserved for women only, how can you say that it goes without saying? it only goes without saying on THIS blog anyway, if its mainstream, or sex-neutral.

my point was that the shit that happens to men is NOT unreasonable, OR irrational. its merely “unfair.” even VERY unfair. even EXTREMELY unfair. even CRIMINALLY unfair sometimes, like hate-crimes say. but unfairness (ie. you would never do this to a white man!) is a failure of application only. treat me like a white man, because theres no legitimate reason not to.

theres nothing ILLOGICAL about it, its just mean, unfair, and it sucks. the failures-of-reason are reserved for women. the sick double-binds. the rape-apologism. the extreme expectations and sex-specific sanctions for failure that are justified as biologically-based when they arent, like that women are “natural” mothers and caregivers. executing women as “witches” because they “weigh more than a duck” (this isnt too far from the truth of it either, and millions died under this insane “logic”. MILLIONS). THIS is why they must be spoken about, and not taken for granted, or ignored, or denied. this is why it DOESNT go without saying. most people never even bothered to notice that this is happening.

factcheckme - December 18, 2010

i highly recommend the village-witch clip, if you havent seen it, as an example of the patently-unreasonable treatment of women. its barely an exaggeration people!! barely! something very much like this, rather indistinguishable from it actually, ACTUALLY HAPPENED TO WOMEN, and not that long ago either. and not that far away (most of us LIVE in the countries that did this to their female citizens).

then, back away only very slightly, and understand that we are STILL THERE, when it comes to “rational” treatment of women under the male regime. THATS my point. its bad. its very very bad.

factcheckme - December 18, 2010

oh wait a minute.

Hence, failure of application is usually due to a failure in the underlying logic (or reason). Meaning it had a crap-ass foundation to begin with.

NO. a failure of application is NOT a failure of logic. substitute “reason” with “logic” all you like, but “application” is not synonymous with either one, in this post.

hence the title: VERSUS.

3. FAB Libber - December 18, 2010

IF you understand my point and accept it, that “unreasonable” treatment is reserved for women only, how can you say that it goes without saying? it only goes without saying on THIS blog anyway, if its mainstream, or sex-neutral.

Ah, I see what the problem is – my flippant comment at the end, which was taken as condoning the practise whilst actually ridiculing it.

How I actually meant the statement was ‘failure of reasonableness’ was understandable given the implementation, but unsound in its foundation.

The problems also lie in the dual definitions of “reason” (being either logic or cause) AND (and and!) whether actions are deliberate or intentional.

I maintain a stance that the actions (and equality laws) are deliberate, and are nothing more than window dressing to ‘equality’. And that the basis of those laws is both logical and illogical (reasoned and unreasonable).

The logical part is because powers-that-be will continue churning out laws that uphold most of the current status quo. The illogical part of that is when you actually examine the basis foundation or fairness.

This probably stems from the assumption that the law is ‘fair and unbiased’, which it probably is for most men-against-men, but anyone falling outside of the ‘men’ category gets a raw deal. Sometimes the men-against-men thing shows up the racism or classism, but one thing is for certain, if you are female, you will almost certainly get treated more harshly by ‘the law’. As a female, you are ‘guilty until proven otherwise’, it does not even matter if you are the actual victim.

4. SheilaG - December 19, 2010

The equality argument is just liberal male idiocy.
There is nothing equal in male and female reality.
Men rape, kill, torture and whip women in public. Even CNN refused to show a film clip of a woman being sadistically being beaten by police in Somalia recently. She was being brutalized because she was a woman.

Male logic, male laws have nothing whatsoever to do with women’s lives. Lately, I’ve seen a lot of coverage of women getting raped… say the rapist is accused by many many women, suddenly it becomes real. So one woman’s word against a man is “he said she said”– no it is one woman accusing a man of a crime. Just like one man accuses another man of robbing his house.

A foetus is a parasite in its early stages, and a foetus is not an arm or a leg. Since men don’t get pregnant and don’t bleed, all the work place laws in the world have nothing to do with equality.
Men can and do refuse domestic roles, so they concentrate 100% on their careers. Anything that women get that would be quivalent to their actual situation is deeply resented by men. They can’t comprehend that women aren’t men, and that the 40 hour sit at your desk routine completely negates most women’s double duties at home.

So now laws today address the idea that women aren’t men, and that women might require a complete rewriting of a legal system. How does concent look like when a boss could fire you, and cause you to lose your home? How does concent look to a woman coming from a man 6’2″ weighing well over 300 pounds? How does self-defense look from a woman’s perspective? Say an unarmed quarterback coming at you to rape you, and you shoot the “unarmed man” with a gun. Is this equal?
Heck she shot an unarmed man! Shock!!

What about women in a village facing men in uniforms carrying guns? Do male soldiers get jail time for raping women? Iraqi women? Other women soldiers? Is summary execution of male soldiers who rape female soldiers in a war zone the law of the land? Hey, George Washington had them hanged from trees if they were caught deserting the continental army. What about the rape of a woman outside the latrine in Iraq?

There is no such thing as “reason” when it comes to how men and women are treated under male laws.
And men cannot write laws for women, because, well they are men. And conflict of interest comes into play for just about everything men say about women or our rights as humans. And no, they are never going to get this because they don’t live under a regime in which women hold the control device that blows up the penis should it come at women inappropriately. But what if woman protecting technology like that was placed in the hands of all women worldwide? What if one mistake by a man could mean a blow to bits penis? And that that was the law of the land administered by women?
What would men think about that justice system?

Or how about a woman’s Islamic republic where men were not allowed out uncovered in public? Where women controlled the outside world, men executed for even looking at a woman? How ould men like that?

factcheckme - December 19, 2010

yes, slamming liberalism and dick-centered-anything is kind of preaching to the choir around here isnt it? i guess i am on a roll…i have taken about 5 shots in a row at liberals, fun-fems, pomos, and faux-radicals. i am just so sick of it, and now that this liberal-pomo shit has effectively taken over even radical discourse too, i think its deserving of some serious attention. there are serious consequences to letting this slide, and i dont want to let it slide, any more. so, i think its time we start DEFINING just what the hell we are talking about. (take that pomo idiots!) this is not a game.

on that note, i just started mary dalys “quintessence” and she talks about feminists reinventing the wheel…and how its not “really” that feminists are reinventing the wheel all the time, it just seems and feels that way because we cant see the big picture. that we are actually making progress, and that in several decades we will look back on this time (the 1990s-2000s which she calls something like “the horrible 90s” and the millenial time, respectively) and see things for what they really were/are.

i will report back when i learn just “what” the millenial time (ie. “now”) means, in the big picture. does daly seriously know the answer to this? anyone? also, i know that i am reading her books seriously out of order by starting with quintessense, but somehow i get the feeling that she wouldnt mind. heh.

5. thebewilderness - December 19, 2010

The shit that happens to men is NOT unreasonable, OR irrational, it’s merely unfair.

I had to write that down because it goes to the very heart of darkness.

factcheckme - December 19, 2010

Care to elaborate tbw?

6. SheilaG - December 19, 2010

Daly uses time / space in line with physics. And from a feminist point of view, time is very different for women. She upends all of this, to make the past the present, and spirals into other galaxies of thought — Quintessence is a typical Daly pun– when asked the stupid POMO question– are you an essentialist, she answers “I’m a quintessencialist.”

It is women’s ability to finally see the real and to face the real that will get us out of the wheel of fortune. Or get us out of the sense that we are reinventing the wheel.

Now if we can get all women to work hard and do the reading, we’ll really be getting somewhere. Millions of readers to keep these books in print or on Kindle.

What happens to women in patriarchy is completely and utterly premeditated, where the perps assualt women day and night verbally, sexually, and physically, meanwhile women go into amnesia as a defense mechanism for male “subtle” attrocities every day of the week. What happens to men is simply unfair, and not always systemically premeditated. Sexual assault of women via the media, men at work, men in the world and what this does to women goes beyond the legal system. It is soul destruction pure and simple, and then women marry these jack-ass rapist destructive pigs, marry them, have sex with them, give up their careers and their brains to produce a whole new generation of rapists. Now that is one sick system.

Unfair or fair seem like pathetic words to even get at the beginning of women’s place in this cauldron of pure evil.

7. thebewilderness - December 19, 2010

Just that, what you said.
Everything from how women need to protect themselves from men instead of society taking responsibility for protecting its citizens from criminals to laws written on the basis of women regretting an abortion (thanks SCOTUS)and being prosecuted for false allegations if they fail to prove the rapist a rapist is based on irrational and unreasonable assumptions that simply will not hold up to scrutiny and so are never scrutinized. These things are not just unfair. Unfair happens to everyone. Life is unfair.
The shit that happens to men is merely unfair. It is not irrational and unreasonable.
The shit that happens to women is irrational and unreasonable. In every society on the planet! Based on myths promulgated by the dominant men in every society in order to maintain dominance.

I like how you deconstruct and get to the core.
That or else I misunderstood the whole thingummy and went off on a tangent.

factcheckme - December 19, 2010

Yes tbw, that’s it. I just didn’t know what “heart of darkness” meant.

8. Undercover Punk - December 19, 2010

This is BEAUTIFUL, fcm! One of my new favorites, I think! (of your posts, I mean) Heart of darkness, indeed! The MacKinnon passages are PERFECT. And the post kept going! I thought, ok, point made. And then there were MORE.

As usual, enjoying the comments too.

now that this liberal-pomo shit has effectively taken over even radical discourse too, i think its deserving of some serious attention. there are serious consequences to letting this slide, and i dont want to let it slide, any more. so, i think its time we start DEFINING just what the hell we are talking about. (take that pomo idiots!) this is not a game.

Thank you!

I really like “application versus reason” because it’s so succinct. These are very complex topics, but we have to articulate them as plainly as possible. The female experience is qualitatively different than the male experience. Their reasoning works for them. It DOES NOT APPLY to us.

As y’all are saying, it’s more than unfair. It simply doesn’t make sense.

I think that the fetus, as a GROWING “thing,” deserves multiple treatments. As CM says, it’s most analogous to a parasite at first, but then at some point, it can walk away without a female host. At no point is it ever like a “body part.” There is some recognition of this in the time-line laws regarding WHEN an abortion can be legally performed. And you *know* how hard to had to fight for *that*, which is being continuously eroded. But there should be more. The fetus is not a LIFE the whole time. ALL male-oriented assumptions about the fetus that deny its continuously evolving NATURE, should be disposed of immediately.
And the SOCIAL RELATIONS both causing and resulting from the fetus! UGH! These are also (obviously!) very relevant considerations to ANY “application” of “reason” to women/the female experience.

Context is Everything.

9. Undercover Punk - December 19, 2010


Context is Everything. Because it can change MEANING. And results. When goals are not achieved, strategy must be revised. It no longer “makes sense.”

Am I making sense? Ha.

factcheckme - December 19, 2010

yes UP, it kind of kept going and going. i thought about stopping, but its not really up to me you know. these things mostly write themselves.

also, when i said that then examples are endless, THEY ARE. it could literally go on forever. the sick ways men fuck women over for being women are limited only by mens imaginations, which isnt a coincidence, considering that they are making all of this up as they go along.

10. calliope - December 19, 2010

I couldn’t agree more. with regards to the nature of the fetus and abortion (I hope this isn’t derailing), I know many early feminists opposed it as anti-woman and inhumane. I think I agree with them, because it cannot be done without some degree of harm to the woman physically. It serves mainly to benefit men, to enforce PIV “without consequence” (for them). male control. In a perfect world it wouldn’t be needed at all, if PIV was reserved for conception. I wouldn’t want abortion to be banned. But I can imagine what guys must think.. Why wear a condom, she can just get an abortion? And all the lovely side effects, like possible sterilization, surgical complications, including death. possibly increased odds of breast cancer in the future. It seems brutal to me. But then, it’s also necessary in some cases; because men rape, and rape is even more brutal. It’s like a scale of brutality, that men can’t even conceive (ha) of. ugh I don’t know what to think, I’m just glad I’m never going to sleep with a man.

This reminds me of what you said before, about men’s concept of what women are being epitomized in “transition surgery” for transwomen; sterile, castrated men with a wound, a “sheath” for dicks to go into. No wonder they’re surprised when “sex” leads to pregnancy. They are deluded.

11. SheilaG - December 19, 2010

Men have no concept of what application really is.
They have no concept of the world women live in.
Just read the harrowing accounts of Julian Assunge and what he did to two Swedish women, one of whom put him up in her flat. Leftist men completely disregarding the nature of his sex crimes, rape… I say extridite him to Sweden and try him in open court. This is the test case to prove liberal men are not feminists at all but rape apologists… again application vs, reason.

12. feministatsea - December 19, 2010

I blogged about this last year as a result of rant one feminist went on on the old IBTP forum.

I feel it can be done without any harm to a woman. Within three months it can even be done chemically. I would less it’s probably less painful than having a tooth pulled.

I really don’t care how guys see abortion. It’s not about them. It should at all times be a free choice. Hell, I almost wish that one art-student had actually carried out all those abortions. People should know that getting an abortion is normal so that it no longer carries any stigma. Because no matter the way a woman got pregnant if it carries a stigma then the threshold that people already feel against going through a medical procedure is only raised.

13. thebewilderness - December 19, 2010

OK, sorry. By “heart of darkness” I meant this:

Beyond a doubt truth bears the same relation to falsehood as light to darkness.
Leonardo da Vinci

factcheckme - December 19, 2010

the bottom line is that pregnancy is a medical event, and its going to end somehow, and ALL the physical consequences are the womans alone to bear. and that ONLY piv causes unwanted pregnancies, and that birth control is fucking dangerous, painful, and expensive too. all of this is on the woman, and all of this takes away from any pleasure she MIGHT otherwise get from PIV, IF she even gets ANY pleasure from PIV at all.

i dont buy the future-breast-cancer risk stuff, but its not necessary that you buy into any of the speculative future-risk stuff, when there are ACTUAL, DEMONSTRABLE harms from PIV that we already know about. like sitting under your desk at work puking into a fucking trashcan from morning sickness, waiting for your abortion. like losing your fucking job because of it. like blood clots from being on the pill. and we all know that childbirth can fucking kill you too, and that having children means death to your career. and i actually do NOT think that we can compare having a surgical or chemical abortion to pulling a fucking tooth (any more than we can say a fetus is a body part, hello) because your hormones get all fucked up when you are pregnant, no matter how it ends. there are physical changes your entire body and mind go through when you conceive. thats just the way it fucking is.

and putting women at risk for undergoing these changes, this medical event, and making them employ dangerous and painful contraceptives to mitigate the harm (without even completely preventing it) just for the sake of orgasms, sometimes NONE of which are even hers, is literally (LITERALLY) insane.

14. feministatsea - December 19, 2010

I definitely agree, but still I argue for unlimited and unrestricted abortions. I think that even if we can get rid of forced PIV unwanted pregnancies or unwanted complications from pregnancies are always going to happen.

This is also what I got shouted down for by the trans folk on that board, btw. I talked about this woman I know being in mortal danger due to a pregnancy and being too poor to obtain an abortions. Friends of her held a collection so she could go out of state, since she was past two months already. Doctor said she wouldn’t have made it past three months if she had failed to obtain the abortion. So always freely, even when PIV becomes entirely voluntary and no longer the norm and perhaps even something weird, should abortion be available.

factcheckme - December 19, 2010

i am sorry, but the “abortion debate” is so basic (and mainstream) that i dont even feel the need to discuss it. i think everyone here has probably discussed it ad nauseam at some point in their feminist journey. i know i have. so YES, unlimited, unrestricted abortions OBVIOUSLY. but i am seriously going to fall asleep on my keyboard if people continue discussing it. its boring, is what is it.

i would mention, in case anyone hasnt heard of them, the “feminists for life” who are allegedly feminists, but are against abortion because it *does* benefit men. well DUH. i am glad they are calling out the liberal dickwads and PIV culture (SORT OF) and i actually dont know if they want to make it illegal, although i suspect they do. its kind of the standard pro-life party line as far as i am aware. but just because you have an opinion on abortion one way or the other, does NOT make you a feminist. sorry fun fems and third wave men!

factcheckme - December 19, 2010

i would also add (and mackinnon clearly addresses this) that the “abortion debate” is always framed in a male-centric way. is it a person or not? well CLEARLY (you fucking assholes) its different than a person, but similar to a person at the same time. they cant accept this. its also not a body part. women know this, men dont. i am so totally done with discussing anything in a male-centric way. so i am done with this “debate” in its entirety. next!

15. thebewilderness - December 19, 2010

The breast cancer abortion correlation is one of those zombie lies that never die no matter how many times they are debunked. Rather like the frog in boiling water myth.
The fact is they have rolled back Roe v Wade to the point where abortion is no longer accessible for the majority of women and Griswold is up next for dismantling.
It may be boring but it is a fearful future they are contemplating for the young ones among us. I remember it very well.

factcheckme - December 19, 2010

i think that abortion activism is something that needs doing in real life. not endlessly “debating” it online. a few people have said that this blog and the discussions here serve as “consciousness raising” for them, and i accept that. there is a time and a place for “consciousness raising” and there are issues that need to be fleshed out, and brought to the forefront of our consciousness. abortion is already there isnt it? women deal with mandatory PIV, dangerous and painful birth control, pregnancy scares, and childbirth and childrearing most days of their lives. the ONLY way they EVER interact with this horrifying male-centric reality and resist it, is through their “stance” on fucking abortion. isnt it? liberal women resist mandatory childrearing and punitive consequences for PIV-centric sex. conservative women resist the devaluing of motherhood and the feminine arts.

but theres obviously a reason that abortion is the only issue we HAVE, and the only outlet for us to express resistance to this sick male reality. the “abortion debate” is the framework MEN have designed, to make mandatory PIV and rape culture work FOR MEN, in the ways they want it to work. liberal men want women to be sterile fuckdolls, for more fucking, as well as constantly distracted with birth control and pregnancy scares. conservative men want unlimited access to PIV too, and demand that their women to be babymakers, and constantly distracted with gestation and childcare. they BOTH rely on womens PIV-related trauma bonding and medical events, to keep women in constant turmoil, pain, and dependance. and the abortion “debate” consists of “do you CHOOSE this male-centric outcome that you have to pretend wasnt really forced on you, or THAT one?” its fucking bullshit.

BTW i kind of suspect that conservative men are about as interested in outlawing abortion as they are interested in creating real penalties for johns who use hookers, our outlawing gay sex. which is to say that they arent interested in outlawing it at all, because they all utlilize it, and constantly lie about that fact. call me cynical! maybe the powerless ones, the conservative average-joes are being honest about being pro-“life” but i doubt the politicians are. they all want their hookers and mistresses and underage daughters to abort, lest their political lives be destroyed. i could be wrong.

16. SheilaG - December 20, 2010

Investigate any man’s private life and you’re going to find huge inconsistencies. The only reason Wiki-man is getting it, is that male powers that be are exposing what he has done to women. And no doubt he has screwed women over worldwide for a decade or so. Why do women put up men in their flats? Why would any woman have a man stay overnight in her home? I just don’t get this.
Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, Ensign, Dick Morris,
and on and on the list goes. Almost all of the male attrocities against women are committed in “the private sphere”-right wing men/left wing men… Sonia Johnson said something long ago that stuck with me. If women by the hundreds of thousands actually learned to do abortions for other women, the “law” would be rendered useless, very much the way anti-marajuana laws have been.
When women massively stop the dependence on male controlled clinics, the so-called abortion debate, which is nothing more than constant male hostage tactics…left wing men use it to get women’s votes, right wing men use it to keep prostitutes and pregnant mistresses out of the limelight.

I agree FCM, it is a blindingly boring debate, and feminists need to use completely different tactics.
We need to find ways to completely expose the sexual terror tactics of all men in their “private lives” —

Abortion saps women’s political energy–either women can learn to massively get around all the male controls, or women can just stop having sex with men PIV style.

17. SheilaG - December 20, 2010

I have to put in a special note here. One thing I have come to appreciate is your clarity, and your blunt statement that mainstream is default and should be left out of a feminist blog.

As obvious as this sounds, it took me a long time to figure it out. I think we all get stuck in the mainstream default type thinking, and have to be vigilent to get it out of our heads, so that true radical feminist power can come forth. Thanks so much for doing this.

factcheckme - December 20, 2010

you are welcome sheila! it actually makes my life easier to spam all mainstream comments, so i dont have to deal with them, and so the convo doesnt get derailed with other people trying to deal with them. its so tiresome. and as you can see, many of these threads actually get a hundred or more comments, and these are the GOOD ones. no need to pad the numbers with irrelevant shit. i dont want to waste my time, and i dont want anyone else to have to either.

18. FAB Libber - December 20, 2010

If women by the hundreds of thousands actually learned to do abortions for other women, the “law” would be rendered useless

This is a good concept, because it puts reproduction control back into the hands of women and away from men. Although, if this were to happen wide-scale, then men (who make the laws) would be charging women with murder (of the foetus) and any woman that assists her as an accessory.

I can understand why FCM does not wish to have the ‘abortion debate’, because I am the same way. Abortion is “treating the symptoms” not the “disease” – the disease is PIV and a PIV-centric society. The disease carriers are of course, men. LOL

19. Nelle - December 20, 2010

Leftist men are the worst to me. At least you know what you’re dealing with when you’re dealing with a Right winged man. You have an idea. But these guys? Wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Pro prostitution= “I like to purchase hookers and I’m proud.”
pro abortion= “I like to have condomless sex!”
gay rights=”Two girls making out is hot. No men though111!”
pro-Black (or any racial minority)=”Black girls are hot”
pro-porn=”I need to preserve my wank material”.
pro woman (Feminism)= “This will get me sex from women.”

Is there any occasion that males are pro anything without their dicks reaping the benifits? Equality to men just means whatever pleases their penises the most. Liberal men are not my friends,either. Same asshole,different political alignment. The new feminists are in for a rude awakening,once they realize their sisterly-brothers are only out for themselves.

I think Feminism shouldn’t be synonymous to being liberal it’s dominated by male voices. You shouldn’t have to call yourself a leftist/liberal because you believe women shouldn’t be treated like shit socially & by LAW. You should be called a human being for crying out loud.

20. joy - December 20, 2010

“pregnancy is a medical event, and its going to end somehow, and ALL the physical consequences are the womans alone to bear. and that ONLY piv causes unwanted pregnancies, and that birth control is fucking dangerous, painful, and expensive too. all of this is on the woman, and all of this takes away from any pleasure she MIGHT otherwise get from PIV, IF she even gets ANY pleasure from PIV at all.”

In my anti-PIV roll, I recently encountered another woman, supposedly a feminist (and even a radical feminist) who filled up the anti-feminist bingo card. A total mindfuck.

Her argument was, “Like, come on, pregnancy isn’t the worst thing in the world!! And, like, there is birth control. Duh.”

Trying to explain what you just explained was like trying to teach French to a duck.

If you are rich and white and have a Nigel (and haven’t realized you hate him yet), then maybe pregnancy isn’t “the worst thing in the world.” Unless you lose your job, or develop a complication. Or just plain don’t want to be fucking pregnant in the first place.

I’m seriously too exhausted and mind-blown to even deal with it any more. It’s an honest-to-whatever mindfuck being around women who really can’t even recognize oppression as oppressive.

21. joy - December 20, 2010

“Abortion is “treating the symptoms” not the “disease” – the disease is PIV and a PIV-centric society. The disease carriers are of course, men”

And, yes. There is that. I believe this completely and totally, to the point that it is a given. I’m still puzzled and even hurt when other women cannot, and when they argue nonsense trying to prove that “radfems are just teh meeeaaanie sex-police trying to take away my orgasmses!”

Not-My-Nigeling has got to go. Even people who don’t have Nigels do it, on a wider scale, turning “Nigel” into all men. They are Not-My-Nigeling the fucking patriarchy itself.

22. feministatsea - December 20, 2010

I got a question. How do you see political lesbians? You know women who are lesbian because it makes sense rather than because they have feelings (either romantic or sexual) for the women they sleep with? I ran into quite a few radical lesbian feminists who really didn’t like it if a straight woman acted like that.

My environment consists mostly of men and that is part on purpose because I want to pave the way for other men and part because I have never felt very comfortable playing at being a girl past the age of eight. I have never been either sexual or romantically attracted to a woman. That could be because most people I know are men and it could be because I am not gay. Not sleeping with men makes sense to me, but I don’t feel guilty about my sexual encounters with men, but sleeping with women would feel like stabbing another woman in the back and being a phoney. So I would like some further input on this if that’s ok.

23. SheilaG - December 20, 2010

i don’t know any “political” lesbians. It’s a stupid phrase anyway, spinster would be a better term– a woman who chooses not to have sexual relations with men. A lesbian is a woman who is sexually attracted to women, not a straight women for goddess sake. I think the focus for straight women is how they are going to deal with men. This just doesn’t concern me and never has.

Occasionally, I see straight women hanging out at lesbian bars up to no good. We just write them off as preditors or experimenters… they’re pretty obvious and have this weird energy that definitely isn’t lesbian… it’s still the male pleasing virus that they seem to carry around.

24. joy - December 21, 2010

What about those women who are done with men, know they’re dealing with men by writing them off and not interacting with them, and yet don’t want to be with women (because they aren’t attracted)?

Is that bad? I know I sound like a five-year-old, but it seems like being done with men altogether is not recognized as an option for straight women. Not by lesbians, and DEFINITELY not by other straight women.

It’s like the gold star thing. Once a woman has been “infected”, there’s no going back. It’s like she has to pay penance for the rest of her life. That’s creepy, and distinctly Catholic. Hate to break it to y’all.

25. Undercover Punk - December 21, 2010

OMG, political lesbianism? Am I in the fucking twilight zone?

The awesomeness of sex between women-who-love-women and each other is simply beyond the comprehension of most straight women. Off the charts, honey.

Stabbing in the back and being phoney?!?! HA! HA! HahahahhaAH!HH!1!!!!111!!!! Seriously, someone hold me back.

factcheckme - December 21, 2010

one of the revelations i have had over the last year, reading jefferys and writing about it here has been the concept of the spinster. seriously. i think that before we started talking about jeffreys book here, NOONE had ever considered the spinster concept, and that INCLUDES the lesbians here, and that INCLUDES the people who had previously read the book too. i am not sure how thats even possible, but the evidence that it IS possible is that it seems to have actually happened. people read the book, and glossed right over the spinster concept.

honestly, i think we have all had a revelation, and i am so pleased about that.

i will note however that i am ALWAYS irritated when new readers show up and start commenting right away, without reading the previous posts AND THE COMMENTS TOO. i wont name names, but you know who you are. that is all.

26. Undercover Punk - December 21, 2010

Ya know what? First of all, Sheila is here and if y’all don’t know the history, I don’t think you are ready to rehash that bullshit. Incidentally, and this isn’t my blog soooo excuse me but, there seem to be some outside forces framing the discourse around that particular blog “event.” Second, as a lesbian, I am not and never have been particularly interested in the SPINSTER concept. I love women *physically.* Physical contact, including cuddling and petting, has been scientifically (ha!) proven to benefit the health of humans AND animals. I believe Tha Man has also “found” that sexual intimacy is good for us (<<interesting discussion right there). If you are grossed out by touching women *specifically*, check yourself and your internalized misogyny.

and third, if this is going to deteriorate into a (classic mainstream) defense of innate sexuality and why it's ok be freaked out by touching women but it's "perfectly natural" and "I just can't help myself" from enjoying the oppressor's hairy balls, just tell me now and I will retreat to my own blog until the next discussion begins. Thank you.

27. Undercover Punk - December 21, 2010

You know what, though? This might be ripe for an [application versus reason] analysis of SEX and the direction of sexual desire??? hmmm.

factcheckme - December 21, 2010

I have said here before that I think genitally-expressed anything is completely ruined for me, and that includes expressing love, emotion, affection, or just plain doing it for pleasures sake. It’s fucking RUINED. And its pretty clearly because of what genital “play” always was for me, which was a really good way to get fucking raped (ie. Getting sexual with a man and making him stop short of intercourse) or as “foreplay,” ie. Getting me lubed up enough to be vaginally penetrated by a dick, by someone who flatly didn’t care that he was putting me at risk for pregnancy and disease, and who clearly didn’t care about my pleasure or my wellbeing, or about ME, at all.

RUINED. I can barely even masturbate anymore, because what I USED to do to get myself off was to recall particularly intense encounters I’d had before and relive them. And now that I see piv for what it really is, all this wanking material I have in my head, my own fucking memories, are horrifying to me. Absolutely fucking horrifying.

Okay? And I know I’m not the only one who feels this way.

I suppose I COULD go through all the emotional and physical work it would take to reprogram myself, and I might decide to do it someday. And I might not. I might decide that genitally-expressed anything, and even sexual pleasure itself, is completely overrated. WHICH IT OBVIOUSLY IS. I mean DUH. I don’t know what I’m going to do about this, or even if I will be sucessful, no matter what i try to do. It’s kind of a situation isnt it?

factcheckme - December 21, 2010

And YES, UP, I do think that an application versus reason analysis is appropriate here, for precisely the reasons I’ve just described. Thank you.

factcheckme - December 21, 2010

Also, feministatsea attempted to post an extremely whiny, passive aggressive “response” that I spammed immediately. Feelings hurt?? Kick it up a notch or don’t post it, people. Don’t waste MY fucking time with your bullshit whining. This goes for everyone, but the regulars already know that don’t they?


28. FAB Libber - December 21, 2010

I think genitally-expressed anything is completely ruined for me

I hear you on that. With me, I think it is reactionary to the over-sexualised culture, even the “het vs lesbian” thing, it’s like you have to “pick sides”. The beauty of “spinster” is a way out of genitally-focused dichotomy.

Apologies for my rambly comments over the weekend, I was fighting off a cold/flu, so bwain was effectively off line for the most part.

29. rhondda - December 21, 2010

Yes, there is something so liberating about the idea of spinsterhood. Love it. For me it means no longer having to live up to or guess someone else’s expectations or fret and worry if some one else has been truthful or not. Being alone has been the best experience I have ever had and I will not give it up. For so long women have been expected to be in relationships with huge unspoken and unconscious expectations. The only expectations I have to live up to are the ones I set for myself. And no I am not lonely at all. It is quite amazing really when the scales of socialization fall from one’s eyes.

30. joy - December 21, 2010

Spinsterhood isn’t about “being grossed out” by women. Women don’t gross me out at all, in fact.

Come to think of it, I think I would just avoid sleeping with another woman because I worry she’d think I was a “fake lesbian.”

So it’s one or the other of these things. Either women can decide they actually do like women, or once you have been dicked you’re ruined for life. Regardless of how you come to feel about dicking.

And either you can healthily choose to be on your own, because it’s what is psychologically good for you, or if you don’t “become” a lesbian then you’re misogynist. However, if you “become” a lesbian, then you are probably a faker and a sellout and a traitor.

This is confusing.

factcheckme - December 21, 2010

I just wanted to note my LOL @ nelle’s excellent takedown of liberal dickwad issues above. Well done!

factcheckme - December 21, 2010

What is with people and this fake lesbian stuff? Come on.

31. SheilaG - December 21, 2010

I know UP, I think I need to stay out of this one.
The comments are just way too uninformed for my taste.

32. Undercover Punk - December 21, 2010

I like what you said rhondda. Being alone can, indeed, be beautiful and liberating. To balance the complexities of 2 people, no matter their gender or social conditioning, is HARD hard work. Constant vigilance. And that’s when you have a good match to begin with! This a major benefit to spinsterhood.

We are also living in a hyper-sexualized culture that over-values orgasms like they were invented yesterday. Unconditionally, in fact. Hence, the proliferation of sex-poz kink fests and sexuality without boundaries– it’s ALL good ALL the time, no matter what. HA! Even if you’re climaxing to images of your own destruction! It’s a very serious APPLICATION problem. (ha!)

seriously, WTF is this supposed to mean??

or once you have been dicked you’re ruined for life


or if you don’t “become” a lesbian then you’re misogynist. However, if you “become” a lesbian, then you are probably a faker and a sellout and a traitor

I don’t where this BULLSHIT you’re saying is coming from. And I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or what, but if you have questions, ask them respectfully. And in the meantime do not tell us that I, or any other woman– lesbian or not– is ruined for life OR that we are faker/sell-out/traitors.

Innate, unchanging sexuality is all about keeping Male Supremacy in business. Think.about.it. What would patriarchy BE if we weren’t committed to the inherent “naturalness” and unavoid-ability of PIV?

33. rhondda - December 21, 2010

Thank you Undercover Punk for hearing me. I agree relationships are hard work and it has to be reciprocal. It was the one sided ones I found myself in that I let go.

34. joy - December 21, 2010

Sorry for accidental disrespect. I’m seriously trying to figure out what is going on here. It’s making my head spin. That’s my fault, and I acknowledge that.

I don’t believe in innate sexuality. That is why this is confusing. It seems like I am reading that it’s not okay to be a spinster, because that seems misogynist (okay, wtf, UP? it was you who said that). But also that a woman is perceived to be a sellout if she’s ever slept with men. That seems to be a fundamental contradiction to me and I seriously can’t even understand it.

35. joy - December 21, 2010

For the record, I don’t sleep with men at all because I hate them as a class, and am not currently sleeping with women because any human touch wigs out my PTSD triggers. So I’m not a blithely blinded hetero woman happily sucking dick all day long, and I also don’t think vagina (actually, vulva) is gross. In case there was a personal credibility question (there often is, and that’s fair).

I’ve never enjoyed sleeping with men, either, although I used to do it anyway. Something about the peen is creepy, you know?

factcheckme - December 21, 2010

Do people really care what other people think, or are they afraid of being called names? Or is this just an intellectual exercise? Or do they want cookies for getting the right answer? What is it?

The comments in “intercourse part 3” address this fake lesbian issue I think. And “the spinster and her enemies” has its own tag in the tag cloud. I assume everyone has read them, yes?

factcheckme - December 22, 2010

And lol @ “enjoying the oppressors hairy balls.” Srsly. That was funny as hell.

36. FAB Libber - December 22, 2010

Ah, on the Intercourse #3 thread (not all the way through re-reading it, it’s a biggie), I can see FCM’s aha! moment of the realisation of ‘another possibility’, the spinster concept and how Sheila Jeffrey’s work reached you at the ‘right time’.

On the radfem journey, the destination probably will involve some sort of separtism, partial or total. Intimate partnership with a male is near-impossible, PIV relationships are impossible. Friendships with males are few and far between (most of them being boring jerks).

‘Spinster’ (or spinster-separatist) is a good term to replace ‘political lesbian’, because it avoids offending lifelong lesbians who identify primarily with sexual attraction, not necessarily political affiliation. Not all lesbians are feminists.

In contemporary times, spinster is also a good term for ‘hiding’ one’s sexual orientation, as some don’t wish to be defined by sexuality as a primary marker, even if only sexually attracted to females. It can also be a good term for those who reject the concept of ‘coupling up’, even for lesbians.

37. Undercover Punk - December 22, 2010

I agree with what Fab Libber has said about the SPINSTER I-dentity.

There is only such a thing as a “fake lesbian” if you are committed to an ideology of innate sexuality (which I will be blogging about shortly). Specifically, the concept of a “political lesbian” is in conflict with the concept of a “sexual lesbian” because the “sexual” is framed as innate/unchanging/immutable and the “political” is framed as a conscious CHOICE– maybe having nothing to do with sex at all, OR in “conflict” with the political lesbian’s presumed innate hetero-sexuality.

Personally, and this is my OPINION, a lesbian is simply a woman who both enjoys (from actual, personal experience) sexually charged physical contact with FAB women and has made the PUBLIC COMMITMENT to rejecting heterosexual relationships IN FAVOR of those with women. So it is both a sexual practice AND a social I-dentity. Not one or the other, but BOTH. (And yes, I am closing off the possibility of a “closeted” lesbian or a lesbian in a relationship with a man. She must be OUT, or it doesn’t count as “lesbian” in my mind. It may seem harsh, but I gotta draw the line somewhere, you know.)

There are, indeed, LIFE LONG lesbians who prefer to associate with and/or focus their *romantic attentions* on what is affectionately known as the GOLD STAR Lesbian (because she has never had PIV). This is where allegations of “infection” or “contamination” enter. While this is a terrible thing to believe about our sisters, we must be aware that many, many lesbians have fallen in Love, only to be kicked to the curb for a man somewhere down the line (see Melissa Etheridge as a well-known example). It is not just a few times, these are incredibly COMMON scenarios of lesbian-heartbreak. Further, as a class of people who are often simultaneously abandoned by their biological family networks, being left for a man is a MAJOR CONCERN for many lesbians, and rightfully so. IMHO, lesbians who have demonstrated a serious investment in the Lesbian Lifestyle are justified in being somewhat wary of newly self-proclaimed lesbians and those who are (recently?) ex-het. It does not, however, mean that such ex-het or “new” lesbians actually ARE contaminated with man-love (or whatever you might call it). We are living under compulsory heterosexuality, people. The women who resist such conditioning from childhood are truly special. But those of us who see the Light of Lesbianism later in life are not, necessarily, any less committed to loving women.

We ALL experience internalized misogyny and lesbophobia. Which is why I stated that if *someone* is uncomfortable, specifically, with touching women or female sex organs, it is a problem. I did NOT say that being a Spinster or a celibate women = not wanting to touch women. A celibate lesbian is not an oxymoron.

I hope this is clearer, and I think it fits with the comment above it from Fab Libber. Respectful inquiry is welcome.

38. Sargassosea - December 22, 2010

Hmm. I’ve been quiet on this thread (and Up’s “Essential Female” too) because when the subject turns to abortion/motherhood I kind of trigger, I guess.

But I do want to say this in response to the notion that any woman who has performed piv is forever tainted (or whatever): you are. FCM is (so fucking right on!) live-reporting her feelings about this *taint* upthread. I was tainted; I no longer have my cervix and uterus because of performing piv. And I’m pissed about it every day because I have to deal with the fact that I made the biggest mistake of my LIFE by “having sex” with men. The two abortions and missing organs are DEMONSTRABLY linked to penises in my vagina.

(I have more to say! I’ll be back! :))

39. Sargassosea - December 22, 2010

Ack! Now it looks as though I was *arguing* UP’s point but I wasn’t! It was bad timing, I swear!!

40. SheilaG - December 22, 2010

UP has a very well presented description of lesbian life.

factcheckme - December 22, 2010

Nine deuce has a new post up about porn. Yay! Radical feminist takedown of porn! I left a comment about het sexuality generally and piv…and the first fucking comment after mine didn’t address 9/2’s post at all, and was “skeptifem” telling me that my “obsession” with (anti-)piv “doesn’t make any friggin sense.”

HAHAHAHAHAHHA!!! Someone remind me again why I banned skeptifem from this blog. And why I do not tolerate the mainstream view. Snore……

41. FAB Libber - December 22, 2010

That is a lot to digest UCP.

I agree here with the first part of:
So it is both a sexual practice AND a social I-dentity. Not one or the other, but BOTH.
But not necessarily the second.

Lesbianism can be sexual practice with social identity, or it can be sexual practice without social identity (ie closeted). But you cannot really be a lesbian ONLY with the social identity without the ‘practice’, meaning a physical/sexual/intimate attraction, which is what the political lesbian thing was all about, the social identity without the physical part. Spinster is a good term for the political solidarity, or to express separatism, without muddying the ‘lesbian waters’.

I am not sure that GSL should be in any way referred to as ‘affectionately’ within political circles, as it is decidedly anti-feminist. The primary reason is that it promotes a hierarchy among lesbians, and social hierarchies is one of the things feminism is against. Secondarily, non-GSLs are referred to as “contaminated”, which is a way of defining women in relation to men, even if it is a past relationship (virgin/whore is the other main one). Feminism recognises women as complete people, independent from the actions or associations of men.

Spinster is a great catch-all for those who do not want to be defined by a sexual identity (or lack of it), or abstainers from all coupledom or sex with other people etc.

I also think it is one word that we can successfully reclaim, even though it may have had prudish connotations in the past, it also had a strong sense of independence associated with the term.

42. Undercover Punk - December 23, 2010

FAB Libber,

I am not sure that GSL should be in any way referred to as ‘affectionately’ within political circles, as it is decidedly anti-feminist. The primary reason is that it promotes a hierarchy among lesbians, and social hierarchies is one of the things feminism is against.

Fair enough. I’m not sure I was thinking of political circles as much as the wider (non-feminist) lesbian world when I said affectionately. But you’re right, even the term itself, “Gold Star,” implies ‘The Best’! Which is not feminist. Feminism is not a competition. Ever. And I completely agree with your statements about the ‘Spinster’ I-dentity.

factcheckme - December 23, 2010

was this post about abortion and motherhood sargassosea? i hadnt noticed. but YES, i see what you are saying about “taintedness” resulting from PIV, and i think there is more to be said about that. i am not sure i would use the word “tainted” but there is a residual PIV-effect isnt there? it can include incurable disease and injury of course, but theres something else thats left behind, even if you were lucky enough to get away without permanent physical effects. its as if once you have done it, you HAVE to keep doing it. because if you ever realize what its all about, and STOP IT, you are going to have the same or similar problem i am having, which is that physical and mental pleasure as you used to know it, no longer exists. i have heard this from other women too. POST-PIV, there are meanings and emotions and memories attached to YOUR body, that you cant get rid of, but can way too easily invoke if you arent careful. and forget about anyone else touching you either. thats where i am at the moment anyway. i dont even want to be touched genitally, even if it NOT going to end up in PIV. it could partly be because i dont entirely BELIEVE that PIV isnt still the ultimate goal for my partner. i think he thinks i am going to change my mind about this shit. i have assured him that i am not.

what i have come to realize is that the associations i had with myself genitally and with genital pleasure BEFORE i started having PIV, are no longer there. its been replaced by something else, all these unbelievably (did i just say that something real is “unbelievable?” ugh) awful associations and memories that i dont know if i will ever be able to get rid of. its kind of similar to watching porn actually. but starring MEEEEE!!!111!11 i have a LOT of porn images in my head from watching actual porn too, and i am probably NEVER going to be able to get rid of those either. i dont know where this leaves me, now that i know what i know, about PIV. its just…well i was fucking ROBBED. i really feel that way. at the moment, i feel like my entire sexuality and my ability to enjoy my own damned body was taken away. and i didnt even notice it had happened, UNTIL i stopped having PIV.

get rid of the pornified, abusive images, and the pornified abusive practices, and theres literally nothing left. and i did NOT have this problem when i was 13, let me tell you. i remember it well, and it was NOTHING like this. NOT having PIV then, before i had ever had it, is NOTHING like not having it now, when i have had nothing BUT piv for nearly 20 years. its seriously as if there is nothing left. i enjoyed my sexuality way more when i was 13 then i ever have since. pre-PIV was so much better than the 20-years i was having PIV, and pre-PIV was so much better than now, post-PIV. somethings definitely been lost. i might write more about this later.

43. FAB Libber - December 23, 2010

it could partly be because i dont entirely BELIEVE that PIV isnt still the ultimate goal for my partner. i think he thinks i am going to change my mind about this shit. i have assured him that i am not.

Interesting, and quite likely true. I guess he thinks it is just a phase you are going through and will at some stage ’embrace’ the ‘joys’ of PIV again.

44. Sargassosea - December 23, 2010

FCM, I was in the place you are now about a year ago and it does (or can) get better. I’m still in the process of ‘deprogramming’ myself and it hasn’t been easy for me or my partner. But I feel now like I am over the hump (ha!) and am feeling more optimistic.

And I have you and the Regulars to thank for much of the insight that has given me the extra bump I needed to understand just what I’ve been going through. So cheers, sisters 🙂

45. FAB Libber - December 23, 2010

“Ethical wanking” LOL

Yes, de-programming takes a while, but it can be done. There may be the odd slip-up from time to time. I think it is sort of to do with ‘orgasm efficiency’, and falling back onto thoughts in the past that were successful.

The only way I could break the habit was to NOT visualise anything, purely focus on sensation. Ultimately, this ended up being the ‘most efficient’.

46. Undercover Punk - December 23, 2010

I’m also posting this under my new post too, but I think you’d enjoy this article, FCM:

Hot Hypothalami by Pinko Lesbo
Published in Rain and Thunder (Summer Solstice 2000)

47. Sargassosea - December 23, 2010

“Tell everybody what a sexual revolution really is. Train your brain.” – last words from the essay UP linked to above

Just exactly.

48. calliope - December 23, 2010

Hm. Well if I can add my 2 cents.. I do think sexuality can be innate. If not, wouldn’t those ex-gay camps be raging successes? To use the vegan analogy, what if I was repulsed by cheese to begin with? I know, there’s no proof that sexuality is innate, but speaking from personal experience, I’ve never remotely been interested in men, but growing up thought I had to be straight. I tried to be attracted to males – no luck. I feigned heterosexuality to fit in. I have a feeling that people who feel can choose were bisexual to begin with, and I also suspect that bisexuality is way more prevalent than people are led to think. Possibly even the majority of people? “girlcrushes”, “bromances”. Speaking for myself only I feel that it, in my case, it is innate. I know I can’t become heterosexual because I’ve tried to do so for most of the almost 23 years that I have been alive. I have doubts that straight women are able to become lesbians – but I do not think that this justifies forced heterosexuality or PIV.

Back to what FCM was saying about spinsters – they do exist, and if they are truly heterosexual and not repressed bisexuals, then they aren’t likely to ever be interested in women romantically. IMO claiming historical and spinsters as lesbians does erase spinsterhood (heterosexual manless being a powerful thing in itself) – doesn’t advance our cause.

49. calliope - December 24, 2010

historical and modern *
heterosexual and manless*

50. factcheckme - December 24, 2010

so as far as an application vs reason analysis of sexuality…YES. there is nothing wrong or patently unreasonable about engaging in “genital expression” with another person. as in, it can be done without harm. it can be APPLIED FAIRLY so that there is no inequity. but this obviously excludes PIV. PIV cannot be done without female-specific harm. and i have argued vigorously here that PIV is the very definition of female-specific harm.

this doesnt change whats happened though, in that i feel like something fundamental that i *used* to have, and associations i *used* to have with genital play are no longer there, and have been replaced by something else. it means its POSSIBLE (theoretically) to reclaim it, because genital expression is not fundamentally flawed.

ssea says she has actually done it. this gives me hope.

51. Undercover Punk - December 25, 2010

PIV is the very definition of female-specific harm.

And yes, as an ex-het, I believe you can reclaim your sexuality, fantasies, and desires. It’s like like any addiction… Retraining your brain takes constant vigilance. Especially against the 24/7 het-propoganda machine. Ugh.

52. factcheckme - December 26, 2010

thanks UP. and from the link you provided:

In the end, blaming your biology for your sexual response is a fashionable rationalization for what feels impossible to change. Sexual response can be relearned. I’ve heard straight women say they “just aren’t attracted to women.” I’ve heard sadomasochists (and others) say they can’t have orgasms from “vanilla” sex. That may well be true, but doesn’t have to be. Let me give some nitty-gritty advice. Don’t want to be straight? Have sadomasochistic, rape, or incest turn-ons you want to eliminate? Don’t reinforce the feedback loop in your brain. Get a vibrator. Practice having orgasms with new thoughts. Are the old fantasies creeping in? Turn the vibrator off. Don’t reinforce old patterns with orgasm. Can’t come? It won’t kill you not to–try again tomorrow. Practice with new, positive fantasies, and eventually you will be rewarded with a new sexual response. We’ve all been colonized, but we can drive the invader off.

i have been thinking about this feedback loop stuff for awhile, as well as “mind control.” we already know that PIV causes trauma-bonding in women (DUH) but men have PIV with women anyway, and deliberately invoke the bonding response. YES! we MUST consider that its deliberate, mustnt we? they KNOW whats going to happen, and they do it anyway. doesnt get much more deliberate than that.

we already know that pain and trauma generally cause a bonding-response in the victim. so practitioners of BDSM are deliberately engaging in mind-control when they do it.

this is SO. FUCKED. UP.

53. Undercover Punk - December 27, 2010

The cognitive dissonance is truly incredible. We believe in the power of advertising, don’t we?? Don’t billions of dollars get spent on it every year? Aren’t entire corporate empires built on the rewards of advertising (con$umer demand and purcha$e)? Yes.

But somehow millions of people ALSO believe that there are no long-term effects to imagery and messages that glorify sexual violence against women/BDSM/porn in general.

It’s wildly hypocritical. And women are supposed to be totally fucking cool about it. Like, everyone climaxing to images of our exploitation and destruction mean nothing to us.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: