The PIV Contract. Bringing The Train Into the Station January 29, 2011Posted by FCM in books!, feminisms, health, international, PIV.
Tags: mary daly, quintessence, sex pozzies, the four causes
cath elliott has written a couple of times about husbands “right to expect regular sex” or what is also called the “PIV-contract” whereby men feel entitled to PIV on demand, within the context of het relationships. the comments are predictable of course, and are still coming in a year later, and prove her point. and its a good discussion to have, in that it calls attention to the problems of male sexual entitlement, in which womens physical integrity may literally be breached at any time, at the will and on the demand of her male partner. this cant be good can it? and i think the entitlement aspect of it is problematic, as are the physical and psychological consequences of PIV to women. DUH. namely…well i think we can all pretty much recite these by heart by now.
but lets bring this train into the station shall we? if we take this thought to its logical end, we will see actually that the PIV-contract also leaves no room for women to become politically aware, after having PIV with a partner, that PIV is demonstrably harmful to women, that its inherently inequitable due to the unequal physical and psychological risks between women and men, that its not even sex, and then quite logically to decide that they arent going to do it anymore.
right? the PIV-contract is literally, LITERALLY stunting heterosexual women from political and feminist growth, and making radical awakening and bringing radical change to their own lives impossible.
its also deliberate. set women up so that they are economically dependant on men, set PIV up so that its understood without question to be “sex” then make everyone also understand that the man will abandon his female parter without hesitation, if she ever stops letting him stick his dick into her, for any reason. although a POLITICAL reason would probably be the most unforgivable reason wouldnt it? as opposed to perhaps a “medical problem” for example? making it completely clear what the intent is here, and that the intent is to prevent any kind of political resistance to PIV. to prevent radical feminism, in other words.
so once again, we see that PIV-positivism is ultimately (and therefore intentionally) discouraging women from going to the end of their thoughts, when it comes to PIV, and the meaning of het relations entirely. they will NEVER, and i mean NEVER come to a radical awareness, so long as their stated intention is to remain “sex-positive” where “sex” refers to PIV and PIV-centric sexuality. and it does. thats exactly what it refers to, and we all know it. dont bullshit me people! PIV-positivism is an intentionally closed circuit of thought, (ie. an agenda) whereby women are doomed to remain loyal to men, and male interests, to their own detriment. i think we have already shown the physical and psychological dangers here, but the intentional prevention of radical awareness is also clear.
you CANNOT, and will not, have a radical awakening, so long as you dont, or cannot afford to, see PIV for what it is. and the PIV-contract ensures this result: preventing radical awareness is the logical conclusion to mandatory PIV and PIV-pozzie rhetoric, and therefore its also its entire fucking point.