jump to navigation

The PIV Contract. Bringing The Train Into the Station January 29, 2011

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

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.

Comments

1. rhondda - January 29, 2011

wonderful!!
I am reading Ti-Grace Atkinson’s Amazon Odyssey.
Here is a quote:
love is the natural response of the victim to the rapist.
Ah trauma bonding. It is in a chapter called
are you ready? —- metaphysical cannibalism. She wrote it in 1969. The book was published in 1974.
you know what pisses me off is that the only way I found out about this book is because Monique Wittig mentions Atkinson in one of her essays and I decided to check it out. No wonder the menz destroyed women’s studies. They fragment feminist’s work and twist and pervert it.

2. FemmeForever - January 29, 2011

This. In it’s entirety. BRAVA!

Also,

“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. ”

Yes. Yes it is. And this too, which was so debilitating that reading it took me out of commission for a full day.

http://www.womanist-musings.com/2011/01/new-trend-in-christian-patriarchy-stay.html

3. joy - January 29, 2011

Allow me to follow a quoted paragraph in Cath’s essay to its logical end, vis a vis, replacing some words with others [denoted in square brackets, because I don’t know how to work the strikethrough].

“The will of the [woman who is born into patriarchy, ie, each and every one of us] is no longer ruled by or even connected to her desires.

[By virtue of being socialized into a patriarchy], her desires are [never] a product of what she enjoys or what she has learned to enjoy. What [a woman within patriarchy] does, sexually, is a product not of what [she] wills but of what [society] demands. As an immediate consequence, her will becomes a function not of her desires but of [male] desires. Eventually her desires become a function not of her pleasures, but of [male] pleasures; she wants literally to please [men] rather than herself because to please herself is too dangerous.

The [woman within patriarchy who has failed to yet raise her consciousness and take action] gains survival, but she sacrifices self-sovereignty. In other words, she sacrifices the ability to control her own will and to determine her own actions, pleasures, and desires, free from external influence. In short, she sacrifices selfhood.”

There you have it.

FCM - January 30, 2011

holy cow, where ya been ff?

FCM - January 30, 2011

also, re the link to womanist musings…the entire concept of “stay at home daughters” is extremely creepy, and its really no surpise that even the language mirrors “stay at home moms” either. fundamentalists are very bold in the way they hetero/sexualize and fetishize their daughters, and make them into little mini-wives which is so fucking gross i want to throw up just thinking about it. the promise-keepers is a prime example of this, where they have father-daughter “balls” and play dress-up as if it were a formal date, and also pledging their viriginity to thier fathers, and wearing their fathers rings really brings it home. its set up like a courting ritual, an engagement, and a marriage, or a placeholder for marriage, between fathers and daughters.

not saying non-fundamentalists are any better, but the fundies act like they are against “sexualizing” daughters when really they are the perfect example of it. they are literally priming their own daughters for PIV, and setting them up to be vulnerable to men, who fetishize female vulnerability. hetero/sexualizing, as well as sexualizing and fetishizing. just, ew.

4. rhondda - January 30, 2011

It’s all about the exchange of women between men. Ownership. We do not exist as autonomous beings with the right to chose our lives. Thank Goddess for radical feminists. (Goddess being a verb [movement])

5. Sargassosea - January 30, 2011

“they are literally priming their own daughters for PIV, and setting them up to be vulnerable to men, who fetishize female vulnerability.”

With the master of all patriarchs, god, to back them up even.

A large proportion of daughters who have ‘escaped’ their dominance/submission based fundamentalist christian cults (with the Quiverfull movement being the most egregious example) have fallen victim to the world of bdsm yet INSIST that they are free from patriarchal control.

They can’t afford to see, I suppose, that they have only ‘escaped’ one Patriarchy to find themselves in another.

6. thebewilderness - January 30, 2011

On the verbal abuse forum I participate in this matter comes up constantly.
This:
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.

I wonder if women who have not experienced it personally or been through it with a friend or family member realize how bad the abuse has to be and how long it has to go on before the pain overwhelms the conditioning to the point where a woman will ask herself if there is anything, anything at all, about her mind and body that she is entitled to have control of.

Then, when they do see the depth and degree of their debasement, and how they were trained to accept it as their due, the anger inspires them to action, and it is a beautiful and painful awakening to reality.

I think I am a little off topic here. And yet I see it as a central issue of abuse. Entitlement training.

7. joy - January 31, 2011

thebewilderness — especially given the lengths to which having the ‘freedom’ to engage PIV is held up as the pinnacle of a woman’s ‘control’ over her body.

Which is why, when people object to PIV in most public forums, the overwhelming response FROM OTHER WOMEN is, “Why are you trying to take away my FREEEEDOOOMMM?”

8. maggie - January 31, 2011

I’ve been thinking about this and reading your blog and digesting the information which is mind blowing in its application. Conclusion. I get it.

What’s more when a woman reaches menopause and is suddenly replaced with a younger woman it’s not because she ‘is getting old and reminding him of his impending old age’ it’s because the man realises instinctively that he no longer has the capacity to hurt her, endanger her life. She has reached freedom. She can have PIV if she so chooses with whomever she likes and he won’t know. There will be no contraceptive failure because none is needed. She will no longer belong to him. The contract that binds them i.e. risky PIV contact is there no more.

He may also fail to perform in PIV because he no longer gazes upon the stereotypical youthful woman while ‘enveloping’. These men only want PIV with women who are of child bearing age. Ergo, given that PIV has dangerous ramifications for these women, these men are engaging in abusive behaviour. They care not for soul mates. They care not real sexual intercourse.

FCM - January 31, 2011

That was excellent Maggie. I think you are right, absolutely.

9. Undercover Punk - January 31, 2011

This is really, really beautiful. Bring it FULL CIRCLE, sister!

Just one question, do you mean that PIV stunts political awareness *because* full awareness necessitates an end to PIV…and that is, like, unthinkable!11!!! And sex-negative!11!!!!1 ??

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.

Fucking GENIUS.

FCM - January 31, 2011

UP, i think the PIV-contract stunts political and feminist growth, because it stunts political and feminist thought. it silences the discussion before its even started. it places certain ideas and conclusions off limits without requiring that anyone prove they arent true. so its patently dishonest. and the PIV-critical discussion is 100% about female-specific harm, perpetrated against women as women, by men. and the meaning of heterosexual relations, insofar as they are dependant on PIV-centric sexuality (and they are) becomes very clearly problematic too, once you are willing to discuss the female-specific harms of PIV.

and yes, absolutely, any train of thought that culminates in the end of PIV is unthinkable. literally. you MUST. NOT. THINK. IT.

i have always invited people to prove me wrong about this PIV stuff, just like i have invited them to prove my math wrong, or my venn diagrams or my logic. but so far, noone has ever been able to do it. the closest anyone comes is to blathering on in a “gender nootral” fashion about how LIFE IS DANGEROUS, or whining and telling me i am being hurtful, and sex-negative. because if its anti-sex, that means it cant be true. right? uh, WRONG. not unless you believe that PIV *is* truth that is. and for many people, thats exactly where they are coming from. they cant prove it of course, because its not a truth, its a premise. one that they are completely invested in not examining. so they dont.

FCM - January 31, 2011

heres a link to the “if its anti-sex then it cant possibly be true” post. good times!

https://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/anti-sex-means-not-tru/

FCM - January 31, 2011

i am also still thinking about maggies comment about post-menopause. that was a really excellent point. viagra was invented to keep MENS age out of the equation, so they can continue to vicitmize women literally until the men die of old age. but they cant stop women from becoming free of them, eventually can they? is this what all this anti-aging stuff is all about, for women? too bad its not gonna work. the NRT (new reproductive technologies) stuff keeps more women tied to being mommies than would otherwise be, but even these women arent vulnerable to men in the way men seem to want are they? damn thats good stuff right there. well done maggie.

10. maggie - February 1, 2011

Barbara Walters interviewed Camille Grammer re the marital split from PIV centric dude Kelsey.

“You implied on part one of the reunion show that you and Kelsey Grammer hadn’t had sex (i.e. PIV contact) in a couple of years. You were surprised that he wanted someone else.”

This was taken from The Daily Mail where I read the ‘news’ story. One comment below:

It does sound an awful lot like Barbara Walters is trying to justify cheating in a marriage simply because the sex life has dwindled. I am thinking there are bigger things to consider, like the kids and several years spent building a life with someone, before throwing in the towel so he can get his leg over!

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1352329/Barbara-Walters-grills-Camille-Grammer-claims-hadnt-slept-Kelsey-TWO-years-split.html#ixzz1ChaZGiFU

Note the TWO in the title of the ‘news’ story. The agenda being no PIV contact in TWO years and therefore leading the reader to agree that this is incredulous – I mean how could a woman not engage in PIV contact for TWO years when it’s on tap? On order!

The other euphemism is ‘slept’. ‘Slept’ being PIV contact. No longer can a marital bed be a place to refresh, dream, cuddle children, cuddle partner, speak about the day, intimacy, watching a film or eating crisps! No a marital bed is for having PIV contact. Only.

Sorry to drag this excellent post into the gutter of ‘celeb’ press. But PIV contact and the contract that is marriage is being hawked around and people listen to this. Absorb it. And this ensures the myth carries on.

11. rhondda - February 1, 2011

Well looky here. A bunch of men telling women about sex and pregnancy. No where are there any women talking and the assumptions of these males is astounding. Women must enjoy it at all times and well only near the end where the precious male identified fetus may be threatened do they fucking care, but only about the fetus.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/okay+during+pregnancy+doctors/4200348/story.html

12. Undercover Punk - February 1, 2011

Unthinkable, yes. Clearly! I was going to say this before, but I’ve often wondered about women with very strong feminist consciousnesses who remain stubbornly unable or unwilling to critique heterosexuality as an inherently problematic way of relating (to men, even “exceptional” ones). Then, where there is critique, I still sense overwhelming loyalty to the institution of PIV-heterosex on the part of feminist women. Like, oh, but we can FIX it! It’s always kind of blown my mind; even convinced me that I *am* a hardcore dyke because I see it so differently. And I think it’s more than FEAR– women being SCARED to live as “”Lesbians”” and sacrifice the benefits of having male privilege and hetero privilege on your side. This draw is not that powerful, is it?? I mean, really?!?11! As a lesbian propagandist, I want to show that there IS an alternative, but this reality is not SEEN or COMPREHENDED by observers. Always perplexed me. (oh goddess, I sound like the MIA Sheila G! Mwahahaha!!)

13. maggie - February 1, 2011

Okay one thing on menopause and freedom. This is being eroded. How? HRT. With HRT, which is increasingly being asked for by women who are ‘suffering’ from PRE menopausal symptoms (best get it before any problems arise), the woman is able to carry on having PIV sex without a hint of vaginal dryness or atrophy… until she dies. See the cover of the book Feminine Forever if you don’t believe me. So take the patches, which are now being made safer and in lower doses so that women can no longer be exposing their bodies to uterine and breast cancers, and you too can carry on with PIV sex AND keep your man, your home, your ecomonic security, your sanity. Don’t fall for this women!

Re the PIV sex in pregnancy. UGH. So the line is keep on having PIV sex because it’s an important aspect of LIFE (wtf?), but if there are contra indications then you must stop and presumeably become an object of pity because this important aspect of LIFE (wtf?) is now gone. For a few months…

14. FAB Libber - February 1, 2011

I too saw the Camille Grammer interview earlier, and was all very “WTF???”

I liked your previous comment maggie, with the “no danger, no jollies (for menz)”. Very interesting. Although, I think there are a variety of factors. Women over 35-45 start to gain a bit more independence (or at least have a little more time to think for themselves) and therefore may feel more confident not to just lie back and think of England. They might also have realised by this time that “PIV just does not float my boat (for orgasms)”. Nothing turns off a patriarch faster than an independent woman willing to stand up to him. Younger women are more compliant, haven’t figured out the whole deal yet – this is the male attraction to younger women. I would class it as interdependent reasons.

15. rhondda - February 1, 2011

What I wanted to point out with the story about sex while pregnant are the following:
1. It is piv sex they are talking about
2. What the woman wants is not even relevant to the discussion.
3. Men know alot about pregnancy, but they nothing OF it, nor do they care.
4. The mother is just the vessel, not the one who actually uses her body to grow a child.
5. Women must be available to men, no matter what her condition, because it is all about the male need and not hers.
6. She should not enjoy it too much as might cause labour contractions which for those of you in the states might be concerned about considering that it could be labeled a self-induced abortion which she would be blamed for and not him, hence in some states, murder. Who says there is not Sharia in the western world?
7. The idea that male sperm might try to kill the fetus is dismissed, in favour of the male need to fuck.
8. The mother is NOTHING, in this scenario.
I am remiss. I think these things are obvious and obviously they are not. It is a hard lesson.

16. maggie - February 1, 2011

I agree completly FAB Libber. Good point. I know many women when they are in their forties who don’t want PIV anymore. ‘He touches me without my consent’ ‘I like him touching me but it means ultimately that sex (PIV) is in order so I desist to his touch.” “I tell him that I’m not ‘available’ on call and this is the problem.”

Some men cannot get past the lust phase. The lust phase is good. Who doesn’t enjoy it whether you’re het, les or hom. It’s wonderful. You want to do it all the time. BUT. There comes a point when negotiation starts. It may be early – hey we’ve had simultaneous orgasm but if it doesn’t happen again it doesn’t matter – or – hey we connect on an intellectual and sexual phase but I may have been slightly disengenuous when I said I liked [insert fav music, film, book, poem here]. Always with the negotiations.

It continues. If you want a child with this union you negotiate. If you want peace and bloody quiet you negtotiate. You negotiate until? Who knows. Everyone comes to a compromise. It’s just that some comromises involve hurt and pain. EXCEPT. With PIV it’s always done with the premise that the woman is the problem. Husband not getting it up? Ditch him and find someone else. Not really interested in PIV? Let him go and find someone who is. PIV is where it’s at in this world we inhabit. It doesn’t have to be like this.

PIV hurts men as well as women. End off. And I know I’ve not given a valid reason for that statement but let’s just say I know it does. It doesn’t have to be this way. Thankfully there are men who DO get it. They know that talking, sharing, arguing, enjoying, sleeping and yes having sex together without the ‘you know what’ is better.

17. FAB Libber - February 1, 2011

rhondda, since Cath’s PIV-entitlement post (and the link to mumsnet), I have not been able to get the air embolism thing out of my head. Most of the talk was about cunnilingus causing the air embolisms (because of the exposed (unhealed) blood vessels in the uterus after birth). I figured that PIV would be just as, if not more risky than cunnilingus. Found a paper here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361003/pdf/postmedj00094-0038.pdf

If you think about it, PIV would be far more risky than cunnilingus in introducing air into the uterus, yet it is played down a lot. One of the case studies in this paper was a woman who was five weeks post-partum (the mumsnet thread talked about five days FFS). Anyway, for women’s safety, the doctors should stick to the six week rule at least – instead of fobbing this off as such a rareity – and encouraging women to get back onto the PIV pony just to keep their fucking menz ‘happy’.

One reason menz like to have PIV so soon after birth, is that it is a kind of ‘marking the turf’ (the equivalent of pissing on something to mark the territory). In fact, I would go so far to say that MOST PIV is actually for this reason and nothing more (from the male POV anyway).

Shame on the medical profession for encouraging women to engage in PIV so quickly after birth to ‘return the sex life to normal’. Jeez, birth of a child is a life-changing event, not a trip to the post office! Yep, women are treated no better than vessels.

For the record, I think every dude I have ever known whose wife is pregnant, screws around or attempts to screw around. If more het women knew this, they would not think Nigel so fucking terrific, would they? It is time to burst the bubble on this het set-up. Women are being duped.

18. rhondda - February 1, 2011

Yes, fab libber, it is all about ownership and control. After the birth of my second child I realized what an asshole I married. The thing is one is very vulnerable at this time. This is the time one hopes to have luv and protection. It does not happen. This is when they go in for the kill. They are jealous of any attention you give the child they claim as theirs and manipulate you into proving they are wrong. It is the most insidious narcissism I have ever seen. It took me three years to finally get strong enough to rid of him and then only when he attacked the kid because he was mad at me. There is a reason wild female animals chase away the males after birth. I do believe they are smarter than human females. We need to look elsewhere than the male medical establishment.

FCM - February 2, 2011

re “interdependent reasons” i think its clear that the common thread here is womens vulnerability. young women are more vulnerable to mens manipulation and lies because they are naive, they havent “seen it all before.” they are more trusting because they have to be, if they believe that marriage and children are whats going to make them happy. they have no social or economic safety net, no earning potential, and are often thrown to the wolves by their families who also believe that a het partership is the goal, and make no room in their lives or homes for young unpartnered women or even older spinster daughters. this is what happened to me. my mother forced both my sister and i out when we were 18, and never let us come back. of course, when we realized we needed roommates to help pay the bills, and we had boyfriends over all the time anyway who ate all our food and used all our stuff anyway…having them move in and “split the bills” seemed like a logical choice. and viola! one more heterosexual cohabitative partnership is created. PIV required of course.

and yes, young women are physically vulnerable too, to pregnancy. i do not think this is a small thing, at all. see the “whats fuckability got to do with it?” post for more on womens vulnerability, and men getting off on it.

FCM - February 2, 2011

i would also add for the young uns reading here that there is an IMMENSE logic fail, in taking an entitled prick who eats all your food and uses all your stuff (ie. doesnt pay his way), and expecting him to “split the bills.” i fell for this one more than once.

19. pmsrhino - February 2, 2011

I remember in high school talking to a friend after winter break and I asked about him and his girlfriend. He said he’d broken it off and I asked why. He told me that she wouldn’t have sex with him and it had been 3 months already. 3 months was too long, apparently, so he broke up with her. It was after this that I had my first boyfriend. That conversation with my friend made my relationship with my bf really weird because the only thing I could think of the entire time was that my bf wanted sex and if I didn’t give it to him soon enough then he would break up with me no matter how much fun we had talking or how good friends we were. I was a nervous wreck the entire time we dated, waiting for him to push me into sex. It never got that far, mostly because his parents didn’t want him dating a “slutty” white girl, but sometimes I wonder if I would have given in just because I felt it was expected and that that is just what women gave in a relationship. (not sure if I’ve mentioned this story before on this site… I may have, lol)

Really, it is what we are told over and over and over again. Our bodies are not for us and are pretty much bargaining chips if we want to keep a man in our lives (which we are, of course, required to do). And women are always the reason for a cheating man, either the frigid wife who won’t give him sex anytime he wanted or the slutty woman who tempted him into her bed. Why is it never the guy’s fault? He’s the one who seems to only be capable of thinking with his dick. My parents taught me long ago that you can’t control how others feel about a situation, you can only control your reactions and your own feelings. So why does society seem to think that it’s a woman’s responsibility to control the way men react to situations? It’s her responsibility to keep him happy in a relationship or her responsibility to not make another man want her (or rape her).

Women have no power and yet we have all the power in the world? I will never understand that logic… though I think it is this logic that let’s men rationalize why they must keep so much control over us. We are really the ones with the power, what with our lady bits and all. Which is why men spend so much time trying to take that from us, by force or otherwise.

20. Miska - February 3, 2011

my mother forced both my sister and i out when we were 18, and never let us come back. of course, when we realized we needed roommates to help pay the bills, and we had boyfriends over all the time anyway who ate all our food and used all our stuff anyway…having them move in and “split the bills” seemed like a logical choice. and viola! one more heterosexual cohabitative partnership is created. PIV required of course.

The same thing happened to my childhood friend. She had to leave her mothers house at 18. She ended up moving in with a 30 yr old nigel, and a year later she had his baby. Now she has two children of her own and a stepkid, no higher education and works as a waitress while her second and current nigel sits around on welfare.

She never even got the opportunity to decide if she wanted to live with a nigel, she was basically shoe-horned into the situation through her vulnerability. I think this is how it often happens. And once you’re living with a nigel it’s difficult to get out of that situation because it’s much more expensive to set up your own place and cover bond, rent, utilities by yourself. And that encourages women to stay and not “rock the boat” of the relationship, which means continually supplying PIV. Which of course leads to more vulnerability re pregnancy, and its all one big feedback loop of horror.

FCM - February 3, 2011

yes pmsrhino. we ARE told that, from the moment we are born, on. our bodies are not for us. not at all. this is exactly how we should view cosmetic surgery (and PIV and a lot of other things) actually: the only thing that matters is how OTHERS experience US. objectively. for example, looking at us, from the perspective of an observer (a MALE one at that) our breasts appear as if they are roundish globes in front of our chests, or something approaching it. breast augmentation makes your boobs roundish globes in front of your chest…just in case yours really arent, naturally, either round, or globes, or even in right in front. the perfect breast! according to them. and none of this of course has anything to do with how it FEELS, subjectively, to have breasts. to experience breasts, subjectively, and not just objectively, which is the only way men can experience them (somehow of course they manage to be both “objective” and biased, but whatever). breast surgery actually DULLS the sensation, of having breasts, to the owner. to the woman. breast surgery literally, LITERALLY takes breasts from being within your subjective experience, to being more, or mostly or all (depending on your loss of sensation) for the observer. for other peoples objective experience. of YOUR BODY. surgically augmented breasts represent MENS EXPERIENCE OF WOMENS BREASTS. as a woman, you have to take yourself out of your own body to see this, for what it is. its a little tricky, but it can be done.

basically, everything that exists in mainstream culture exists from the perspective of the male. everything. once you get a handle on this one, other things start falling into place.

FCM - February 3, 2011

i would also add that my mother never wanted children, and couldnt wait for us to be gone. she ended up with 3 unintended and unwanted pregnancies because of mandatory PIV, and 3 resulting kids because she believed that “having kids” was just what you did, when you were married. i dont blame her for throwing us out really. it wasnt in her personality to have children in the house, and she took the first legitimate “out” she had. mandatory PIV created us, and created a hostile home environment wherein girls and women were believed to be just fuckholes, for men (ie. the normal social narrative held by just about everyone) and then when we left we found ourselves in mandatory PIV situations too. it is absolutely a feedback loop, as well as a generational cycle. thats exactly what it is. and men of course have everything to gain from it.

21. Undercover Punk - February 3, 2011

we ARE told that, from the moment we are born, on. our bodies are not for us. not at all. this is exactly how we should view cosmetic surgery (and PIV and a lot of other things) actually: the only thing that matters is how OTHERS experience US.

Hell YES. And hence, female sexuality is constructed as vicarious, rather than experienced.

22. FAB Libber - February 3, 2011

Women have no power and yet we have all the power in the world? I will never understand that logic… though I think it is this logic that let’s men rationalize why they must keep so much control over us. We are really the ones with the power, what with our lady bits and all.

Good point about the rationalisation factor PMSrhino.

The whole concept of vag-power or whatever is a big lie to begin with, and people tend to rationalise (or over rationalise) things that bad, unjust, untrue, etc. So it makes sense that Dudeland work overtime to rationalise such a bunch of baloney.

The other part of the vag-power myth, the bit they don’t mention, is that mysteriously powerful ladybits only have their mysterious powers in the presence of a penis or penis-owner. Some super power eh? As super powers go, I demand a refund!

23. bobbyy53snake - February 9, 2011

Message posted this morning by Lierre Keith about an upcoming Sheila Jeffreys appearance in Boston in June:

Hey everyone,

Gail Dines and I have been threatening for years, but we finally got it together. We have a whole week of radical feminist theory, skills, and activism coming up at Wheelock College (Boston, MA) at the end of June.

June 25-26 Radical Feminist Seminar
June 27-28 Wheelock Media Institute
June 29-30 Stop Porn Culture Slideshow Training

We’ve got fabulous women coming from Sweden, Iceland, and Norway to talk about their successes in fighting the sexual exploitation industries.

The amazing bit is that Sheila Jeffreys will be in attendance and giving guest lectures throughout. With Mary Daly and Andrea Dworkn both gone from us, Sheila is arguably the foremost living radical feminist theorist. She lives in Australia, so I’ve only seen her once (in 1987). This is literally the chance of a lifetime.

More here:
http://stoppornculture.org/events/

Plenty of fee-waiver scholarships available (and frankly, I’m the one in charge of those) so don’t let money stop you.

Lierre


Sorry comments are closed for this entry