jump to navigation

Moar Meta February 26, 2015

Posted by FCM in meta, politics, radical concepts, rape.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

i started writing a post a week or so ago and abandoned it.  i dont usually do that but i couldnt seem to nail down a point; i wanted to tell everyone that i heard guy mcpherson (NTE guru) giggling about porn and sharing a riotous laugh with a fellow doodbro about dog-rape.  meaning, men raping dogs, and/or men forcing women to abuse dogs for male enjoyment.  this was in the intro to an interview where said doodbros were engaging in a little male bonding in the beginning as doodbros are wont to do.

while i believe that is noteworthy as an example of males being males (and demonstrating exactly the male values and male behaviors that got us here in the first place — facing the near term extinction of the human race according to mcpherson himself, although he and his frame the reason as because “civilization” and because “humanity”) it was hardly worthy of its own post.  so i was going to further expound on the NTE belief system because i have not addressed a pretty important point that they themselves include when discussing the reality of whats likely to come, because of men and what men do and what men are, and thats war.  NTE activists/cult members (or whatever, they arent really activating for anything except for the bastard hybrid NTE/anti civs, but thats kind of another post) believe that the end is nigh via loss of human habitat > caused by catastrophic global climate change > due to overpopulation and resource extraction; or global nuclear meltdown caused by same, which will occur when the grid fails; or war, which would be apocalyptic and probably nuclear.

i pointed out that i/we have indeed seen a lot lately that is indicative of impending global war, and/or numerous smaller wars happening at the same time, and it is terrifying.  specifically regarding war, and the likelihood that it will be a war that takes us all out, keeping in mind that humans have never lived through any previous time like our current time, where there is a global overabundance of males, and knowing what men do and what men are, and that maleness itself (and therefore male values) is/are a self-reinforcing feedback loop that only picks up strength and speed over time toward whatever end…makes me go kind of quiet inside.  yannow the kind of quiet i mean?  just, ugh *exhale* and silent nonverbal contemplation and (something approaching) understanding.

men continuing to be men, in other words, although any of them will be god damned to actually say that — its humanity and civilization that did it, you see.  some NTE activists (or whatever) even quote past males who have very un-progressively, but nonetheless totes profoundly, commented on “man’s” obvious failings and the shitty world “man” has created and these very modern males very helpfully (and comically) remind everyone that women are included in the word/concept “man” donchaknow.  because equality!  ah male radicals, they are good liberals to the bitter end.

anyway, repetitively pointing out the failings of male NTE activists and tying it in to the atrocity of global maleness is good meta and all, and i put it all into a post but got bored and couldnt finish.  i was thinking about some comments that were made earlier on this blog where women said that they thought that the material gains women achieved through reformism over the years was beneficial to them/us and that they thought (for example) that we are better off than our grandmothers because we can earn money and move away from our rapist uncles and whatnot.  modern women dont have to be raped by our dads every night…except those of us who do/are.  okay, i get the point, and its not a small thing that some women are allowed some modicum of privacy from males now, where were previously werent.  it is indeed noteworthy, and pokes at the root of womens oppression by men that some women are able to escape the violent and sexual/reproductive attentions of some men, some of the time, instead of all of us being subjected to mens violent and sexual/reproductive attentions always.  of course this is a good thing, how could it not be?

and yet, whatever gains we thought we were securing for ourselves, and whatever successes we might have had over the years (and decades and centuries by now), seemingly behind our backs, men continued to destroy the world.  didnt they?  understanding and accepting the likelihood of NTE due to self reinforcing feedback loops of male-caused global overpopulation and over male population really offers a big-picture perspective on all of this, because it makes it very obvious that we were treating the symptom while the disease raged on.  or something?  what other analogy is there where we attempted to relieve our female pain and mitigate our female harm at the hands of men, but where in the end it is revealed that they were on a slow or unobvious burn the whole time (or something) and never actually stopped?  men never stopped being men.  and now, nearing 100 years after white american women were granted the right to vote, we are literally facing a burnt, raped-and-almost-fully-pillaged earth now.  the entire global human race may not survive what men have done.  get it?  by the by, thousands of animal species have already succumbed/become extinct due to human-male-caused loss of habitat, so its not like there is no precedent for male-caused extinction.

i mean really.  could it be any more obvious at this point that women and feminists got nowhere near the root of the problem, if we made “gains” and yet males successfully destroyed the entire earth anyway, apparently “just” doing what they wanted to do, and doing what males do best?  namely, men’s aptitude and fondness for resource extraction (parasitism) and destruction (necrophilia).  sure, raping and otherwise fucking women (and femicide including female infanticide) is what ultimately did it, if we accept that global overpopulation and over male population caused this mess.  but it seems to me that we missed something kind of important, if we didnt see this coming (and thats IF — i actually believe women have seen this coming for centuries, both here and in other places).  and that we are currently missing something important if we dont see it now.  it doesnt have to be that way of course.  the fact that some women see it is at least evidence that there are conditions under which women can and do open their fucking eyes.

i am still considering what it means — and what it doesnt — that some modern women get to have their “own apartments” and whatnot, and our “gains” made in general, in the face of likely near term human extinction caused by global male destructiveness which has raged on regardless, mostly (fully?) unabated, both behind our backs and right in front of our eyes.


The Patriarchal Intent and Effect (i.e. The Purpose) of Transgenderism January 25, 2013

Posted by FCM in international, meta, politics, pop culture, rape, trans.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

the video the transactivists are apparently trying to censor/silence:

like all man-made social processes and systems, we must assume that trannyism — and the social, legal and medical implications of trannyism — serves a patriarchal purpose.  that is, that the intent and effect of trannyism as a social phenomenon is to ultimately benefit men at womens expense.  intent can be proven circumstantially of course — even in the case of unanticipated side effects, once the previously-unknown or unknowable result becomes known, if one doesnt like the outcome, one is free to stop reproducing it.  and obviously if one continues to produce the now-known, now-anticipated result, its because one likes it, needs it, wants it, benefits from it.

in other words, the intent can be deduced from the result — to understand what was intended, you need only examine the end effect, especially when that end-effect is reproduced again and again and again and again.  and such is the case with transgender.  and i think enough time has gone by, from the beginning of modern trannyism until now, that we can identify and examine its patriarchal intent and effect.  what has been the point of all this?

for the sake of expediency, and because they are related, lets review the effect of liberal feminist equality-activating while we are at it — and this includes allegedly radical feminists who build theory and practice around the equation women = men and men = women in the various ways they do, whether purposely or accidentally.  for example, the oft-repeated “womens sex role under patriarchy as fuckholes and slaves isnt our natural state, therefore mens sex role as rapists and slaveowners isnt natural to men either.”  srsly, please stop saying that.

thanks to equality-activating, feminist consciousness-raising — whereby feminists have met for decades in women-only space to discuss our “personal” and understand that our personal is political — is now illegal in many places.  because it is discriminatory against men.  mkay?  its illegal.  the tool that women have reported was the single most effective in our feminist toolshed for understanding sexual politics, and the mechanisms of male interpersonal and institutional power and therefore of womens oppression by men, and meeting and be-friending women for that matter, and be-ing able to be together, unshaven if we wanted to, and for once in our fucking lives not having to worry about dick-pleasing the dick-people — this could land us in jail (as rape-fodder) or leave us open to civil liability stripping us of financial security, where financially destitute women under patriarchy are — you guessed it — rape fodder.

in short, our previously female-only safe space functions as the queue to a raperoom now — rape via jail or poverty — because of equality-activating which has made it illegal to discriminate against men based on sex.  i understand that we might notve seen that one coming — its breathtakingly dastardly afterall.  but it happened.

in fact, the only way to do this “right” is to let men in — especially predatory men who wont hear our “no” and who invoke the misogynist legal system to bypass our consent.  our newly defiled female-only-safe-space-which-includes-men-now is the raperoom proper — because predatory men are there, and they have complete power and we dont.  the threat of rape is real and imminent — if we do it right, following mens rules to the letter, the rape-threat is not symbolic, or even attenuated at all.  the rapists are really, actually there, in the flesh as it were.  get it?

and thanks in particular to trannyism, in certain places in the world, women can no longer publicly discuss female biology because its transphobic.  we can no longer publicly say that females are uniquely oppressed by males, and that womens oppression globally is directly related to males exploiting female reproductive biology through mandatory intercourse and rape — even though that is true.  this is radfem 101 — it is the essence of sexual politics, and the only truly rigorous, honest and revolutionary discourse that has ever existed anywhere at any time, because it isolates and examines the mechanisms of male power and of womens oppression by men.  discussing sexual politics is illegal now.

we can still mention fucking and rape of course, as long as we cast them in a depoliticized (favorable) light.

and because of legal protections for transgendered males, we can no longer publicly organize in women-only spaces that exclude transgendered males; and when seeking public services such as shelters and rape-crisis services, in some places, women have no choice but to submit to cohabitating with and being thought-policed and reprogrammed (therapized) by men who have everything to gain from thought-policing and reprogramming women.  all of this due to laws designed to protect transgendered persons — or so they say.

and as often happens around the same time legal changes take hold, like oh say civil rights protections for american blacks (black males) making black males more or less ethically equal to white males now, (and where racism against black males is unethical) our ethics around “sex-discrimination” have changed too, and the result is that we cant “ethically” discriminate against men in private either, in our private spaces and even in the privacy of our own minds.  we are expected to thought-police ourselves, censor ourselves.  this is the worst kind of totalitarian oppression — the extreme controls on persons in public and private is the thrust of a totalitarian regime so well-described by orwell in 1984.

between equality-activism and trannyism, the effect has been to render radical feminism — and only radical feminism, which includes both consciousness-raising in female-only space and discussing sexual politics including the politics of reproductive biology — both illegal and unethical, in certain places of the world.  more importantly, its made it increasingly dangerous to *be* or to practice radical feminism, putting women who do it at increased risk of being raped by men.  raped, in particular, see?  this was deliberate of course.

in short, legal protections for males — and in particular, criminalizing or penalizing women for discriminating against men — puts women at increased risk of being raped by men.  savvy?  it really couldnt be more obvious.  thats what trannyism does, and therefore we can (must) conclude that thats what trannyism is for.  its also why equality-activating has been allowed for as long and to the extent it has been.

it is in this context too that we must examine the overtly rapey behavior of transgendered persons individually.  it is all connected, where the patriarchal purpose and effect of trannyism as a whole and in its individual parts *is* rape, and womens increased vulnerability to being raped by men — and being forbidden to talk *or think* about what rape means politically.

as a political strategy, to maintain the historical record of our work, our understanding and our resistance via our archives, i agree with the vidder above that “mirroring” trans-critical videos and distributing them widely is probably a good idea.  that is all.

1984.1 (Surveillance) January 8, 2012

Posted by FCM in authors picks, books!, pop culture, radical concepts.
comments closed

i had the opportunity to read orwell’s “1984” recently.  i dont remember if i ever read it before, having blocked out most of my junior high school years, but i can say for certain that this time was my first time reading it through a radical feminist lens.  as everyone probably knows, 1984 is about a “dystopian depiction of totalitarian society” and is supposed to be SCAWY!  disturbing!  cautionary!  tale!  my response: meh.  welcome to my world, dood.  and, mary daly tells it better.

as everyone probably knows already…this classic tale is told from the perspective of some dood who fancies himself a part of the resistance to an oppressive totalitarian regime that places extreme controls on its citizens in both public and private.  this, even as he works every day creating propaganda including destroying the past, and rewriting history to serve the interests of the state.  literally rewriting it, as in changing facts, and destroying all existing evidence that things didnt really happen the way the state says it did.  once the proof of the actual history was destroyed, like first person accounts for example, where the witnesses were exterminated and the story rewritten, it was impossible to prove or even credibly maintain that it happened the way it really happened, *or* that there was any fraud afoot.  prove it!  and you cant.  (more on “the memory hole” to follow in part 2.  mary daly does *that* better too).

in the beginning, its our doodly protagonist’s *thoughts* that are allegedly revolutionary, and he very slowly and timidly moves to action which includes, apparently, taking an oath of willingness to do “anything” for the resistance, including perpetrating extreme violence without asking any questions about it (but without ever actually doing anything at all — srsly, absolutely nothing happened in this book); and having PIV.

wait, its revolutionary to have PIV?  when literally EVERYONE is already doing it under the current regime and they always have?  oh, okay!  and its especially revolutionary when the woman’s *thoughts* about it are positive.  talk about thought police.  are women ever going to stop falling for that one?  i hope so.

anyway, the surveillance aspect of orwell’s frightening totalitarian regime made me laff and laff.  as *women* are being surveilled constantly by men, and we live under a frightening totalitarian regime run by men, understanding that this story was intended to be fiction, and a uniquely cautionary tale that was nearly inconceivable to everyone until orwell put it to music struck me as funny mkay?  hello!  women cannot get away from men.  many women sleep with men, men are there all the time, all the time (even in orwell’s world, you were safe from scrutiny in the dark, as long as you were quiet.  not in womens world!  or, not in het womens world anyway).

when orwell wrote about the “telescreens” that were present in every single room, even the bathroom, he may as well have been talking about womens reality of being watched, scrutinized and thought-policed by men and patriarchal institutions 24/7.  in the case of the telescreens, it was very scawy that there was no way of knowing when you were being watched and when you werent, (meaning, whether an actual person was reviewing the video or not) so you had to assume you were being watched at all times and act accordingly.  so, in the interest of self-preservation, policing yourself became second nature.  how terrible would that be?  wow.  how dehumanizing.  how demoralizing.

in the presence of orwells telescreen, it was advisable to wear a pleasant facial expression at all times.  this was to quell suspicion that one was engaging in “thoughtcrime”.  ok that sounds familiar.  pictures of the loathsome “big brother” on every wall, in every home and workplace and public space (hmm, like artwork?  framed pics of boards of directors?  portraits of governors, justices, or the president?)  there were no laws, no written ones anyway, but everyone knew that certain activities and behaviors (and facial expressions!) were reasonably likely to result in negative outcomes.  wow, that sounds really terrible, doesnt it?  it frequently takes a brilliantly tortured male artist’s mind to come up with such implausible extremes that have never come to pass and hopefully never will.

the bad guys also infiltrated, baited, lied, and utilized networks of spies to surveil the oppressed class under orwells unthinkable totalitarian regime thats never happened, thank god.  and what the oppressed class was *thinking* was what the oppressors wanted to know.  not what they were doing, or planning to do, but what they were thinking, in their own private spaces and within their own hearts and minds.  now thats good totalitarian oppression.

interestingly, in orwell’s universe of over-the-top fearmongering, oppressive controls in both public and private, and harsh consequences for any deviance thoughtcrime, our doodly protagonist eventually figures out that capitulation doesnt work: once he had engaged in thoughtcrime, he was doomed and he knew it.  so, he just continued merrily down that road, come what may.  of course, having engaged in thoughtcrime and therefore branding himself a deadman, the proper thing to have done wouldve been to commit suicide before they came for him.  thats for anyone interested in being a good citizen under an oppressive totalitarian regime that surveils you, violates your obliterates the concept of privacy, and monitors not just your actions but your thoughts too.

of course, in orwells world, upon recognizing oneself as a deadman, it seems that its “human nature” to suddenly become interested in staying alive for as long as possible.

SO.  was orwell right about that?  and are women human?

stay tuned for part 2.

“Quintessence” Part 2 January 23, 2011

Posted by FCM in books!, feminisms, PIV, politics, pop culture.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

in quintessence, mary daly puts the smackdown on pomo and what she calls “academentia” and its absolutely cracking me up.  it really is.  she writes about how BORING it all is, about the banality of mainstream thought, and how particularly academics are operating from a place of fear, and stagnation (which she hyphenates: stag-nation). HA!  (part one is here.)

and its true isnt it?  i cant even read mainstream blogs anymore, without actually feeling as if my head is going to explode.  for reals.  and this includes (of course) the nightmarish snoozefest that passes as “feminist” in teh mainstream interwebs…i was recently saddened to realize that i was about to blow a lobe (thanks twisty) reading sociological images.  damn!  another one bites the dust.  but where does this feeling come from?  it actually, literally, feels as if i am banging my head on a wall.  the pressure builds, as if i am actually experiencing some kind of trauma. 

mary daly describes whats known as the “four causes” where the end result becomes the intent: once you do something and document the result, if you do it again, its because thats what you want to happen.  it also includes visualizing a goal, then being moved to achieve it, by it.  its a closed circuit, that motivates most people to act, and causes most of what we know as “change” or invention.  but for something thats supposedly “creative” its all very boring actually, because it doesnt leave room for…spontenaity.  magic.  real creation.  something thats not going to bore the shit out of your reader for example.  something thats not going to make them long for sweet death, to stop the doublethinking brainpain (i am talking to you, feministing!)  luckily i guess, since reading this mainstream garbage is so painful, it also functions as its own sedative.

from quintessence:

loretta once commented here that women need to be free to go to the end of our thoughts.  and mainstream writers, including pomo-feminist and academic writers, arent doing that.  at all.  in fact, its a marker of patriarchal thinking, isnt it, to take your thoughts to the end of what benefits you, and then to stop.  no thinking about future consequences.  no thinking about unequal risk.  no thinking about much of anything really (except how to get yours, whatever that is, and then perhaps how to keep it.)

so reading feministing (for example) is so punishing, and so painful, because none of us are being allowed to go to the end of our thoughts, in that forum.  the fun-fem forum.  the patriarchal forum.  the head-banging feeling is our thoughts coming up against the “end” of a closed circuit (which is also the beginning!  heads are spinning!) and not being allowed to continue.  because of who we might offend.  because of what we might come up with, and what it might mean.  (like that PIV is problematic…oh hell no, hold the phone).  because of who we must pacify, and satisfy, before we can satisfy our own need to be free, within the confines of our own fucking minds.  to have the freedom of our own fucking thoughts.  to have that tiny shred of privacy, that tiny shred of dignity, to ride it out, to think an entire thought to its conclusion, no matter where it might end.  to jump off mary dalys cliff, as she says, to fall how you fall, and land where you land, and be surprised and amazed at what you find there.

thats not too much to ask, i dont think, and its not too much to demand either.  no, its not.

the “intercourse” series August 15, 2010

Posted by FCM in .
comments closed

“intercourse” house party (part 1)

i finally read dworkin’s ”intercourse” all the way through, and have been processing it for about a week now.  because i really like hearing myself talk and everything, but why constantly reinvent the wheel, when smart and learned feminists have been dissecting and discussing this material for decades?  i mean really.  this all started to seem very pointless a few weeks ago, particularly considering the roll i am currently on: bashing PIV, because its problematic for women but not for men.  its not even sex.  no, its not.  and i am not the first person to think this way.  there is very little new under the sun afterall.

so i bought a book, and read it.  on this issue, i went to the source, dworkin, and her infamously radical notion: penis-in-vagina is a problem.  oh yes it is.  and this is going to be one of a several-part post.  well, at least 2 parts.  one just isnt going to cut it.  because i have heard many women say that they didnt ”get” dworkin, that they tried to read her and couldnt.  and i have had some commenters here that advanced individualist arguments, when it came to PIV.  “i like it, so i am going to continue to do it.”  and thats a tough nut to crack.  i mean really.  i ”like it” too, under the right circumstances.  i never said i didnt.

so i propose that we start here, when trying to discuss it: stop thinking about the female body as synonymous with penetration.  stop thinking about vaginas as “holes” to be filled with, or penetrated by stuff.  because they arent.

since most readers here have their own vagina, this can be approached as a thought exercise.  imagine that your vagina isnt a hole.  because its not.  a vagina is an organ, and most hours of most days, its a solid structure: its muscular walls touch each other.  theres no room in there, at all.  its not the hollow, upside-down carrot that we see in anatomy books.  ffs.  even the fucking anatomists get it wrong.  its pathetic, and infuriating.  but its true.

then, imagine that women are not just castrated men.  its difficult, i know.  i just came to this conclusion literally the other day.  i mean, i always knew that freud was a misogynist asshole for even saying it, but i never really got it.  how is this possible?  i mean really.  its some extremely effective brainwashing, that, to have women believing about themselves that we are defective, castrated something-else.  instead of whole, functioning humans, who have vulvas, vaginae, and uterii *instead of* dicks.  not that we have nothing, where a dick should be.  (i know: it is TRANSPHOBIC!!! to suggest that women are not merely castrated men.  oh well.  get over it, because its true).

now.  imagine that you know something about human beings for a second.  because, you are one.  imagine that humans do not enjoy being colonized.  because they dont.  having other people come into your neighborhood, and setting up shop in YOUR SPACE is not something that human beings enjoy, and they have never enjoyed, and they will never enjoy.  people need their own physical space.  its part of having an identity, as a person, and as a people.  take this as a fact, because its true.  and for those with an incurable individualist streak, consider this:  even extremely tolerant people who want to share their space with others, get rightly pissed off when the visitors come in and start messing the place up.  do they not?

thats it for now.  as you can tell, this is kind of an experiemental post.  see what you think, and decide if you want to play along.  i would love to be able to discuss dworkin here, but i think theres some groundwork that must be laid, as it were.  and i think this is it.

“intercourse” house party (part 2)

part one is here.   as i explained before, i am attempting to lay some groundwork, as it were, to any future discussion of dworkin’s ”intercourse.”  many people report being unable to understand her, but thats really no excuse, is it, for a failure to dissect and discuss PIV, and its implications for women, as a sexual class, around the world?

if feminists arent doing this work, its not going to get done.  so, mindful of that, i offer part 2.  and…bear with me, because its really a downer!

intercourse can literally kill you, if you are a woman.  (sorry!  really, i am).  it causes pregnancy, which is a medical event that can last for years (including lactation, and assuming that there were no long-term complications, which there often are).  PIV is the one and only cause of obstetric fistula, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, miscarriage and abortion, and is causative of the illnesses and deaths of hundreds of thousands of women annually (see maternal morbidity and mortality here, and a discussion of “near misses” here).

and the list of risks of being on the pill are as long as my arm, and include the risk of death by blood clot.  and women are more susceptible to STD infections than men are due to biological differences…specifically that we have vaginas that men ejaculate into, and their bacteria and viruses cant be washed away.  and trying to wash them away by douching actually makes it WORSE, because you irritate your tissues and interrupt the normal cleansing process of the vaginal environment.  (i know, its TRANSPHOBIC!!! to talk about womens vaginas, and the consequences to women to having them.  oh well, get over it.  because its true.)

and PIV is known to destroy womens careers, and their livelihoods, as well.  not even considering the “mommy track” that so many women allegedly “choose,” even if you have an early abortion, you are risking getting in trouble at work if you are too sick to come in, in the first weeks and months of pregnancy due to morning sickness.  i mean really.  sitting under your desk puking into a fucking trashcan doesnt look so good, because most people assume you are drunk (although appearing unintentionally knocked up doesnt do a woman any favors, either, in the “i am responsible, just like a man!!!11!!” competition).  and if you are too sick to even drive or take public transportation, you cant even clock in, to humiliate yourself this way.  or to get paid, obvs.

yes, thats right…there are severe consequences to women, but not to men, of engaging in PIV.  and i am not about to blame women for continuing to do it, and i am not going to ask (at least not today) why women are having PIV with men.  what i would like to know, however, is why MEN are continuing to do it, when they know how dangerous it is, for women.  this is not a rhetorical question.

again, since most readers here are women, this can be approached as a thought exercise.  imagine, if you will, that there were no consequences to *you* of having PIV.  but that all the consequences i mentioned above, actually applied to *men* and not to you.  imagine that fucking your husband, or bf, or anyone with a dick really, could literally kill them, or make them very ill.  imagine that they were taking on all the risk, and you werent risking a thing.

would you still do it?  would you ride your mate into the sunset, bucking wildly on his dick and screaming when you were about to come?  (pornified version).  would you tenderly “make love” to him, knowing how potentially fucking screwed he could be, in the weeks and months to come, by virtue of the act you were about to perform on his person i mean with him, lovingly?  (its an “act of love” version).

and in this topsy-turvy world i have created here, where there are consequences of PIV to men but not to women…would you ever pressure him into it?  or expect it?  or demand it?  or “take” it?  (the rape version).  what if he wanted it, and claimed to enjoy it? what if he really, truly did enjoy it?  would that change anything, for you?  would his “consent” be problematic, in your mind, at all?  or would it be a free pass to place him in harms way?

now…what if you knew for a fact that there was very little chance that he was even going to enjoy it?  would that matter to you, at all?  what if it were common knowledge that most men didnt really like PIV anyway, or at least it wasnt their preferred sexual act, and that their bodies werent really built to orgasm this way?  what if the numerous risks of PIV to men were somewhat (or largely) causative of their inability to enjoy it, or to enjoy it fully?

would you still do it?  if so, why, and under what circumstances?  if not, why not?

and finally…what if mens social status was that of, literally, dirt.  of filth.  what if mens corpus, mens bodies, were regarded as disgusting, and filthy too (even though, ironically, you were the one likely to infect *him* with something, and not the other way around).  what if the language women used regarding having PIV with men was synonymous with harming them, and socially men and boys were the thing everyone else wiped their feet on?  what if it had always been this way, and was this way currently, around the world?

if this were the state of things…what would PIV “mean” to you?  what would you imagine that it “meant” to men?  in other words…why do it at all, and is it at all possible that mens and womens “reasons” would differ?

i am just asking.  stay tuned for part 3.

“intercourse” house party (part 3)

part one is here.  part 2 is here.  this was intended to lay the groundwork for a future discussion of dworkin’s ”intercourse.”  but three parts later, i am under the impression that we’ve been discussing it, this whole time.  no?  actually, theres much more that needs to be said, and some loose ends need to be tied.  and this, my friends, is what will constitute part 3.  enjoy.

womens bodies are not synonymous with penetration, and vaginas are not fuckholes, for men.  and people throughout history have had something in common: they dont like being colonized.  that is, people coming into your neighborhood and setting up shop in YOUR SPACE.  when this happens, and it has happened to many peoples, around the world, the people who have been colonized understand what has happened to them.  they have lost their autonomy, and their privacy.  they have lost their identity.  the ones that survived would not be mistaken to characterize it thusly: “there was a war, and we lost.”  am i wrong?

and being poked and prodded physically is not inherently erotic.  think about it.  going to the dentist?  not erotic.  going to the gynecologist?  not erotic.  acupuncture.  vaccinations.  breast exams.  prostate exams.  medical experimentation.  torture.  not erotic.  right?  at least, any reasonable person would agree that theres nothing *inherently* erotic about these things, even if there are some people who enjoy some of these things, some of the time.  so, is there the teeniest, tiniest chance, then, that PIV (“intercourse”) is not inherently erotic, either, to women?  can we at least admit that much: that theres at least an infantiscimally small chance that this is true?

if you can even imagine that this might be the case, then you have to also consider that women have somehow managed to eroticize something thats not inherently erotic, to whatever extent they might “enjoy” PIV.  and there are many reasons this might be the case for any individual woman, and for women as a sexual class, around the world.  love.  motherhood.  garnering attention and affection from men, who love to fuck women, even women they hate.  because to some extent, most women in most places eroticize PIV somehow.  most women who are engaging in it dont report “feeling raped”, afterall, whatever the fuck that means (although many more find it about as arousing as going to the gynecologist).  do try not to imagine what would happen if they changed their minds at some point though, either mid-act or across the board, within the context of het relationships.

PIV is not inherently erotic for women, but it *is* a fundamental part of the narrative that keeps us in servitude, to men.  women are fucked by men, and men fuck women.  its essential that it be this way, because PIV causes pregnancy.  PIV causes illness.  pregnancy, illness, and babies (upon babies, upon babies) cause women to become dependant on others, on men.

women as a class are subservient to men as a class, then, due pretty exclusively to PIV.

now.  gays and lesbians are vilified, under this system, because homosexuals fuck up the narrative (again, the narrative is, and must be, men fuck women, and women are fucked by men).  see?  regarding gay men, they make it too clear that men have asses that can be fucked.  its not *just* women that can be fucked, men can be fucked too.  but how is that supposed to work???!!!!!1  no, its not fucking unless women are fucked.  its not “fucking” unless someone can die from it, unless someone can become pregnant.  because fucking and female subservience are the same thing.

and lesbians fuck up the narrative too: they make it too clear that PIV is not inherently erotic, for women.  so, they arent really women, at all.  and what they are doing to and with each other isnt fucking.  because its not fucking unless someone can die from it, unless someone can become pregnant.  because fucking and female subservience are the same thing.

and i have kinda been harsh on transwomen in this series, but they fit in here too, dont they?  because transwomen are men, and they have asses that can be fucked.  they have fake fuckholes that can be fucked.  but its not fucking unless someone can die from it, unless someone can become pregnant.  because fucking and female subservience are the same thing.  and its not a fucking coincidence, is it, that many times when a straight man murders a transwoman, its after he has fucked her (or right before), and finds out that shes not a woman?  because the transwoman reminds him that he, too, has an ass, that can be fucked.  that what they have just done or almost done together wasnt fucking or almost fucking, it was something “disturbing” in fact, because its not fucking unless someone can die from it, unless someone can get pregnant.

because fucking and female subservience are the same fucking thing.

it’s the trauma-bonding talking

as i continue on my roll against PIV…its come to this, and theres no avoiding it:  thinking about that post-coital meltdown that so many women have, when their mates “dont call.”  and i actually googled “trauma bonding”, if that tells you something.  i never google anything.

as i think has been made abundantly clear by now, women are literally putting their lives and physical and mental wellbeing on the line, every fucking time they engage in PIV.  (sorry!  really, i am).  if its not the very reasonable fear of being raped at some point during the encounter, its the fear of disease, and the dread, absolute dread of an unintended or unwanted pregnancy.  and that last one applies even in wanted encounters with trusted partners, does it not?  every single act of intercourse, from somewhat pre-menstruation to somewhat post-menopause.  or…until your mate gets his nads snipped…and even then.  fear, and dread.  foreboding, terror, and bargaining with god.  counting the days.

because we all know that pregnancy can kill you, or make you very ill, even if you have an early abortion.  right?  (imagine sitting under your desk at work and puking into a trashcan, if it helps bring it home…not that most women really need a visual.  but there is going to be someone on this thread who says they still dont get why PIV is so bad.)

this has got to be traumatic, no?  i mean, how could it not be?  this is a serious question.

speaking of trauma…when men go into battle with each other, they form intense, emotional bonds.  in relation to each other, these men are known as “war buddies.”  and its a close relationship, to say the least.  the feelings that the shared experience of death-defying elicit are “intimate,” in the extreme.  this is commonly known to be the case.  it just is.  something happens to the human mind when we encounter life-threatening situations with other people.  we…bond.  and women are human beings.  yes, they are.

when women have PIV with men, we are encountering a life-threatening situation, with another person, by definition.  not surprisingly, we form intense bonds with our war-buddies, these men with whom we have literally faced death and disfigurement.  terror.  the problem is, of course, that the men dont feel the same way.  because theres nothing dangerous to men about PIV, really, at all.  they were just getting their dicks wet.  or, you know, “making love.”  we were the ones putting everything on the line.  and if it seems like they dont get what it is that we were doing with them…well its because they dont.  nor do they care to.

heres a bit from google on trauma-bonding:

Exploitive relationships can create trauma bonds-chains that link a victim to someone who is dangerous to them. Divorce, employee relations, litigation of any type, incest and child abuse, family and marital systems, domestic violence, hostage negotiations, kidnapping, professional exploitation and religious abuse are all areas of trauma bonding. All these relationships share one thing: they are situations of incredible intensity or importance where there is an exploitation of trust or power.

bolds mine.  you see, any man who demands PIV or engages in it for that matter is making himself dangerous to women, by definition.  and when a woman trusts a man to keep her safe…if that man demands or engages in PIV with her, he is exploiting that trust.

“stockholm syndrome” might seem a bit extreme to apply to most het relationships that arent traditionally abusive…but theres something going on here.  at least, for those of us who arent essentialist, and who just dont believe this shit about women when it comes to sex ”feeling” so deeply, and stuff, and things.

because the sad, sick truth of it is that every single man with whom we have ever had intercourse is just some tool who laid pipe, at our expense.  thats all.  if it hurts to think about it that way…well it hurts, whether or not you choose to think about it.  thats kind of my point, actually.  PIV hurts and is harmful to women, but not to men.  how can you tell?  we form emotional bonds with men we have fucked, that are inappropriate, and not reciprocal.  work backwards, if you have to, if you cant see that PIV hurts, and is dangerous to women.  look at the most common “female response” to PIV (emotional attachment), and tell me it doesnt look a hell of a lot like another commonly-recognized bonding-response to having experienced extreme terror, and the fear of death.

women also manage not to stalk or murder our lovers, really, ever.  they are our war-buddies, afterall.  not our pets, our our property.  see how womens alleged “obsession” with men really has no correlate with mens sexual obsession with women?  a more reasonable correlate (besides stockholm syndrome) would appear to be a kind of one-sided war-buddy syndrome, which normally creates intense emotional bonds between people, who face death with each other, in times of war. 

those are my thoughts at the moment.  that, and something i might have wondered about if i were about 15 years younger, cause i dont really care at this point: if we made PIV *more* traumatic for men, would they have the common decency to pick up the fucking phone the next day, but without going all stalker?  im just asking.  that is all.