jump to navigation

What’s “Fuckability” Got To Do With It? October 13, 2010

Posted by FCM in authors picks, books!, gender roles, health, international, PIV, pop culture, prostitution, rape.
Tags: , , , , , ,
comments closed

so what does being “fuckable” really mean, in a world where men as a group are known to stick their dicks into anyone, at anytime, under any circumstance?  most of us spend way too much time, energy, worry, and of course money on fuckability mandates, beauty, and appearing “appropriate” at all times.  which not coincidentally requires an entirely different costume from one hour of the day to the next.  for women, of course, not for men.  women make less, but spend more.  on being fuckable.  for men.  cha-ching!

and there are heavy penalties, too, for paying too little attention to it, or being simply unable to achieve fuckability, in one way or another.  or, you know, losing your fuckability over time, by actually being fucked too much.  like…the woman who “lets herself go” after having too many kids.  or…as dworkin mentions in “intercourse,” the ravaged junkie-prostitutes and toothless bawds from history, who do the elephants share of the fucking across time and place.  yes, thats right: it seems as if the less fuckable you are, the more you actually get fucked.  so what does fuckability even mean, and whats it have to do with PIV?

in actuality, fuckability mandates, and the entire notions of both “female beauty” and “male desire” seem to be a largely unexamined and generally accepted falsehood (that head-spinning quality generally indicates as much) that serves to obscure the actual truth.  and the truth is, apparently, that men stick their dicks into women, because they are women.  because they can.  because “female” is synonymous with carnality and accessibility, and women exist only to be sexually used by men.

these pages are from dworkin’s “intercourse.”  she is talking about joan of arc, and how joan seems to have largely escaped the gauntlet of male desire.  in other words, she wasnt “fuckable” and the men she fought with and slept next to never tried to fuck her, or saw her that way.  however, the image of joan as “not pretty” that has somehow survived as historical fact, apparently wasnt true.  so while the unfuckable “toothless bawds” of history were getting fucked and fucked and fucked some more…joan of arc was beautiful, but the men didnt want her.  now, i wonder why that would be?  i love a good mystery, dont you?

just ignore the dangling words at the end there.  the book continues, as books are wont to do.

anyhoo, it seems as if “fuckability” and female beauty mandates really have nothing to do with anything.  or at least, they arent required for PIV, and even the most beautiful woman (at least one that we know of) has avoided being sexually used i mean desired by men, where there appeared to be severe consequences to using her that way.  for example…fear that she would kick their fucking asses if they tried.  (high heels and footbinding kind of preclude that).  or…an overwhelming sense (by the men) that she was protected by something.  like god, in joans case.  or like…the law.  indeed, these things appear to be a total boner-killer, across time and place.  would that rape laws were even remotely effective ay?  sure, if you are a woman.  not so much, if you are a man.

so, whats fuckability got to do with fucking, really?  welp…it seems very much that its actually female vulnerability that gets men hard, across time and place.  and women spending money they dont have on disabling footwear seems to fit the bill.  you know, just as one example.  and having ineffectual rape laws and social-safety nets in place that are more hole than net seems to achieve that too, as well as a disposable, permanent underclass of women who belong to all men, and are vulnerable to all men, all the time.  aka.  sex workers and porn. 

yes, its a sexxxay, sexxxay world out there, if you are a man.  if you are a woman…well, its all very complicated, expensive, and likely to get you pregnant, is what it is.

Why Am I Always So Tired and Broke? (Do Not Try This At Home, If You Can Help It, At All) August 7, 2010

Posted by FCM in authors picks, books!, feminisms, gender roles, health, PIV, pop culture, porn.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

in a frame…this is why.  or its a big fucking part of it.  this drawing is from dworkin’s “woman hating” (see p. 117).  i always had a sense of this, but it finally clicked for me when i saw this drawing, specifically the wrists.  the wrists.  our wrists have to be beautiful fuckable too?  why yes, yes they do.  our wrists! 

i mean, shaving isnt that expensive really.  if you really want to, you can do it with soap and water.  it is time consuming though, which is not a small thing.  but bracelets are fucking expensive: or at least, you can spend literally any amount acquiring them.  its a sliding scale, based on your income.  ie.  opting out is not an option, and you cannot claim that you cant afford it, no matter how little you make.  thanks, claires boutique $5 jewelry (and another $5 when your skin turns green.  and then another.  and another.  its disposable!).  thanks wet-n-wild 99-cent makeup!  (99-cents times 10, to get all the products you need…then another 99-cents times 20 when you realize all the colors you got look terrible with your skin tone, and you have to try again…twice).

importantly…there is nothing comparable that men have to spend their hard-earned cash on.  nothing.  comparable.  if the bracelets and perfume dont bring that point home, then the makeup and hair removal should.  we make less, and we spend more.  if this sounds like a recipe for disaster, it is.

of course, the drawing above also outlines what dworkin calls “oppressive grooming practices.”  in “woman hating”, she discusses in detail a historical practice that was rooted in the deepest misogyny: chinese footbinding.  and she makes the following highly cogent points about that practice (here are the actual pages out of the actual book, with my notes…cause i am too lazy to type it all out):

the art of sex.  male-female harmony.  do we get it now?  earlier in the book, she describes how chinese men for 1000 years suffered from a mass delusion that women with bound feet had yummy, “extra folds” inside their vaginas.  again, it was a MASS DELUSION.  it wasnt real.  but they allegedly saw and felt these nonexistent “extra folds” while they were having PIV with mutilated, footbound women.  physical structures that, of course, werent even fucking there.  because binding the feet has nothing to do with womens vaginas.  HELLO.

only a few pages later, dworkin presents us with the splayed, bedazzled, and deodorized “modern” figure above.  its not hard to see how she got there.  specifically, she observes that male-made beauty standards literally define the dimensions of a womans freedom:

and it very clearly does define everything, for women.  its exactly as dworkin says it is.  how we spend our money, how we spend our time, and literally our agility, stamina, posture, and just about everything else are dictated by these fuckability mandates.  not only that, but most women end the day in agonizing pain due to their shoes, and endure terrible or at least constant and nagging pain throughout the day, through various female-only garments and practices.  (and we pay big bucks for the privilege!  not that any of us can afford to spend our money this way.  but almost all of us do.)

but…what if this wasnt an accident?  its pretty obviously deliberate, when it comes to women spending money we dont have to garner dangerous male attention and to fuel a male economy, while simultaneously making ourselves poorer, and more dependant on dangerous men.  but what if female pain is also deliberate, and required, to properly socialize women to be submissive, and to give men something to fetishize about us, and to differentiate themselves from us, instead of regarding us as human beings:

i think its time that we realized this, on a mass scale.  this shit is deliberate.  its not “my feet are killing me, because i ate too much salt and its really hot out, and it made my feet swell inside my otherwise lovely shoes.”  its “the human foot is made of tissues and fluids, and to the extent that womens shoes do not allow for that, womens shoes are not made for human feet.”

this last page is important, which is why i included the whole thing, even whats in the margins.  i read it a few times, and made a bunch of notes, and then i read it a bunch of times, again (this is what all my books look like, when i am done with them!  libraries are not my friend, but amazon is.)  as everyone who has read her probably knows, dworkin was a visionary, but she believed in action.  she and mackinnon, who is now a law professor at the university of michigan, worked their asses off to write and pass anti-pornography legislation in the 1980s.  they put everything on the line, everything, for the cause.  for women.  they gave up every shred of privacy they ever had, they revealed themselves as “strident” to those who loathe strident feminists (everyone) and they were mercilessly hated and attacked for not only what they said, but for what they thought and believed too.  how dare they have anti-pornography thoughts!!  how dare they believe that women arent fuckholes, for men!!11!!1  and ultimately of course, they also lost.  they lost, in the end.  the legislation didnt pass.  misogyny, and males using and abusing female bodies as male speech, carried the day.  its still carrying the day.

but some of us have been wondering lately what action can we take, as feminists, in real life, thats actually going to help.  and over the last 6 months or so, i have been ruminating over this drawing from dworkins book.  i have become PIV-critical, less concerned with being literally fuckable.  i am starting to realize that female bodies arent for fucking, and they are made of tissues and fluids (you know, like human bodies) and that we are also made of chemicals.  you know?  and when you are in pain, your body is releasing all kinds of chemicals and hormones in response to that, so that womens normal chemical condition isnt anything even resembling whats baseline normal, for a functioning human, who isnt in constant pain.

theres something most of us can do about that part of it, to some degree.  and…its cheaper to disengage from any or all of it, to whatever extent you can.  this is a trap, ladies.  it really fucking is.  that is all.

Oscillating Mascara: Worst Idea Ever? August 28, 2009

Posted by FCM in gender roles, health, pop culture, WTF?.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

as if coming at your own eyeball with a sharp-bristled brushfull of regular mascara wasn’t bad enough, the sadists of the cosmetic industry have brought us “oscillating mascara“!

finally! its a sharp-bristled brushfull of black goo that vibrates! for a true adventure, try applying this amazing wonder while on a bumpy city bus, or in the car. women actually do this, and have been doing it for years, even before the battery-operated vibrator was added to the handle.

now come on.  is this really and truly necessary?  lets pretend that animals werent used for testing this 600,000th offering of a mascara product, and that its not problematic at all to add even more batteries to our landfills.  in the interest of time, lets just examine the sheer odiousness of marketing an *actively dangerous* product as a beauty enhancer.  this isnt your mother’s mascara.