jump to navigation

Eroticizing Sex September 2, 2012

Posted by FCM in authors picks, books!, liberal dickwads, porn, rape.
Tags: , , , , ,
comments closed

this is actor/comedian julia sweeney giving a TED talk on how she introduced her 8-year old daughter to internet porn.  har!  you see, it all began innocently enough: she was answering the girl’s questions about animals, reproducing.  for illustrative purposes, sweeney turned to the internet, and showed her daughter videos of animals, mating.  the daughter of course asked if there were videos on the internet of humans, mating.  sweeney replied that there were not.  the audience laughs, because porn, and because porn + 8-year-old girls = FUNNY!  oh, liberal dickwads, you all FUCKING SUCK so much!  fuck you!  but i digress.

now, in case anyone doesnt know this, animals, mating can be nasty and brutish and often is.  ducks might be some of the worst?  they are known to mate in the water, where the female is pushed under and can drown — an unreasonably dangerous activity, and likely to end in death for the female (but not the male).  and male ducks appear to be exceedingly rapey — moreso than other male animals — and are often the subject of scientific study.  of duck-rape.  in this article, “rape” is in not-really-rape quotes, and in that form is used interchangeably with “unwanted mating attempts.”  because “unwanted mating attempts” are only really-rape when human males practice this behavior on human-females, i guess?  clearly, these similar behaviors are routinely framed as being distinct and different, but why?

cutting to the chase, i think something very serious happened when humans first eroticized mating.  because the thing with mating is that its going to keep happening, whether the females want it or not — it just is.  there is nothing inherently erotic about it — its nasty and brutish, and as inherently erotic as anything else — that is to say, its not.  it is difficult to even imagine anything being inherently erotic, actually, considering that what is “erotic” is highly dependent on cultural mores.  we know this.  in fact, eroticization of intercourse has been criticized as being heterosexist — insofar as elite, straight males have linked (equated) intercourse to sexual desire or romantic love, it clearly *is* heterosexist, as even the pomos and queers point out.  they would never go so far as to point out the misogyny of it, or the ways intercourse supports male power of course.

and vaginal-penile penetration specifically is not any more inherently erotic than any other penetration or even vaginal penetration, such as acupuncture, or gynecological examinations, or torture, is it?  sure, there are some people who have managed to eroticize those things, but thats not because these things are inherently erotic — if anyone has managed to eroticize acupuncture, for example, and im sure its been done, it was deliberate, and probably took some work.  or, perhaps some individual kinkster had a kink for needles, in true individualist fashion, or conceivably, “other” penetrations are modeled and eroticized after the primary one — intercourse.  but many women dont even like intercourse, and many who do, now, didnt initially and had to train themselves over time.  does this sound like anything resembling “inherent” to you?

in reality, the only thing i can reasonably think of that might be inherently erotic is genital friction, applied to the penis in males and to the clitoris in females, in that it is likely to induce sexual arousal across time and place, and with little room for variation among individuals.  this has nothing, of course, to do with intercourse.  especially not for women, but not really for men, either.

so regarding the eroticization of intercourse, what does it mean to have eroticized something thats nasty, brutish and often dangerous to the female — and something thats going to happen anyway, whether women want it to or not?  if all women suddenly and collectively refused to consent to intercourse, are we to believe that no more instances of intercourse would take place, even to the point of population decline or extinction?  i think we all know the answer to that.  notably, joanna russ explores this in her book “we who are about to” where space-travelers in a future, post-patriarchal world crash-land on an uninhabited planet and patriarchy returns to the unintentional colonists’ unintentional society within two days, rape included.  because propagation of the species.

so it is from here that we must examine the eroticization of intercourse, because we have, in fact, managed to eroticize inevitable intercourse — intercourse which cannot be avoided and which will occur regardless of consent.  which is, by the way, rape.


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.

“Intercourse” House Party (Part 3) May 15, 2010

Posted by FCM in authors picks, books!, entertainment, feminisms, gender roles, health, international, PIV, pop culture, rape, thats mean, trans.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

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.

“Intercourse” House Party (Part 2) May 9, 2010

Posted by FCM in authors picks, books!, entertainment, health, international, PIV, pop culture, rape, sorry!, thats mean, trans, WTF?.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

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.

(part 3 is here).

“Intercourse” House Party (Part 1) May 2, 2010

Posted by FCM in authors picks, books!, entertainment, feminisms, health, PIV, pop culture, porn, rape, thats mean, trans.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

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.

part 2 is here.