jump to navigation

If It’s “Anti-Sex” Then It Can’t Possibly Be True September 25, 2010

Posted by FCM in books!, feminisms, health, international, liberal dickwads, PIV, politics, rape, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

so whats with the accusations of “sex-negative” ay?  what does that even mean?  we have already established that “sex-negative” means “PIV-negative,” in the extremely fucked up logic fail that is sex-positive feminism.  did i say feminism?  i meant male-identified PIV-centric consumerist hedonism.  but i digress.

when anyone lobs the “sex-negative” insult at radical feminists, its clear what they mean.  and what they clearly mean is that if something can be read (by them) as “sex-negative” then by definition, its also not true.  that it is not to be believed, that it should be dismissed outright.  well, thats quite a leap, isnt it?  well, not really, if you believe that PIV is, LITERALLY, in the mathematical sense, THE TRUTH.  the way.  the solution.  the answer to everything.  in fact, thats the only way anyone could come to this conclusion, isnt it?  how else could sex-negative or anti-sex mean quite literally “false”?  this is a serious question.

and they think they are so fresh and progressive here, in their dismissal of radical feminists.  they arent.  in “the spinster and her enemies,” sheila jeffreys observes that early feminists saw the same things we see, today, and named it: “sex” was just a euphemism for PIV; that PIV-centric sexuality was problematic for women; and therefore it should end (these images are from the book, and yes, they are crooked in the book too):

see?  PIV = sex = PIV.  same as today.  early feminists tried to imagine a heterosexual sexuality that wouldnt place women in harms way, and it wasnt hard to do:  eliminate PIV.  easy.  and its not just contemporary historians (and modern fun- and male- feminists) who believe early feminists to be prudes, as we will see.

one of early feminists most driven campaigns was also to enact laws that would severely punish abuse-of-power rape.  sound familiar?  they named the problem: men in positions of authority over women and girls, abusing that authority by having PIV with women and girls, and (of course) also leaving them to deal with the consequences, alone:

what fucking prudes those early feminists were!  what fucking cunts!  well, according to those who regularly engaged in abuse-of-power rape against girls and women.  namely, almost every single man in a position of power over girls and women.  (not surprisingly, certain people have a problem with women who name this one today, too.)

and heres where the mental gymnastics came into play.  yes, the PIV-positive crowd was very intellecutally, uh, limber back then too.  they verily defied gravity with this one:

yes, male sexuality is a very powerful thing, and men, as a group, are overcome by it frequently.  its natural!  but women have nothing to worry about, because men as a group are a moral people, and wouldnt sexually harm a fly.  oh, okay!  how very lucky to be a fly, then.  and woe be unto the fucking cunts and bitches i mean sex-negative prudes, who called bullshit on any of this:

oh noes!  not the pecking of hens!  nothing is more terrible, more horrible, more offensive than that!  and shut the fuck up, you are wrong.  sure they were wrong.  anyone could easily and correctly come to the conclusion that early feminists were wrong, about PIV, about men, about mens demonstrated and routine sexual abuse of women and girls.  you know, anyone who completely disregarded the actual truth.  and instead embraced this bullshit sex-positive “PIV is truth” paradigm we apparently have been living under for centuries.  centuries, people.

just like we do today.  nothing new under the sun. that is all.