jump to navigation

Peak Fun March 26, 2012

Posted by FCM in authors picks, feminisms, gender roles, liberal dickwads, PIV, politics, pop culture, trans.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

first, a question: has the great cotton ceiling debacle of 2012 affected you wrt your feelings towards trans politics and/or liberal “fun feminism” and if so, how?  if not, why not?  and is there a point at which it will become more than obvious what fun-feminism really is, including who it benefits, and why?  will the truth out?  does it ever?  if so, why?  if not, why not?

while all women are socialized to be compliant dick-pleasers, and frequently acquiesce or avoid confrontations with men due to the threats of violence and actual violence backing up mens demands, including their demand that we see the entire world through mens eyes, womens socialization to be pleasing to dicks (and penises!) cannot be the variable here, where some women are buying this trans politics/fun-fem shit and others are not.

most arent, in fact.  most women, i dare say, both globally and locally, simply are not on board with trans politics.  the oft-repeated claims by trans and fun-ems that trans are a political minority, and are often oppressed by women, is evidence that this is true.  so while the fun-fems are definitely being dick-pleasing and compliant in their acceptance of what is very obviously an anti-feminist mens rights (trans) agenda, conservative grandmas really arent, or if they are, they arent talking about it.  soccer moms arent.  wilting southern flowers arent.  even women who are compliant or even hesitant dick-pleasers in every other way, arent necessarily buying this one.  so whats the variable here?

it seems to me that the variable is sex-positivism, and liberal anti-woman sexual politics.  sex-positivism requires, absolutely requires that women see the world through mens eyes, where removing “sex” — including intercourse and its attendant reproductive consequences — from its anti-woman, patriarchy-supportive historical and political context is a good thing, because men have been in the wrong for millenia and it benefits them to ignore that.

and sex-positivism, and the idea that “sex” and intercourse with men is a good thing, and that it could and should be liberatory for women, at this time and place, is the most egregious mansplanation — aka. example of forced-male-perspective — that i have literally ever heard.  because in order for women or anyone to see sex with men as beneficial for women, even conditionally, but often as unconditionally beneficial, to us, we must agree that mens perspective on 4 critical points is correct and adopt their perspective as our own:

1) the political class-based oppression of women by men which is based on biological sex is a good thing and should continue; and 2) men deliberately systematically, institutionally and interpersonally harming women as a sexual class, via intercourse, is a good thing and should continue; and 3) the female-specific harms of the penis are particularly beneficial and should therefore be centered as much as possible; and 4) it further benefits us and supports our (male) power to publically deny 1-3.

viola!  sex is apolitical!  no more sex-based differences, no more male bodies, no more female bodies.  because we said so.  just potentially orgasmic bodies, just apolitical, ahistorical blobs of meat, catching friction on each other, for fun.  just like men pretend to be, when they are actually deliberately harming women with their dicks, to support male power.

now, let me just say a little bit about my utter disdain for sex-positivism, and how much of an atrocious fucking lie it is.

if women are really to be made whole again after literally millenia of systemic, institutional and interpersonal sexual abuse at mens hands — a history that no one can credibly deny, and when i say sexual abuse i mean abuses that are directed at our female genitals, and which often have intended reproductive consequences — it would not be too much to ask for a couple of millenia, or even a century, or a decade or even a year or a day, for that matter, of respite from that, so that women as a class could recover from our collective and individual histories of sexual abuse at mens hands and to heal.  and yet, to date, we have not been allowed to have even one day to heal from this.  we are not even allowed to acknowledge it happened, or that it never stopped.  even if the oppression had stopped years ago, (and it hasnt!) and even if sex with men wasnt inherently oppressive, (and i think it is inherent, or at least that PIV for pleasures sake is inherently oppressive to women) we would still deserve a chance to breathe in an environment that was substantially different from the oppressive one.  but what we have is men in womens pussies 24/7 like they have always been.  this is simply not a substantial, or substantial enough, change.

and to attempt to erase or deny history, including human rights violations in other contexts is a political and moral no-no, while attempting to reverse the course of oppressive histories on a dime is flatly impossible.  and sex-positivism attempts to do both.  when it comes to any other type of oppression, has either the oppressive or the oppressed class ever tried to reverse the course of that oppressive history on a dime, or expected it to work, or have they said “look it worked” when it obviously didnt, and had people believe them?  has anyone ever taken the site/source of a group’s political oppression and claimed it was now, magically, the site/source of their power, and had that be true?  its ridiculous.  there are lingering, ongoing effects of systemic political and physical oppression, we know this.  and this is true even when the oppressive institution is formally abolished, and ours hasnt been.

meanwhile, the part that liberal/progressive, anti-woman sexual politics plays in trans discourse is obvious: just go on the fucking pill already, and shut the fuck up.  that way, you (women, and especially liberal women) can be more easily resemble an apolitical, ahistorical, potentially-orgasmic meatbag, catching friction off of other people, for fun.  it furthers the illusion that this is true for either women or men, when of course it isnt.

and while we are pretending, lets *also* pretend that contraceptives actually do that for women, when in order for them to do that they would have to be 1) 100% effective, and 2) cause no side-effects themselves.  and clearly, neither applies.  women arent even effectively changed into pretend male-like meatbags, they just have to pretend they are!  but whats a little more pretending when you are already living in an alternate male-centric reality thats based on lies about men but also wasnt built for you?  note to women: if you have to take a pill to live in mens reality, a pill that men do not have to take, it indicates that 1) there is such a thing as male reality thats different from female reality and that these differences are biologically-based and 2) men are forcing women to fit male reality.  and oh what the hell, 3) there is probably a reason for that, ie. it benefits men to do this.  because everything men do benefits men, because patriarchy.  duh.

anyway, my point is this.  while other male-centric politics are decidedly woman-hating and thrive off of mens sexually abusing women too, liberal politics in particular seems to be the one thats heavily invested in turning both male and female bodies into apolitical, ahistorical, potentially-orgasmic meatbags that catch friction off of each other for fun.  where all women are collectively owned by all men, and women’s male-centric sexual activity and sexual slavery are prized over our virginity and reproductive slavery.  (contrast that to conservative sexual politics.  conservative and liberal men disagree with each other somewhat, on some points, regarding how to treat women, aka. liberal and conservative mens sexual, domestic and reproductive slaves).  and sex-positivism is the ideology that tells women this is *not* just a slimy political deal struck with sleazebag liberal men who demanded it: its really an acontextual (apolitical, ahistorical) choice.  women could not embrace trans politics without both of these things, i dont think.

and thats just (i think?) the fun-fem acceptance of the physical aspects of trans. ie. sex is a social construct, there are no meaningful physical differences between women and men.  acceptance of the gender part also requires internalized misogyny, homophobia and lesbophobia, ie. a woman who likes other women or can change her own oil or doesnt want to be a disempowered, feminized rape-object for a man, even when having intercourse with men, (gay transmen!) is really a man herself, so long as she says she is.  nope, no problem there.

are we having fun yet?  or, is this what peak-fun feminism looks like?  stay tuned…

The “New Morality,” Faking It, and Marginalizing the Spinster (Aka. Sex-Positivism, Old School Style) October 1, 2010

Posted by FCM in books!, feminisms, gender roles, health, MRAs, PIV, politics, pop culture, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

there seem to be essentially two ways that MRAs, anti-feminists and sex-pozzies go about their business of “discrediting” radical feminist work, and derailing the discussion to meet their own ends. and by “discrediting” and derailing, i mean calling radfems lesbians (because lesbians are always wrong) and the “end” appears to be, again, supporting the sex-positive agenda, which boiled down of its endlessly obfuscating rhetoric is approximately “PIV is truth.” 

the first one is the logical fallacy, which i diagrammed here. basically, they just make all kinds of idiotic conclusions that dont even follow from their own premises.  for example:  all lesbians eschew PIV; some radical feminists eschew PIV; therefore all radical feminists are lesbians.  LOGIC FAIL!  it also doesnt work to conclude that “some radical feminists are lesbians.”  this is just completely and utterly false.  and thats even without discussing that its also completely offensive to use “lesbian” this way.  DUH.  diagram it, and see for yourself. 

the other is the logical proof that is structurally true, but they fail to examine the premises.  that form of argument is diagrammed here.  basically: radfems are lesbians, and lesbians are always wrong about everything, and are evil and gross; therefore, radfems are always wrong about everything, and are evil and gross.  but their premises are a bit, um, politically incorrect, arent they?  i mean, i wouldnt expect anything less from the MRAs, but the sex-pozzies like to think they are better than that.  they arent.  

theres also nothing fresh or progressive about it.  again, we see in “spinster” that women who eschewed sexual relationships with men, even if they werent lesbians, were labelled as sexually frustrated man-haters, even though it was actually a hard-won option and was made possible by womens increasing economic opportunites that made mandatory heterosexual partnerships increasingly unnecessary.  which was obviously a good thing for any woman who found PIV problematic: 


and i bet they were all ugly and fat too!  because those characteristics also render anything a feminist has to say patently false.  so we are now on the road to separating spinsters from “normal” women.  we also saw a deliberate campaign at the time to encourage “good” women to be “enthusiastic” about their participation in PIV with men…gee, where have we heard that before?  and not only were spinsters not having PIV, they were further marginalized from “real women” who not only put up with it, like they had in the past, but also began to “like it.”  or you know, to pretend they did: 


radfems is bitter and dont like sex!  check.  real women let their men the world know how much they LOOOOVE PIV.  and this “sex positive” business is about as fresh and new as…well, pre-world war 1. 

so what is this all about, really?  and why did “PIV-positivism” and its attendant celibate-bashing and lesbian-inferring pop up at the precise moment it did?  could it possibly be because…some women were about to legitimately cast off PIV (and therefore men) for good?  looks like it: 


and from here of course, it was but a hop, skip and a jump to the creation of “lesbian” as a deviant sexual category.  yes, apparently, that was the beginning of the end of PIV-critical feminism, and it was instigated by male sexologists, and just at the right time, too.  issues of morality, sexual expression and orientation splintered feminists into basically 2 camps (care to name them?), and dealt the death blow to any real, earth-shattering feminist work, erasing anything PIV-critical, literally, from history (even the history of feminism):


new categories, based on sexual contact.  at exactly the same time that feminists were dissecting PIV, finding it problematic, and becoming socially and financially able to do without it, for probably the first time in history.  now why would that be?


what a coincidence. 

and did i say how utterly homophobic and regressive this all is? 

and its exactly as fresh as…this lace tea gown, which i found here, circa 1890-1892.  it couldve been worn by the first sex-positive feminists! now thats good history.

Sorry, Sex-Positive Transwomen: I’m Not Buying What You’re Selling. At All. November 9, 2009

Posted by FCM in authors picks, feminisms, gender roles, health, PIV, pop culture, prostitution, self-identified feminist men, sorry!, thats mean, trans, WTF?.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

sex-pos transwomen–if i were born male, like you were, i might be “sex-positive,” too.  you know:  exhibitionist, pro-porn, and squeeee!-fully sexually available to men.  if only….

i had been lavished with male privilege since the day i was born, and taught that the only thing that mattered was my wants, my feelings, that i was entitled to turn my desires into reality, no matter how trite, fleeting, or bizarre.  if i grew up with an entirely misogynist view of women, instead of one interspersed with actual, lived, female experience.  like you, believing that girls and women were emotional manipulators, that just have to cry big, black tears to get “their way“–and merely the sum of their fleshly and artificial parts–as observable by men.  the clothes, the eyelashes, and always, always how fuckable they are.  if i had no cramps, and no fear of pregnancy.  you know, all the things you obviously think constitutes “woman” as well as the things that you dont think about, at all, which make your interpretation of “female” so deeply problematic.  if i had been taught to stick my dick into anything that moved from day one, and to enjoy it.

if i had to have regular intercourse with men, on advice from my sex-reassignment surgeon, literally on pain of death: lest i lose my “use-it-or-lose-it” neo-vagina or experience life-threatening complications from (gasp) not being fuckable enough!  (oh, thats rich.  and how “pleasing” to men generally must one be, to ensure oneself of regular access to their sex?)

in other words, if i had grown up a man, like you, i might be as inclined as you are, to tell women that they should be having sex with men.  if i literally had to have regular intercourse with men or DIE, that would color my perspective, as well.  but guess what?  i wasnt, and i dont.