jump to navigation

The PIV Contract. Bringing The Train Into the Station January 29, 2011

Posted by FCM in books!, feminisms, health, international, PIV.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

cath elliott has written a couple of times about husbands “right to expect regular sex” or what is also called the “PIV-contract” whereby men feel entitled to PIV on demand, within the context of het relationships.  the comments are predictable of course, and are still coming in a year later, and prove her point.  and its a good discussion to have, in that it calls attention to the problems of male sexual entitlement, in which womens physical integrity may literally be breached at any time, at the will and on the demand of her male partner.  this cant be good can it?  and i think the entitlement aspect of it is problematic, as are the physical and psychological consequences of PIV to women.  DUH.  namely…well i think we can all pretty much recite these by heart by now.

but lets bring this train into the station shall we?  if we take this thought to its logical end, we will see actually that the PIV-contract also leaves no room for women to become politically aware, after having PIV with a partner, that PIV is demonstrably harmful to women, that its inherently inequitable due to the unequal physical and psychological risks between women and men, that its not even sex, and then quite logically to decide that they arent going to do it anymore.

right?  the PIV-contract is literally, LITERALLY stunting heterosexual women from political and feminist growth, and making radical awakening and bringing radical change to their own lives impossible. 

its also deliberate.  set women up so that they are economically dependant on men, set PIV up so that its understood without question to be “sex” then make everyone also understand that the man will abandon his female parter without hesitation, if she ever stops letting him stick his dick into her, for any reason.  although a POLITICAL reason would probably be the most unforgivable reason wouldnt it?  as opposed to perhaps a “medical problem” for example?  making it completely clear what the intent is here, and that the intent is to prevent any kind of political resistance to PIV.  to prevent radical feminism, in other words.

so once again, we see that PIV-positivism is ultimately (and therefore intentionally) discouraging women from going to the end of their thoughts, when it comes to PIV, and the meaning of het relations entirely.  they will NEVER, and i mean NEVER come to a radical awareness, so long as their stated intention is to remain “sex-positive” where “sex” refers to PIV and PIV-centric sexuality.  and it does.  thats exactly what it refers to, and we all know it.  dont bullshit me people!  PIV-positivism is an intentionally closed circuit of thought, (ie. an agenda) whereby women are doomed to remain loyal to men, and male interests, to their own detriment.  i think we have already shown the physical and psychological dangers here, but the intentional prevention of radical awareness is also clear.

you CANNOT, and will not, have a radical awakening, so long as you dont, or cannot afford to, see PIV for what it is.  and the PIV-contract ensures this result: preventing radical awareness is the logical conclusion to mandatory PIV and PIV-pozzie rhetoric, and therefore its also its entire fucking point.

Post-Modern Feminism Is A Dick-Centered Faith-Based Religion. That’s All It Is. December 8, 2010

Posted by FCM in authors picks, feminisms, liberal dickwads, PIV, pop culture, self-identified feminist men, thats mean, trans.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

pomo feminists are male-identified dick-pleasers. we already know that, what with their PIV-positive propaganda machine and marginalizing radfems, lesbians, spinsters, and everyone else who doesnt enthusiastically participate in their own destruction through dangerous PIV-centric sexuality.  but theres more to it than merely being pleasing, to dicks (and penises!)  pomo feminists (and pomo feminism itself) are so far up mens asses, that they are seeing out of mens eyes.  and never their own.

for example, the privilege discussion.  as undercover punk has recently and aptly described it, we (women) are all expected to acknowledge that we are wearing “privilege blinders,” and if it werent for our privilege blinders, we would be able to clearly see XYZ, whatever whomever is trying to sell us at the time, regarding the ways that we (women) supposedly oppress each other.  and the ways we oppress men!

yes, thats what it comes down to, in the end.  women oppress men, with all our gender-related power.  granted, radical feminists dont take it quite that far, but when self-identified radical feminists insist on calling each other out on their various privileges, and making accusations of privilege-blindness instead of explaining the mechanism of the alleged oppression and the demonstrable harms that flow from it, their reasoning is just as flawed, and in the exact same ways, as the idiotic “reasoning” of the pomos, who invented cis-privilege and uncritically insist that women can and do oppress men by hurting their feelings, and invalidating their experiences, and stuff, and things.  in other words, by being horrible bitches!  yes, its feminist to call other women bitches now, and to demand that they femininely pamper your fee-fees.  and its radical to insist that the source of womens suffering is…other women!  yes it is, shut up.

anyhoo, regarding pomo feminism being dick-centered: it is.  feminism has become a male-centered discourse now, or at least the pomo-version of it that passes as feminism in nearly every corner of the feminist blogosphere, and the mainstream too (thats not a coincidence).  how can you tell?  because it only makes sense when you look at it through mens eyes.  just like regarding non-PIV-centric sexuality as “prudish” and even “abstinence” in fact.  but i digress.

heres what men hear, when women talk about male privilege: something that doesnt make any fucking sense, at all.  they dont get it!  in general, men cant and wont understand what male privilege is all about.  they cant hear it.  they cant see it, smell it, or taste it.  and they dont understand it, at all.  the GOOD ONES will take it on faith, that these things exist: that men rape.  that PIV is dangerous to women.  that all kinds and manners of shit happen to women, because we are women, and these things are done to us by men, because they are men.  the GOOD ONES TAKE IT ON FAITH, that men are privileged, and that they exist, essentially, at womens expense.  for self-identified feminist men, feminism is a religion.  its faith-based.  and male privilege, like, hurts womens feelings or something, i dont know, but teh feminists are pretty upset about it.  the fact that what radical feminists say is also demonstrably true is beside the point.

enter pomo privilege rhetoric.  now everyone is supposed to just take everything on faith, because thats how men do it, and men are the default humans afterall!  self-identified feminist men are faking it, and now we are expected to fake it, too.  when we hear something that doesnt make any fucking sense, at all, we are supposed to just shut up, and believe that its true.  even things that arent demonstrably true, and even things that are, in fact, demonstrably false.  like cis-privilege, for example.  or, like young-privilege.  and hurt-feelings-as-harm is as far as anyone is willing to go, when analyzing the harms that flow from oppressive systems, and even from abusive people.  because when it comes down to it, MEN think that feminists are just big babies and are taking everything wrong, or that we are “offended” at various “inequalities”.  and not directly, demonstrably and seriously harmed, by misogyny.  see the difference?

now we are supposed to take it on faith, that women oppress other women…why, again?  oh yeah, because our various, demonstrable female privileges are demonstrably harmful…because we are causing the death, disease, pregnancy, and poverty of other women by acting out our privilege, and thats why its so important that we just listen to other women, and believe what they say.

wait.  no its not.  thats why its at least arguably tolerable that self-identified feminist men take this shit on faith: because they wont have it any other way.  because they dont or wont believe whats demonstrably true, about men, and about what they do to women.

but feminism as a dick-centered faith-based religion is not womens feminism.  womens feminism (ie. feminism) is based in reality, on things that are demonstrably true, and that stand up to serious scrutiny.  it has everything to do with actual, demonstrable harm, and nothing, really, to do with how we feel about it.  and its a fucking insult to reduce radical feminist concerns to such trite bullshit, but frankly, its the best men have to offer to women, and to feminism.  and we have to remember: thats all it is.  pomo feminism is not feminism.  its mens interpretation of it.  thats all.