jump to navigation

It’s Just (Penis In Vagina)!!!!11!!11 April 10, 2010

Posted by FCM in authors picks, feminisms, health, international, liberal dickwads, PIV, pop culture, rape.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

the whole problem with this “its just sex” credo is that its a fucking fail, right from the start.  and as far as problematic ideologies go, thats a big fucking problem, being problematic from the start.  its like…adding a cup of salt instead of a cup of sugar.  or trying to raise free-range chickens in hyena country.  someone fucked up, and theres no reconciling it.  theres nothing you can do in these situations, except reassess, cut your losses, and start over.  right?  thats what a normal thinking human would do, if they had any ambition at all, and the resources to do it. 

it does make it more difficult to see the problem for what it is though, to stick with the above analogies, when some 99.9% of us dont have tastebuds.  and half of us are hyenas.

you see, words have meaning.  yes, they do.  they arent just ink on the fucking page.  and this game of life has rules.  so when it comes to written rules (or “laws” if you prefer) theres a definitional section in the beginning, and a legislative history (aka. “context”) on the record so that we can all reasonably figure out *whats being said* and whats meant, when a new law is being hashed out, and later when its being enforced.  we have to know whats being expected of us, as citizens.  otherwise, its not fair.  in fact, theres an entire multi-billion dollar, international industry thats been in existence for thousands of years, dedicated to ensuring that things are fair, and that the meaning and the intended meaning of words are vetted, and clearly understood.  you know, when it comes to understanding whats being expected of MEN.  and that industry is called “civil and criminal defense.”

when it comes to vetting and understanding whats being expected of women, and ensuring that things are fairly applied and interpreted when it comes to *us* we have…radical feminists.  yeah, all 19 of us, taking on the same responsibilities and taking it just as seriously as a multi-billion dollar, international industry…and we are doing it, largely, with no money, and no time.  and most of the laws pertaining to us are unwritten, to boot.  (something men would never stand for by the way.  if its not written down, they dont have to do it.  simple as that).

and interestingly, our “clients” (other women) rarely appreciate our services, at all.  almost all of them fight radical feminists every fucking step of the way.  then when they have what they want, and are enjoying the fruits of our (and our mothers and grandmothers) labor, they call radical feminists fucking cunts and thank the men for “evolving.”  the lack of appreciation happens in civil and criminal defense too, but at least most lawyers dont have their clients trying to claw their way BACK INTO prison.  and most of them arent “consensually” fucking the guards (or very deeply in love with them).

so, understanding that this is the context in which we all live (and it is) let me ask a simple question, about the definition of a word.  what is meant, and intended, and expected, when we use the word “sex?”  as in, “its just sex!!!!11!1!”  this is not a rhetorical question. 

because there are many, many people out there bandying the term about, and many more who are using it to con other people into doing stuff.  the religious right are telling women to have “sex” with men, in certain situations but not others, and for certain reasons but not others.  and the lefty liberals are telling women to have “sex” with all men, in all situations, for any reason, or no reason at all.  the religious ones, some of them, tell women they can desire it, as long as its with their husbands.  for the lefty liberals, they dont care whether the women desire it, or not.  (both sides:  “yay, hookers!!11!!!!11!1”  oh, and so much for anyone claiming that the religious right are “anti-sex,” yes?  so stop making the comparison between allegedly “anti-sex” radfems and the religious right.)

but sticking your dick into a vagina AINT SEX.  mm-kay?  its not.  since when did “sex” come to mean “men sticking their dicks into women?”  because thats what it means.  thats the intended, and working, meaning of the word.  someone fucked up here, people.  we need to start over, because “sex” has nothing to do with being sexual, with arousal, or desire, or with being interesting or creative or anything.  and its definitely not about “expressing” anything, except penis-worship, and mens entitlement to put girls and women in harms way, without reproach.

so if someone were to say to me, “its just erotic massage!!!!1!!11!”  or “its just mutual masturbation/digital penetration!!!11!!”  or “its just authentic female desire” or “its just a warm, wet, aroused vulva with a non-phallic-looking vibrator stimulating it to orgasm!!!!1!!1” i would say “yay sex, bring it on.”  but thats not what anyone means, when they say “its just sex.”

“sex” as its intended to mean, means “penis in vagina” and since that puts girls and women at risk for pregnancy and STDs, the payoff is not worth the risk.  even if our clits were located in our vaginas, IT STILL WOULDNT BE WORTH IT.  but they arent, and its not.  “its just sex” means “its just misogyny and male entitlement.”  and if you dont have a problem with that, you have a very serious problem, indeed.

Newsflash, Ladies: Fun-Feminism May Be Hazardous To Your Health (And By “May Be” I Mean “Very Obviously Is”) March 20, 2010

Posted by FCM in feminisms, health, kids, liberal dickwads, PIV, pop culture, self-identified feminist men, thats mean, WTF?.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

i have been processing this for several weeks, and trying to decide how and whether to write about it.  a few weeks ago, i heard from a very old and dear friend, with whom i hadnt spoken in several years.  we were roommates in college, and i credit her with introducing me to feminism.  two things about her feminism stand out clearly in my memory: one, she had andrea dworkin’s book “intercourse” on her bookshelf, and one day i asked her about it.  she told me that andrea dworkin believed that all acts of PIV within a framework of capitopatriarchy and misogyny were rape.  (mind.  blown.)

the other thing was this: one night we were laying in bed talking, and she was telling me about her ex-husband and their sex life together.  she said that he had had over 70 sexual partners, before her.  i was 18 at the time and from a little nowhere town, she was 25 and from the big city.  i didnt even know 70 people, i said.  “wow” i said.  “fuck your wow” she told me.  grow the fuck up already, its just sex.

i consider that to be my introduction to fun-feminism (although she actually “got” what andrea dworkin was saying, unlike most fun-fems and all transactivists, today).  how empowerfulizing!  how freeing!  “its just sex” rang my head like a bell.  thats not what *i* had been hearing, all my life, and i liked *that* perspective a lot better.  yay!  to make a long story short, somehow, my friend reconciled what she knew about rape and sex into the following: open relationships are a good idea, because the pressure on me to be constantly available for intercourse is off.  (because any ridiculous belief system is “feminist” as long as someone who calls themselves a “feminist” says it is!)

fast-forward to 15 years later, to our most recent correspondence.  she has been remarried for 10 years, has a young child, and her husband has been battling full-blown AIDS for several years.  theyd had an open relationship where he was free to have sex with other people whenever he wanted, as to not pressure my friend for sex (she was free to do the same, although i dont know whether she ever, or regularly did).  but *he* sure as fuck did.  and he seems to have preferred fucking other men.  and she knew that, and supported it.  how fun!  how empowerfulizing!  lets all pat ourselves on the back for being so.  fucking.  feminist.

you know, its feminism!  where women are so modern and openminded as to not question mens entitlement to fuck us, and to fuck us over, in any way.  feminism!  where men are constantly placing women in harms way, and we ignore it, because calling attention to it is “prudish” and we are empowerfulized and strong, donchaknow (because “power” is synonymous with “permissive” and above all, “deference”.  it is!  look it up!).

my friend and their son have both tested negative.  and they now believe that her husband contracted HIV sometime after they were married, even though he was practicing “safe sex.”  yeah, right.  frankly, i suspect he had a slip-up or 10 (or 1000, who knows), but if he didnt, its even fucking worse, isnt it?  because that means he was “enlightened” enough to do everything he could do *not* to fuck his wife over, within the framework of an allegedly “feminist” relationship, and even he couldnt contemplate the obvious.  that *not* exposing himself to other peoples bodily fluids was in his wife’s (and child’s) best interests.

and that means that even an allegedly feminist man, in an egalitarian relationship with a feminist woman, cant bring himself to consider her life, or her health, important enough to keep his dick in his pants.  that the cost of keeping her safe, at the expense of getting his sexxxay on, was simply too high.

and obviously, neither of them could contemplate that a heterosexual relationship did not have to include mandatory PIV; or that it was unacceptable for the male partner to assume that he was entitled to sex on demand, from anyone, whether he was married to them or not.

welp.  so much for feminist men.  and so much for fun-feminism being “fun” in the end, for women.  its fun for men, though.  which is really the whole point.

Men Are “Sexual Beings,” Right? Wrong. March 11, 2010

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

this narrative is so old and tired it could be mocked in a superbowl ad (and i think it should be.  seriously).  men are sexual beings!!!11!!1!1  thats the premise we are all expected to swallow, and we get it already.  they like to get laid.  they want them some poon. they think about it every point-zero seconds and shit.  its even like, hardwired and stuff. 

yes, its so thoroughly assumed to be true that its even been explained.  with science!  now, science can “explain” the origin of things that arent even real!  how…disquieting.  and its also been mansplained to death, but that goes without saying doesnt it?  but what a great indicator of the popular, most base-level understanding of any issue: what the doodbros try mansplaining to the rest of us, when they are drunk.  and sober.

think for a second, if you havent already, what mens sexuality (including their alleged “desire”) would look like, if they werent having PIV-sex with women and didnt feel entitled to it, either.  would men be lining up to enjoy sex with women, if it didnt involve sticking their dicks into us?  would their cultural fucking pasttime be picking up women in bars, so that they could pleasure us with dildos?  or better yet, for illustrative purposes, non-phallic-looking external vibrators?  would they make video games and movies and advertisements extolling it?  no.  they wouldnt.

and their interest in only a certain type of porn tells us all we need to know.  most men would not obsessively use porn that only included women and ugly, external vibrators, and no dicks anywhere.  they wouldnt spend a single evening alone watching us massaging other men with essential oils.  or, you know, watching us penetrating them with stuff.  but giving men anal is a legitimate sex act too, and one that many if not most het men enjoy, not unimportantly.  they fucking like taking it in the ass!  yes, they do! 

so the question becomes, with all those pleasurable sex acts out there that *dont* put girls and women at risk for pregnancy and STDs, and that men fucking well enjoy, why do they seem to like PIV-sex so much more?  why would they feel “incomplete” and “disappointed” without it?  this is not a rhetorical question.

its because they fucking feel entitled to it, thats why.  and it illustrates the difference between a “preference” and an “entitlement.”

simply put, i would feel both disappointed and incomplete if i had to eat fish and chips without coleslaw, and malt vinegar.  it comes with it, and its free, and i fucking want some.  thats my preference.  my *strong* preference, even.  and even so, i really dont care about it that much.  but multiply those very ordinary feelings of disappointment and incompleteness times a billion, and i think we are coming close to understanding—and its fucking horrific—men, and their feelings of entitlement to “poon.”  and men clearly think of PIV as the main course too, but interestingly i cant even imagine an analogy to an ordinary, everyday “preference” that would parallel that dynamic.  although i admit i am not trying that hard at the moment.  can you?

and obviously, my preference for coleslaw and malt vinegar doesnt fucking hurt anyone.  cabbage is not the one and only cause of obstetric fistula, gestational diabetes, prolonged labor, or known to cause illness and death.  its never given anyone AIDS.  its not directly causative of poverty, or destroying another persons career.

and noone has ever been beaten or murdered over malt vinegar, and they never fucking will be.

no, men are not “sexual beings” at all, are they?  certainly not any more so than anyone else, and seemingly much, much less, when we examine it in any honest way, at all.  if men were the “sexual beings” they claim to be, they would be just as interested in a massage, or in getting us off, instead. (thats right, fun-fems, i said “instead,” not “too.”)  or shoving things up their butts.  all that “other stuff” is “sexual” afterall.  duh. 

in reality, these allegedly “sexual” men, arent: they are simply aggressive and entitled, and routinely abuse girls and women by demanding PIV-sex, which is problematic for us, and not them.  theres really nothing more to it, than that.  and all the mansplaining in the world wont change it.