jump to navigation

Men Hate It When Women Remember December 2, 2010

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

this moron reality seems to have another part to it doesnt it?  story 1 and story 2 are playing all the time, and one is real, and the other isnt.  but women also arent supposed to remember anything.  and at the same time, we are also supposed to have the reasoning skills of very young children, who because of childrens inexperience and not-yet-fully-formed brains fail to grasp the importance of motivation, or the fact that people have agendas.  these both seem key dont they?  incidentally, who else is completely ignorant of history, and motivation?  its almost…or, exactly…as if the perfect (or perfectly compliant) woman is one with a head injury.

regarding memory, when women remember what other men have done, they are bitter.  when a woman remembers what her current partner did in the past, even if it was just last week, she is being mean.  oh noes!  not teh terrible meanness!  and thats just the stuff we have experienced firsthand.

when it comes to realizing and remembering and getting, really getting, what men as a sexual class have done to women as a sexual class, even within our lifetimes and in our own cultures, we are all supposed to be blind, deaf, and suffering from amnesia.  and illiteracy apparently.  because the very last thing we are supposed to do, i guess, is read actual books, written by radical feminists.  books!  its like…a secret treasure trove of knowledge, that exists to disprove just about everything the third-wave and allegedly-feminist men believe is true.  only, its not really a secret as much as we just arent supposed to know about it, even though its right there.  do they think we are stupid or something?  this is not a rhetorical question.

for example…the first “sexual revolution” in the 1920s was an anti-feminist backlash, created in direct response to womens increasing economic opportunities in the west, and feminists work against PIV-centric sexuality and the sexual abuse of women and children, by men.  this is documented.  and male sexologists (sexologists!  since when does engaging in something and liking it, qualify anyone as an -ologist?  they were more like PIV-ologists anyway, or perhaps euphemism-ologists) who arrived on that scene at that exact moment in time, had an agenda.  DUH.  male sexologists had an agenda.  most people, and groups of people do.  some agendas are legit, others arent.

in figuring out how the world works from the perspective of a fucking adult, recognizing motivation is a very preliminary step actually, but women arent supposed to figure this out, ever.  along with remembering and acknowledging that everything has a history, adult humans who are capable of rational thought also realize that something motivates every person, and every group of people, all the time.  and that people, perhaps especially men, dont normally do things that are against their own best interest, out of the goodness of their hearts.  this is really basic.

anyone who doesnt get that by now needs to pull on their big-girl pants, and get real.  once you have a handle on that, then things like this arent as difficult to believe:

from the chapter on “the invention of the frigid woman” in jeffreys “the spinster and her enemies.”  see?  the idea of “enthusiastic consent” is not new.  it was invented over a hundred years ago, to solidify the primacy of marriage and the het relationship, just when women were first able to do without men, and without the mandatory PIV that follows all heterosexual men around like their fucking shadow.  and because men were used to paying prostitutes for fake enthusiasm and fake orgasms, and they felt that fake orgasms were lacking with their wives, who only put up with PIV, historically, because they had to.  what upperclass wives never had to do, before the sex reformers of the 1920s got ahold of them, is to like it.  or, you know, to pretend like they did.

meanwhile, feminists work in lessening PIV-centric sexuality, including the sexual abuse of women and girls, failed.  and something else won out, instead.  this “something else” is what passed as a sexual revolution in the 1920s.  and it passed again, in the 1960s.  and its passing YET AGAIN, for the third fucking time, now.  how many times is this going to play out?  how long will it be, before women remember, and before they learn to recognize and acknowledge motivation, and do something with that information?

i get that there are competing interests here, and there are many forces that, acting in concert, motivate women to not see the truth about men.  fine.  just dont call it feminist, is all i ask.  its acting as if you have a fucking head injury, as a survival mechanism.  thats all it is.

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.

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.

Fun! With Numbers! The Sex-Positive Equation September 9, 2010

Posted by FCM in authors picks, books!, feminisms, health, international, liberal dickwads, logic, PIV, pop culture, radical concepts, self-identified feminist men, sorry!, trans.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

assuming i havent just eaten, and if its the third wednesday of an odd month or something and i am in the mood, i kind of enjoy observing, if not engaging, those silly old male-identified liberal progressive fun-feminists.  because every single time i hear one of them speak, it takes me further and further down the rabbit hole.  wheeeee!

twirling, twirling down the rabbit hole of sex-pos double-think, deeper and deeper into the vast cavernous void that passes for “logic” and “reason” in that post-modern dick-pleasing world.  honestly, i sometimes enjoy the ride.  much like engaging in conversation with transwomen in fact, the more i listen to fun feminists speak, the more obviously ridiculous their arguments become.  and this is a good thing.  because i get to make endless fun of them i mean systematically dismantle their “arguments” here, for everyone to see.  of course, most of the time, its literally impossible to figure out just what the everloving fuck they are even talking about.  but sometimes, just sometimes, when the planets are aligned just right…

regarding sex, PIV, and pleasure: the only pleasure fun fems care about is PIV.  its so obvious.  coincidentally, its the only pleasure heterosexual men (including so-called feminist men) care about too.  sure, they might envision a PIV-centric sexuality that includes other acts too, but they absolutely cannot fathom a heterosexual sexuality that doesn’t include PIV, at all.  thus we get the following sex-positive equation:

dont bullshit me people. i know its true, and so do you.

yes, unfortunately, this is what we are left with, when we break down sex-positivism and start seeing it for what it is.  “other” sexual acts literally have no value in a sexual equation, where PIV equals sex.  okay?  they are worthless.  no matter how “diverse” anyone wants to believe their sexuality really is, because they are doing “other stuff too,” the bottom line is that the only thing anyone cares about here is PIV.  its the only thing that has value.  so “sex” positivism is just a bullshit euphemism for “PIV” positivism, or PIV-reinforcive sexual practice.  why is this a problem?  heres why:

again, no amount of bullshitting will change the fact that PIV is dangerous, for women. sorry!

and this is one bitch of a big fat fucking problem.  oh yes it is.  and notice how the second frame actually explains the first:  if female risk is actually what anyone (?) finds pleasurable about sex, then its no wonder that “other acts” that arent specifically and particularly dangerous to women are considered worthless, and “not sex” in this paradigm.  oral is worthless, because it cant get a woman pregnant.  digital penetration and fondling is worthless, because it wont kill her.

now, its worth asking, of course, from whose perspective has all of this been created?  do women actually believe this shit?  or are they just swallowing (!) the same old PIV-reinforcive paradigm that men who like sticking their dicks into women have always maintained is true?  the one, true heterosexuality that all straight and partnered women must adhere to, no matter how disgusting, painful, morbid and ultimately deadly the consequences, to women?

and that PIV is even “pleasurable” at all, when so many women dont even like it, and they know how dangerous it is, and try actively to mitigate its effects, with varying degrees of success, for virtually their entire lives?

now, regarding the old “radfems is conservatibbs!” dodge, this is just a straight up lie, now isnt it?  is there a single fucking thing on this page that a religious conservative would find agreeable?  excepting of course that religious conservatives completely buy into the exact same PIV-reinforcive paradigm that the fun-fems, liberals, and self-identified feminist men buy into too, and that i have just described here.  whatever you do, do try not to notice that.

on that note, i highly recommend sheila jeffreys’ excellent book “the spinster and her enemies,” which absolutely destroys any possible argument that early or modern radical feminists were sexually conservative, and asks the question: from whose perspective would “abstinence” and “deprivation” appear to be the main themes, when women were and are trying to save womens lives, and the quality of their lives, from death, disease, and unwanted childbearing due exclusively to PIV?

that is all.

h/t to sonia, and her excellent guest-post here.