jump to navigation

What’s “Fuckability” Got To Do With It? October 13, 2010

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

so what does being “fuckable” really mean, in a world where men as a group are known to stick their dicks into anyone, at anytime, under any circumstance?  most of us spend way too much time, energy, worry, and of course money on fuckability mandates, beauty, and appearing “appropriate” at all times.  which not coincidentally requires an entirely different costume from one hour of the day to the next.  for women, of course, not for men.  women make less, but spend more.  on being fuckable.  for men.  cha-ching!

and there are heavy penalties, too, for paying too little attention to it, or being simply unable to achieve fuckability, in one way or another.  or, you know, losing your fuckability over time, by actually being fucked too much.  like…the woman who “lets herself go” after having too many kids.  or…as dworkin mentions in “intercourse,” the ravaged junkie-prostitutes and toothless bawds from history, who do the elephants share of the fucking across time and place.  yes, thats right: it seems as if the less fuckable you are, the more you actually get fucked.  so what does fuckability even mean, and whats it have to do with PIV?

in actuality, fuckability mandates, and the entire notions of both “female beauty” and “male desire” seem to be a largely unexamined and generally accepted falsehood (that head-spinning quality generally indicates as much) that serves to obscure the actual truth.  and the truth is, apparently, that men stick their dicks into women, because they are women.  because they can.  because “female” is synonymous with carnality and accessibility, and women exist only to be sexually used by men.

these pages are from dworkin’s “intercourse.”  she is talking about joan of arc, and how joan seems to have largely escaped the gauntlet of male desire.  in other words, she wasnt “fuckable” and the men she fought with and slept next to never tried to fuck her, or saw her that way.  however, the image of joan as “not pretty” that has somehow survived as historical fact, apparently wasnt true.  so while the unfuckable “toothless bawds” of history were getting fucked and fucked and fucked some more…joan of arc was beautiful, but the men didnt want her.  now, i wonder why that would be?  i love a good mystery, dont you?

just ignore the dangling words at the end there.  the book continues, as books are wont to do.

anyhoo, it seems as if “fuckability” and female beauty mandates really have nothing to do with anything.  or at least, they arent required for PIV, and even the most beautiful woman (at least one that we know of) has avoided being sexually used i mean desired by men, where there appeared to be severe consequences to using her that way.  for example…fear that she would kick their fucking asses if they tried.  (high heels and footbinding kind of preclude that).  or…an overwhelming sense (by the men) that she was protected by something.  like god, in joans case.  or like…the law.  indeed, these things appear to be a total boner-killer, across time and place.  would that rape laws were even remotely effective ay?  sure, if you are a woman.  not so much, if you are a man.

so, whats fuckability got to do with fucking, really?  welp…it seems very much that its actually female vulnerability that gets men hard, across time and place.  and women spending money they dont have on disabling footwear seems to fit the bill.  you know, just as one example.  and having ineffectual rape laws and social-safety nets in place that are more hole than net seems to achieve that too, as well as a disposable, permanent underclass of women who belong to all men, and are vulnerable to all men, all the time.  aka.  sex workers and porn. 

yes, its a sexxxay, sexxxay world out there, if you are a man.  if you are a woman…well, its all very complicated, expensive, and likely to get you pregnant, is what it is.