Reading the Hugo’s post and the comments on the Enemies of Eros (or whatever the pretentious title was) made me realize just how sick the men we’re dealing with are.
For context, I provided on that thread a pretty detailed summary of my sex life. I wanted to demonstrate that it is possible to have heterosexual sex that doesn’t end or even center around intercourse, mostly for the benefit of straight women who feel like they just have to accept it as “part of” sex, even though for most “foreplay” is the most enjoyable part. Secondly, I wanted to see how they’d respond to the lived experience of someone (me) who belongs to a group demonized as anti-sex and anti-male. Would they ignore it, call me a liar, or realize that radical feminism has never been against sex and that its portrayal as such is a simply a lie used to dismiss it? As most could guess, the latter never happened.
The men on that Hugo thread completely ignored my hobbies and anecdotes about my sex life. My sexuality clearly was still unhealthy, because I’m experiencing “anxiety” about intercourse and don’t want to have it. Men never take the female sexuality seriously, unless it’s pleasing to them (see their rationalizations on burlesque/”sex work”). To men, female sexuality requires fucking, because we’re voids just waiting to be filled. If you don’t want to be fucked, you must be a lesbian or a prude.
But, I think that the complaint is not just that we’re against intercourse, judging by their comments and portrayal of me. It’s that we’re setting a boundary-a sexual boundary, at that- that cannot be crossed. We’re saying no, and for that they call us mentally ill. Men have pathologized “frigid” women over the years, as well as demonized those who have sex on their own terms, via masturbation or lesbianism.
No doesn’t mean no, of course-it means we’re immature, we have “anxiety” about intercourse that we shouldn’t have. And instead of dealing with it, by taking hormone-altering substances for the rest of our lives, we’re simply saying no. This is unacceptable.
One person (who also called me an idiot yet was not banned-nice “no attacking people” policy, liverlips) suggested that I and other women who are against intercourse are in need of sex ed, where we would learn how to “negotiate” with our partner and have “healthy sex.” Firstly, it’s mansplaining to the nth degree to suggest that a woman needs sex ed when she clearly knows what she wants and uses the terminology related to sex better than most. (Most importantly, that heterosexual sex != intercourse.) It also suggests that refusing intercourse is simply a product of ignorance-that is, if you knew how to “have sex,” you’d want intercourse. When in fact, the information taught in heteronormative sex ed- about contraceptives, STD risk, and damage control (aka the morning after pill and abortions) are precisely the reasons some radical feminists want to forego intercourse.
We’re supposed to have “negotiation” in our sex lives, as if our bodies were some kind of thing we can trade and agree to use. I doubt it’s a coincidence the first things that come to mind when I think of “negotiation” are car sales and hostage negotiation. Women are not allowed to enter sex with a clear boundary, as I was doing-to do so means you’re messed up or immature.
From this, negotiation seems to not mean, “talk about what you like and don’t like, and then do the only the former.” The only other thing it could mean, as far as I can gather, is being willing to change your mind-that is, be willing to let him “test” your boundaries,* or eventually give your “consent.” This is hardly surprising when you consider how far men will stretch the concept of “consent”: there have been studies (too lazy to find them now) that show even convicted rapists think the “sex” they had with their victim was consensual.
While these “feminists” will argue till they’re blue in the face that you can chose to be fucked using your “agency,” you can’t chose to not be fucked using your agency. If you chose to not be fucked, you’re brainwashed by radical feminist philosophy or conservatism.
This dynamic is especially interesting considering that they argue the culture and upbringing in a world drenched in misogyny and rape has no influence on their choices, or the choices of most people. Obviously, this would suggest that radical feminists somehow have far more influence than the dominant culture and media, since we are allegedly able to influence choices while society does not. Which is a laughable idea, since even the majority of feminists shun us.
Lastly, I’d like to say that, as lame and nerdy as it might sound, fanfiction is a major part of my sexuality. And I have a feeling the reason it’s ignored, stigmatized and mocked is because the primary authors and readers are women.
Really, what’s more sexually messed up: requiring female risk for sex, or foregoing activities that require female risk?
*This is a common thing in bondage, often outright called “pushing one’s boundaries,” more often/specifically pain tolerance, and is often considered an essential part of “good” BDSM. And this is a very large part of D/s relationships, from my understanding, especially when “training” (ew) is involved.
PS: Sorry this first post after a long break kinda sucks.
Femanon 
But, I think that the complaint is not just that we’re against intercourse, judging by their comments and portrayal of me. It’s that we’re setting a boundary-a sexual boundary, at that- that cannot be crossed.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. Women are not supposed to have sexual boundaries of our own (instead we are only supposed to uphold the sexual boundaries that are forced on us by men).
Case in point – I had a nigel once who got all the PIV he wanted from me. Only one day I mentioned that I refused to be fucked doggy style because it triggered rape memories. Thereafter he became utterly fixated on fucking doggy style. It became a huge power struggle between us. He’d never expressed any interest in it beforehand, it was only until I set a boundary that it mattered to him at all … I never did give in over that one and I’m sure he’s still bitter about it.
point is – it doesn’t matter what the boundary is. If you refuse to do anal, then that’s what men will nag you for. If you refuse to deepthroat, then they’ll nag you over that instead. There will always be something. Which is actually a great reason for women to refuse PIV (or oral, or any other “vanilla” universally expected act). Because men are going to nag and mansplain regardless of our sexual boundaries, since no boundaries are acceptable anyway.
I missed the whole hugo saga. I’m kind of glad I did. What a fucking creep!
Shiiiit. Until you posted that experience, I somehow didn’t connect this post with my own. (Probably because I’m still having trouble accepting it.) My last nigel knew about me being raped and everything, and how it happened. I had expressed several times that I thought I was ok with sex, so long as he did not put his hand over mine. When I offered to give him a blowjob for the first time, his Nice Guy self even asked if I was sure, I said “yes, I think I’ll be ok, as long as you don’t put your hand on top of mine.”
And guess what he did? HE PUT HIS HAND ON TOP OF MINE. Essentially jerking himself off with my hand underneath his and my mouth still on his dick. He finished pretty quickly after that-tho it felt like forever to me, of course.
I think most men are so fucked up they need to get into rape territory in order to reach orgasm. Sorta like how porn addicts have to keep looking for more and more hardcore and degrading stuff to get their fix. It doesn’t matter how much intercourse, oral, or whatever they get-what they need is to cross a line.
I think even if het women do want PIV, refusing it for at least a while is a good test of how entitled a man feels to sex. Or even blowjobs.
The fact that they call that ‘position’ DOGGY STYLE always screamed red flags for me, it’s like, could they not make their womon-hate any more obvious?
Good on you, Citrus, for fighting the good fight. The more Hugo and his ilk open their mouths the more fucked up (har-de-har-har) they show themselves to be.
The idea of needing to be “educated” about PIV sex really gets to me. The fact of the matter is that, in general, most (het?) women do have to attempt to figure out how to orgasm from vaginal penetration. It’s not necessarily something that comes “naturally”. I went to a very sexually open all girls’ boarding school in high school, where masturbation was discussed candidly, and to be frank I didn’t know a single girl in high school who penetrated herself with a dildo/vibrator unless she was already having PIV sex with a boyfriend. For most het(-acting) women, we need to figure out or teach ourselves a way to think about PIV which makes it seem erotic so that we are able to enjoy it like we’re “supposed” to, and for a LOT of women that “training” comes from men who try to perpetuate the dominant paradigm of “eroticism”=dominance/submission.
So really, there’s a lot of psychological bullshit wrapped up in PIV for a lot of women. It’s not just a matter of physical risk. The act often serves, in our society, as a ritualized representation of our second-class status. There’s a reason “consensual PIV” is often nigh-indistinguishable from rape.
I think you’re completely right about the issue of boundaries and “negotiation”. Decades ago people called it “seduction”, and the whole point was to take down a woman’s boundaries. It was considered erotic (and romantic), because it demonstrated her sexual submissiveness and the male’s sexual dominance. Feminists managed a good show of shining light on the reality of “seduction” as eroticized rape, so now men have found a new word, and it dovetails nicely into their idea that we all have a price and are, inherently, whores.
Hugo is so utterly pathetic, there’s really nothing else to say. He’ll probably come back as a barnacle.
Oh my gosh, I’ve thought about this A LOT. I never penetrated myself ever, until my ex said he wanted me to “masturbate” for him, which naturally meant putting fingers and shit inside of me. It’s so fucked up that male sexuality (and their corresponding definitions of female sexuality) I never masturbated that way, and I never knew anyone else who did either. It’s so hard to find a vibrator that isn’t a dildo or some other phallic shape-what I want is one that you can just leave against your vulva that contacts the clit, and move/rub against, sorta like tribadism I suppose. I can sometimes do this successfully with a “bullet” style one by arranging a pillow or something, but its more trouble than its worth.
I agree there is a ton of psychological bullshit with PIV that just makes it not worth it IMO. It’s so difficult, and even if women are able to eliminate the BS I can be sure men will still see it as making us second-class.
And yup on training or PIV. There’s ALWAYS advice like “oh touch your clit during intercourse and then intercourse is awesome!” What is the point of PIV then for fucks sake!! I’ll take clit stimlulation without the physical or psychological baggage, k thx.
This whole paragraph kicks ass. I never connected it to the past “seduction” nonsense, and it changing to “negotiation” because now all of us are whores. That’s so spot on.
I’ve always opted for the shower head myself! Only problem is, it’s a huge waste of water just to get to orgasm 😦
I love this, and holy fuck, had never even thought of it is this way before. What was that old feminist quote? Romance is rape with embellished looks. I think it was Dworkin who said that one.
Omg, when you said barnacle it made me think of this, which actually fits perfectly:
Oh yeah, and I didn’t say this in the post, but it also occurred to me that “women shouldn’t have boundaries” ideal is an essential part of arguing against FAAB spaces.
I still have no inclination whatsoever to click over to Hugo’s because I value my low blood pressure but your summary of what you were advised to do to get into PIV is sickening. I really don’t get what is so damn frightening or abnormal about not enganging in intercourse. I mean, I’m pretty sure they’re scared of having their definitional power taken away from them (“I declare what is wrong and right, little missy, and you listen! Because I’m the norm and you are the deviant and therefore everything I say is true! *beats chest*). STILL – on a personal level I really don’t care if you decide to have PIV or not. It’s not my business! Of course, analysing the underlying social factors influencing the decisions to (not) engage in certain sexual activities are interesting and it should not be taboo to talk about them, however, it’s not my place to give other people advice on their sexuality IF this sexuality is not directly harmful to others. Seriously, my mother who is quite conservative didn’t judge the pair declaring on TV that they never have sex to be “freaks”- she was of the opinion that it’s them who have to ultimately decide what is best. In contrast you have men on Hugo’s blog- probably calling themselves liberal and open-minded- practically telling you to get therapy. Facepalm, just facepalm. (If you should have to get therapy in the future – for other reasons than not engaging in PIV, naturally – make sure the therapist doesn’t try to integrate you into the current social structure. Mine tried to talk me into wanting children- no kidding. He was good in other aspects, for example, opening my eyes to the possibility that I was a lesbian after I had declared that I don’t feel any meaningful connection to men.)
This dynamic is especially interesting considering that they argue the culture and upbringing in a world drenched in misogyny and rape has no influence on their choices, or the choices of most people. Obviously, this would suggest that radical feminists somehow have far more influence than the dominant culture and media, since we are allegedly able to influence choices while society does not. Which is a laughable idea, since even the majority of feminists shun us.
Bizarre thinking. If they actually are of the opinion that culture doesn’t influence one’s behaviour they should call up a research institute and inform them about their wondrous ability to sidestep socialization- I’m sure researchers will be fascinated. They will also be very fascinated by the fact that a movement that doesn’t have any serious social and political influence (depressing but true) is somehow extremely powerful. In reality, they give radical feminism so much power because it’s perceived as a threat to the status quo. Because of this they will either try to fight or reform us. I guess they already tried to reform you.
Lastly, I’d like to say that, as lame and nerdy as it might sound, fanfiction is a major part of my sexuality. And I have a feeling the reason it’s ignored, stigmatized and mocked is because the primary authors and readers are women.
That’s true. It’s also completely stereotyped: I can remember someone showing up at Hoyden About Time and saying that women craved romance therefore they only wrote romantic fluff fiction, not porn or other genres (paraphrasing). Another person showed up and said: “Uhm, there are a lot of girls and women who write PWPs, master/slave and all that stuff.” His answer: “But that’s not the majority!” Still had not explanation for the “minority” which frankly speaking I think is not even one. Visit Aarinfantasy and if it’s still like it was some years ago the hardcore stuff is much more prevalent. (And I don’t think it’s lame or nerdy… I would really like to do something with yaoi for my studies but I think it’s largely impossible.)
Yeah, I think therapy would be great if I could find a good radfem therapist, but it’s just not worth the risk. The ones I’ve been to in the past have all tried to make my experiences out to be “bad luck,” instead of a result of most men being rapists. I was too “angry” and too “extreme” for thinking the system favors rapists. I don’t think one who would accept me foregoing PIV exists-I mean, the dudes on Hugo’s clearly thought I needed therapy to “fix” me, meaning I would go back to PIV. And yup, they consider themselves “open minded”-I’m the one who’s not openminded enough, because I refuse PIV. I honestly don’t give a shit about people’s sex lives, unless, like you say, it can cause harm.
Wtf? I mean, I love fluff, I read it all the time. But PWP is still my favorite, simply because there is a lack of good, not rape-themed yaoi. I’d say depending on the fandom and the pairing, there’s an about equal ratio of explicit/fluff. (The stats on the fandom I follow are fluff 76; smut: 162 according the index) And yup, aarinfantasy is still a load of smut. Tho I’m personally more into fanfiction.
Women may crave “romance” but even so, it’s usually not without the juicy bits. I dun really think it’s lame or nerdy myself, but unfortunately that’s how most people see it.
yes ms.c, you have to use your agency to have consensual PIV. doesnt everyone know that? thats why they let us have agency in the first place. it means that rapists dont have to go to jail for rape anymore. which is really the only problem with rape: that its a crime. well i say, its a crime NOT to have PIV!!111!!1!
One of my psychiatrists first concerns with getting me better from my PTSD was encouraging me to have PIV again. No concern for the mental damage it could do to me, just about whether or not I was actually doing it.
As a man, I feel especially offended by this post. Not all men pressure women into sex and certainly not all women are innocent. As for the topic of sexual negotiation, there’s no need to blow that way out of proportion; nit-picking word choice is the worst way to go about these sorts of things. As for the subject of fanfiction being stigmatized, welcome to the world of fetishes. Everyone has them. And people aren’t hating on it because it’s “primary authors and readers are women”; there are plenty of males out there propagating and eating it up too, I guarantee that.
P.S. To whoever thought that doggy style meant women-hate: GROW A BRAIN. Its in reference to the way the animal has sex, NOT because every man wants to fuck a dog. Furthermore, I could almost argue it harkens back to a more base animalistic way of having sex, which in its primal nature, some people actually ENJOY.
Otherwise, keep hating rapists, I have no qualms with that, but not every man is one.
1) Did I ever say “all men are rapists”? Or even “all men pressure women into sex”? Or “all women are innocent”? Nope, I didn’t. Stop arguing against things I’ve never said, but you think I did.
2) Words mean something. You call it “nit-picking”, I call it analysis. See also that they didn’t mean “negotiation” as a discussion, from the way that they spoke to me.
3) I do think fanfiction is stigmatized, but more so when it’s gay or doesn’t involve rape. It’s also not a fetish-it’s a medium that can have fetishes, just like pornography is, but not a fetish in itself. However, one is predominantly used by men and the other by women.
4) Doggy style is not exactly the most enjoyable positions for all women, and is also the most impersonal. Consider also the lack of clit stimluation relative to other positions of intercourse. It is considered more degrading than positions where eye contact and communication is easier and more evident-men themselves often admit this. Spanking is also more common in this position than, say, missionary, which obviously is degrading and intended to be so.
Handy Translation courtesy of yours truly;
As a man, I feel that my strange, warped and fucked up world view might actually have been disrupted by reading this post. I was actually made to think about how my actions might just hurt the women I love and it sucked because I am man and I am higher, mightier and better than you daft bitches. Women are lying, sneaky cunts who will do anything to manipulate men with their evil weapons of breats and vaginas and we are useless to stop them because we are at the whims of our erections. Which are like aliens that control our bodies, except for when we feel it’s convenient.
I don’t like that you’ve actually done a valid critique of any male argument ever, it offends my delicate manly sensibilities, I think it’s okay to objectify a part of a human beings body because it gets me off, and my sex life exists in a vacuum, so it MUST be okay.
P.S I think women who object to boring, mind-numbing repetitive activities are boring bitches who just won’t let me stick my dick near them. If they just got a little wang in their life they’d be JUST FINE. I am too stupid to realise that humans and dolphins are the only animals who have sex for pleasure making any argument ever about how “animalistic” sex is a load of bull-hockey. I probably also like evolutionary biology because I used the words “primal” and “nature” in the same sentence.
berryblade, you had me literally LOLing. So servicey!
That last sentence nearly made me pee laughing. What the fuck is up with people who say “primal”? Dorks.
Hahah thanks Nine.
IKR!
Hey Mack,
My delicate womonly sensibilities are offended by your existence.
P.S Like I said in my HILARIOUS piss-taking comment, humans, dolphins (maybe a couple of other primates) fuck for pleasure. So this crap about “animalistic” doesn’t fly with me, if it were really ‘animalistic’ it’d last for about five minutes tops with the old in-out-in-out and only be done at certain points in a womon’s menstrual cycle when she was ovulating/able to conceive. Oh and we wouldn’t call it menstruation, we’d call it being ‘in heat’ and once a womon stopped menstruating, and men had reached a certain age, no-one would have intercourse any more.
Dumb arse.
As a man, I feel especially offended by this post.
As a man, you should shut the fuck up.
This blog isn’t written for you and no one cares if you are offended. On the contrary, when radfems offend men, it is a sign we are on the right track!
“As a man, you should shut the fuck up. ” This is the funniest comment thread I’ve seen in a long time. I want him to come back!
Not all men pressure women into sex and certainly not all women are innocent.
Then you miss the point entirely. For the demographics you refer to are called “outliers” while radical feminists tend to focus on the largest patterns committed by the majority. It’s kinda like a big house and a little house and they’re both on fire and both filled with people who are about to die and of course the big house has more people in it. You would save the five people in the little house while the five thousand burn to death. Not real smart…
As for the topic of sexual negotiation, there’s no need to blow that way out of proportion; nit-picking word choice is the worst way to go about these sorts of things.
I actually agree with you, except, see my first paragraph. There’s a pattern regarding how men and women relate to each other, and the vast majority of this pattern only goes one way. As far as most men are concerned, men’s first rule is that their “partners” should never deny them anything, but if men have to pretend to be human in order to feel good about themselves then their second rule — which is quite contradictory if you notice — is that they also have to pretend to consider the desires of their “partner” but but but how to get the little woman to go along with BOTH rules at the same time? It’s a pickle.
And in that jar of pickles are fancy words like “negotiation” which neatly hides the fact that both rules can’t be in force at the same time. Women are supposed to pretend that relinquishing one’s agency because the guy is an unrelenting asshole is “negotiation”. No, it’s really not. You can call it any word you want and the dynamic is still the same and men would still prefer that we focus on anything other than that dynamic. Which comprises the largest pattern, btw.
Anyway, Ms Citrus, this post was awesome and I too never connected it to what Miska said. You made that point painfully clear, thank you!
Ah, hope you don’t mind me just sitting there in the same dang thread rephrasing what you said Ms Citrus, I really wanted to remember your take on it and repeating it will help.
Wrong with God
Woman here. I think that we should all submit to men. As a God-fearing woman, I believe that it is my God-given duty to uphold the laws of God and be a good wife. I do whatever my husband wants sexually, I also cook and clean and take care of our 14 children. My husband works all day, and only spends a few hours with his friends out at a bar, which I am OK with. He always spends thegame time with his female friends, but I have nothing to worry about, for our marriage was founded with God in it. While you are out seeking fulfillment, which you will never find, I am at home, happy and content making my man happy. If you would only find God, you would know that this is our duty to men.
TRUST IN GOD, HE SHALL SHOW YOU THE WAY.
Excellent satire, Shirley.
AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA omg. what a maroon.
MsCitrus:
We’re supposed to have “negotiation” in our sex lives, as if our bodies were some kind of thing we can trade and agree to use. I doubt it’s a coincidence the first things that come to mind when I think of “negotiation” are car sales and hostage negotiation. Women are not allowed to enter sex with a clear boundary, as I was doing-to do so means you’re messed up or immature.
The so-called “negotiation” that women are supposed to do, comes from a point that consent is assumed to be given at all times (just as “agency” is only allowed for saying yes, but never no). Therefore, all “negotiation” is back from this point. The similarities between sexual “negotiation” and hostage negotiation probably are closer than most people think, it’s just a bad situation to be in. Perhaps women should just starting guns into the bedroom, this would certainly stop a lot of non-consensual acts 😉
Miska:
point is – it doesn’t matter what the boundary is. If you refuse to do anal, then that’s what men will nag you for. If you refuse to deepthroat, then they’ll nag you over that instead. There will always be something. […] Because men are going to nag and mansplain regardless of our sexual boundaries, since no boundaries are acceptable anyway.
Very true. I think it shows that it is not the particular sex act (including PIV) that is in question, but the power of getting a woman to submit to him in some way. So sex, including PIV, the turn-on is power (not the actual sex or sex act), getting the submissive one to agree (“negiotiate”??) to more than they otherwise would. It has been common knowledge for a long time that the majority of women do not orgasm by PIV (alone) and usually require clitoral stimulation, hence most women would probably be happy with the acts usually deemed foreplay, without the PIV. I am sure a poll of women would reveal that they have some, if not many, times in their lives “consented” to PIV that they were not “in the mood for”. In other words, co-erced (rape). Perhaps the men see these situations as successful “negotiations” and do not see this as rape/co-ercion.
Nor are men “driven” to have PIV, the whole point really is the orgasm, and men usually come configured with two hands. They could do a lot solo, if they supposedly have “high sex drive”.
In summary, if “negotiation” is part of a couple’s sex life, then love, respect, equality, certainly are not.
“The similarities between sexual “negotiation” and hostage negotiation probably are closer than most people think, it’s just a bad situation to be in. Perhaps women should just starting guns into the bedroom, this would certainly stop a lot of non-consensual acts”
Shit, I wish I could remember where I read this (I think it was in Not for Sale?), but I think I remember reading that some organizations help train “sex workers” using hostage negotiation experts in a workshop, to “empower” them to “negotiate” well with the johns. Yeah, what the fuck.
And to your second comment, I have told my nigel I’m going to keep my gun in my nightstand. 😛 If this scares the crap outta a dude, he was probably going to try and pull something.
“Nor are men “driven” to have PIV, the whole point really is the orgasm, and men usually come configured with two hands. They could do a lot solo, if they supposedly have “high sex drive”.”
Oh man, I know. Whenever people are like “oh so you aren’t having sex” because I’m not having intercourse or giving blowjobs, I have to point out that most people have these things called HANDS. That they can use. To TOUCH things. Whoaaa.
Men are so fucking used to just using vaginas as masturbatory devices they can’t think of sex or masturbation outside of that frame.
“I am sure a poll of women would reveal that they have some, if not many, times in their lives “consented” to PIV that they were not “in the mood for”. In other words, co-erced (rape). Perhaps the men see these situations as successful “negotiations” and do not see this as rape/co-ercion.”
Yup, I’ve seen people at feminist blogs talk about this, specifically when rape is defined as sex without mutual desire. The complaint was that it’s unrealistic to expect people to only have sex when both want it, and how they want to make their partner happy, so it’s only natural they go along with it even though they aren’t into it. Disturbing as all hell.
“In summary, if “negotiation” is part of a couple’s sex life, then love, respect, equality, certainly are not.”
I nominate this as the official TL;DR version of my post.
using hostage negotiation experts
Well, doesn’t this tell us all we need to know?
Miska:
point is – it doesn’t matter what the boundary is. If you refuse to do anal, then that’s what men will nag you for. If you refuse to deepthroat, then they’ll nag you over that instead. There will always be something. […] Because men are going to nag and mansplain regardless of our sexual boundaries, since no boundaries are acceptable anyway.
FAB Libber:
Very true. I think it shows that it is not the particular sex act (including PIV) that is in question, but the power of getting a woman to submit to him in some way. So sex, including PIV, the turn-on is power (not the actual sex or sex act), getting the submissive one to agree (“negiotiate”??) to more than they otherwise would.
Just blew my frontal lobe or something, wow. PIV *is* rape as soon as we consider how most people do use both terms. Rape is supposed to mean non-consensual intercourse, while consensual intercourse is frequently described as “seducing an ambivalent, hesitant, or unwilling person; overcoming resistence regardless how much effort the guy must exude in order to overcome the person’s resistence”. There is no criteria for what is considered ‘too much’ emotional coercion, nagging etc.
Think I’m gonna come back to this thread again and again, so bookmarking it. Yes, FactCheckMe frequently discusses the harms etc of PIV (although her talking about it probably helped prepare me for this post) but until now what she said never had that “clicky” feeling. My brain is still recovering… and I do sorta understand why people who aren’t radical feminists would have a difficult time with this concept — it’s anathema to everything we’ve been brainwashed to believe. I can finally understand why they could ask such a stupid question, “How can rape between friends be so terrible, when seducing a friend is Just What Guys Do?” Well, to THEM, rape IS just sex. Considering how long feminists have been hammering the point that all unwanted sex is rape, they still really do not get it. FCM is onto something kinda freaking important…
Dear Shirley,
Read the book fer crying out loud. The Bible, I mean. It does not say what they have been telling you it says. Promise.
PS.
How zactly do you go about making your man happy at home if he is never there? Inquiring minds and all that.
So what’s the argument here, Mack.
All men don’t do it so it doesn’t count?
How do you know all men don’t?
Cuz one mansplainer trumps all women’s experiences?
Keep slurping from that delicious chum bucket of outrage and you won’t notice that the facts are biased against you.
This is a great post. I’ve been thinking so much lately about how the concept of “agency” is used to defend women’s involvement in patriarchal institutions like pornography, etc, but agency seems to be something only people who have no boundaries are able to call upon. The rest of us are hopeless victims of ideology and prudishness.
Women really don’t have any rights to autonomy.
anyone who risks a loved one to get off is a sick f**k plain and simple
I think Shirley was being satirical. She HAD to be.