Category Archives: dickheads

Poor, poor, johns

I swear. Most of the “sex worker” activists I have met constantly talk about how we shouldn’t “demonize” the johns, because they’re usually married/partnered*, etc, and they are simply seeking understanding for a sexual act that their steady partner cannot or will not provide.  Men aren’t just looking to “bust a nut,” they’re seeking the love and understanding every human wants.  Or that some people are just “incapable” of relationships with the opposite sex.  And they’re normal men just like your coworkers and friends. So they need an outlet.

If I don’t have, or can’t have a relationship, I don’t feel like I should have the right to exchange money for sex. I don’t. Especially since there would be no way for me to know if they had “chosen” sex work, or had only chosen it from a range of other shitty options (minimum wage jobs, etc, etc). Essentially, no one has the right to buy sex or sexual acts-we know that a great amount of abuse exists in this industry, and anyone who risks the chance of raping someone so that they can “get some” is sick.  No one has the right to sex, period.

However pitiful some women are, however lonely they feel, I don’t see them thinking they have a right to sex.  Women want love and understanding just as everyone does, but we never get it.  Yet somehow, we don’t use prostitutes.  Women, FOR SOME REASON, generally don’t purchase sex; women represent sex, thus they are usually sellers.   Why are the roles in prostitution so gendered?   Who has the resources and the money?  Men.  Who has the prestige?  Men.  Who has the power?  Men.  Who represents sex?  Women.   Most men believe they are entitled to sex, and as a result they make up most rapists and most johns.  Women are not raised to think of themselves as “entitled” to sex- sex is something women give and men take.

Wanting love and understanding does not make johns understandable or sympathetic, unless you’re the type who “understands” MRAs.  Yeah, they’re human, but so are rapists.   Wanting love and understanding means get a goddamn therapist, or failing that, talk to people.  Hell, you could even just talk to the prostitute, and not fuck her.  It does not mean you should fuck women.  The fact that people say johns are just seeking understanding and love is disgusting.  If they were, they wouldn’t have the sex, they wouldn’t need it, they wouldn’t demand it, and they wouldn’t be violent, they wouldn’t ask for unprotected sex.

These men aren’t seeking understanding: they are seeking the image of it.  A woman, nurturing like a mother, but also a whore, who will nurture the man through whatever sick fetish he’s developed.  A yes-woman, who will agree that his wife is a bitch, frigid, stupid, whatever.  Consequently, the image for a “sex worker” is that of a college-educated middle class white woman (preferably aryan) who drops every career opportunity and hobby to fuck men for money.  Her image is no different from that of “good mom,” who leaves her potential career behind “by choice,” because she wuves her kids so much and wishes them to have the best.

But, here are a few large differences:  children have a need for someone to care for them, men, on the other hand, and specifically johns, have jobs and the full development necessary to take care of themselves.  No one needs to take care of grown men. However much they seem or act as helpless as babies, they aren’t.  It’s an act.

This whole outlet thing is the same bullshit that says men’s sex drives are natural and unstoppable;  therefore they have a right to an outlet.  God forbid we raise men to NOT feel entitled to sex, so that they will not rape or purchase “sex.”

No one has ever died from lack of sex.   Ever.

So can it about men’s sexual and emotional “needs.”  Women’s right to not be raped and used sexually is more important than some douchebag’s orgasm.

*So are most child molesters, rapists and serial killers.  I doubt this is a coincidence.

Advertisements

Women shouldn’t have boundaries, Agency is Sacred (unless you’re a prude), and other things I learned from men

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.

Calling Out Feminist Men

I worry a bit that posting this makes me as creepy as Hugo, who seems to have an obsession with FCM’s posts while not actually understanding or replying to them at all.  (Have you noticed they never quote FCM radical feminists in general?  Makes it much easier to misrepresent what they say.)  But I don’t think it does, because there are a few major differences.  Firstly, the major reason this needs to be pointed out is to say with big neon letters that even “feminist” men can be creepy rapist motherfuckers. It also is a sort of case study on what FCM said in On Crediblity.  And as to why I’m motivated to this, Hugo is essentially going back on his word, where he invited to reopen comments on his posts describing the affairs, since I might have a “new take.”  Only if he believed my analysis of his past to be irrelevant to the topic does my ban really make sense, since calling his “affairs” outright rape is obviously a “new take” on them.  But since he didn’t mention me being off topic, I can only guess I analyzed his past a little more than he would have liked.

Alternatively, I was banned because I was “arrogant and entitled,” and “threw the word rape around” for nearly any sexual act, by calling Hugo a rapist for fucking his students.  It’s interesting to me they say these things, because the rationalizations of these commenters are the same ones I have seen from rapists and rape apologists I’ve encountered (or been raped by).  The general lack of seriousness with which they treated my judgment of his actions also says quite a bit about “feminist” men’s definitions of “consent” and how they react to women accusing men of misogyny, in this case manifesting as rape and an abuse of power.

One of the most frightening responses was from someone who said I had a “right to my opinion” that he had raped his students, but that I shouldn’t apply labels based on it.  Which I assume translates to: You can think he raped those women, but don’t call him a rapist because that’s mean and irrelevant.  Thanks! But more so than this guy’s concern for Hugo’s fee-fees, the analogies that followed this are incredibly frightening, considering the subject matter.

Ms Citrus – No one that I’m aware of is saying “that liberal men don’t consider a professor sleeping with student rape, or even predatory”.

If I had several accidents caused by drunken driving where I injured or killed others – I would clearly be a “murderer” or similar to some. To hear that years later would be different from shortly after the last “accident”. (None of this happened.)

There is plenty – if you want to criticize Hugo – related to his past and certainly material he writes of now. There is no need to make things related to Hugo or others as a: “you’re with me or against me” mindset as you are (unfortunately) doing. Thanks!

The key words in his analogy are “accidents.”  This commenter is, yes, comparing accidents that happen while driving drunk to a teacher fucking his students.  As though you can accidentally fuck someone.  The fact of the matter is these “affairs” of his takes intent.  He could have, I am sure, found willing sexual partners in his own age range.  But he didn’t.  He could have even dated people half his age who weren’t his students, or simply waiting until whoever he was interested in graduated.  But he didn’t.

He deliberately chose to fuck his students-whether that’s because he knew they weren’t in any position to say no, or simply because he had some sort of fetish for student/teacher relationships isn’t clear.  What is clear, however, is that his affairs with students were no “accident” and not due to any spiritual or emotional connection to the women involved, since he fucked multiple students in the same time period.  Despite what “feminist” men like Hugo, my ex, and the commentators who support him might imply, you cannot accidentally fuck someone, nor can you accidentally rape them.   Rape is never a “mistake” on the part of the rapist, to use the same term of another commenter.  Nor is fucking students a mistake that everyone could make.  It occurs when a man wants to fuck a woman, regardless of what she wants.

I don’t think it any different than how people have labeled Andrea Dworkin and may others. Dworkin was obviously Much More Profound an influence on most of us than Hugo is and didn’t have a Past of which she was Ashamed due to things she’d done – as Hugo does, but she wasn’t “perfect” in her visions. Criticizing specifics of her ideas is fine, but labeling her as oft times is done shows More of the limitations of the Labeler than anything about her.

Because labeling someone as a bitch or a “misandrist,” based on their theory, is just as bad as calling someone a rapist based on their actual history of  fucking their students.  Most of the time I’m convinced this is deliberate stupidity, because I don’t see how else anyone could say things like this and not realize how moronic they sound.

I was able to recover one of the comments I believe I was banned for, which *just so happened* to contest his account of those “affairs,” although I added some points and stuff so it fits into the post better:

Of course I’m going to be hostile-Hugo is a fucking rapist as far as I’m concerned, and “feminists” are listening to him.  You cant sleep with someone you have that kind of power over “consensually,” and even if HE says it was consensual, that doesn’t mean it was.  We’re hearing the perpetrator’s perspective, and the sad thing is people are taking it seriously.  I’m not going to take the word of a man who fucks women half his age while in an authority position over them on whether or not they were willing.

He has every reason to lie on whether or not they “consented;” and I’m willing to bet he is.  Since he never says who initiated these relationships, yet lists every other excuse for them imaginable (she wanted it, she was older than me, blahdeblah), I’m lead to conclude that HE initiated some of these relationships, which qualifies as sexual harassment and makes any prospect of “consent” on their part far more dubious, even if you think it’s possible for them to consent.  And even if you don’t think he raped them, he’s still a fucking creep who sexually harassed (past tense?) his students.  And he now teaches classes made up of predominantly women-women in the same age group and social position as others that he habitually fucked.   It’s akin to putting a “transformed” pedophile in charge of an elementary school class so he can redeem himself.  Like hell anyone would support that.

His “past,” as he euphemistically calls it, isn’t exactly the only shady thing either.  He is currently on his fourth wife-which to anyone with a lick of sense suggests that something about the way he treats and interacts with women is off.  It’s just plain pathetic that people are taking what he says about women and other feminists to be true.

My nigel actually pointed out when I was discussing this with him, that I was “warned” in a way by Hugo, that I needed to shut up about his past: he’s made amends publicly, and “grieve[s] the harm [he] did” with” patient and persistence and the complete absence of shame.”  Which roughly translates to: I apologized, you bitch, what else do you want?

Heard the same before from my rapist and his supporters.  When I confronted them and they had the actual sense to realize they were wrong and apologize, if I didn’t immediately drop the issue, I was reminded it was years ago, that I needed to just let it go, and that they apologized.  When I pointed out that them wanting me to just shut up about it meant their apology is just a way to dismiss their crimes, they blocked me or just walked off, depending on if I confronted them on chat or IRL.   So no wonder Hugo banned me!  He made amends and grieves the harm he did, and I was still not letting it go.  What could he do but ban me, right?  It causes him so much pain to be reminded of the fact that he raped his students, and he’s made amends so I should just stop talking about it.  And men should never have to deal with pain or guilt, even if it comes as a direct consequence of their actions.  The fact is, if he lacked shame about his crimes, he would let me post my interpretations of his “affairs” and “acting out years,” as he euphemistically calls them.

This whole episode, their attitude towards going without PIV, and the manipulative mansplaining I feel the commenters did, left me doubting myself.  So I did what I usually do when I feel insecure, and started picking arguments apart and analyzing things.  Eventually I was left with a  pretty big piece of writing, and I figure I might as well make it a post since most of it was already written.

(I have to say though, the comment about me having to be a creationist because I think the idea that the desire for intercourse is socially constructed was hilariously sad, at least.)

Women = Holes

After FCMs post on neovaginas, I feel more horrified than ever at what men think of women. Even more so after doing some research of my own, in an attempt to find a least one medical diagram that shows the vagina as closed. (I couldn’t find one.) But the more I think about it, the more it all fits together.  There are so many things that reflect the belief of vaginas as holes, and I’m slowly putting the pieces together from everything.

Tampons

I always thought I was a freak, because I couldn’t get a tampon in or even a finger. I imagined that normal vaginas (not mine) were essentially gaping holes in women’s crotches. That women just walked around with them open, 24/7.  Well, I looked up some advice given to women who have trouble using tampons-and the girls were just told to keep trying, squat, or that they just aren’t used to it yet.

Now, I think the difference might not be my vagina, but my determination to use a tampon-which is nil.  My theory is that the reason most women use tampons, instead of pads, is because menstrual blood is considered yucky (this way you don’t have to see it till you pull the tampon out), because you can still wear thongs, and it hides a bodily function.  It’s possible my vagina is just more anti-penetration than other women’s (or it’s genetic, my mom can’t use them either), but considering I’ve never had difficulty with nigel fingering me when I’m aroused, if I wanted to, I kinda doubt this is the case.  Tampons desensitize and train women for dealing with the discomfort and pain that comes with pleasing of men and being feminine.

Fingering, Men’s Ideas about Women’s Sexuality & Porn

Speaking of penetration-how many women really masturbate using dick-like objects?  I’ve always just touched my clit, and nothing more.  But of course, dudes fantasize about women fucking themselves with their fingers or whatever objects are around.  My ex-boyfriend always used to say, “It’s okay to enjoy sex, clits are the only organ humans have that are purely for sexual pleasure.”  But did he ever touch it, for anything other than “foreplay”?  Fuck no he didn’t.  Touching my clit was just leading up to the “main act”-since we weren’t having intercourse, this was fingering me.   And when I say fingering me, I don’t mean he touched my clit too during it or used his whole hand against my vulva.  Nope, just the ol’ in-and-out of fucking.  Needless to say I never had an orgasm with him (although that would be news to him).

His terrible bedroom skills aside, this situation still seemed so weird to me.  He clearly knows that the clitoris exists, and he touched it, so he clearly knew where it was and that it feels good for me to be touched there.  And yet, he never touched it except in the foreplay before fingering me.  Why?  Because women have holes that need to be stretched and filled by dicks. The vagina is the central part of our sexuality, as men see it. (And because we’re taught the male perspective, women see it this way too.)  I’ve never even heard of a man touching a woman’s bits without fingering her.  If a man doesn’t have intercourse with a girl, or she doesn’t want to go that far and the dude is a Nice Guy™, it’s blowjobs and fingering.  I mean, even gay men get that just being fucked is boring-that’s why they have reach arounds.

Can you tell which are medical models and which are sex toys?*

But of course, men’s asses are closed.  Gay men who bottom are not asked to have their asses pryed open annually to ensure their health.  Men are also not paid $450 in exchange for medical students getting to use their asses to practice prostate exams on.**  I couldn’t even find a model dummy that helped students learn how to perform prostate exams or STD tests for men.  (Someone should alert the MRAs of this reverse sexism.)

Women’s asses, on the other hand, are now just as open as  our vaginas.  In porn, men will repeatedly pull out of vaginas and asses, and the camera will focus on the “gaping” of it.  How it remains open because of being fucked repeatedly.  The man will enter again, fuck, and then pull out.  Or just keep entering and exiting.  And just leave their dick outside of the “hole.”  I’ve seen quite a bit of both gay and straight porn, and I rarely saw this in the gay stuff, and if it was there, it was in the more BDSM kinda shit.  For facials, women often leave their mouths open as well.  Our vaginas aren’t the only holes we have any more—now we have three.

Another common thing in porn is inserting various objects into a woman-not just dildos, but coke bottles, pool cues, and entire fists.   For my FTM ex, before he got a strap on dick, the goal of sex was basically to see how many fingers he could fit inside of my vagina or my ass.  Now, I’m horrified that my body could adapt to that-because even just two fingers feel uncomfortable, and anything back there is a hell no.  I don’t understand how I possibly survived his fist being in there.

Our Personalities & Socialization

The entire construction of woman, as men have created it, is based on vaginas being holes, and women being only vaginas.  This is sorta like what Dworkin addressed in “The Root Cause,” but if I think the idea of male as the positive and female as the negative needs to be connected to how men see sex.  Women are gaps, spaces, and some sort of abyss.  Our entire personalities and lives are constructed around this.  Without PIV, or without a man, women often feel empty and pointless.  And we’re told our lives are pointless without men, thanks to fairytales, porn, and the comments of others about lesbians, and celibate or single women.  Our vaginas and lives must be filled by man.  Or at least other people, and never ourselves.

I wish I could say more about this, but I’m having a lot of trouble finding the words to express what I mean by this.  Hopefully I’ve gotten it across even though I’m lacking on detail and clarity.

Rape

Everytime I think of how men see vaginas, and by extention women, I get an image in my head I just can’t get rid of.  A woman, just sleeping. And a dude thinking that her vagina is gaping. So he does what all dudes do to any hole, gay or straight-he sticks his dick in it. And it’s not rape to him or anyone else, because she has a hole.  And vaginas are always open and ready for sex.  Women are always open.  We’re always “consenting” because our sex organs are always open for fucking.  Men have to get hard.  But women don’t necessarily have to get wet for intercourse to happen.  Men invented lubrication for this purpose.

I’m sure my experience is a common one.  A man is attempting to fuck, or finger, a woman.  When it doesn’t go in easily, what do men do?  They keep pushing, or they tell the woman to just relax.  Or, if they have a condition such as vaginismus, the woman receives “treatment,” where she dilates her vagina using dildos until it can accommodate a penis.  Or the most recent method-botox.  If you’re born without a vagina, or with one too short for a dick, doctors can make one.  (More fucked up: In the FAQ, pretty much every question is asked about creating one with surgery, except can I orgasm with this vagina?)  Or if you’re having a kid, you can have a c-section for “vaginal preservation,” so your hole isn’t too big for him to fuck anymore.

Well lookie here, that cervix thing was pretty easy to find, wasn't it? Fyi, this is a medical model. That students use to learn how to give gyno exams. Yikes.

*I made it black and white to emphasize that they have the same fucking structure.  The only real difference is the porn tan and color detail given to the sex toy one.  Color is available here.

**Credit for the inspiration for this sentence goes to the quote in the article about modeling for medical students, from sex educator/female-empowerer: “I  provide a vagina and breasts to medical students learning to do their first pelvic and breast exams.”  She doesn’t provide feedback so doctors can know when something hurts a patient or how to make them comfortable—she just provides a vagina and breasts.

Also I hate the Vagina Monologues, seriously.  Because really, the idea that vaginas are the essence of women is so very cliché.

Battered Women vs. Women in Porn

Any feminist of merit knows what frequently happens with battered and otherwise abused women: they blame themselves, they rarely leave immediately, and they often love their abuser.  “It’s bad most of the time, yeah, but the good times are really great.”  I know.  I’ve been there too (though he only “battered” me via BDSM and rough sex).  She often stays, and we don’t blame her for that, even when she’s rationalizing it.  We don’t say she “agreed” to be hit in exchange for money if she chooses to stay out of economic necessity.  We know battered women’s syndrome and Stockholm syndrome, and a lot of us have been there.  We understand.

But when a woman is in porn, somehow the standard feminist narrative is that they chose it, and they stay because they like it.  When someone feels that women in porn or are being abused, or even just points out that they are paid to act, we are accused of “victimizing” them and accusing them of false consciousness by pro-porn ‘feminists.’  Or worse, being “unable” to handle the idea that a woman might like having sex with strangers for money.  (Because we’re prudes, basically.)   They might be treated badly, but they make good money (better than most other entry-level jobs), they get attention, adoration, and affection.* It can make you feel fuckable or lovable.  If they chose to make money by working in porn or prostitution, even when it’s violent or she has a lack of economically feasible alternatives, most of these feminists would say she consented.

Isn’t saying battered wives who say their partners are wonderful “assuming” they’re a victim and arguing that they have a false consciousness?  Isn’t that just as “patronizing,” to say that a woman is being abused when she says she isn’t?

What is the difference, then, between an abused porn actress and an abused wife?

One stays out of love or fear; the other out of a need for money, drugs or attention.  One is a “good girl”; the other a “bad girl.”  The slut is ok to hurt and punish, the virgin should be taken care of.  What am I trying to say?  Either the “sex-positives” need to blame women for staying with their abusers and defend the rationalizations they make for them, or they need to acknowledge that all kinds of abused and hurt people will deny their pain and situation.  It’s hypocritical to do otherwise.  Unless pro-sex industry feminists mean to favor “good girls” and “prudes” over whores–you know, that thing they always accuse us of.

I am sick of all this “rational choice” shit.  Unfortunately, I know that we’re heading towards blaming women from what I have seen on sites such as feministing and at the feminist club on my campus.  I am sick of empathy going out the window, and all we talk about are the pay gap or birth control.  I am tired of settling.

* What I mean here by “affection” is not actual affection, but the conflating of abuse/love that often happens with rape, especially with incest from what I understand.

“Agency” my arse…

In reading “sex-positive” arguments and even in my academic texts, I keep coming across these studies, arguments and articles discussing women’s “agency.”  One article in my sociology text was about “sex workers” who do whatever they can within the system to make it, and noted that we should not see these women solely as “victims of the system” but acknowledge their agency.

Did the article on the shitty schools of inner city kids tell us to acknowledge and celebrate what they do to survive?  Nope, it talked about how horrible the situation is and how we need to fix the institutions responsible for the mess.  The article on minimum wage laborers?  Nope, just talked about how fucked the working poor are because of the system.  But when it happens to women, people suggest we “celebrate agency” and not look solely at the situation as a whole or even focus on it.  I’m not entirely sure why this is happening−is it because they’re trying to counter the stereotype of women as helpless, or is it that our options are so limited and shaped by society it would force us to ditch completely the idea of “choice”?

Women have been surviving by whatever means necessary for eons.  That’s part of human nature: people in shitty situations will find ways to keep on truckin’.  No shit, Sherlock.  Moving on now….

This idiocy is everywhere, but it only “clicked” for me once I read a feministing thread about the new pill that will “fix” women’s libido by making them want sex again.  Predictably, feminists there are falling over themselves to defend the pharmaceutical industry calling women frigid. (Let’s ignore there’s no drug to “fix” men’s sexual desires.  Let’s also ignore that most men are terrible selfish assholes in bed, because that obviously has nothing to do with women not wanting sex.)

I’m really disapointed so many comments are negative towards this. I think this is fantastic! About time.

It makes me sad that as another commentator said – anytime someone tries to address women’s sexual issues people get all defensive and think it’s a ploy by the patriarchy. Hello women have their own agency? We’re not little children, we have minds of our own.

I feel like we’re being treated like children when I read most of these posts.

Because only children are influenced by society.  Only children make actions based on societal pressures.  The sentiment that goes unsaid, of course, is that if you give in to the social pressure, you’re weak.  Or at least, you’re childish and immature.  You have no mind of your own.  It’s not like they’re forcing you or making you take it.  You know, just like they don’t “make us” or “force us” to shave.

Newsflash: Anyone can be pressured into damn near anything.  Anyone.   Acting like women aren’t expected to conform to men’s pornified sexual desires is burying your head in the sand.  The worst thing about that commenter?  Other women had already talked about how they were treated as broken by men for not wanting sex.

But of course, agency always means making the choice to have sex.  If you make the choice not to have sex or intercourse, you’re a prude or have “issues” and “hangups” with sex.   You clearly can’t be choosing to not have sex.  How about we let women exercise their “agency” to be worried about a dangerous and greedy industry putting drugs into bodies to effect our sexuality?  Nah, we’ll just write you off as “defensive,” by which we mean paranoid and hysterical.  Not like advertising has been in the business of making up problems to fix unnecessary shit since the last century.

The discussions on agency shift the focus from women suffering male violence and control.  It’s talking about how women can react to rape, instead of talking about the rapist.  How we can succeed in patriarchal system, rather than how we can destroy it.  It makes men and the system invisible.  Not to mention it shames victims of violence and patriarchal conditioning.

Now, back to kicking misogynist ass in Persona 4.

FML

My week has been shit, yet again.  I came to the realization that my most recent ex didn’t just “forget” my boundries; he didn’t “accidently” trigger me.  It seems small, but the difference between thinking david was just a careless asshole, and him purposely crossing my boundries to make the sex into rape— because thats what he got off on— is unspeakable.

As if that weren’t enough, my lover saw glenn looking for me in Latin Club. I haven’t peep from him for two years.  Why now?  If I run into him, will he start stalking me again?  Did he just want to fuck with me a little bit while he was in town, or did he come for the sole purpose of freaking me out?    I thought he had just found someone else to rape/stalk/creep out by now, but apparently I’m still a target.  I almost went to Latin Club that day.   The only reason I didn’t was because I couldn’t get a ride.    It was so fucking close.

Latin club was the one place I had friends who didn’t side with any of my rapists, where I could actually relax and have fun.  And now, it’s gone.  Whether or not he’s actually dangerous, as in he might hurt me again, I have no idea.  But I know that just seeing him would cause me to have a meltdown.   Best case scenario, I would just become more  numb and dysfunctional for a while, worst-case scenario, I would do everything in my power to kill him and beat the living shit out of him.  Although him dying is the best result to me, if I want to get anything done politically (which is still a consideration of mine), being a “crazy bitch” would permanently kill that possibility.

Fuck I am incoherent as all hell.  I feel useless and pretty guilty for trying to just relax and avoid anything  related to rape and abuse, which obviously limits my ability to read and write radical feminist shit.  So I’m replaying Persona 4, because it takes my mind off of reality and the characters (and the pairings of them I love) give me warm fuzzy feelings.