Rape Fantasies & Why We Have Them

Much to the delight of men, women have rape fantasies.     In evo psych arguments it comes up as evidence that rape is natural and women are naturally submissive.  When it comes up in more liberal and feminist circles, it’s in defense of BDSM, pornography, or “roleplaying.”  The explanations of why women have these fantasies are male-centric, and usually just amount to some kind of justification for men’s messed up sexuality.  I haven’t seen women’s rape fantasies taken on from a radical feminist perspective, so I’m going to do that.

To start, we have to look at how rape (and sex, for that matter) is framed in our culture.   Some examples: “He couldn’t control himself”, “he couldn’t help himself”, “he was just so horny”, “she provoked him wearing that skirt/top/sweater.”  There’s always disbelievers when an attractive woman says she has been raped, but people will disbelieve an unattractive woman even more.  In the popular narrative, rape is about sex and desire, and an act of passion.  It happens when a man wants to fuck a woman and she doesn’t want to let him.

The measure of force a man is willing to take in pursing a woman is said to be a direct measure of how much he loves and desires her.  Following this worldview to its logical endpoint, rape becomes the ultimate expression of desire and attraction.

Is it any wonder, then, that so many women have rape fantasies?  Who doesn’t want to be incredibly desirable?

This is only amplified by the effect of the media, which tells us that we’re ugly and undesirable, especially when compared to that girl.  Most women feel hideous, and are expected (and do) to appreciate any attention from men, with more appreciation being required the less conventionally attractive we are.  I suspect that the less conventionally attractive a woman is, or the uglier she feels, the more likely she is to have rape fantasies.  With nearly all of us having some insecurity about our bodies and our desirability, its no wonder lots of us fantasize about being raped-which in our culture, means being desired by men.

I have to credit Twilight with me putting the pieces together.  (I know, what the hell?)  It’s always seemed there are more fans of Jacob than Edward, for whatever reason.  My lover wondered frequently why Jacob’s fans say that he “loves Bella more,” when he clearly is manipulative creep with a rapist mentality, and thought liking someone so obviously dangerous was stupid.   I got quite pissed, because he essentially was calling women “stupid” for feeling insecure and wanting to be wanted, which is completely understandable.

On a personal note, I used to have them myself, and even though I only let myself think of healthier things now, I can’t deny that sometimes they seem more appealing than my partner always asking what I’d like.  The thing is, even though I hated being touched without asking or after I said no, it still made me feel desired.  I think I would feel more desired if control were taken from me, even knowing what it means.  A part of me simply doesn’t care if I’m objectified, because I want to be wanted.

Stating the Obvious: I don’t blame women who have rape fantasies at all, even if they  seek to “roleplay” them with their partner or feed them privately with romance novels.  I do, however, blame anyone who goes along with “roleplaying” as a rapist.

By Any Other Name: Mail-Order Brides and Sex Trafficking

I’m sorry for disappearing again.  The influx of trolls wasn’t that bad-only one comment really hurt, because it said I deserved it in a certain way.   I always felt that the only thing that would pull me away again would be being hurt again, and guess what?  That happened in a way.

My period hadn’t come for 80-something days, so I went the gynecologist to try to figure out if this was normal for someone coming off of the pill and maybe check my hormone levels.  I made it clear from the start I didn’t want a pap smear, and she didn’t say I had to have one, until I was already on the exam table.  I still said I didn’t want to but she said I had to, and I guess I froze up from there.  I haven’t felt that violated in years.  It feels stupid because it’s just an exam and they all say it doesn’t/shouldn’t hurt, but it did.  I felt, and still feel, like I was raped again. 

I’m not sure how to label it or anything-that word feels too extreme, maybe.  Just feels like it shouldn’t have happened, because I thought I wasn’t as “weak” as I was before, when I didn’t fight back.  But I still froze up, and didn’t fight really. 

I avoided radical feminist stuff for months-I didn’t read a single book or article.  I didn’t even talk about radfem issues, unless it was blatantly shoved in my face.  I can’t really explain why, I guess, but I think it maybe just felt pointless in a way, since I thought I was stronger for it and, look what happened?  I still let myself get hurt.  I knew the medical establishment was shit, yet I still let it win.  It’s not really the same, but I imagine it might be how Dworkin felt after she was raped the last time.  Knowing so much about the issues makes it worse for me.

Anyways, I figured I’d share the one thing I did write during this space: my term paper for Global Feminism.  It isn’t as radical or angry as I felt about the issue, because college (and liberal feminism) discourages that sort of thinking, but the approach I think couldn’t come from anywhere but radical feminism.  I started with the idea that marriage is basically prostitution, and you can see where it goes from there.    Warning: It’s loooong.  And by the way, I got an A.

        The “mail-order bride” industry, as it is known, has grown significantly since the advent of the internet and represents many of the forces of globalization.  Estimates on the number of marriages orchestrated by mail-order bride agencies vary and many suffer from methodological problems, but generally report around a few thousand marriages a year in the United States.   Concerns have frequently been raised about the exploitation involved in mail-order marriages, resulting in media and scholarly attention to the issue.  Reading the literature, it becomes apparent that there are connections between the mail-order bride industry and human trafficking.  Some of these connections are concrete, such as the use of mail-order bride services for recruiting victims, while other connections lie in the forces behind the trades and the people involved with it.

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.

Some “Sex Workers” Aren’t Just That…

So, someone got to my blog recently by searching for “terri bradford” + prostitute.  If I see a search term where I don’t understand how the hell someone could get to my blog by googling something, I google it myself to see what’s up.  (Unless they’re looking for porn-then I’m happy and sad at the same time.)

I had no idea why that search combination would lead someone here.  So, as per my usual habit explained above, I copy and pasted what they searched and put it in google.  And oh my, I think I found a slight conflict of interest regarding at least two of the plaintiffs on this case.

I would like to warn everyone reading this that this post is super long, so much so that I’m getting lost in it myself, trying to edit and everything.  I’m not sure if that’s because of all the citations I’m making, how long this post is, or if it’s simply poor writing on my part.   Apologies if it’s the latter.

According to the article I posted, “Ms Bedford said she hoped to work as a dominatrix.” According to a few BDSM sites and the official court document, however, she already was a dominatrix, as far back as 1993.   The court documents confirm this, as well as that she’s been charged on various prostitution-related offenses (more on that later).  The articles make it sound as if she is currently a street prostitute-which is not true, and it hasn’t been true since the early eighties.  She hasn’t even been in “sex work” since 2000, and maintains that this is due to illness.  [52]

Interestingly, the BBC article (or any other I could find) makes no mention that the exact portions of the anti-prostitution laws challenged by the plaintiffs are those same ones for which she stood trial for breaking.  More than once.  There was no mention that she had been convicted of operating a “bawdy house” in 1998 had been mentioned in any of the news articles covering the ruling that I found.  [30] This is the arrest and prosecution for which she claims was the “financial and emotional toll” was “devastating.”  Interestingly, she doesn’t mentioned being similarly devastated by her several arrests for being an inmate at a bawdy house.  This is one of many things that suggest to me she doesn’t wish to merely return to working indoors as a dominatrix, but to run an brothel or an agency herself.

On the “bawdy house” Bedford operated, she contested that the acts performed were not sexual, despite the testimony of “Princess” in that trial which suggested that they were.  In the case of where acts were sexual, her defense argued that the men were “guests,” not clients, and thus did not constitute prostitution.

When it was suggested that the activities were limited to personal guests (rather than clients) Princess was clear: They were clients.  It was a business.  Whatever they wanted , if they wanted something like that, it was done.

I found it interesting that one who claims to stand for “sex workers” went against the testimony of her own “employee” to try and save her skin in court-but that’s a bit irrelevant to the present.  Princess’ testimony, as well as the presence of a “training video,” provide evidence  that she trained the dominatrices there on how to perform in this bawdy-house.  Which obviously to me that she was more than simply a protector of “sex workers,” and was the person who ran the joint.  Most importantly, she never did contest that the “bawdy house” existed for profit and under her ownership:

It is obvious from the testimony of Princess, which the trial judge accepted, that the pain and humiliation resulted, and was intended to result, in sexual arousal culminating in orgasm.  That the operation was commercial and the keeper of the house was the appellant was uncontested.

Speaking of commercial operations-reporters have also failed to mention she ran an escort agency in the mid-80s, and had even served time in jail for doing so.  Although, it is important to note that in this case she only served the time upon returning to face the charges-she had fled and avoided prosecution for two years.  [28]

There’s something else I find especially odd, considering she claims to want to protect “sex workers” and people who make a living off of the industry.  If as she contests, the “work environment [at her agency] provided the escorts with a sense of security, dignity, and self-respect”, then she would likely know of other women in the industry who support her effort and be close to those she met.  Yet, none of her former “employees” who worked as escorts, or in the bawdy-house she ran, appear to give any testimony for her case or even as evidence that the house she ran was safe.

Ms Scott also wishes to “reenter the sex industry,” as the court phrases it.  However, her wishes are:

If this challenge is successful, Ms. Scott would like to operate an indoor prostitution business. While she recognizes that clients may be dangerous in both outdoor and indoor locations, she would institute safety precautions such as checking identification of clients, making sure other people are close by during appointments to intervene if needed, and hiring a bodyguard.

Oh goodie, how kind of you to implement some precautions!  Does anyone ask why the hell so many precautions are required in order to reduce the vulnerability of prostitutes to violence?  Maybe that kinda shows that the men who do the buying are violent?  Or that the trade itself is violent, if these precautions are that necessary to people ont being murdered?  You don’t see mailpersons or hot dog vendors having to hire bouncers to protect them on the streets, do ya?

Both Bedford and Scott claim to have quit “sex work” due to illness, and express an interest in returning to the trade only if it is allowed indoors and the provisions against pimping removed.  Because it seems that both of them have a chronic illness (from 2000 for Bedford, the 1990s for Scott)-an illness that’s lasted this long likely will not recover.  Because of this, Bedford’s history of pimping, and the stated intentions of the women, I feel that they aren’t likely to return to the prostitute-level of the sex industry.   Instead, they are most likely to establish (or return to owning, in Bedford’s case) a brothel or escort agency.

To me, it seems as if the plaintiffs involved in this case used their pasts as street workers to gain credibility on the issue, simply because they wish to make money.  I believe I’ve heard of similar things happening in other countries, where prostitutes will sort of “rise in the ranks” and become madams themselves.  Although the press does not report this, let’s call it like it is: two of the three plaintiffs in the case are not currently prostitutes. They want to be pimps.

C’mon, journalism.  There’s more in depth coverage in an article from a 19 year old girl who’s never read a real newspaper or taken a journalism class in her life.  That’s just pathetic.  Hopefully this article doesn’t totally suck, despite my inexperience with this sort of thing-I’ve been working on it on and off since yesterday afternoon, and I’m fucking exhausted.   Phew.

——

A little aside for those interested in what other prostitutes were heard by the court:

The applicants submitted affidavits from eight witnesses who described their perceptions and experiences of working as prostitutes….to provide “corroborative voices” to demonstrate that the applicants’ experiences are shared with many other women…..The affiants recounted that they entered into prostitution without coercion (although financial constraints were a large factor) and most reported being addiction-free and working without a pimp.[7]

The respondent tendered nine affidavits from prostitutes and former prostitutes, whose stories painted a much different picture. The respondent’s witnesses gave detailed accounts of horrific violence in indoor locations and on the street, controlling and abusive pimps, and the rampant use of drugs and alcohol.

What a convenient sample for the sex industry, eh?

Court case: From the Canadian Legal Information Institute

Some details on Bedford’s bawdy-house: Same place

Sex-Positive Bingo

Until I finish the posts I’m working on, I figure I might as well share a “bingo card” I made quite a while ago modeled after similar cards for racism, sexism, rape-apologism, et cetera.   (Don’t look forward to new posts-the one I finish will most likely be the one on fanfiction, pffft.)

It would be more aptly called “sex-industry apologism bingo,” but that’s too fucking long of a title so I just went with “sex-positive,” although the term is problematic.  Suggestions on what to change or anything else are welcome, of course.  Click for full size!  Sorry the preview is so blurry.

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.

Trans women and Male Privilege

Foreword: So, I’ve been reading the back-and-forth debates between some radfems and some trans women.  It’s gotten pretty nasty at times.  (The rape threat(s) directed at AROOO comes to mind.)  I’m afraid to weigh in on this, partially because of my personal experience with a trans man, but I’m going to try and get out some of the thoughts I’ve had anyway.  Much of this is really just restates what FCM and Miska have said, far earlier, more often and clearly than I.  All credit should go to them.  But I feel like I should still say something, because its not like this viewpoint is common, so it needs to be restated.   Several times.   From several different people in several different ways.  Because there are so, so many holes in the arguments I’ve heard from trans activists.  Maybe if they were just wrong or stupid I wouldn’t take as much issue with them, I would probably just lol, but they also erase the very foundations of feminism, women’s studies, and even sociology. 

Men have been raised to hate women.  To punish us, to batter us, to rape us, to objectify us, to give us their so-called “love” for our bodies.  Undoubtedly, this has an effect on every.  single.  man.  There is no exception.  If you were bullied as a man-for being nerdy, gay, smart, ugly, fat, “effeminate”–that does not stop people from treating you as a man.   None of these things stop you from receiving male privilege.  This is feminism and sociology 101 here.

When a biological male transitions to a woman (MTF), their pay will drop.  This is a known fact for feminists and trans* alike.  Yet, some people still deny they had male privilege all along?  When up until they begin transition, they still receive the benefit of higher pay?  Why would this not apply to every other privilege men receive?  Simple: It does, and gender is indoctrinated from birth, so no matter what you identify as, there will still be bits of that indoctrination left.

It starts young.  *Useful anecdote time* My lover was playing a video game that had a fat female character on screen, and his little brother came into the room to bug him.  (That’s what he does.  I feel bad sayin’ this about the kid, but he’s an asshole.)

Brother: “That’s a guy, right?”
Lover: “A girl.”
Brother: “But girls are supposed to be pretty, she’s FAT.”
Lover: “GTFO.”

His brother is only 8-years-old.  Yet, already he hates women.  Male privilege has already influenced him and made him feel like GIRLS should be pretty-even though he’s fat himself, even though he got beat up by a girl.  (Haha!)  He insists on his male “rights” because of how he has been socialized into his gender, which is assigned based on his genitals at birth.

Yet, we’re supposed to believe that a lifetime-probably at least 20 years-of male conditioning had no effect on trans women?  That’s fucking crazy.  Being afraid of people, who have been trained and conditioned for any portion of their lives to hate and hurt us is more than just sane, it’s completely reasonable.  Not wanting to sleep with someone who is a former member of the class raised and cultivated to hate you is not crazy either.  These reactions to trans women are far from hysterical, as they are treated by most.

Refusing to acknowledge your FORMER privilege is just as bigoted as not acknowledging that which you have.  I acknowledge that your male privilege is lost after transition and passing, but that doesn’t mean all traits and remnants a male personality will be erased.  It also does not mean that you didn’t benefit from being born male.  In fact, there are several things that trans women will not experience that significantly burden women (such as pregnancy, having to risk stroke to avoid pregnancy because nigel is too fucking stupid to wear a condom, obstetric fistula, etc).  But it does mean that while people saw you as a man, you earned more money for the same work, got more prestige, and had a much smaller risk of being raped than a woman would have at that age.

I think that trans women should be a little more understanding of women’s fear of people who were raised to be members of the gender class that has been raping and killing us for thousands of years. If someone was raised as a man but was biologically intersex or female, I would take the same stance that I do with trans women.

This is not essentialist.  Saying it is means you don’t understand the argument at all.  The fact is that your born sex determines what gender you’re assigned.  I don’t believe in binary sexes, and I don’t believe in gender, but that doesn’t mean I can ignore that being born female means you’re raised as a woman.  That’s how the system works.   I will always act, think, and talk in womanly ways due to conditioning, no matter how much I try to overcome it.   It’s not radical feminist’s fault that biological males are raised and treated as men, no matter how much they feel like they’re in the wrong body.  But that’s what happens.  And that, personally, is why I do not equate trans women with nontrans* women, especially when it comes to separatist spaces.  Maybe it’s not fair, but that’s how the social constructions that fuck up our lives are assigned.  It’s all about socialization.

*I’m not using “cis” because from what I’ve read, the term comes from “cisgender,” and I think gender is a social construction; so, since trans seems mostly about discomfort with the body, I use the term “transsexual,” since sex it specifically refers to the body.  Not to mention the people I’ve seen who say cis women are privileged say we aren’t raped for being biologically female.

Ignore the man behind the curtain (NSFW Image for point)

from some post on how burlesque can save the world (and stop rape and misogyny too I assume)

The sex-positive rallying cry, at its most basic, is that our culture is profoundly sex-negative.  The evidence?  Abstinence education, the slut shaming of women, and overly religious values.  If you look at only these things, it becomes easy to prove and condemn the “sex negative” attitude of our culture, and outline the harms it does: increased amounts of unwanted pregnancy, the spread of STDs, the crushing of young women’s reputation and self-esteem.  But you know what else causes those things?  Rape and sexual harassment.  Mandatory intercourse.  Unsafe intercourse.  Pornography and the sexualization of young girls.  The fashion and beauty industeries.  Yet somehow, these are all ignored so that “sex-positives” can cry about abstinence education, despite the fact that STDs cannot be directly caused by ignorance–they are caused by intercourse and especially intercourse without a condom (which is demanded of most females).  The idea that education will solve this problems is laughable, just as the idea that education will stop men from raping is.  Men want to rape and men like dangerous fucks.

While related, that was a tangent on a single problem with the “sex-positive” approach.  Lets look at the evidence in our culture and see how “sex negative” most things are.  The simple act of looking at a magazine rack, however, will prove the situation is more complex than it seems.  Maxim.  Playboy.  Cosmo.  Celebrity magazines.  What do all of these focus on?  Looking at and talking about women men would like to fuck, becoming the women men want to fuck, how to fuck (for women), how to get a woman to fuck (for men), who’s fucking who, what to wear when you fuck, when to fuck, how often to fuck to not be a prude but not be a slut (for women), and so on and so forth.  You could not honestly tell me that sexuality is taboo in America.  It would be just as ridiculous as saying rape is taboo, that racist jokes are taboo, or that drinking is taboo.  Whenever someone says that our culture is anti-sex, I laugh.  In their face.

Is it publically condemned?  Of course it is, but again, only in certain ways.  I remember D.A.R.E. and the other stupid shit attempting to keep us out of drugs.   Yet, somehow, people do drugs anyway.  Tobacco and alcohol, along with illegal drugs, are widely consumed and glamorized.   To think that official programs advocating abstinence makes our culture sex-negative is just as ridiculous as saying the US is anti-alcohol and anti-drug.   As always, it’s only anti-badthings in the case that the nonwhite, nonrich, nonmen use them for their own benefit and pleasure.  Its ok for a woman to have sex, so long as its for a man and under his conditions, whether those are marriage, kinks, or anal.  Just as with drugs, sex is a billion dollar industry with a lobby.  The only difference is that the advertising for the sex industry (porn) is also one of its products, making it self-perpetuating.

Maintaining the belief that America is sex-negative, however, is vital for “sex-positives” to have a point.  It obscures the real power and the real system, under which hetero sex is mandatory, enjoyable or not; women’s submission is mandatory, willing or not.   The politicians who condemn prostitution use and abuse escorts; the anti-gay crusaders have sex with men; the Church which condemns lust while molesting children and protecting their rapists.  Does that sound “anti-sex” or “prudish” to you?  To believe the words that come out of men’s mouths-that they are against “sexual liberation” as its taken place- is ridiculously fucking stupid.  Our culture is not anti-sex: it’s pro-fucking, pro-rape, and pro-misogyny.  “Feminist” porn is still status quo, lesbian porn is male-centered, and lesbian BDSM is even more so.   Our culture is only “prudish” about sex outside of how males conceive it. That is, without domination and submission, without hate, without intercourse or penetration, with emotion and mutual desire.

Get this shit outta my system

Lately, I’ve been depressed.  Not the sort I’m used to, that comes after recovering new memories or thinking about men and quickly turns into a healthy rage.  It’s not even like I had before, where I felt too hideous to go outside or forced myself into dieting/starving.  But a total “blah” feeling.   I can’t think of anything coinciding with the beginning of this mood change except me going off the pill.

Here’s a timeline of the past few weeks:

Week 1 off the pill (or when I would be on the placebos): Happier than I had been for quite a while.   With my withdrawal bleeding/artificial period came a swollen left nipple and a bump under it.  Lactated some from that boob for the first time ever.

Week 2: Nipple problem went away right after my period ended.  Discharge and my wetness/ejaculate is definitely different in texture, consistency and taste.  Mood goes up and down.  Told my nigel if this continues I might just go back on the pill, because I’m so sick of it.

Week 3: Total down.  Maybe felt happy once this week.  Haven’t wanted to play games, read blogs, or do anything.  I try and have sex in an attempt to feel normal or good.  Nigel notices I’m pushing myself into sex in the hopes I’ll enjoy it, return to normal or feel something.  (I did that a lot when we first started dating because I assumed that was all he wanted and I wanted him to stick around.)  Now he refuses to do anything with me for at least a few weeks, no matter what I say I want.  Which I think is honestly the best thing to do, but I hate that I’m so desperate to feel anything I’ll push myself into things.

Week 4 (now): Don’t want to see nigel, my parents, or anybody  (not even my pets).  Not reading any books or blogs, playing any games, enjoying music, or drawing much (even tho I just got my wacom tablet, ffs).  Can’t remember the last time I laughed, or what I last talked to nigel about.  Sleeping when not at work.  Seem to be getting worse.

I’m pissed off (well, “mildy irritated” is more accurate considering my mood problem now) about no one requiring drug companies to do studies on and explain/warn about the side effects of going OFF a certain medication.  Did anyone ever tell me that missing my cymbalta by a few  hours would render me nonfunctional for the rest of the day?  When I say “nonfunctional,” I dun mean emotionally like I am now-I mean I could not walk in a straight line.  Needless to say I wouldn’t be surprised if this WAS all the result of coming off the pill and no one talked about it.  (Semi-related: I would not be having these problems at all if I weren’t born female, because there would be no need/pressure for me to be on hormonal birth control.)

I’m fighting with myself now.   A very large part of me wants to try taking the pill every other day and seeing if my depression goes away or lightens, so that I can know its the pill.  But another part of me is scared shitless that’ll make my moods fuck up worse, not to mention I want to keep that shit out of my system permanently.

I really have no idea what to do.  I’m already on antidepressants for my PTSD-as much as you can take of the type I’m on (120mg a day of Cymbalta). I’m thiking about going to my shrink to try and change to different ones, but it’s quite likely changing antidepressants (and defs going off cymbalta) will fuck me up more.  I just want to be myself again.  Sorry for this pathetic excuse for a post, but not wanting to do anything means I don’t even want to write.

TL;DR: The pill is dangerous and I want to be off of it, but going off it seems to be making my life a living hell.  (Or something else is, but I have no idea what else it could be.) What the fuck should I do?  Will I just have to wait this out?

“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.