Tag Archives: sex

The Sexiest Oppression

9 Dec

Excellent work by Natasha Chart, via Feminist Current


“To see a commercially produced picture of an obviously terrified and restrained woman with a knife held up to her face, presented as an object of sexual entertainment, is to infer the existence of an audience that is pleasurably aroused by this scenario. I hope that I know no such men, that I never meet them, that no one I care about crosses the path of such a person. Because how would you know? There is no “type” of man who rapes and abuses — such men are everywhere, they look like everyone else. No woman has any reason to give a man who enjoys a picture of a woman being abused the benefit of the doubt that he would not like to experience that in person, that he would not like to cause that fear himself.

This is part of how a woman’s fear becomes something other than evidence of intimidation, as it should be, how instead our fear becomes evidence to men of sex, romance, even love. A man can fear for his life and kill a stranger in self-defense after a single encounter. A woman fears for her life because of a long history of threats or violence, and if she stays, or complies, or even retaliates, her actions will be viewed through a lens that sees fear as a normal part of a supposedly consenting sexual relationship for women. Any injury the man commits will often be seen as her shared responsibility, part of their relationship.

Too many men see the torture and abuse of women and think it’s an especially sexy kind of fun. Too many women, anxious to avoid being called “sex-negative,” want to be game and go along with it. The existence of some women who like their part in pornography or religiously compelled submission are held up in male-dominated politics as the only women’s voices that matter; no one is supposed to care about women who experienced these cultures as a long series of abuses that they couldn’t find their way out of at the time, or the other women who have to deal with the consequences of how men behave after such indoctrination.”

Oh, Mommy

16 Feb

So why are you transwomen so obsessed with lesbians? I keep reading all this “You’re such bigots because you don’t want me to insert my ladystick in you.” Geez people, can’t you just date each other? What with your all being so much better women than lesbians? So much more svelte and better put together and stuff?

I think a lot of you have a serious lure-of-the-receding-object problem. All women must desire your ladystick, or else we’re all bigots.

So where does that come from? Wanting to do Mommy, perhaps? But Mommy is off limits, because of the whole incest taboo thing.


Hmmm. Maybe there are some other off-limits women to be fixated upon. Ones who aren’t protected by the incest taboo.

Enter (unwittingly) lesbians. An overall pleasant cohort of women born women who mostly just want to be left alone to date and even sometimes fall in love with each other, and who often work to promote women’s rights and women’s organizing. Women who have no sexual interest in male bodies. Women who are oh so frequently intelligent and thoughtful and considerate and supportive, especially to each other.

The perfect target. A whole bunch of mommies to go after! Mommies who do not care about boys (you) more than they do about each other!

Mommies To Be Invaded!

Successful Invasion Of Mommies Solves Everything!

Well, except climate disruption, racism, pedophilia, rape, environmental disasters, assorted poisonings, sexual trafficking of women and children, pollution, vicious behaviours of assorted stripes, nonhuman abuse, fresh water shortages, famine…

No worries. Once the Mommies submit, they’ll fix all this. That’s what Mommies are for. 

Are Men Redeemable?

24 Oct

I was thinking tonight about how the fundamental split in feminist thinking is not about porn and prostitution, or gender identity, but about whether men are inherently violent. 

If a woman is, to this extent, a gender essentialist, she is left with two rough choices: accept the existing male-dominated structure, or devote herself to trying to extricate herself from involvement with men as much as possible. Work within the system quietly, or absent yourself as much as possible. (The third choice of exercising a hostile takeover is perhaps another example of a philosophical split, but outside the scope of this discussion).

If she is a social constructionist, her aims will be different: to work both within the system of patriarchy to support women, and to openly criticize it and try to change it, also from within. This position assumes men as a class are both capable of and willing to accept stepping down from their socioeconomic position of power over women, an assumption clearly unproven.

This question of whether the male class can substantially change their behavior towards women does play out widely in the context of the porn/prostitution debate, though; as does another question: how does what we do change who we are? How much can we detach ourselves from our actions? Violent porn and violent bought sex are quite popular, and by many accounts becoming more so. When does the game become real, and is it ever really just a game?

The existence of men who are to all appearances gentle and actually like women beyond wanting to fuck us, does argue that there is hope. I’m not so paranoid as to insist they are all fakes. I’m even acquainted with a few. I think.

But the thing so many do where they suddenly go nuts without much warning and physically attack people, is still deeply worrisome. Also, does it really make sense to be so complacent about a huge cohort of individuals, many of whom consider themselves entitled to stick things inside another huge cohort of individuals, at will? That doesn’t seem right. That seems kind of violent, actually.

So is “sex-positive feminism” social constructionist or gender essentialist? Is it about progress through normalization, or merely giving in to biological fate? If men are allowed to sexually use us at will, will they be nicer to us? Will they stop hitting us so much?

Or will shit just get worse? Like it used to be, say a few hundred years ago?

I find myself wanting to be a social constructionist but feeling more gender essentialist, if only out of pragmatism. But that gets me back to how what one does affects who one is. Gender essentialism feels like giving up, but so does turning violent porn and prostitution into a growth industry, which is what happens under capitalism, especially when one legalizes things. 

And I am again thrown back to the original question. If we give men more violence, will they become less violent? This hardly seems likely. If we restrict their access to violence, will they become more or less violent? Answer not clear. But we can’t answer it for men, their actions constitute their own answers to this question. And all the mansplaining in the world won’t change that.

%d bloggers like this: