Time to pack up your penii fellas. The patriarchy is over. We just can't fight with graphs of that magnitude.

Yes the entire sex thing was a scam perpetrated by the patriarchy for time immemorial. In fact without it women can reproduce on their own via parthenogenesis (only daughters of course). It's simple, we just put stuff in the water to prevent it so you would want to keep us around.

Well it was a good run . . .

in that larger more masculine and aggressive letters are given supremacy over smaller more nurturing and thoughtful letters. Why is it the larger letters job to start the sentence and the smaller harem of letters to follow obediently after?

The entire english grammar structure is deliberately designed to oppress women.

Beyond the dominance by physical size described earlier many quotation marks serve only to separate main (or "man&quot ideas from sub (or submissive female) ideas. What is a comma but a stylized whip? What is a semicolon but a whip and a black eye? And a colon is merely two raised fists reminiscent of domestic violence that faces only women, never men.

Parenthesis, quotation marks, brackets and so on are metaphorical jails to remind certain ideas (aka "women&quot to keep their place or else. If an idea escapes one of these jails what does your teacher (usually a woman but serving the patriarchy) tell you to do? Go back and move your punctuation so everything is neatly contained in the submissive roles allotted to inferior ideas that can't stand alone.

And the question mark is clearly the outline of a woman's curves. Why does it represent women? Because it's supposed to show that a woman's judgement is questionable as are her motives. Always question and doubt women, that's what the patriarchy is telling us through the humble ? .

Oh and having a period end a sentence? That is a clear representation that a woman's value is defined by her youth: with the last period (menopause) the book is over. It no longer has anything useful to contribute. Ergo a woman's contribution is dependent on her period. Once it's gone she may as well be closed and put on a shelf, forgotten and useless.

Did you not even take intro to womyn's studies in college?

/yes I know I'm using patriarchal grammar and capitalization. Even realizing it I can't break away from this conspiracy. That is proof of how strong the patriarchy is!

Too much win in this post!!!

In order to break the incredible grasp the patriarchy has on your soul, you must immediately head to your nearest college bookstore and buy the complete works of Dworkin, MacKinnon, Reisman et al. Then, download the entire Ani DiFranco catalog to listen to while reading those ever so important, (dare we say brilliant?) canons of radfem "thought."

The porn has me!

Gah the ero-toxins are destroying my mind!

Lemuria hates caps, too. Woo!


Excellent post, BTW

I can't believe that this is not an Onion kind of thing!
'Risky', 'dangerous' and 'terrifying' - what the hell? This has to be a very fringe kind of thing. I don't know any women in real life that feel this way.

So what particular line of logic leads you to think that those who like PIV sex are just having lots of it because what-the-fuck-I-did-it-once-and-I-hate-it-so-I-might-as-well-do-it-shit-tons? Maybe they just like it? Why isn't that a possibility?

Whereas these other people theyve never met KNOW they dont like it.

it's painful, it's traumatic, it's debilitating.

So after doing it once you're like "sure, why not yank all my teeth out?"

That literally happens all the time. And this explains how women are convinced they're enjoying sex when really if they'd bothered to research it (by asking a few individuals who don't like sex) they'd realize it's horrible.

I don't think any fundamentalist ever had such a skewed and sick view of human intercourse as these ladies. Even the most bible-thumping puritan out there will still allow for consensual sex within a marriage (between a man and a woman only but still). They don't condemn all sex ever.

/if any man bothered to speak up for even a small percentage of women and explain how they think these folks would be all over him. And yet they feel confident speaking for all women. Weird how that works.

They need us alive, until they take reproductive technology to the point where they don’t. In Japan men already use dolls and shit instead of real women for sex.

This is commonly referred to as "projection".

ah, which makes it completely obvious what “sex” really is to men and to the p, which is “men sticking their dicks into objects.” Inflatable rafts, bicycles, cars, knotholes, whevs. When this is done to women, women are the objects. This cannot be remedied, and the language men use to describe all of these things, (sex) gives the entire game away.

Yes but you're only allowed to have sex with your own inflatable raft. The patriarchy is quite clear on this: put your dick in to any object you wish but make sure you own it first.

Yesterday I had to take a family member for a test at a hospital radiology clinic. Every where it seems, there were warning signs for pregnant women and women who “might” be pregnant. Was so glad none of this applied to me, or was anything I even had to worry about. But I did wonder how many women did feel fear when they saw such signs.

I guess we should take those signs down so some women don't feel afraid?

all my PIV posts are about cost-benefit analyses, really, and how PIV is never worth the risk, for women. and how mens active desire to harm women, and the ways men actively and passively benefit from harming women fits into all of this for men, and is part of the cost-benefit analysis for men. we all do these analyses all the time, but its never talked about, and mens reality, and what women stand to lose if they dont cater to it, carries the day always.

It's true. Every time I've down my Cost/Benefit of having sex with me powerpoint in the bedroom my wife was severely turned off. (I had graphs and a laser pointer and everything)

Remember that bedroom scene from “What women want” where Marissa Tomei is thinking about how utterly boring it is?

If there is no genuine exchange of real love between the people, and there isn’t between man/woman couples, that eliminates the whole point of the act for me.

Wait, it's men who are supposed to get unrealistic thoughts about sex from videos (porn) not women.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=11879

So PIV can be described as rape with the natural conclusion that most men are rapists, but this is OK because there are some women out there who don't really want PIV, but do it anyway because their husbands piss and moan about it. Wow!

Then the allegation is that I just don't understand feminism, even though every single rad-fem site I have ever seen describes PIV in just this way. And apparently it's unfair to paint rad-fems with the Dworkin brush, even though the vast majority of them subscribe to her batshit crazy ideas while some right here on DU treat the acronym MRA as a perjorative because a handful of MRA sites were listed by the SPLC as hate groups. Evidently calling the vast majority of men rapists doesn't qualify as hate. Go figure.

I think it's fair to label them radfems (even though they hate that term).

Regular human intercourse being traumatic, deadly, and oppressive to women (not to mention entirely without pleasure) is not a mainstream feminist notion.

Therefore those feminists that hold such notions are radical. I think that's fair.

/jurors be sure to check out what I'm talking about specifically before voting, I'm not making a general slur against all feminists.

...when many (if not most) radical feminists describe themselves using the same term. It's nothing more than shorthand.

Anyone who alerts on it or votes to hide it is simply ignorant of the usage. Even some of the usual suspects here have admitted there's nothing wrong with it.

frivolous alerts lately.

It seems I irritated someone.

All have failed of course since they're ludicrous. But people have learned to game the system, so who knows.

"Radfem" is the term the linked website used to identify their self. Can't really see how it can be considered a pejorative...unless of course only wymen can use that term.


Macoy

non-sexist term that correctly identifies them as fucking idiots? Or non-fucking idiots as the case may be.

Or, is it impossible for a woman to be an asshole?

everyone who fits that description would be an asshole, but not all assholes fit this description.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125511831

This thread is another good demonstration of why the HoF group should be disbanded. Their group does not fit with DU.

But I do think the host in question should be removed. They now have 20 members who have been banned from that group, which is several times more than any other group. Furthermore they are allowing those that haven't been banned (yet should be) to defame other DUers from behind this iron curtain they have created. That's just not cool.

When you take a position that an adult is a bad person for wanting consensual sex with another adult, you are a wingnut.

I think that people like you and Warren D are doing a good job of exposing misandry disguised as feminism.

I don't agree with disbanding it either, because I think they catalyze a useful and necessary discussion. To explain a correct viewpoint sometimes requires a wrong viewpoint as an example.

a place they can let their hateful ideas out of their system.
perhaps for some of these women they are [censored] online so that they are NOT [censored] at home or in real life?

one can hope.
driving that kind of hate underground and out of the light can only make it mutate and grow worse.
as someone mentioned in another thread I think, the women's movement has been so suppressed over the last centuries, that now that it's ACTUALLY accomplished most of it's goals (general equality under the law) those that were fighting the repression have... kind of gone mad.

I they (the truly hate-filled ones) have spent so much time pushing against real or perceived repression... that now that there is no real boogie man to push back against (and I give acceptance that the gop are a real threat. this isn't about directed attacks at the gop)... they need to create one. That place to direct their hate is their binky as it were. they NEED to hate, venomously someone. they NEED to focus all their misery and failures at that thing.

Thankfully the truly venomous ones are extremely few, and I believe most are simply letting off steam. Anonymity has it's advantages as we all know.

long-short HoF should not be removed. Perhaps the head site-mods should look at it more closely and consider more stringent moderation. but it should not be removed.

waiting to be quoted out of context in 3...2...

might be a good idea.

One or two, ok they were probably just causing trouble.

20+? Yeah, that's a clear attempt to generate an echo-chamber and silence dissent.

If the HoF were open and actually had to defend their views the whole system would collapse under the weight of reason and mockery.

Last edited Wed Oct 17, 2012, 01:04 AM - Edit history (1)

"Some vocal men" (not talking about anyone in a particular, major fashion, she said, as she took the lens cap off her nikon, cough cough)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=11944

Well, wait a minute. People 'get furious at discussion of rape' (they do?) ... I haven't seen anyone get furious at discussion of rape. What I have seen, in this group at least, was unanimous condemnation of D. Tosh's rape "joke", and a universal agreement that rape is horrible and horrific and one rape is one too many.

But apparently, those men (wink wink nudge nudge) get furious at discussion of rape because- get this- "awareness of rape and speaking out against it might mean they can't put their penises in vaginas as often."

Yes, that's a direct quote.

It might? No, seriously. I want to know how that works. I mean, either someone is calling these "vocal men" rapists, point blank (although even in that extreme case, the precise mechanism of how discussion of rape might be preventing those from raping and as such causing the furiousity, is still unclear) or... hmmm, is someone arguing (again) that rape isn't just rape, that sex[font size=1]*1[/font] actually IS rape, or is sort-of-rape, or sort-of-like-rape, or carries a sort of rapeyness about it...

despite the multitudinous times we've heard protestations that "ANDREA NEVER SAID THAT (she did) and CATHERINE NEVER IMPLIED THAT (she did) and SHEILA DIDNT SAY IT EITHER (yeah, repeatedly, and she still does) and even if we link to Twisty who OKAY SHE DOES SAY THAT... NO ONE HERE BELIEVES IT!!!!!!!!!"

So how is it, then, that "discussion of rape" is preventing penises from entering vaginas or causing some sort of panic about the same not happening? If an argument over whether or not rape numbers are going down (they are) is affecting anyone's sex life, I haven't noticed. I did a nonscientific survey and noted that the frequency of said entry, personally, is slightly better than it was a couple years ago, due to logistical considerations being a bit easier, and certainly a bit better than the statistical average as I understand it to be for couples married the same length of time and age demographic as myself.

So if the 'rape discussions' on DU have had any impact on the frequency of



it's not here.

And why should they?

(Okay, full disclosure: When I am personally posting on DU, my Zinglarp is nowhere near Hoozhah-ville, at least at the exact moment of the composition of the post. There is a limit to how much even I can multi-task. So technically, yes, there may be an impact.)

The only people who would consider rape discussions having anything to do with consensual (i.e. non-rape) sex, are people who don't know, or deliberately want to muddy, the difference.

But apparently, these discussions cause problems[font size=1]*2[/font] because some of Teh Bad Menzz believe "women exist in a perpetual state of yes" and not because they feel obligated from a basic objective fact-based perspective, to to point out that rape numbers have declined in the past 15 years-- directly contradicting certain dire hyperbolic narratives about the state of the pornified objectified hypersexualized[font size=1]*3[/font] culture.

Well, shit. I don't like to toot my own horn too much, but I did alright in High School, and College. Of course, it was the era of free love, man... namely, the 80s. But still, you know. I never labored under the delusion that women exist in a "perpetual state of yes". I briefly dated a woman back in the day who I suppose might be considered, um.. well, let's just say she wanted to have sex ALL the time. I've had some enthusiastic partners, but never anything like this. To the point where after a couple days I'd be, like, hey I really gotta sit down and watch some tv or something, just chill. Please?



So I guess even *I* don't exist in a perpetual state of yes. I met someone who apparently did, but she was the one doing all the propositioning.

No, obviously, women don't exist in a perpetual state of yes. When men look at porn, do they want to see women who look sexually aroused and who want to have sex (i.e. in a state of "yes&quot Yes, I'd imagine most do. Same way when people go to see a rock and roll band, they like to watch people doing shit like playing guitars and drum kits, as opposed to, say, balancing their checkbooks and knitting hats up on stage. Go figure.

Let's cut to the chase- the whole "PIV critical" thing is more gibberish-laden ranting by people who like to dress up their peculiar authoritarian needs, like the entitled need to tell billions of other humans, (like lesbians who use dildos) how NOT to have sex, how they're doing it wrong, etc. in erudite-sounding word salad polemics. I fully support the right of anyone who doesn't want to have sex, not to have sex. It saddens me that some people, in their isolated corners of the blogosphere, have apparently had such shitty sex experiences that they have decided that no one must really be enjoying it or having a good time.

Sad.

[font size=1]*1"Under P!"
*2 Translation: People refuse to agree to the One True Truth™
*3 remember, sex isn't the same thing as rape. Really. But all the sex, sex, sex must have something to DO with rape. It must![/font]

implies that one believes all women must be forced in to porn against their will (hence the claims that men believe it is their right to use any woman for any purpose).

This makes sense just like it makes sense to say that if I feel I have a right to use my car to drive down to the local fast foodery and use my money to purchase a cheeseburger from someone who has chosen to work in that field and be compensated for it according to the laws of the land that means that my right to do all that implies a right to force anyone I choose in to that role as cheeseburger producing slave.

Besides prostitutes... what about the men who think that marriage means they have an absolute, unarguable right to satisfy their need for sex with their wife at any time?

That doesn't sound like any marriage I've ever heard of. I usually would think sex is assumed to be part of a healthy marriage. Is she decides she doesn't want it ok, but that should be grounds for a divorce (she has a right not to have sex, she doesn't have a right to force that choice on someone else). Likewise no wife has the right to simply talk to their husbands and actually get a response. However if the husband takes that route he probably won't have a happy marriage.

I get that people are naturally going to fall on a bell curve when it comes to most traits, interest in sex being no exception. So while there are people who have to have sex all the time that implies there are people who have no interest in it.

I get that.

But I don't get the contempt for those who view sex (yes even the dreaded PIV sex, and not just for making babies) as an important part of their lives. Yes you could live without it. You could live without music, art, nice food, all forms of entertainment really. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a major loss for you. So perhaps just let people have sex and stop trying to shame them for enjoying what you don't enjoy. Just a thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatist_feminism

Seperatist feminism is the kind of feminism espoused by those attending that rad-fem conference in London that was summarily cancelled by the venue due to the bigoted nature of the views of the attendees towards the LGBT community, specifically those who had undergone reassignment surgery from men to women.

that this is a mainstream view and if I don't realize that this is a mainstream view it's because I don't get out much and only listen to people who agree with me.

I was told this by a certain member of the HoF.

Yes, she seemed sincere and unaware of the irony.

make them stop or how do we force them to stop.

When you are talking about how bad it is that a husband wants "PIV" sex from his wife, you are beyond rape. Sure, we all know that a husband can rape a wife. Anyone can rape anyone, no designation or relationship status takes that away, but that isnt what they are saying. They are saying how bad it is for a heterosexual man in a marital relationship with a heterosexual woman to want to have vaginal sex with that woman. He just shouldnt want to have it and it is bad if he does.

Somehow, in that group, that is where a discussion on rape went. These folks really do not belong on DU.

about tying the utility of PIV sex to making babies, and beyond that there is no need for it.

Besides following different prophets where do these folks differ, with regards to sex, from some old school fundy?

If anything the fundy will at least allow for sex between a man and a woman joined in marriage. These ladies seem offended even by that notion.

This is hilarious on a number of different levels besides the obvious logical disconnects. Obviously there is quite a bit of hostility on this issue, and not where that poster wants to believe it is. If you have a strong stomach you can simply peruse the threads over at HoF for a proof of this. Out of the first 20 most recent threads, at least 10 of them involve rape and while I'm not going to dive into each one of them to see, I've seen enough of them to know that each one is dripping with hostility, and quite a bit of that (if not most) is directed towards men who aren't rapists. While occassionally you see the qualifier that this hostility isn't directed towards ALL men, it's hard to believe it isn't directed towards most of them when you see the obvious conflations between consensual and non-consensual sexual activity. The sad part is that if you don't agree with their warped ideas about "rape culture", then you are automatically a "rape apologist" at best, or you are effectively a rapist yourself for participating in PIV at worst. As my posts demonstrate, not agreeing with them includes something as simple as rejecting the batshit crazy Judith Reisman's notion that down is up. Of course they deny channeling Judith Reisman also, even though some of them do either directly or indirectly.

I do agree that much of this behavior points to some very unhealthy attitudes towards sex. It's been 25 years now since I've been single, but both then and now I have the attitude that sex should be mutually beneficial. If it isn't, then I just don't want to participate, period. The whole idea that men in general want sex under any circumstances, is just warped. Who in their right mind wants to have sex with someone who doesn't reciprocate? I'm not going to pretend to speak for all men, but I sure as hell don't. It's closer to reality to suggest that most women bring far too much emotional baggage into the bedroom. The joke about men being in the doghouse for one reason or another is funny because everyone knows it's true. What woman doesn't use sex as a negotiating tactic for things completely unrelated to sex? Certainly there are a few, but not many. It took me many years to find one and I came up in the age of free love as well. So why does it surprise women when some men are going to do the same thing as virtually all women do? Both genders are guilty of using sex as a bargaining chip. So what men complain about this? Well, they can usually be found on warped MRA websites which are full of men with bad experiences who are consumed by negative emotions which have translated into misogyny. Not surprisingly you find the exact same behavior with the gender roles reversed on extreme feminist web sites for the exact same reasons. So while some feminists pretend that misandry doesn't exist in certain quarters, reality betrays them.

it sure makes a fugly hat.

is why Nigel stayed around as long as he did?

All other things being equal, could you live with a woman who believes sex is bad but complains she isn't getting enough?

if you haven't been married then I can't explain it to you.
But my exwife often held both competing, opposed opinions at the same time and judged me using some kind of unreal measure that makes hypocrisy look like a strange change of opinion.

point being... don't think to hard about it, you'll needlessly hurt yourself.

which is one reason I preferred not to marry them.