Actualité X y » août 5, 2013 (3171 non lus)

« Expand/Collapse

août 05, 2013
23:55
BOUNDTANGO
» ‎ Journal d'une petgirl

Tags: [éditer]

Il existe différente façon d’attacher son ou sa partenaire, mais celle-ci est à mon gout unique. Ils ont lié deux univers et cela donne un résultat très réussi. Le tango d’une part et le bondage d’autre part.Certe le site est en allemand mais google est V/votre ami.

22:41
Domestication, by The Arctic Feminist
» ‎ Féministes radicales

Tags: [éditer]

reblogged from : http://thearcticfeminist.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/domestication/

Last night I had a few thoughts I put on my tumblr:

Men use fucking and breeding as a way to pacify women. It literally retards our ability to process reality. The earlier they start this process the more effective it is. Child rape is necessary to maintain the patriarchal system. Ensuring that another generation of women will go gladly into the caste of available vagina men have deemed them best suited to. It is not necessary for every woman to be raped in childhood for this process to work. Just enough of us. Everyone has several child rape and incest survivors in their day to day life. Its more common than being left-handed.

Intercourse is about domestication. Plain and simple. The easiest way men have figured out to control us is through the act of fucking. Now there’s the obvious #1 reason why this is effective. Women become vulnerable through pregnancy and the care taking of children. Knock a woman up and you’ve got her trapped. Easy-peasy. The threat of pregnancy also works in instilling the same psychological effects. Your mind is preparing for impending doom.

But its not just the pregnancy factor that makes it so damned problematic. The act of intercourse, as Andrea Dworkin wrote extensively on, is in itself a violation an act of possession. This violation of women results in our capacities being utterly thwarted. This is not an accident. This is why men do it. This is why men rape little girls. They’re creating the next generation of “sexually empowered women”, the prostituted woman, the right-wing woman, the handmaiden. The more it takes place, the easier the mind separates from the body, the easier it is to endure over and over again. This process has the ultimate effect of separating a woman from her own truth. The only truth she can understand is men’s. Separated as she is from herself and thus all other women she simply cannot understand.

The dissociation one must engage in to endure the terrorism that is male sexual violence creates mental blocks. In doing rape trauma recovery one often finds they’ve developed blocks around being able to understand and articulate experiences. They also can see just how much of their lives have been thwarted and controlled by the fact that they went through the rapes. In itself blocking human possibility. The will of the individual human to express themselves fully. All stopped because some man’s dick.

So yes, it is of utmost importance that women who can, not participate in the act of heterosexual fucking. Each time this occurs the same physiological responses are taking place. The mind is preparing for doom, the body stores the blocks, the self is violated. Everything breaks down easier. Not having intercourse is an act of self-love. Self-preservation. Self-actualization.
22:27
Andrea Dworkin Occupation / Colaboration, Intercourse Chap.7
» ‎ Féministes radicales

Tags: [éditer]

INTERCOURSE Chapter 7
Occupation/Collaboration
by Andrea Dworkin
Copyright © 1987 by Andrea Dworkin
All rights reserved.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/IntercourseI.html

Oh, God, who does not exist, you hate women, otherwise you’d have made them different. And Jesus, who snubbed your mother, you hate them more. Roaming around all that time with a bunch of men, fishing; and sermons-on-the-mount. Abandoning women. I thought of all the women who had it, and didn’t even know when the big moment was, and others saying their rosary with the beads held over the side of the bed, and others saying, « Stop, stop, you dirty old dog, » and others yelling desperately to be jacked right up to their middles, and it often leading to nothing, and them getting up out of bed and riding a poor door knob and kissing the wooden face of a door and urging with foul language, then crying, wiping the knob, and it all adding up to nothing either.

EDNA O’BRIEN, Girls in Their Married Bliss

This is nihilism; or this is truth. He has to push in past boundaries. There is the outline of a body, distinct, separate, its integrity an illusion, a tragic deception, because unseen there is a slit between the legs, and he has to push into it. There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse: with being entered. The vagina itself is muscled and the muscles have to be pushed apart. The thrusting is persistent invasion. She is opened up, split down the center. She is occupied–physically, internally, in her privacy.

A human being has a body that is inviolate; and when it is violated, it is abused. A woman has a body that is penetrated in intercourse: permeable, its corporeal solidness a lie. The discourse of male truth–literature, science, philosophy, pornography–calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some confidence. Violation is a synonym for intercourse. At the same time, the penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse; a normal use; it is appropriate to enter her, to push into (« violate ») the boundaries of her body. She is human, of course, but by a standard that does not include physical privacy. She is, in fact, human by a standard that precludes physical privacy, since to keep a man out altogether and for a lifetime is deviant in the extreme, a psychopathology, a repudiation of the way in which she is expected to manifest her humanity.

There is a deep recognition in culture and in experience that intercourse is both the normal use of a woman, her human potentiality affirmed by it, and a violative abuse, her privacy irredeemably compromised, her selfhood changed in a way that is irrevocable, unrecoverable. And it is recognized that the use and abuse are not distinct phenomena but somehow a synthesized reality: both are true at the same time as if they were one harmonious truth instead of mutually exclusive contradictions. Intercourse in reality is a use and an abuse simultaneously, experienced and described as such, the act parlayed into the illuminated heights of religious duty and the dark recesses of morbid and dirty brutality. She, a human being, is supposed to have a privacy that is absolute; except that she, a woman, has a hole between her legs that men can, must, do enter. This hole, her hole, is synonymous with entry. A man has an anus that can be entered, but his anus is not synonymous with entry. A woman has an anus that can be entered, but her anus is not synonymous with entry. The slit between her legs, so simple, so hidden– frankly, so innocent– for instance, to the child who looks with a mirror to see if it could be true–is there an entrance to her body down there? and something big comes into it? (how?) and something as big as a baby comes out of it? (how?) and doesn’t that hurt?–that slit which means entry into her– intercourse–appears to be the key to women’s lower human status. By definition, as the God who does not exist made her, she is intended to have a lesser privacy, a lesser integrity of the body, a lesser sense of self, since her body can be physically occupied and in the occupation taken over. By definition, as the God who does not exist made her, this lesser privacy, this lesser integrity, this lesser self, establishes her lesser significance: not just in the world of social policy but in the world of bare, true, real existence. She is defined by how she is made, that hole, which is synonymous with entry; and intercourse, the act fundamental to existence, has consequences to her being that may be intrinsic, not socially imposed.

There is no analogue anywhere among subordinated groups of people to this experience of being made for intercourse: for penetration, entry, occupation. There is no analogue in occupied countries or in dominated races or in imprisoned dissidents or in colonialized cultures or in the submission of children to adults or in the atrocities that have marked the twentieth century ranging from Auschwitz to the Gulag. There is nothing exactly the same, and this is not because the political invasion and significance of intercourse is banal up against these other hierarchies and brutalities. Intercourse is a particular reality for women as an inferior class; and it has in it, as part of it, violation of boundaries, taking over, occupation, destruction of privacy, all of which are construed to be normal and also fundamental to continuing human existence. There is nothing that happens to any other civilly inferior people that is the same in its meaning and in its effect even when those people are forced into sexual availability, heterosexual or homosexual; while subject people, for instance, may be forced to have intercourse with those who dominate them, the God who does not exist did not make human existence, broadly speaking, dependent on their compliance. The political meaning of intercourse for women is the fundamental question of feminism and freedom: can an occupied people–physically occupied inside, internally invaded–be free; can those with a metaphysically compromised privacy have self-determination; can those without a biologically based physical integrity have self-respect?

There are many explanations, of course, that try to be kind. Women are different but equal. Social policy is different from private sexual behavior. The staggering civil inequalities between men and women are simple, clear injustices unrelated to the natural, healthy act of intercourse. There is nothing implicit in intercourse that mandates male dominance in society. Each individual must be free to choose–and so we expand tolerance for those women who do not want to be fucked by men. Sex is between individuals, and social relations are between classes, and so we preserve the privacy of the former while insisting on the equality of the latter. Women flourish as distinct, brilliant individuals of worth in the feminine condition, including in intercourse, and have distinct, valuable qualities. For men and women, fucking is freedom; and for men and women, fucking is the same, especially if the woman chooses both the man and the act. Intercourse is a private act engaged in by individuals and has no implicit social significance. Repression, as opposed to having intercourse, leads to authoritarian social policies, including those of male dominance. Intercourse does not have a metaphysical impact on women, although, of course, particular experiences with individual men might well have a psychological impact. Intercourse is not a political condition or event or circumstance because it is natural. Intercourse is not occupation or invasion or loss of privacy because it is natural. Intercourse does not violate the integrity of the body because it is natural. Intercourse is fun, not oppression. Intercourse is pleasure, not an expression or confirmation of a state of being that is either ontological or social. Intercourse is because the God who does not exist made it; he did it right, not wrong; and he does not hate women even if women hate him. Liberals refuse categorically to inquire into even a possibility that there is a relationship between intercourse per se and the low status of women. Conservatives use what appears to be God’s work to justify a social and moral hierarchy in which women are lesser than men. Radicalism on the meaning of intercourse–its political meaning to women, its impact on our very being itself– is tragedy or suicide. « The revolutionary, » writes Octavio Paz paraphrasing Ortega y Gasset, « is always a radical, that is, he [sic] is trying to correct the uses themselves rather than the mere abuses . . . » 1 With intercourse, the use is already imbued with the excitement, the derangement, of the abuse; and abuse is only recognized as such socially if the intercourse is performed so recklessly or so violently or so stupidly that the man himself has actually signed a confession through the manner in which he has committed the act. What intercourse is for women and what it does to women’s identity, privacy, self-respect, self-determination, and integrity are forbidden questions; and yet how can a radical or any woman who wants freedom not ask precisely these questions? The quality of the sensation or the need for a man or the desire for love: these are not answers to questions of freedom; they are diversions into complicity and ignorance.

Some facts are known.

Most women do not experience orgasm from intercourse itself. When Shere Hite, in her groundbreaking study, asked women to report their own sexual experiences in detail and depth, she discovered that only three in ten women regularly experience orgasm from intercourse. The women’s self-reports are not ideological. They want men, love, sex, intercourse; they want orgasm; but for most women, seven out of ten, intercourse does not cause orgasm. The women want, even strive for, orgasm from intercourse but are unable to achieve it. Hite, the strongest feminist and most honorable philosopher among sex researchers, emphasizes that women can and must take responsibility for authentic sexual pleasure: « the ability to orgasm when we want, to be in charge of our stimulation, represents owning our own bodies, being strong, free, and autonomous human beings. » 2

Intercourse occurs in a context of a power relation that is pervasive and incontrovertible. The context in which the act takes place, whatever the meaning of the act in and of itself, is one in which men have social, economic, political, and physical power over women. Some men do not have all those kinds of power over all women; but all men have some kinds of power over all women; and most men have controlling power over what they call their women–the women they fuck. The power is predetermined by gender, by being male.

Intercourse as an act often expresses the power men have over women. Without being what the society recognizes as rape, it is what the society– when pushed to admit it–recognizes as dominance.

Intercourse often expresses hostility or anger as well as dominance.

Intercourse is frequently performed compulsively; and intercourse frequently requires as a precondition for male performance the objectification of the female partner. She has to look a certain way, be a certain type–even conform to preordained behaviors and scripts–for the man to want to have intercourse and also for the man to be able to have intercourse. The woman cannot exist before or during the act as a fully realized, existentially alive individual.

Despite all efforts to socialize women to want intercourse– e.g., women’s magazines to pornography to Dynasty; incredible rewards and punishments to get women to conform and put out–women still want a more diffuse and tender sensuality that involves the whole body and a polymorphous tenderness.

There are efforts to reform the circumstances that surround intercourse, the circumstances that at least apparently contribute to its disreputable (in terms of rights and justice) legend and legacy. These reforms include: more deference to female sensuality prior to the act; less verbal assault as part of sexual expressiveness toward women; some lip service to female initiation of sex and female choice during lovemaking; less romanticizing of rape, at least as an articulated social goal. Those who are political activists working toward the equality of women have other contextual reforms they want to make: economic equity; women elected to political office; strong, self-respecting role models for girls; emphasis on physical strength and self-defense, athletic excellence and endurance; rape laws that work; strategies for decreasing violence against women. These contextual reforms would then provide for the possibility that intercourse could be experienced in a world of social equality for the sexes. These reforms do not in any way address the question of whether intercourse itself can be an expression of sexual equality.

Life can be better for women–economic and political conditions improved– and at the same time the status of women can remain resistant, indeed impervious, to change: so far in history this is precisely the paradigm for social change as it relates to the condition of women. Reforms are made, important ones; but the status of women relative to men does not change. Women are still less significant, have less privacy, less integrity, less self- determination. This means that women have less freedom. Freedom is not an abstraction, nor is a little of it enough. A little more of it is not enough either. Having less, being less, impoverished in freedom and rights, women then inevitably have less self-respect: less self-respect than men have and less self-respect than any human being needs to live a brave and honest life. Intercourse as domination battens on that awful absence of self-respect. It expands to fill the near vacuum. The uses of women, now, in intercourse– not the abuses to the extent that they can be separated out–are absolutely permeated by the reality of male power over women. We are poorer than men in money and so we have to barter sex or sell it outright (which is why they keep us poorer in money). We are poorer than men in psychological well-being because for us self-esteem depends on the approval–frequently expressed through sexual desire–of those who have and exercise power over us. Male power may be arrogant or elegant; it can be churlish or refined: but we exist as persons to the extent that men in power recognize us. When they need some service or want some sensation, they recognize us somewhat, with a sliver of consciousness; and when it is over, we go back to ignominy, anonymous, generic womanhood. Because of their power over us, they are able to strike our hearts dead with contempt or condescension. We need their money; intercourse is frequently how we get it. We need their approval to be able to survive inside our own skins; intercourse is frequently how we get it. They force us to be compliant, turn us into parasites, then hate us for not letting go. Intercourse is frequently how we hold on: fuck me. How to separate the act of intercourse from the social reality of male power is not clear, especially because it is male power that constructs both the meaning and the current practice of intercourse as such. But it is clear that reforms do not change women’s status relative to men, or have not yet. It is clear that reforms do not change the intractability of women’s civil inferiority. Is intercourse itself then a basis of or a key to women’s continuing social and sexual inequality? Intercourse may not cause women’s orgasm or even have much of a correlation with it–indeed, we rarely find intercourse and orgasm in the same place at the same time–but intercourse and women’s inequality are like Siamese twins, always in the same place at the same time pissing in the same pot.

Women have wanted intercourse to work and have submitted–with regret or with enthusiasm, real or faked–even though or even when it does not. The reasons have often been foul, filled with the spiteful but carefully hidden malice of the powerless. Women have needed what can be gotten through intercourse: the economic and psychological survival; access to male power through access to the male who has it; having some hold–psychological, sexual, or economic–on the ones who act, who decide, who matter. There has been a deep, consistent, yet of course muted objection to what Anais Nin has called « [t]he hunter, the rapist, the one for whom sexuality is a thrust, nothing more. »3 Women have also wanted intercourse to work in this sense: women have wanted intercourse to be, for women, an experience of equality and passion, sensuality and intimacy. Women have a vision of love that includes men as human too; and women want the human in men, including in the act of intercourse. Even without the dignity of equal power, women have believed in the redeeming potential of love. There has been–despite the cruelty of exploitation and forced sex–a consistent vision for women of a sexuality based on a harmony that is both sensual and possible. In the words of sex reformer Ellen Key:

She will no longer be captured like a fortress or hunted like a quarry; nor will she like a placid lake await the stream that seeks its way to her embrace. A stream herself, she will go her own way to meet the other stream. 4

A stream herself, she would move over the earth, sensual and equal; especially, she will go her own way.

Shere Hite has suggested an intercourse in which « thrusting would not be considered as necessary as it now is. . . [There might be] more a mutual lying together in pleasure, penis-in-vagina, vagina-covering-penis, with female orgasm providing much of the stimulation necessary for male orgasm. » 5

These visions of a humane sensuality based in equality are in the aspirations of women; and even the nightmare of sexual inferiority does not seem to kill them. They are not searching analyses into the nature of intercourse; instead they are deep, humane dreams that repudiate the rapist as the final arbiter of reality. They are an underground resistance to both inferiority and brutality, visions that sustain life and further endurance.

They also do not amount to much in real life with real men. There is, instead, the cold fucking, duty-bound or promiscuous; the romantic obsession in which eventual abandonment turns the vagina into the wound Freud claimed it was; intimacy with men who dread women, coital dread–as Kafka wrote in his diary, « coitus as punishment for the happiness of being together. » 6

Fear, too, has a special power to change experience and compromise any possibility of freedom. A stream does not know fear. A woman does. Especially women know fear of men and of forced intercourse. Consent in this world of fear is so passive that the woman consenting could be dead and sometimes is. « Yeah, » said one man who killed a woman so that he could fuck her after she was dead, « I sexually assaulted her after she was dead. I always see them girls laid out in the pictures with their eyes closed and I just had to do it. I dreamed about it for so long that I just had to do it. » 7 A Nebraska appeals court did not think that the murder « was especially heinous, atrocious, cruel, or manifested exceptional depravity by ordinary standards of morality and intelligence, » and in particular they found « no evidence the acts were performed for the satisfaction of inflicting either mental or physical pain or that pain existed for any prolonged period of time. » 8 Are you afraid now? How can fear and freedom coexist for women in intercourse?

The role of fear in destroying the integrity of men is easy to articulate, to understand, hard to overstate. Men are supposed to conquer fear in order to experience freedom. Men are humiliated by fear, not only in their masculinity but in their rights and freedoms. Men are diminished by fear; compromised irrevocably by it because freedom is diminished by it. « Fear had entered his life, » novelist Iris Murdoch wrote,

and would now be with him forever. How easy it was for the violent to win. Fear was irresistible, fear was king, he had never really known this before when he had lived free and without it. Even unreasoning fear could cripple a man forever. . . . How well he understood how dictators flourished. The little grain of fear in each life was enough to keep millions quiet. 9

Hemingway, using harder prose, wrote the same in book after book. But women are supposed to treasure the little grain of fear–rub up against it– eroticize it, want it, get excited by it; and the fear could and does keep millions quiet: millions of women; being fucked and silent; upright and silent; waiting and silent; rolled over on and silent; pursued and silent; killed, fucked, and silent. The silence is taken to be appropriate. The fear is not perceived as compromising or destroying freedom. The dictators do flourish: fuck and flourish.

Out of fear and inequality, women hide, use disguises, trying to pass for indigenous peoples who have a right to be there, even though we cannot pass. Appropriating Octavio Paz’s description of the behavior of Mexicans in Los Angeles–which he might not like: « they feel ashamed of their origin . . . they act like persons who are wearing disguises, who are afraid of a stranger’s look because it could strip them and leave them stark naked. » 10 Women hide, use disguises, because fear has compromised freedom; and when a woman has intercourse– not hiding, dropping the disguise–she has no freedom because her very being has been contaminated by fear: a grain, a tidal wave, memory or anticipation.

The fear is fear of power and fear of pain: the child looks at the slit with a mirror and wonders how it can be, how will she be able to stand the pain. The culture romanticizes the rapist dimension of the first time: he will force his way in and hurt her. The event itself is supposed to be so distinct, so entirely unlike any other experience or category of sensation, that there is no conception that intercourse can be part of sex, including the first time, instead of sex itself.

There is no slow opening up, no slow, gradual entry; no days and months of sensuality prior to entry and no nights and hours after entry. Those who learn to eroticize powerlessness will learn to eroticize the entry itself: the pushing in, the thrusting, the fact of entry with whatever force or urgency the act requires or the man enjoys. There is virtually no protest about entry as such from women; virtually no satire from men. A fairly formidable character in Don DeLillo’s White Noise, the wife, agrees to read pornography to her husband but she has one condition:

« I will read, » she said. « But I don’t want you to choose anything that has men inside women, quote-quote, or men entering women. ‘I entered her.’ ‘He entered me.’ We’re not lobbies or elevators. ‘I wanted him inside me,’ as if he could crawl completely in, sign the register, sleep, eat, so forth. I don’t care what these people do as long as they don’t enter or get entered. »

« Agreed. »

« ‘I entered her and began to thrust. »‘

« I’m in total agreement, » I said.

« ‘Enter me, enter me, yes, yes. »

« Silly usage, absolutely. »

« ‘Insert yourself, Rex, I want you inside me, entering hard, entering deep, yes, now, oh.’ » 11

Her protests make him hard. The stupidity of the « he entered her » motif makes her laugh, not kindly. She hates it.

We are not, of course, supposed to be lobbies or elevators. Instead, we are supposed to be wombs, maternal ones; and the men are trying to get back in away from all the noise and grief of being adult men with power and responsibility. The stakes for men are high, as Norman 0. Brown makes clear in prose unusually understated for him:

Coitus successfully performed is incest, a return to the maternal womb; and the punishment appropriate to this crime, castration. What happens to the penis is coronation, followed by decapitation. 12

This is high drama for a prosaic act of commonplace entry. Nothing is at risk for her, the entered; whereas he commits incest, is crowned king, and has his thing cut off. She might like to return to the maternal womb too–because life outside it is not easy for her either–but she has to be it, for husbands, lovers, adulterous neighbors, as well as her own children, boys especially. Women rarely dare, as we say, draw a line: certainly not at the point of entry into our own bodies, sometimes by those we barely know. Certainly they did not come from there, not originally, not from this womb belonging to this woman who is being fucked now. And so we have once again the generic meaning of intercourse–he has to climb back into some womb, maternal enough; he has to enter it and survive even coronation and decapitation. She is made for that; and what can it matter to him that in entering her, he is entering this one, real, unique individual.

And what is entry for her? Entry is the first acceptance in her body that she is generic, not individual; that she is one of a many that is antagonistic to the individual interpretation she might have of her own worth, purpose, or intention. Entered, she accepts her subservience to his psychological purpose if nothing else; she accepts being confused with his mother and his Aunt Mary and the little girl with whom he used to play « Doctor. » Entered, she finds herself depersonalized into a function and worth less to him than he is worth to himself: because he broke through, pushed in, entered. Without him there, she is supposed to feel empty, though there is no vacuum there, not physiologically. Entered, she finds herself accused of regicide at the end. The king dead, the muscles of the vagina contract again, suggesting that this will never be easy, never be solved. Lovely Freud, of course, having discovered projection but always missing the point, wrote to Jung: « In private I have always thought of Adonis as the penis; the woman’s joy when the god she had thought dead rises again is too transparent! » 13 Something, indeed, is too transparent; women’s joy tends to be opaque.

Entered, she has mostly given something up: to Adonis, the king, the coronation, the decapitation for which she is then blamed; she has given up a dividing line between her and him. Entered, she then finds out what it is to be occupied: and sometimes the appropriate imagery is of evil and war, the great spreading evil of how soldiers enter and contaminate. In the words of Marguerite Duras, « evil is there, at the gates, against the skin. » 14 It spreads, like war, everywhere: « breaking in everywhere, stealing, imprisoning, always there, merged and mingled . . . a prey to the intoxicating passion of occupying that delightful territory, a child’s body, the bodies of those less strong, of conquered peoples. » 15 She is describing an older brother she hates here (« I see wartime and the reign of my elder brother as one » 16). She is not describing her lover, an older man fucking an adolescent girl. But it is from the sex that she takes the texture of wartime invasion and occupation, the visceral reality of occupation: evil up against the skin–at the point of entry, just touching the slit; then it breaks in and at the same time it surrounds everything, and those with power use the conquered who are weaker, inhabit them as territory.

Physically, the woman in intercourse is a space inhabited, a literal territory occupied literally: occupied even if there has been no resistance, no force; even if the occupied person said yes please, yes hurry, yes more. Having a line at the point of entry into your body that cannot be crossed is different from not having any such line; and being occupied in your body is different from not being occupied in your body. It is human to experience these differences whether or not one cares to bring the consequences of them into consciousness. Humans, including women, construct meaning. That means that when something happens to us, when we have experiences, we try to find in them some reason for them, some significance that they have to us or for us. Humans find meaning in poverty and tyranny and the atrocities of history; those who have suffered most still construct meaning; and those who know nothing take their ignorance as if it were a precious, rare clay and they too construct meaning. In this way, humans assert that we have worth; what has happened to us matters; our time here on earth is not entirely filled with random events and spurious pain. On the contrary, we can understand some things if we try hard to learn empathy; we can seek freedom and honor and dignity; that we care about meaning gives us a human pride that has the fragility of a butterfly and the strength of tempered steel. The measure of women’s oppression is that we do not take intercourse–entry, penetration, occupation–and ask or say what it means: to us as a dominated group or to us as a potentially free and self-determining people. Instead, intercourse is a loyalty test; and we are not supposed to tell the truth unless it compliments and upholds the dominant male ethos on sex. We know nothing, of course, about intercourse because we are women and women know nothing; or because what we know simply has no significance, entered into as we are. And men know everything–all of them–all the time–no matter how stupid or inexperienced or arrogant or ignorant they are. Anything men say on intercourse, any attitude they have, is valuable, knowledgeable, and deep, rooted in the cosmos and the forces of nature as it were: because they know; because fucking is knowing; because he knew her but she did not know him; because the God who does not exist framed not only sex but also knowledge that way. Women do not just lie about orgasm, faking it or saying it is not important. Women lie about life by not demanding to understand the meaning of entry, penetration, occupation, having boundaries crossed over, having lesser privacy: by avoiding the difficult, perhaps impossible (but how will we ever know?) questions of female freedom. We take oaths to truth all right, on the holy penis before entry. In so doing, we give up the most important dimension of what it means to be human: the search for the meaning of our real experience, including the sheer invention of that meaning– called creativity when men do it. If the questions make the holy penis unhappy, who could survive what the answers might do? Experience is chosen for us, then, imposed on us, especially in intercourse, and so is its meaning. We are allowed to have intercourse on the terms men determine, according to the rules men make. We do not have to have an orgasm; that terrible burden is on them. We are supposed to comply whether we want to or not. Want is active, not passive or lethargic. Especially we are supposed to be loyal to the male meanings of intercourse, which are elaborate, dramatic, pulling in elements of both myth and tragedy: the king is dead! long live the king!–and the Emperor wears designer jeans. We have no freedom and no extravagance in the questions we can ask or the interpretations we can make. We must be loyal; and on what scale would we be able to reckon the cost of that? Male sexual discourse on the meaning of intercourse becomes our language. It is not a second language even though it is not our native language; it is the only language we speak, however, with perfect fluency even though it does not say what we mean or what we think we might know if only we could find the right word and enough privacy in which to articulate it even just in our own minds. We know only this one language of these folks who enter and occupy us: they keep telling us that we are different from them; yet we speak only their language and have none, or none that we remember, of our own; and we do not dare, it seems, invent one, even in signs and gestures. Our bodies speak their language. Our minds think in it. The men are inside us through and through. We hear something, a dim whisper, barely audible, somewhere at the back of the brain; there is some other word, and we think, some of us, sometimes, that once it belonged to us.

There are female-supremacist models for intercourse that try to make us the masters of this language that we speak that is not ours. They evade some fundamental questions about the act itself and acknowledge others. They have in common a glorious ambition to see women self-determining, vigorous and free lovers who are never demeaned or diminished by force or subordination, not in society, not in sex. The great advocate of the female-first model of intercourse in the nineteenth century was Victoria Woodhull. She understood that rape was slavery; not less than slavery in its insult to human integrity and human dignity. She acknowledged some of the fundamental questions of female freedom presented by intercourse in her imperious insistence that women had a natural right–a right that inhered in the nature of intercourse itself–to be entirely self-determining, the controlling and dominating partner, the one whose desire determined the event, the one who both initiates and is the final authority on what the sex is and will be. Her thinking was not mean-spirited, some silly role reversal to make a moral point; nor was it a taste for tyranny hidden in what pretended to be a sexual ethic. She simply understood that women are unspeakably vulnerable in intercourse because of the nature of the act–entry, penetration, occupation; and she understood that in a society of male power, women were unspeakably exploited in intercourse. Society–men–had to agree to let the woman be the mind, the heart, the lover, the free spirit, the physical vitality behind the act. The commonplace abuses of forced entry, the devastating consequences of being powerless and occupied, suggested that the only condition under which women could experience sexual freedom in intercourse–real choice, real freedom, real happiness, real pleasure–was in having real and absolute control in each and every act of intercourse, which would be, each and every time, chosen by the woman. She would have the incontrovertible authority that would make intercourse possible:

To woman, by nature, belongs the right of sexual determination. When the instinct is aroused in her, then and then only should commerce follow. When woman rises from sexual slavery to sexual freedom, into the ownership and control of her sexual organs, and man is obliged to respect this freedom, then will this instinct become pure and holy; then will woman be raised from the iniquity and morbidness in which she now wallows for existence, and the intensity and glory of her creative functions be increased a hundred-fold . . . 17

The consent standard is revealed as pallid, weak, stupid, second-class, by contrast with Woodhull’s standard: that the woman should have authority and control over the act. The sexual humiliation of women through male ownership was understood by Woodhull to be a concrete reality, not a metaphor, not hyperbole: the man owned the woman’s sexual organs. She had to own her sexual organs for intercourse to mean freedom for her. This is more concrete and more meaningful than a more contemporary vocabulary of « owning » one’s own desire. Woodhull wanted the woman’s desire to be the desire of significance; but she understood that ownership of the body was not an abstraction; it was concrete and it came first. The « iniquity and morbidness » of intercourse under male dominance would end if women could exercise a materially real self-determination in sex. The woman having material control of her own sex organs and of each and every act of intercourse would not lead to a reverse dominance, the man subject to the woman, because of the nature of the act and the nature of the sex organs involved in the act: this is the sense in which Woodhull tried to face the fundamental questions raised by intercourse as an act with consequences, some perhaps intrinsic. The woman could not forcibly penetrate the man. The woman could not take him over as he took her over and occupy his body physically inside. His dominance over her expressed in the physical reality of intercourse had no real analogue in desire she might express for him in intercourse: she simply could not do to him what he could do to her. Woodhull’s view was materialist, not psychological; she was the first publisher of the Communist Manifesto in the United States and the first woman stockbroker on Wall Street. She saw sex the way she saw money and power: in terms of concrete physical reality. Male notions of female power based on psychology or ideas would not have addressed for her the real issues of physical dominance and power in intercourse. The woman would not force or rape or physically own the man because she could not. Thus, giving the woman power over intercourse was giving her the power to be equal. Woodhull’s vision was in fact deeply humane, oriented toward sexual pleasure in freedom. For women, she thought and proclaimed (at great cost to herself), freedom must be literal, physical, concrete self-determination beginning with absolute control of the sexual organs; this was a natural right that had been perverted by male dominance–and because of its perversion, sex was for women morbid and degrading. The only freedom imaginable in this act of intercourse was freedom based on an irrevocable and unbreachable female will given play in a body honestly her own. This was an eloquent answer to reading the meaning of intercourse the other way: by its nature, intercourse mandated that the woman must be lesser in power and in privacy. Instead, said Woodhull, the woman must be king. Her humanity required sexual sovereignty.

Male-dominant gender hierarchy, however, seems immune to reform by reasoned or visionary argument or by changes in sexual styles, either personal or social. This may be because intercourse itself is immune to reform. In it, female is bottom, stigmatized. Intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior: communicating to her cell by cell her own inferior status, impressing it on her, burning it into her by shoving it into her, over and over, pushing and thrusting until she gives up and gives in– which is called surrender in the male lexicon. In the experience of intercourse, she loses the capacity for integrity because her body–the basis of privacy and freedom in the material world for all human beings–is entered and occupied; the boundaries of her physical body are–neutrally speaking– violated. What is taken from her in that act is not recoverable, and she spends her life–wanting, after all, to have something–pretending that pleasure is in being reduced through intercourse to insignificance. She will not have an orgasm–maybe because she has human pride and she resents captivity; but also she will not or cannot rebel–not enough for it to matter, to end male dominance over her. She learns to eroticize powerlessness and self- annihilation. The very boundaries of her own body become meaningless to her, and even worse, useless to her. The transgression of those boundaries comes to signify a sexually charged degradation into which she throws herself, having been told, convinced, that identity, for a female, is there– somewhere beyond privacy and self-respect.

It is not that there is no way out if, for instance, one were to establish or believe that intercourse itself determines women’s lower status. New reproductive technologies have changed and will continue to change the nature of the world. Intercourse is not necessary to existence anymore. Existence does not depend on female compliance, nor on the violation of female boundaries, nor on lesser female privacy, nor on the physical occupation of the female body. But the hatred of women is a source of sexual pleasure for men in its own right. Intercourse appears to be the expression of that contempt in pure form, in the form of a sexed hierarchy; it requires no passion or heart because it is power without invention articulating the arrogance of those who do the fucking. Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men’s contempt for women; but that contempt can turn gothic and express itself in many sexual and sadistic practices that eschew intercourse per se. Any violation of a woman’s body can become sex for men; this is the essential truth of pornography. So freedom from intercourse, or a social structure that reflects the low value of intercourse in women’s sexual pleasure, or intercourse becoming one sex act among many entered into by (hypothetical) equals as part of other, deeper, longer, perhaps more sensual lovemaking, or an end to women’s inferior status because we need not be forced to reproduce (forced fucking frequently justified by some implicit biological necessity to reproduce): none of these are likely social developments because there is a hatred of women, unexplained, undiagnosed, mostly unacknowledged, that pervades sexual practice and sexual passion. Reproductive technologies are strengthening male dominance, invigorating it by providing new ways of policing women’s reproductive capacities, bringing them under stricter male scrutiny and control; and the experimental development of these technologies has been sadistic, using human women as if they were sexual laboratory animals–rats, mice, rabbits, cats, with kinky uteri. For increasing numbers of men, bondage and torture of the female genitals (that were entered into and occupied in the good old days) may supplant intercourse as a sexual practice. The passion for hurting women is a sexual passion; and sexual hatred of women can be expressed without intercourse.

There has always been a peculiar irrationality to all the biological arguments that supposedly predetermine the inferior social status of women. Bulls mount cows and baboons do whatever; but human females do not have estrus or go into heat. The logical inference is not that we are always available for mounting but rather that we are never, strictly speaking, « available. » Nor do animals have cultures; nor do they determine in so many things what they will do and how they will do them and what the meaning of their own behavior is. They do not decide what their lives will be. Only humans face the often complicated reality of having potential and having to make choices based on having potential. We are not driven by instinct, at least not much. We have possibilities, and we make up meanings as we go along. The meanings we create or learn do not exist only in our heads, in ineffable ideas. Our meanings also exist in our bodies–what we are, what we do, what we physically feel, what we physically know; and there is no personal psychology that is separate from what the body has learned about life. Yet when we look at the human condition, including the condition of women, we act as if we are driven by biology or some metaphysically absolute dogma. We refuse to recognize our possibilities because we refuse to honor the potential humans have, including human women, to make choices. Men too make choices. When will they choose not to despise us?

Being female in this world is having been robbed of the potential for human choice by men who love to hate us. One does not make choices in freedom. Instead, one conforms in body type and behavior and values to become an object of male sexual desire, which requires an abandonment of a wide- ranging capacity for choice. Objectification may well be the most singly destructive aspect of gender hierarchy, especially as it exists in relation to intercourse. The surrender occurs before the act that is supposed to accomplish the surrender takes place. She has given in; why conquer her? The body is violated before the act occurs that is commonly taken to be violation. The privacy of the person is lessened before the privacy of the woman is invaded: she has remade herself so as to prepare the way for the invasion of privacy that her preparation makes possible. The significance of the human ceases to exist as the value of the object increases: an expensive ornament, for instance, she is incapable of human freedom–taking it, knowing it, wanting it, being it. Being an object–living in the realm of male objectification–is abject submission, an abdication of the freedom and integrity of the body, its privacy, its uniqueness, its worth in and of itself because it is the human body of a human being. Can intercourse exist without objectification? Would intercourse be a different phenomenon if it could, if it did? Would it be shorter or longer, happier or sadder; more complex, richer, denser, with a baroque beauty or simpler with an austere beauty; or bang bang bang? Would intercourse without objectification, if it could exist, be compatible with women’s equality–even an expression of it–or would it still be stubbornly antagonistic to it? Would intercourse cause orgasm in women if women were not objects for men before and during intercourse? Can intercourse exist without objectification and can objectification exist without female complicity in maintaining it as a perceived reality and a material reality too: can objectification exist without the woman herself turning herself into an object–becoming through effort and art a thing, less than human, so that he can be more than human, hard, sovereign, king? Can intercourse exist without the woman herself turning herself into a thing, which she must do because men cannot fuck equals and men must fuck: because one price of dominance is that one is impotent in the face of equality?

To become the object, she takes herself and transforms herself into a thing: all freedoms are diminished and she is caged, even in the cage docile, sometimes physically maimed, movement is limited: she physically becomes the thing he wants to fuck. It is especially in the acceptance of object status that her humanity is hurt: it is a metaphysical acceptance of lower status in sex and in society; an implicit acceptance of less freedom, less privacy, less integrity. In becoming an object so that he can objectify her so that he can fuck her, she begins a political collaboration with his dominance; and then when he enters her, he confirms for himself and for her what she is: that she is something, not someone; certainly not someone equal.

There is the initial complicity, the acts of self-mutilation, self-diminishing, self-reconstruction, until there is no self, only the diminished, mutilated reconstruction. It is all superficial and unimportant, except what it costs the human in her to do it: except for the fact that it is submissive, conforming, giving up an individuality that would withstand object status or defy it. Something happens inside; a human forgets freedom; a human learns obedience; a human, this time a woman, learns how to goose-step the female way. Wilhelm Reich, that most optimistic of sexual liberationists, the only male one to abhor rape really, thought that a girl needed not only « a free genital sexuality » but also « an undisturbed room, proper contraceptives, a friend who is capable of love, that is, not a National Socialist . . . » 18 All remain hard for women to attain; but especially the lover who is not a National Socialist. So the act goes beyond complicity to collaboration; but collaboration requires a preparing of the ground, an undermining of values and vision and dignity, a sense of alienation from the worth of other human beings–and this alienation is fundamental to females who are objectified because they do not experience themselves as human beings of worth except for their value on the market as objects. Knowing one’s own human value is fundamental to being able to respect others: females are remade into objects, not human in any sense related to freedom or justice–and so what can females recognize in other females that is a human bond toward freedom? Is there anything in us to love if we do not love each other as the objects we have become? Who can love someone who is less than human unless love itself is domination per se? Alienation from human freedom is deep and destructive; it destroys whatever it is in us as humans that is creative, that causes us to want to find meaning in experiences, even hard experiences; it destroys in us that which wants freedom whatever the hardship of attaining it. In women, these great human capacities and dimensions are destroyed or mutilated; and so we find ourselves bewildered–who or what are these so-called persons in human form but even that not quite, not exactly, who cannot remember or manifest the physical reality of freedom, who do not seem to want or to value the individual experience of freedom? Being an object for a man means being alienated from other women–those like her in status, in inferiority, in sexual function. Collaboration by women with men to keep women civilly and sexually inferior has been one of the hallmarks of female subordination; we are ashamed when Freud notices it, but it is true. That collaboration, fully manifested when a woman values her lover, the National Socialist, above any woman, anyone of her own kind or class or status, may have simple beginnings: the first act of complicity that destroys self-respect, the capacity for self-determination and freedom–readying the body for the fuck instead of for freedom. The men have an answer: intercourse is freedom. Maybe it is second-class freedom for second-class humans.

What does it mean to be the person who needs to have this done to her: who needs to be needed as an object; who needs to be entered; who needs to be occupied; who needs to be wanted more than she needs integrity or freedom or equality? If objectification is necessary for intercourse to be possible, what does that mean for the person who needs to be fucked so that she can experience herself as female and who needs to be an object so that she can be fucked?

The brilliance of objectification as a strategy of dominance is that it gets the woman to take the initiative in her own degradation (having less freedom is degrading). The woman herself takes one kind of responsibility absolutely and thus commits herself to her own continuing inferiority: she polices her own body; she internalizes the demands of the dominant class and, in order to be fucked, she constructs her life around meeting those demands. It is the best system of colonialization on earth: she takes on the burden, the responsibility, of her own submission, her own objectification. In some systems in which turning the female into an object for sex requires actual terrorism and maiming–for instance, footbinding or removing the clitoris– the mother does it, having had it done to her by her mother. What men need done to women so that men can have intercourse with women is done to women so that men will have intercourse; no matter what the human cost; and it is a gross indignity to suggest that when her collaboration is complete– unselfconscious because there is no self and no consciousness left–she is free to have freedom in intercourse. When those who dominate you get you to take the initiative in your own human destruction, you have lost more than any oppressed people yet has ever gotten back. Whatever intercourse is, it is not freedom; and if it cannot exist without objectification, it never will be. Instead occupied women will be collaborators, more base in their collaboration than other collaborators have ever been: experiencing pleasure in their own inferiority; calling intercourse freedom. It is a tragedy beyond the power of language to convey when what has been imposed on women by force becomes a standard of freedom for women: and all the women say it is so.

If intercourse can be an expression of sexual equality, it will have to survive– on its own merits as it were, having a potential for human expression not yet recognized or realized–the destruction of male power over women; and rape and prostitution will have to be seen as the institutions that most impede any experience of intercourse as freedom–chosen by full human beings with full human freedom. Rape and prostitution negate self-determination and choice for women; and anyone who wants intercourse to be freedom and to mean freedom had better find a way to get rid of them. Maybe life is tragic and the God who does not exist made women inferior so that men could fuck us; or maybe we can only know this much for certain–that when intercourse exists and is experienced under conditions of force, fear, or inequality, it destroys in women the will to political freedom; it destroys the love of freedom itself. We become female: occupied; collaborators against each other, especially against those among us who resist male domination–the lone, crazy resisters, the organized resistance. The pleasure of submission does not and cannot change the fact, the cost, the indignity, of inferiority.
22:12
La pénétration, une arme de destruction massive de notre intégrité
» ‎ Féministes radicales

Tags: [éditer]

par Je Putréfie le Patriarcat.

Le coït, une aberration totale (sauf si on regarde sa fonction dans le patriarcat)

Je viens de découvrir avec beaucoup de joie une phrase de Christine Delphy dans la video de sa présentation du livre « femmes de droites » d’Andrea Dworkin à Violette & Co. Enfin un peu de bon sens! Elle parle brièvement de l’arnaque du « libéralisme sexuel » et la fonction qu’ont les contraceptifs et avortements dans le maintien de l’asservissement des femmes par les hommes – (qui passe par le coït):

« l’avortement, c’est ce qui va rendre toutes les femmes disponibles à tous les hommes. [...] Une des excuses que les femmes pouvaient fournir pour ne pas coucher avec un mec c’était qu’elles ne pouvaient pas être enceinte, car après elles n’avaient plus la contraception, elles n’avaient plus l’avortement ».

Or, aujourd’hui, la pilule et l’avortement font que nous n’avons plus ce moyen de négociation possible, nous n’avons plus d’excuses pour refuser le coït aux hommes. Alors même que la pilule ne permet pas d’éliminer le risque de grossesse (il le réduit seulement) car une grande partie des avortements aujourd’hui se font chez des femmes entre 15 et 27 ans, qui prennent la pilule. Prendre la pilule, ce poison, ce toxique, subir cette invasion tous les matins, tout ça pour quand-même vivre avec la peur de tomber enceinte, la peur d’oublier sa pilule. Quelle arnaque. Combien de fois il n’y a ni préservatif, ni pilule, et que malgré tout, on prend le risque de « céder » au coït car on pense à la pilule du lendemain, et au pire, on se dit, il y a l’avortement. On ignore la peur, la terreur d’être enceinte car on veut croire au mythe qu’être égale à un homme c’est pouvoir baiser comme lui, sans conséquences. On essaie d’ignorer le fait que s’il n’avait pas insisté, initié, s’il n’y avait pas cette pression, cet horrible sentiment d’obligation, la peur de refuser car sinon on est rejetée, jamais on n’aurait pensé au coït. On essaie d’oublier qu’on n’en a pas envie, pas vraiment, pas tout à fait, il y a quelque-chose qui cloche. On veut croire désespérément au mensonge que l’on nous inculque, que « femme + pilule = homme ».

On ne pourrait pas être plus loin de la vérité. Comme tout ce qui est patriarcal, le fait que tout ça soit une libération pour les femmes est une inversion absolue: la réalité et que ça a assuré la continuation et le renforcement de notre asservissement total. La seule vérité que cela contient, c’est que c’est effectivement une libération des contraintes et obstacles à l’accès des hommes aux femmes, par le viol / coït. Or le coït ne peut jamais être une pratique récréative pour les femmes car aucun contraceptif n’élimine les dommages causés par le coït: même le stérilet et la ligature des trompes n’empêche pas à 100% les grossesses – je connais plusieurs personnes qui sont nées des deux. Les dommages du coït ne peuvent être que légèrement mitigés, sachant que les contraceptifs hormonaux, stérilets + avortements sont en eux-mêmes des conséquences graves du coït sur notre santé et intégrité. Le coït comme pratique récréative est forcément inégalitaire, car il comporte des risques tellement énormes pour les femmes (grossesses non-désirées, avortements, complications liées aux deux, possibilité de mourir des complications ou de l’accouchement, problèmes de santé graves suite à des années de prise de pilule, etc) alors que pour les hommes, il existe des risques vraiment infimes (MST) et ceux-ci peuvent de toutes façons être totalement éliminés.

Voici ce qu’en dit Factcheckme:

if we are very, very lucky, perhaps some of us, for some period of time, can mitigate the severity and frequency (but not the occurrence) of the female-specific harms perpetrated on us, by men. and female-specific harm includes the risk of female-specific harm…which is harmful in itself, because its stressful and requires behavior and thought modification, because we were born with babymakers in a rape culture, and that has meaning. oh yes it does.

Nous avons donc les facteurs suivants:

1. nous, les femmes, à l’inverse des hommes, avons une machine à reproduire des bébés à l’intérieur de nous.

2. Cette machine à bébés s’enclenche lorsqu’un sperme entre en contact avec un ovule fécondable, c’est à dire lorsque le sperme passe par le vagin jusqu’à rencontrer l’ovule au bout, dans la trompe. Généralement ça se fait par ce qu’on appelle le « coït », l’insertion du pénis dans le vagin, mais la simple déposition de sperme sur la vulve peut suffire à rendre enceinte. (donc même l’idée que le coït soit nécessaire à la reproduction est un mythe)

3. Les hommes savent tout ça, que sperme dans vagin = grossesse.

4. Bien que sperme dans vagin / pénis dans vagin = grossesse, les hommes ont érigé le coït comme pratique hétérosexuelle obligatoire, et nécessairement régulière (« récréative »), appellent ça « sexe » (associé au plaisir) et font en sorte que l’hétérosexualité aussi soit obligatoire. [oui, ce sont les hommes qui l'ont érigé et pas les femmes, car toutes les règles sont édictées par et pour les hommes. C.f. patriarcat].

5. coït = 0 risque pour les hommes; coït = énormes risques pour les femmes (pouvant entraîner la mort); cette pratique est donc nécessairement et biologiquement inégalitaire, oppressive et dommageable pour les femmes. Malgré cela, les hommes continuent à vouloir nous soumettre en permanence au coït, coûte que coûte, quitte à nous faire gober des hormones ou insérer des bouts de ferraille dans l’utérus pour qu’on croie que ça a pas d’incidence sur noues.

6. Quand tu sais que ce que tu fais c’est dommageable pour l’autre, et pour l’autre uniquement, et que tu continues quand-même à le faire, c’est que la nuisance / la destruction est intentionnelle. Car sinon, en sachant les conséquences, si tu ne voulais pas nuire, tu aurais arrêté ton action / ton geste tout de suite. Les hommes savent les conséquences qu’a le coït sur les femmes. Or les hommes n’arrêtent pas le coït.

7. Le coït comme pratique régulière remplit très bien sa fonction: celle de nous détruire. Ce n’est pas un accident. Il a été intentionnellement conçu pour nous détruire, nous asservir aux hommes et surtout nous réduire à du bétail pour reproduire des humains mâles (cf Claire Michard et Paola Tabet).

8. Le fait que les hommes savent que c’est dommageable pour nous et uniquement pour nous, qu’ils insistant tant à ce que nous nous soumettions au coït, et qu’ils mettent tant d’énergie à nous faire croire que c’est du sexe, du plaisir, de la libération malgré que le coït soit totalement inutile autant sur le plan du plaisir que sur le plan reproductif (tout plaisir génital chez noues provient uniquement du clitoris et non du vagin, qui est un muscle), est une preuve de l’intentionnalité de l’usage du coït comme outil de démolition des femmes à l’échelle massive.

Pour reciter Factcheckme:

Men know that women are impregnable, as a sexual class, and thats why they rape almost exclusively girls and women, and almost exclusively *not* other men. raping female-bodied persons is like throwing spaghetti against the wall, and knowing some of it will stick: by raping women, all women, regardless of age, and not men, (individual men perhaps, but not men-as-a-class) they know that pregnancies will result. they just wont be around to see it.

Et ici: (source)

considering that men know that intercourse is harmful to women, including the risks of disease and pregnancy; and understanding that female-specific reproductive harm is central and critical to male political and interpersonal power; and considering that intercourse-as-sex is therefore the very foundation of patriarchy itself — [...] no sane, healthy, competent etc. person would voluntarily engage in it, considering the risks. get it?

so sane person. no human person. no man.

you see, there is not a man in the entire world, if the risks of intercourse applied to men, who would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER choose to engage in it for pleasures sake. never, ever, ever, ever, ever would a man voluntarily place himself in harms way like that, and that includes the most submissive, masochistic and self-hating man. NO man would EVER do this.

Tout ça pour dire que l’unique raison pour laquelle l’on puisse croire que le coït soit normal et naturel pour nous alors que notre réalité dit exactement l’inverse – c’est à dire que c’est destructeur et totalement anti-naturel voire d’un danger mortel – c’est parce que les hommes, par tous les moyens, nous ont tellement lavé le cerveau avec leur propagande pro-coït, que le coït nous paraît immuable et inévitable comme la roche, au point que toute alternative ou cessation immédiate du coït pour notre santé et intégrité ne soit même pas pensable.

Etant donné que toutes les définitions de la réalité qui nous sont imposées par les hommes ne sont fondées qu’à partir de l’expérience qu’en ont les hommes, et surtout comme la seule définition du coït qui existe est celle qui se base sur l’expérience qu’en ont les hommes, (c’est à dire une érection et pénétration / éjaculation sans conséquences), ceci fait que nous n’arrivons pas à définir et à identifier ce qu’est le coït à partir de notre réalité: qui n’est qu’aliénation, destruction de la santé, peur, maladies, colonisation – qu’il y ait une excitation génitale ou non qui se rajoute à cela ne change en rien cette réalité; cela peut seulement en changer notre perception. Et d’ailleurs, certains hommes ne se privent pas de stimuler le clitoris pendant le coït, pour que petit à petit, notre corps associe mécaniquement le coït à une excitation génitale. Ceci n’est qu’un processus de dressage, pour semer la confusion et nous faire croire qu’au fond nous aimons ça, car les premiers coïts sont dans l’immense majorité douloureux ou sans plaisir.

Cette imposition et impression dans nos cerveaux de leur perspective de la réalité opposée et antagoniste à la nôtre équivaut à de la violence psychologique, ou même de la torture psychologique, car ce n’est autre que que du lavage de cerveau dans des conditions permanentes d’extrêmes violences exercées par les hommes contre noues. Cette violence psychologique, ou ce lavage de cerveau qui consiste à déréaliser les violences qu’ils nous infligent ainsi que leurs conséquences et les nommer par l’inverse de ce qu’ils sont (« amour », « sexe », « plaisir », « érotisme », etc.) ont pour effet et pour but de nous dissocier totalement de nous-mêmes et de ce que nous ressentons, vivons, lorsque nous subissons les coïts et les effets du coït. Ça nous empêche d’identifier ce qu’on subit comme étant préjudiciable pour noues, au moment où on le subit. ça nous empêche donc d’avoir conscience qu’on subit des violences; et donc de nous en protéger, de fuir, de préserver nos intérêts, d’exprimer la violence, notre réalité etc. ça colonise notre conscience. C’est fait exprès: pour qu’on continue de subir, pour qu’on ne s’échappe pas – car là-dessus repose la domination des hommes sur noues. donc les sensations de peur (ou autre) qu’on peut ressentir avant, pendant ou après nous paraissent insensés, sidérants. Le silence absolu sur notre réalité, en plus de l’inversion de la culpabilité sur les femmes, fait que l’on se retrouve dans un isolement total, et la seule option qui noues reste c’est de s’accuser soi-même de se sentir mal. Ces sensations sont intolérables, alors on essaie de les oublier à tout prix ou de faire comme s’ils n’existaient pas car rien ne vient cfndirmer notre réalité.

Donc, je résume. L’idée que le coït c’est de la sexualité est un sordide mensonge, une arnaque absolue. Les hommes méprisent les femmes précisément parce qu’ils savent que ce qu’ils font aux femmes, c’est à dire les pénétrer avec leur pénis, c’est les mépriser, et jamais ils ne voudraient que l’on leur fasse la même chose. Ils méprisent les femmes pour subir ce que jamais eux n’accepteraient de subir, en tant que sujets dans le patriarcat. D’ailleurs, il suffit de faire un tour dans leur langage: ils sont très clairs sur le fait que l’acte de pénétrer une femme c’est l’humilier, la dominer, c’est l’insulter, l’arnaquer, la « baiser » – c’est bien pour cela que c’est une insulte de le dire à un homme, qui n’est pas sensé être pénétré. Il ne fait aucun doute que le coït n’est pas pour les femmes, ou un échange intime et amoureux avec une femme, mais contre les femmes et pour les hommes, les pénétrants.

Croire qu’on peut distinguer entre des coïts désirés et des coïts-viols est illusoire; la réalité est qu’AUCUNE femme ne désirerait un coït dans un état de non-colonisation par les hommes et de lavage de cerveau qui nous dissocie de notre vécu et de la pleine conscience des conséquences du coït sur noues. En d’autres termes, AUCUNE femme n’accepterait de pratiquer le coït de façon récréative, juste comme ça, étant pleinement éclairée et consciente des conséquences du coït sur notre santé et notre intégrité, le risque à prendre étant bien trop énorme, pour des gains au mieux totalement inutiles (la reproduction – il suffit que le sperme soit déposé sur la vulve – ou le plaisir, lorsqu’il est présent – pouvant se remplacer par toute autre manière de stimuler le clitoris, qui, je rappelle, est l’UNIQUE source d’excitation génitale). ça nous paraîtrait complètement aberrant, insensé et suicidaire de nous infliger cela, en fait ça ne nous viendrait même pas à l’esprit.

Le coït, par définition, détruit les femmes, est violent (et au mieux inutilement invasif et intrusif si c’est dans un but reproductif), est imposé à toutes les femmes par des années de dressage à l’hétérosexualité dès la naissance et l’élimination de toute alternative, la violence psychologique et toutes les autres formes de violence: c’est donc un viol, par définition. Certains actes, comme par exemple couper les cheveux de quelqu’un, peuvent être violents ou pas violents selon le contexte dans lequel c’est fait, c’est à dire selon si la personne dont les cheveux sont coupés l’a demandé ou subi, contre son gré. Mais ce n’est pas le cas du coït, dont le préjudice est inhérent pour les femmes, quel que soit le contexte, qu’il soit en apparence voulu ou non-voulu par la femme. Comme pour le coup de poing ou le coup de couteau, le coït est à considérer comme une infraction et une atteinte sur autrui de la part de celui qui l’inflige, c’est à dire de l’homme.

Je suis consciente que c’est impensable pour la plupart d’entre noues de dire cela, mais c’est d’une logique absolue.

Voir aussi ses autres articles de FCM sur le sujet (y’en a plein d’autres, mais en voici des échantillons):

http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/its-the-trauma-bonding-talking/

http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/the-intercourse-series/

PdV (Pénis dans Vagin) La suite

Prenons les choses autrement.

Sortons de toutes discussions sur le plaisir, parce que visiblement ça obscurcit les esprits et l’idée centrale de l’article. Considérez ce qui suit, quel que soit le plaisir qui puisse être obtenu par le PdV. Car ce qui suit vaut que l’on en prenne du plaisir ou non, quelle que soit votre définition du plaisir.

Les résistances au bon sens sont décidément phénoménales. Personne (ou presque) ne semble répondre directement au fait que le PdV soit de façon inhérente un risque et un danger qui peut être mortel pour les femmes, alors que ça ne l’est pas pour les hommes. Malgré cela, partout dans le monde, le PdV s’impose comme LA pratique hétérosexuelle incontournable, forcément fréquente ou régulière, « récréative », et d’une façon générale, les hommes sont incités à mettre leurs bites presque exclusivement (et prioritairement) dans les vagins des femmes – les femmes en âge de procréer étant les principales cibles. Le PdV est défini comme du sexe, comme de la sexualité, et les risques et les conséquences que ça représente pour les femmes sont au mieux minimisés, normalisés, sinon ignorés ou naturalisés, comme si c’étaient des conséquences normales d’une situation inévitable, naturelle, immuable comme la roche.

(j’arrête de dire le coït parce que tout le monde croit que je parle de toutes les pénétrations, or ici je ne parle spécifiquement QUE du PdV – bien qu’une analyse de la pénétration d’un point de vue féministe radicale soit évidemment pertinente).

Le postulat patriarcal / des hommes est le suivant:

1. PdV = sexe sans conséquences + nécessité hétéro (plus ou moins strictement, mais c’est généralement vrai)

2. Conséquences du PdV régulier pour les femmes = conséquences NORMALES d’une situation NORMALE (PdV).

Or ce postulat est Faux. Le PdV est une conséquence normale d’une situation ANORMALE (et par définition non-naturelle, puisque comme toute pratique humaine sociale, elle est éduquée, non instinctive…). La situation anormale étant d’exposer en permanence, fréquemment, ou à intervalles plus ou moins régulières, les femmes au risque de grossesse. Qu’elles le veuillent ou non, qu’elles y prennent du plaisir ou non. Et que soumettre les femmes régulièrement, fréquemment ou même de temps en temps au risque de grossesse, c’est extrêmement dommageable pour les femmes.

D’abord, le fait simple d’exposer une femme, par le PdV, au risque de grossesse en lui-même est un dommage, un préjudice, car cela nécessite de prendre des mesures pour mitiger ce risque, qui génère au MINIMUM du stress, la peur que ça fonctionne pas (préservatif – et c’est souvent que ça fonctionne pas), des moyens intrusifs qui brisent l’intégrité physique, psychique (pilule, stérilet, implant, ligature des trompes, stérilisation) et ont des conséquences graves sur la santé, qui peuvent inclure dans les pires cas le cancer, les maladies cardiovasculaires, des accidents graves, un handicap à vie, la mort. Même les cas graves sont fréquents mais totalement minimisés et considérés comme normaux.

Donc les conséquences décrites plus haut, c’est dans les meilleurs cas, ceux où on a eu de la pure chance, c’est à dire les cas où le risque de grossesse n’a pas abouti à une grossesse, les cas où on a réussi à mitiger le risque, mais pas éliminer le risque. AUCUN contraceptif n’élimine le risque du PdV. TOUS les contraceptifs comportent un facteur de risque plus ou moins élevé, y compris la ligature des trompes (elles peuvent repousser – une amie est née d’une trompe ligaturée). Et tous les contraceptifs, excepté le préservatif (celui le moins utilisé!!! On se demande pourquoi) ont des conséquences directes et graves sur la santé des femmes, en plus d’être intrusives physiquement et psychiquement, stressantes, parfois coûteuses, nécessitant de plus des consultations gynécologiques invasives, sadiques et stressantes.

Je récapépète: Pour les femmes en âge et en capacité de procréer, celles que les hommes exposent le plus au PdV, le risque de grossesse en lui-même ne s’élimine pas. C’est à dire que le risque reste toujours là, et donc également les conséquences des mesures prises pour mitiger le risque.

Ensuite, les conséquences du PdV incluent: grossesse non-désirée (traumatisant et invasif) suivi d’un avortement (traumatisant et invasif, qui peut causer des complications, des vomissements, des déchirements, la perforation utérine, une infection locale, une dépression, des pensées suicidaires, une hémorragie, et pour finir, des décès). Ou une grossesse menée à terme (9 mois de grossesse, extrêmement invasif et traumatisant surtout si non-désirée) qui inclut un accouchement d’une douleur généralement atroce, toutes les autres conséquences listées ici, qui peuvent mener dans les pires cas à des complications d’une gravité extrême, comme les fistules (regardez le magnifique film du fistula foundation), ou à la mort. Ok?

Etant donné que la majorité des hommes dans le monde refusent même de mettre la capote durant le PdV, et que l’immense, immense majorité n’accepterait pas même une vasectomie, qui pourtant est sans douleur (sous anesthésie), sans conséquences sur la santé (comparé à tous les contraceptifs existants pour les femmes, excluant le préservatif) il est certain qu’aucun homme, jamais jamais jamais de sa vie, n’accepterait le PdV si ça avait les mêmes conséquences sur lui que sur les femmes. Le bon sens voudrait qu’ils soient horrifiés et indignés de ce que leur font les femmes par le PdV, et ils arrêteraient tout de suite, ça serait suicidaire de continuer, ça n’aurait aucun sens.

toute mutilation corporelle au nom du maintien du PdV est totalement aberrant et inutilement destructeur, car il suffit de cesser le PdV comme pratique récréative (mais même pour féconder, le PdV est inutile: sperme sur vulve / orifice du vagin SUFFIT) c’est sans risques, ne requiert aucune modification destructive et mutilante du corps, simple comme bonjour!

Pourquoi les hommes nous mettent donc dans des conditions permanentes d’exposition au risque de grossesse, et appellent ça sexe?

Pourquoi les hommes contraignent-ils les femmes à la pratique régulière du PdV si les risques sont aussi graves pour les femmes?

Le fait est que les hommes continuent de mettre leur bite dans le vagin des femmes JUSTEMENT parce qu’il y a ce risque de grossesse. Qu’ils en soient conscients ou non n’a aucune importance, le fait est qu’ils connaissent tous le mode d’emploi pour traiter une femme comme un homme doit traiter une femme qui lui appartient, c’est à dire mettre sa bite dans son vagin, et éjaculer dedans.

Je parle bien de contrainte sociale, car toutes les formes de pressions sont mises en place par les hommes pour qu’on n’ait PAS d’autres alternatives possibles – allant de l’endoctrinement à l’hétérosexualité, mariage et au PdV par toutes les institutions patriarcales qui existent (le PdV est promu et normalisé absolument partout, par l’état, la religion, l’économie, les médias, des films lambda, magasines, presse, littérature, musique, culture, à la porno => toutes ces institutions étant contrôlées par les hommes) à la mise en dépendance affective et économique voire institutionnelle (mariage), à la violence individuelle et collective des hommes / institutionnelle, à la répression sociale en cas de non-conformité – mais souvent cette répression est tellement omniprésente qu’elle est intériorisée, où on n’en est pas conscientes car elle est normalisée. Que se passe-t-il si on refuse le PdV? Quelles sont les réactions du conjoint et des autres? Quelle est sa propre réaction?

L’accès des hommes aux femmes par le PdV, et donc l’exposition permanente des femmes au risque de grossesse, et par là le contrôle et l’appropriation des fonctions reproductives des femmes et l’appropriation des femmes en tant que telles par le PdV et le viol / « mariage », est le pilier de leur domination sur les femmes. Là dessus repose le patriarcat et sur quoi se greffent toutes les autres formes de domination patriarcale, puisque le patriarcat consiste d’abord et avant tout en le fait que les hommes soumettent les femmes de façon permanente et régulière au PdV, dans le but de forcer la reproduction d’humains mâles, et accessoirement de nouvelles reproductrices d’humains mâles. (Cf Paola Tabet « des outils et des armes » et Claire Michard). Les femmes sont réduites mondialement au rang, statut et fonction de « sexe pour l’homme », de « réceptacle » à sperme et à bite pour une raison: car c’est ce qui permet aux hommes d’avoir la mainmise sur les produits de la reproduction, la paternité, les enfants. Ils organisent donc la société de sorte à ce que les femmes n’aient pas d’autre choix que de subir les PdV réguliers, et soumettent les femmes à la captivité permanente par le « mariage » (maintenant « l’hétérosexualité », le « couple »), la traitent comme un objet marchand à échanger d’homme à homme, entre hommes.

Ce qui constitue l’identité masculine, patriarcale, est de pénétrer une femme, est d’être le pénétrant, celui qui est dessus. Tout le rapport au monde des hommes est basé sur la pénétration, la colonisation d’autrui, du monde de l’univers – l’univers autre étant considéré femme. Ce qui constitue la fonction des femmes dans le patriarcat (car ce n’est pas une identité dans le sens où ça ne permet pas d’être sujet, au contraire c’est un anéantissement du sujet) c’est d’être pénétrée par un homme, de lui servir de réceptacle creuse pour le produit de son sperme – l’enfant.

Les contraceptifs modernes jouent un énorme rôle à nous faire croire que nous nous sommes libérées de la tyrannie du PdV, or ce que ça a fait c’est justement l’inverse: ça a renforcé et normalisé encore davantage la contrainte au PdV comme pratique régulière, et renforcé notre colonisation. ça joue un énorme rôle dans la propagande libérale de « libération sexuelle » qui n’est autre que nous vendre le modèle de viol pornographique et prostitutionnel comme étant de la sexualité. Et la pilule ça contribue à nous faire croire qu’on peut y trouver un intérêt à servir de réceptacle à sperme pour n’importe quel homme, au lieu d’un seul dans le cadre du mariage. Je ne suis évidemment pas contre l’utilisation de contraceptifs lorsqu’ils peuvent éviter une grossesse, mais les contraceptifs ne sont pas une libération. Nous devons viser plus haut que recoudre les plaies et nous ramasser à la petite cuillère après des années de PdV. Une étape de la libération c’est déjà la cessation immédiate et sans appel du PdV, et par ailleurs une dé-hétérosexualisation de masse, étant donné le danger et l’épuisement des ressources que les hommes représentent pour les femmes (violences par conjoint, harcèlement, violences économiques, etc).
22:02
The intercourse series, by femonade
» ‎ Féministes radicales

Tags: [éditer]

the “intercourse” series

by FEMONADE

http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/the-intercourse-series/

“intercourse” house party (part 1)

i finally read dworkin’s ”intercourse” all the way through, and have been processing it for about a week now. because i really like hearing myself talk and everything, but why constantly reinvent the wheel, when smart and learned feminists have been dissecting and discussing this material for decades? i mean really. this all started to seem very pointless a few weeks ago, particularly considering the roll i am currently on: bashing PIV, because its problematic for women but not for men. its not even sex. no, its not. and i am not the first person to think this way. there is very little new under the sun afterall.

so i bought a book, and read it. on this issue, i went to the source, dworkin, and her infamously radical notion: penis-in-vagina is a problem. oh yes it is. and this is going to be one of a several-part post. well, at least 2 parts. one just isnt going to cut it. because i have heard many women say that they didnt ”get” dworkin, that they tried to read her and couldnt. and i have had some commenters here that advanced individualist arguments, when it came to PIV. “i like it, so i am going to continue to do it.” and thats a tough nut to crack. i mean really. i ”like it” too, under the right circumstances. i never said i didnt.

so i propose that we start here, when trying to discuss it: stop thinking about the female body as synonymous with penetration. stop thinking about vaginas as “holes” to be filled with, or penetrated by stuff. because they arent.

since most readers here have their own vagina, this can be approached as a thought exercise. imagine that your vagina isnt a hole. because its not. a vagina is an organ, and most hours of most days, its a solid structure: its muscular walls touch each other. theres no room in there, at all. its not the hollow, upside-down carrot that we see in anatomy books. ffs. even the fucking anatomists get it wrong. its pathetic, and infuriating. but its true.

then, imagine that women are not just castrated men. its difficult, i know. i just came to this conclusion literally the other day. i mean, i always knew that freud was a misogynist asshole for even saying it, but i never really got it. how is this possible? i mean really. its some extremely effective brainwashing, that, to have women believing about themselves that we are defective, castrated something-else. instead of whole, functioning humans, who have vulvas, vaginae, and uterii *instead of* dicks. not that we have nothing, where a dick should be. (i know: it is TRANSPHOBIC!!! to suggest that women are not merely castrated men. oh well. get over it, because its true).

now. imagine that you know something about human beings for a second. because, you are one. imagine that humans do not enjoy being colonized. because they dont. having other people come into your neighborhood, and setting up shop in YOUR SPACE is not something that human beings enjoy, and they have never enjoyed, and they will never enjoy. people need their own physical space. its part of having an identity, as a person, and as a people. take this as a fact, because its true. and for those with an incurable individualist streak, consider this: even extremely tolerant people who want to share their space with others, get rightly pissed off when the visitors come in and start messing the place up. do they not?

thats it for now. as you can tell, this is kind of an experiemental post. see what you think, and decide if you want to play along. i would love to be able to discuss dworkin here, but i think theres some groundwork that must be laid, as it were. and i think this is it.

“intercourse” house party (part 2)

part one is here. as i explained before, i am attempting to lay some groundwork, as it were, to any future discussion of dworkin’s ”intercourse.” many people report being unable to understand her, but thats really no excuse, is it, for a failure to dissect and discuss PIV, and its implications for women, as a sexual class, around the world?

if feminists arent doing this work, its not going to get done. so, mindful of that, i offer part 2. and…bear with me, because its really a downer!

intercourse can literally kill you, if you are a woman. (sorry! really, i am). it causes pregnancy, which is a medical event that can last for years (including lactation, and assuming that there were no long-term complications, which there often are). PIV is the one and only cause of obstetric fistula, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, miscarriage and abortion, and is causative of the illnesses and deaths of hundreds of thousands of women annually (see maternal morbidity and mortality here, and a discussion of “near misses” here).

and the list of risks of being on the pill are as long as my arm, and include the risk of death by blood clot. and women are more susceptible to STD infections than men are due to biological differences…specifically that we have vaginas that men ejaculate into, and their bacteria and viruses cant be washed away. and trying to wash them away by douching actually makes it WORSE, because you irritate your tissues and interrupt the normal cleansing process of the vaginal environment. (i know, its TRANSPHOBIC!!! to talk about womens vaginas, and the consequences to women to having them. oh well, get over it. because its true.)

and PIV is known to destroy womens careers, and their livelihoods, as well. not even considering the “mommy track” that so many women allegedly “choose,” even if you have an early abortion, you are risking getting in trouble at work if you are too sick to come in, in the first weeks and months of pregnancy due to morning sickness. i mean really. sitting under your desk puking into a fucking trashcan doesnt look so good, because most people assume you are drunk (although appearing unintentionally knocked up doesnt do a woman any favors, either, in the “i am responsible, just like a man!!!11!!” competition). and if you are too sick to even drive or take public transportation, you cant even clock in, to humiliate yourself this way. or to get paid, obvs.

yes, thats right…there are severe consequences to women, but not to men, of engaging in PIV. and i am not about to blame women for continuing to do it, and i am not going to ask (at least not today) why women are having PIV with men. what i would like to know, however, is why MEN are continuing to do it, when they know how dangerous it is, for women. this is not a rhetorical question.

again, since most readers here are women, this can be approached as a thought exercise. imagine, if you will, that there were no consequences to *you* of having PIV. but that all the consequences i mentioned above, actually applied to *men* and not to you. imagine that fucking your husband, or bf, or anyone with a dick really, could literally kill them, or make them very ill. imagine that they were taking on all the risk, and you werent risking a thing.

would you still do it? would you ride your mate into the sunset, bucking wildly on his dick and screaming when you were about to come? (pornified version). would you tenderly “make love” to him, knowing how potentially fucking screwed he could be, in the weeks and months to come, by virtue of the act you were about to perform on his person i mean with him, lovingly? (its an “act of love” version).

and in this topsy-turvy world i have created here, where there are consequences of PIV to men but not to women…would you ever pressure him into it? or expect it? or demand it? or “take” it? (the rape version). what if he wanted it, and claimed to enjoy it? what if he really, truly did enjoy it? would that change anything, for you? would his “consent” be problematic, in your mind, at all? or would it be a free pass to place him in harms way?

now…what if you knew for a fact that there was very little chance that he was even going to enjoy it? would that matter to you, at all? what if it were common knowledge that most men didnt really like PIV anyway, or at least it wasnt their preferred sexual act, and that their bodies werent really built to orgasm this way? what if the numerous risks of PIV to men were somewhat (or largely) causative of their inability to enjoy it, or to enjoy it fully?

would you still do it? if so, why, and under what circumstances? if not, why not?

and finally…what if mens social status was that of, literally, dirt. of filth. what if mens corpus, mens bodies, were regarded as disgusting, and filthy too (even though, ironically, you were the one likely to infect *him* with something, and not the other way around). what if the language women used regarding having PIV with men was synonymous with harming them, and socially men and boys were the thing everyone else wiped their feet on? what if it had always been this way, and was this way currently, around the world?

if this were the state of things…what would PIV “mean” to you? what would you imagine that it “meant” to men? in other words…why do it at all, and is it at all possible that mens and womens “reasons” would differ?

i am just asking. stay tuned for part 3.

“intercourse” house party (part 3)

part one is here. part 2 is here. this was intended to lay the groundwork for a future discussion of dworkin’s ”intercourse.” but three parts later, i am under the impression that we’ve been discussing it, this whole time. no? actually, theres much more that needs to be said, and some loose ends need to be tied. and this, my friends, is what will constitute part 3. enjoy.

womens bodies are not synonymous with penetration, and vaginas are not fuckholes, for men. and people throughout history have had something in common: they dont like being colonized. that is, people coming into your neighborhood and setting up shop in YOUR SPACE. when this happens, and it has happened to many peoples, around the world, the people who have been colonized understand what has happened to them. they have lost their autonomy, and their privacy. they have lost their identity. the ones that survived would not be mistaken to characterize it thusly: “there was a war, and we lost.” am i wrong?

and being poked and prodded physically is not inherently erotic. think about it. going to the dentist? not erotic. going to the gynecologist? not erotic. acupuncture. vaccinations. breast exams. prostate exams. medical experimentation. torture. not erotic. right? at least, any reasonable person would agree that theres nothing *inherently* erotic about these things, even if there are some people who enjoy some of these things, some of the time. so, is there the teeniest, tiniest chance, then, that PIV (“intercourse”) is not inherently erotic, either, to women? can we at least admit that much: that theres at least an infantiscimally small chance that this is true?

if you can even imagine that this might be the case, then you have to also consider that women have somehow managed to eroticize something thats not inherently erotic, to whatever extent they might “enjoy” PIV. and there are many reasons this might be the case for any individual woman, and for women as a sexual class, around the world. love. motherhood. garnering attention and affection from men, who love to fuck women, even women they hate. because to some extent, most women in most places eroticize PIV somehow. most women who are engaging in it dont report “feeling raped”, afterall, whatever the fuck that means (although many more find it about as arousing as going to the gynecologist). do try not to imagine what would happen if they changed their minds at some point though, either mid-act or across the board, within the context of het relationships.

PIV is not inherently erotic for women, but it *is* a fundamental part of the narrative that keeps us in servitude, to men. women are fucked by men, and men fuck women. its essential that it be this way, because PIV causes pregnancy. PIV causes illness. pregnancy, illness, and babies (upon babies, upon babies) cause women to become dependant on others, on men.

women as a class are subservient to men as a class, then, due pretty exclusively to PIV.

now. gays and lesbians are vilified, under this system, because homosexuals fuck up the narrative (again, the narrative is, and must be, men fuck women, and women are fucked by men). see? regarding gay men, they make it too clear that men have asses that can be fucked. its not *just* women that can be fucked, men can be fucked too. but how is that supposed to work???!!!!!1 no, its not fucking unless women are fucked. its not “fucking” unless someone can die from it, unless someone can become pregnant. because fucking and female subservience are the same thing.

and lesbians fuck up the narrative too: they make it too clear that PIV is not inherently erotic, for women. so, they arent really women, at all. and what they are doing to and with each other isnt fucking. because its not fucking unless someone can die from it, unless someone can become pregnant. because fucking and female subservience are the same thing.

and i have kinda been harsh on transwomen in this series, but they fit in here too, dont they? because transwomen are men, and they have asses that can be fucked. they have fake fuckholes that can be fucked. but its not fucking unless someone can die from it, unless someone can become pregnant. because fucking and female subservience are the same thing. and its not a fucking coincidence, is it, that many times when a straight man murders a transwoman, its after he has fucked her (or right before), and finds out that shes not a woman? because the transwoman reminds him that he, too, has an ass, that can be fucked. that what they have just done or almost done together wasnt fucking or almost fucking, it was something “disturbing” in fact, because its not fucking unless someone can die from it, unless someone can get pregnant.

because fucking and female subservience are the same fucking thing.

it’s the trauma-bonding talking

as i continue on my roll against PIV…its come to this, and theres no avoiding it: thinking about that post-coital meltdown that so many women have, when their mates “dont call.” and i actually googled “trauma bonding”, if that tells you something. i never google anything.

as i think has been made abundantly clear by now, women are literally putting their lives and physical and mental wellbeing on the line, every fucking time they engage in PIV. (sorry! really, i am). if its not the very reasonable fear of being raped at some point during the encounter, its the fear of disease, and the dread, absolute dread of an unintended or unwanted pregnancy. and that last one applies even in wanted encounters with trusted partners, does it not? every single act of intercourse, from somewhat pre-menstruation to somewhat post-menopause. or…until your mate gets his nads snipped…and even then. fear, and dread. foreboding, terror, and bargaining with god. counting the days.

because we all know that pregnancy can kill you, or make you very ill, even if you have an early abortion. right? (imagine sitting under your desk at work and puking into a trashcan, if it helps bring it home…not that most women really need a visual. but there is going to be someone on this thread who says they still dont get why PIV is so bad.)

this has got to be traumatic, no? i mean, how could it not be? this is a serious question.

speaking of trauma…when men go into battle with each other, they form intense, emotional bonds. in relation to each other, these men are known as “war buddies.” and its a close relationship, to say the least. the feelings that the shared experience of death-defying elicit are “intimate,” in the extreme. this is commonly known to be the case. it just is. something happens to the human mind when we encounter life-threatening situations with other people. we…bond. and women are human beings. yes, they are.

when women have PIV with men, we are encountering a life-threatening situation, with another person, by definition. not surprisingly, we form intense bonds with our war-buddies, these men with whom we have literally faced death and disfigurement. terror. the problem is, of course, that the men dont feel the same way. because theres nothing dangerous to men about PIV, really, at all. they were just getting their dicks wet. or, you know, “making love.” we were the ones putting everything on the line. and if it seems like they dont get what it is that we were doing with them…well its because they dont. nor do they care to.

heres a bit from google on trauma-bonding:

Exploitive relationships can create trauma bonds-chains that link a victim to someone who is dangerous to them. Divorce, employee relations, litigation of any type, incest and child abuse, family and marital systems, domestic violence, hostage negotiations, kidnapping, professional exploitation and religious abuse are all areas of trauma bonding. All these relationships share one thing: they are situations of incredible intensity or importance where there is an exploitation of trust or power.

bolds mine. you see, any man who demands PIV or engages in it for that matter is making himself dangerous to women, by definition. and when a woman trusts a man to keep her safe…if that man demands or engages in PIV with her, he is exploiting that trust.

“stockholm syndrome” might seem a bit extreme to apply to most het relationships that arent traditionally abusive…but theres something going on here. at least, for those of us who arent essentialist, and who just dont believe this shit about women when it comes to sex ”feeling” so deeply, and stuff, and things.

because the sad, sick truth of it is that every single man with whom we have ever had intercourse is just some tool who laid pipe, at our expense. thats all. if it hurts to think about it that way…well it hurts, whether or not you choose to think about it. thats kind of my point, actually. PIV hurts and is harmful to women, but not to men. how can you tell? we form emotional bonds with men we have fucked, that are inappropriate, and not reciprocal. work backwards, if you have to, if you cant see that PIV hurts, and is dangerous to women. look at the most common “female response” to PIV (emotional attachment), and tell me it doesnt look a hell of a lot like another commonly-recognized bonding-response to having experienced extreme terror, and the fear of death.

women also manage not to stalk or murder our lovers, really, ever. they are our war-buddies, afterall. not our pets, our our property. see how womens alleged “obsession” with men really has no correlate with mens sexual obsession with women? a more reasonable correlate (besides stockholm syndrome) would appear to be a kind of one-sided war-buddy syndrome, which normally creates intense emotional bonds between people, who face death with each other, in times of war.

those are my thoughts at the moment. that, and something i might have wondered about if i were about 15 years younger, cause i dont really care at this point: if we made PIV *more* traumatic for men, would they have the common decency to pick up the fucking phone the next day, but without going all stalker? im just asking. that is all.

21:13
Interview d’Isabelle Lorédan pour Infernal n°3
» ‎ Chocolat Cannelle : Litterature Erotique

Tags: [éditer]

Vu sur Interview d’Isabelle Lorédan pour Infernal n°3
La troisième lettre d’information d’Enfer, la librairie virtuelle de l’érotisme, Infernal, vient de paraître. L’auteur interviewé est en ce mois d’août 2013 est Isabelle Lorédan. Voici cette interview que j’ai coupé en deux parties pour que la lecture soit facilitée :
Cet article provient de Littérature érotique
21:00
Gay Vinci code, roman parodique de Pascal Fioretto
» ‎ Chocolat Cannelle : Litterature Erotique

Tags: [éditer]

Vu sur Gay Vinci code, roman parodique de Pascal Fioretto
Chacun reconnaîtra le roman parodié sous le titre Gay Vinci code… Initialement publié aux éd. Chiflet & Cie en 2006, ce roman s’offre une nouvelle jeunesse en format numérique aux éd. L’Opportun, scindé en neuf épisodes à 99 centimes pièce, sauf le premier qui est offert. (la couverture du premier épisode de l’édition numérique, bien […]
Cet article provient de Littérature érotique
19:26
Rentrée littéraire et érotique : un eBook de la collection e-ros
» ‎ Chocolat Cannelle : Litterature Erotique

Tags: [éditer]

Vu sur Rentrée littéraire et érotique : un eBook de la collection e-ros
Un livre numérique d’extraits des différentes publications prévues d’août à décembre dans la collection e-ros vient de paraître. Sept courts textes érotiques sont à lire. Je vous invite à le télécharger gratuitement depuis cette page : http://dominiqueleroy.izibookstore.com/produit/168/
Cet article provient de Littérature érotique

16:19
RMC : 05/08 - Lahaie, l'amour et vous - 15h-16h
» ‎ RMC : Lahaie, l'amour et vous

Pièce jointe: [télécharger]

Tags: [éditer]

Le grand show de Brigitte Lahaie sur la sexualité où chacun s'exprime librement, sans craindre le moindre jugement.
15:43
RMC : 05/08 - Lahaie, l'amour et vous - 14h-15h
» ‎ RMC : Lahaie, l'amour et vous

Pièce jointe: [télécharger]

Tags: [éditer]

Le grand show de Brigitte Lahaie sur la sexualité où chacun s'exprime librement, sans craindre le moindre jugement.

12:36
Summer Camp for IRÈNE… See you in September! ♡ (By Richard...
» ‎ IReNE, Erotic Fanzine

Tags: [éditer]

Summer Camp for IRÈNE… See you in September! ♡

(By Richard Kern)

11:24
Voulez-vous coucher avec moi ? Ils disent oui, une fois sur deux
» ‎ Rue89 : Rue69

Tags: [éditer]

Que se passe-t-il lorsqu’une femme aborde frontalement un homme dans la rue pour lui demander des relations sexuelles ? La chaîne youtube whatever a tenté l’expérience raconte Libération.

« Dans leur vidéo, en anglais postée le 29 juillet, et déjà vue plus de deux millions de fois, une jeune femme, Andrea, plutôt jolie, arrête des hommes au hasard.

“Est-ce que vous voulez coucher avec moi”, demande-t-elle. Parfois, elle apporte une précision, “mon appartement est à côté”,“cela sera très rapide, seulement quinze minutes”. La première réaction des hommes interrogés...

9:16
Eric Cantona est-il gay ?
» ‎ Les 400 culs

Tags: [éditer]

Lorsqu'une femme se travestit, c'est pour accéder à un destin héroïque et surmonter sa condition… C'est transgressif, mais pas subversif, puisque la femme s'inscrit dans une logique conforme aux valeurs sociales : elle s'approprie les "qualités" viriles… Lorsqu'un homme se...

9:16
Eric Cantona est-il gay ?
» ‎ Les 400 culs

Tags: [éditer]

Lorsqu'une femme se travestit, c'est pour accéder à un destin héroïque et surmonter sa condition… C'est transgressif, mais pas subversif, puisque la femme s'inscrit dans une logique conforme aux valeurs sociales : elle s'approprie les "qualités" viriles… Lorsqu'un homme se...

9:00
Miami.
» ‎ Crêpe Georgette

Tags: [éditer]

Je suis allée en Floride en janvier et je vais tenter à travers quelques articles, de vous raconter un peu mon voyage. On m'avait averti qu'il y avait peu de choses à voir en Floride, d'autant plus que je n'aime pas les parcs d'attraction, grand pôle touristique de la région, mais au final, en parcourant plus de 4500 km, nous avons découvert des paysages très variés, une richesse culturelle et artistique insoupçonnée.
La meilleure saison pour aller en Floride est sans nul doute l'hiver ; vous y aurez chaud (voire trop chaud le climat de Key West était dur pour moi à supporter). Si vous montez jusqu'au nord, il vous faudra des vêtements de mi-saison. Une voiture s'avère indispensable - comme pour tout voyage aux Etats-Unis à mon avis.

Quelques informations pratiques qui valent pour l'ensemble des Etats-Unis :

- Comme à peu près partout ailleurs, la location d'une voiture s'avère souvent une mauvaise surprise. Vous réservez tranquillement de France et à l'arrivée vous voilà à payer pour des assurance truc, des assurance machin afin d'être sûr d'être assuré si des extra-terrestres atterrissent sur votre voiture.
- Faites attention à la clim. Prenez un pull ou un gilet systématiquement ; vous risquez d'en avoir besoin quand vous passerez d'un extérieur à 35 à un intérieur atteignant péniblement les 18 degrés. Testée et approuvée la crève par 30°.
- Les pourboires : les serveurs/serveuses sont rémunérés en totalité ou en partie par les pourboires. Lorsqu'on vous apportera l'addition, vous aurez en bas de note, trois pourcentages (correspondant en gros à 10, 12 et 15% de la note), vous devez entourer celui que vous souhaitez donner et il sera ajouté à l'addition.
- Si vous souhaitez cuisiner (la plupart des chambres de motels/hôtels sont dotées de réfrigérateur, micro-ondes, voire de plaques), il y a d'immenses supermarchés comme Publix ou Walmart. Publix est plus fourni en fruits et légumes frais ; vous y trouverez d'excellentes salades (en revanche les sauces..). La visite d'un supermarché s'impose, ne serait-ce que pour constater les désastres culinaires américains. Si vous souhaitez faire des sandwiches, prenez plutôt à la coupe ; je n'ai pas trouvé sous vide moins de 10 tranches de jambon. Si le fromage français vous manque... résistez ! Prenez donc des tranche de cheddar aux piments. J'ai voulu testé un bleu importé de France ; il était aussi amer que sans goût (oui c'est possible). La cuisine de Floride est très influencée par l'Amérique latine et elle est vraiment délicieuse. ; vous y verrez de nombreux restaurants cubains, mexicains. les assiettes et verres sont systématiquement trop remplis ; c'est normal aux Etats-Unis ; on considère comme normal que personne ne finisse son assiette et il ne viendrait à l'idée de personne de diminuer les quantités.
- Pour qui aime faire les brocantes, les routes américaines regorgent de malls ; des magasins partagés par plusieurs propriétaires où sur quelques centaines de mètres carrés, vous trouverez forcément votre bonheur. (j'ai donc ramené des plats en pyrex (...). A noter qu'il n'est pas rare de tomber sur des "souvenirs" de la seconde guerre mondiale avec croix gammées à la clé...
- L'accueil américain n'est pas une légende ; les gens sont extrêmement cordiaux et heureux de vous voir. Tous les américains qui sont allés en France se feront une joie de vous le dire d'ailleurs.
- Vous verrez beaucoup de gens exerçant des métiers impossibles en France ; déguisé en statue de la liberté, sur le bord d'une nationale à sauter en l'air pour attirer l'attention vers un magasin quelconque.
- J'ai été assez frappée de voir beaucoup de travailleurs très âgés ( ayant dépassé les 70 ou 75 ans) y compris dans des musées non que cela soit plus choquant là qu'ailleurs mais cela m'a marquée.

Commençons par la visite de Miami ; j'ai logé à South Beach, surnommée SoBe, une île attenante à Miami. Si vous y logez, pensez que c'est un endroit dédié à la fête et que les hôtels y sont en général très bruyants. Loger dans un des hôtels art déco du front de mer peut s'avérer un cauchemar.

South beach regorge de bâtiments Art Déco (près de 800 !), dont la majeure partie est regroupée sur le front de mer, sur Ocean Drive. C'est un endroit à voir en deux temps ; le soir pour la fête, les poseurs en grosse voiture et en moto improbable, et tôt le matin pour en admirer l'architecture. Ces constructions furent construites après un ouragan et un incendie, en 1926. A SoBe l'Art Déco s'inspire de l'Egypte - les années 20 sont la période des découvertes égyptiennes, mayas, perses - puis de la faune et la flore locale dans un style appelé Tropical Art Déco. On y voit également des bâtiments de style Mediterranean Revival, inspiré des architectures européennes, puis après la grande dépression vint la période pleine de sobriété nommée Streamline Moderne (style paquebot en français) avec des bâtiments en forme de ponts de bateaux ou de voitures, avec des visières de protection au-dessus des fenêtres.

Alors que les bâtiments sont menacés de destruction, en 1976, la designer Barbara Baer Capitman et son fils John fondent la Miami Design Preservation League afin de les rénover et restaurer.
Vous constaterez sur mes photos la profusion de couleurs qui date des années 80 ; à l'origine les bâtiments étaient blancs avec quelques éléments décoratifs en couleur.

Sur Washington Avenue et Collins Avenue, vous verrez également des bâtiments Art Déco comme la somptueuse poste. Sur Washington, le Wolfsonian-FIU, un musée dédié au design. Pour tous les fans de la période Art Deco, cette visite est incontournable. et le petit café du musée est très agréable.
La visite du World Erotic Art Museum n'est pas un incontournable d'autant que beaucoup des objets et tableaux présentés sont des reproductions ; enfin vous y verrez des objets érotiques étonnants des 4 coins de la planète.

Non loin de là, la Lincoln road est une rue piétonne (piétonne à l'américaine, ne vous attendez pas à une impasse étroite) dédiée au shopping avec là encore des bâtiments Art Déco : vous y trouverez un magasin Apple, Anthropologie, Kiehl's par exemple.
A côté l'Espanola way qui est la reconstitution d'un rue piétonne espagnole ; atrocement et merveilleusement kitsch, on y trouve des restaurants et des bars.

Dans le quartier de Coconut Grove, vous pourrez visiter Vizcaya Museum and Gardens. Cette villa, construite entre 1914 et 1920 par un homme d'affaires, John Deering, un fou de la renaissance italienne qui décida de s'en inspirer pour sa demeure. Deering a bien réussi son pari puisque la maison donne réellement l'impression d'avoir été érigée il y a plusieurs siècles. Le jardin ressemble à celui de la villa d'Este avec des bosquets, des fontaines et des statues. La maison domine la baie de Biscayne et vous verrez que le ponton est un bateau en pierre inspiré de la fontaine de la piazza di Spagna à Rome. En bonne européenne, je n'ai pas été très impressionnée par cette demeure (d'autant que j'étais en plein décalage horaire) d'autant que Deering n'a pas hésité à casser, réadapter des objets ancienés chinés en Europe mais reconnaissons que la maison est remarquable.

Le Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden est le plus grand jardin tropical des Etats-Unis ; il est bien balisé mais il vaut mieux sortir un peu des chemins pour le découvrir. C'est le premier lieu où nous sommes allés et l’arrivée est impressionnante au milieu d'une route d'arbres gigantesques sur lesquels poussent de la mousse espagnoles et des orchidées. Floride, nous voilà !
On peut y voir différents aspects de la végétation tropicale ; on y voit par exemple des serres avec des plantes tropicales de mangrove avec des grandes sculptures de verre. On y voit des plantes de mangrove, de région sèche comme des cactus gigantesque (conseil ; mettre la main sur un cactus pour faire style "aïe j'ai mal" pour une photo très originale va MAL se terminer). Lorsque nous y sommes allés, se déroulait une exposition consacrée à des artistes zimbabwéens ; je ne connaissais aucun des artistes présentés et le travail de beaucoup d'entre eux m'a beaucoup plu.

Dans le quartier de Coral Gables, il faut sauter dans son maillot pour visiter la Venetian Pool qui fut construite en 1923. Vous y verrez différentes piscines avec des grottes, des ponts, des cascades et des portiques. J'y suis évidemment allée quand la piscine fermait. Non loin de là, le Biltmore Hotel de style espagnol ; un des hôtels les plus luxueux de Miami.

Où manger :
Dans le quartier de Coconut Grove, je vous conseille Jaguar un restaurant de ceviche. J'y ai goûté un poisson local, le mahi-mahi et des ceviches (une marinade de fruits de mer ou de poissons : j'ai donc mangé pour la première fois de ma vie du poisson cru, je me sentais telle Indiana Jones réincarnée en quelque sorte). Je n'ai absolument pas goûté un cheesecake con dulce de leche mais si je l'avais fait, je pourrais vous dire que le paradis était à ma portée.
Dans le quartier de SoBe, on a petit-déjeuné/déjeuné/mangé pour la journée chez Jerry's famous deli ; je vous laisse admirer la carte : la grande simplicité à l'américaine. Tout y est excellent et très frais.

La fameuse mousse espagnole, un parasite, qu'on voit sur tous les arbres en Floride.

Le ponton du Vizcaya

Tweet