The act which men commonly perform on prostituted women is penis-in-vagina sexual intercourse. There is nothing “natural” about that act. – Sheila Jeffreys
The first part of the report I excerpted in yesterday’s column discusses Sheila Jeffreys, Australia’s best-known anti-prostitution fanatic. Because prostitution is legal in Australia, Jeffreys is widely recognized as the emotionally disturbed lunatic she is and the report presents her as such:
In her book, The Idea of Prostitution, she argued that…clients of sex workers (or in her terminology ‘prostituted women’) are more accurately described as ‘batterers’, ‘rapists’, and ‘prostitution abusers’. In the same book, Jeffreys made the quite startling claim that: “The act which men commonly perform on prostituted women is penis-in-vagina sexual intercourse. There is nothing ‘natural’ about that act”. This is consistent with, “her firm belief that men maintain power over women by the act of sexual intercourse, and that heterosexuality is therefore bad for women”. In 1979, she stated that feminists who sleep with men are enemy collaborationists and to her sexuality is the basis of oppression of women by men.
Consistent with this belief, Jeffreys has described marriage as a form of prostitution, whereby women guarantee men sex in return for subsistence. Even in today’s society, in which women are better educated and hold professional employment, Jeffreys contends that, “the right of men to women’s bodies for sexual use has not gone but remains an assumption at the basis of heterosexual relationships”. In essence, Jeffreys regards every married woman as a prostitute. In 1973, Jeffreys decided to abandon both her heterosexuality and femininity. She has said: “I gave up beauty practices, supported by the strength of thousands of heterosexual and lesbian women around me who were also rejecting them. I stopped dying my hair…and cut it short. I stopped wearing make-up. I stopped wearing high heels and, eventually, gave up skirts. I stopped shaving my armpits and legs”…Jeffreys has also argued that western beauty practices such as makeup, high heels, and cosmetic surgery, are harmful cultural practices…
Most American politicians undoubtedly recognize the extremist insanity of American neofeminists, but because they are politically useful they are allowed to speak before legislatures and other government organs and everyone in those assemblies pretends that the poisonous filth they spew is something other than the hateful product of diseased minds. But since the Australian government has no need for Jeffreys or her ilk, she is presented as she actually is and damned by her own words. Today’s column follows in that same vein; I’ve assembled a few quotes from other neofeminists in order to show the true colors of those who oppose women’s right to sex work (both in prostitution and porn).
The best example of the way American politicians conveniently ignore the fanaticism, appalling misandry and sheer ugliness of prohibitionists is Donna M. Hughes, architect of recriminalization in Rhode Island and bridge between soi-disant conservatives and radical feminists. In a number of articles and speeches Hughes has displayed a shocking level of racism (especially toward Asians and Germans) and prejudice against women who are sexual, even referring to respected sex educator Megan J. Andelloux in these words: “Then a tattooed woman, calling herself a “sexologist and sex educator,” spoke against the [criminalization] bill. She is also a reporter for a prostitutes’ magazine called $pread. (I couldn’t make this stuff up!)” But bigotry is actually the least of Hughes’ faults; she is inordinately fond of scare quotes (using them even for such common words as “good”, “bad” and “it”), enamored of weird, cumbersome passive-voice constructions such as “information about finding women in prostitution,” and so obsessed with the word “pimp” that she often emits strange phrases like “woman pimp” or “pimp agency”. But IMHO the strangest of her oddities is her bizarre tendency to describe mundane ideas and actions using portentous language so as to make them sound sinister:
Men write about “good” and “bad” experiences buying women in prostitution. They have “good” experiences when women comply with everything the men want them to do, focus all their attention on the men, and pretend they like the men and enjoy the sex acts (sometimes known as a GFE – “GirlFriend Experience”)…Men have “bad” experiences when women will not do everything they want, or are disinterested, perfunctory, and try to minimize the physical contact with them.
In other words, a customer paying for a service is satisfied when the service provider is friendly, competent and responsive to his preferences, and dissatisfied when the service provider is rude and performs badly. I somehow doubt Miss Hughes would consider a rude mechanic who ignored her complaints and failed to fix her car to be a “good” mechanic, yet this paragraph implies that the buyer of a service has no right to expect to get what he paid for.
Here are a few other choice and representative quotes revealing the true mindset of some of the women who want to control other women’s bodies and minds:
When the sex war is won prostitutes should be shot as collaborators for their terrible betrayal of all women.
Pornography, most often, dehumanizes women. It reduces us to fetishized objects and provides a blueprint and support network for men who commit acts of sexual terrorism.
(Though this quote is fairly typical neofeminist anti-porn rhetoric, it is notable in that Craft has a long history of using her First Amendment right to free speech to speak out against the First Amendment).
The man “makes hate” to the woman, as each sex act is designed to deliver the maximum amount of degradation. Whether it be aggressive fellatio or violent sodomy, the goal of porn sex is to illustrate how much power he has over her. Yet the women are still portrayed as enjoying these scenes. Images like these are commonplace on the internet and shape the way men think about sex, relationships and intimacy.
Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.
Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice.
One can know everything and still be unable to accept the fact that sex and murder are fused in the male consciousness, so that the one without the imminent possibly of the other is unthinkable and impossible.
Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks.
Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s daughter is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.
(Yet, Dworkin apologists now insist that “she never hated men.”)
It is not possible to protect the health of someone whose “job” means that they will get raped on average once a week.
Just as we know that violent men from all social classes batter women, so we also know that the difference between pimps who terrorize women on the street and pimps in business suits who terrorize women in gentlemen’s clubs is a difference in class only, not a difference in woman hating.
Women who ‘choose’ prostitution are sexually abused as kids at much higher rates than other women…Other ways that they ‘choose prostitution’ include poor or no education and no job that pays the rent. Prostitution is a choice based on lack of survival options.
(The first quote is from an argument against harm reduction policies such as condom distribution, the second from a tirade against strippers and the third from a denial that women like me [or most other sex worker advocates] actually exist).
When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression…
Empirically, all pornography is made under conditions of inequality based on sex, overwhelmingly by poor, desperate, homeless, pimped women who were sexually abused as children.
Men who are in prison for rape…were put in jail for something very little different from what most men do most of the time and call it sex. The only difference is they got caught.
Prostitution, when unmotivated by economic need, might well be defined as a species of psychological addiction, built on self-hatred through repetitions of the act of sale by which a whore is defined.
I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.
I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.
Pornography is the theory, and rape the practice.
“the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”
…Does that include black people?
How about prostitutes hating neofeminists?
Hughes doesn’t even give Andelloux credit for ‘taking control of her body’ by having tattoos. Instead she presents in a negative light.
“When the sex war is won prostitutes should be shot as collaborators for their terrible betrayal of all women.”
This one actually has a grain of truth in it; I’m less likely to put up with a woman’s BS if I know I can see a prostitute.
You’ve probably already seen this video, but it goes to show some men actually do buy into this nonsense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_uRIMUBnvw
Aside from that, I don’t really have much to add. They discredit themselves.
Iain D,
I just watched the video.
How bad does a video have to be that I feel a need to invoke Poe’s Law on it? I kept waiting for someone to jump in with the Wayne’s World equivalent of “This Man Blows Goats” to let me know that all of these emasculated pod-people were shamming it.
This is the first time outside of a bona-fide chick flick where I felt in imminent danger of estrogen poisoning. From beings purportedly of the male persuasion.
When referring to that sort of video, my husband says things like “they needed to put a counter outside so guys could check their balls at the door before going in.”
In other words, they hate all men and maleness as a category (alas, poor biology); they would criminalize the very act of being male.
They detest women who don’t hate men.
Their social model is one that will render the species extinct.
And then they try to fool others into supporting their philosophy.
What have I missed?
Hence: Men left as third-class citizens in family courts; women and the “pussy pass” in almost all courts (much lesser sentences for the same crimes, though conservatives do this, too); all aspects of natural heterosexual sex attacked as wrong; up to 40% of reported rapes, especially on college campuses, false reports (while most actual rapes go unreported due to the class/status of the female victims – a situation wholly created and maintained by neofeminists), while men are jailed almost as a matter of course; And the exceptions:
– Gay men. They don’t suffer, though their sexuality is similar but simply chooses a different subject.
– Anyone who’s a member of a protected-class minority, especially black men, who are not penalized for actions in this ideology (though oddly, Asian men are generally penalized).
It’s interesting what kins of misandrist, crippled world this worldview would create. What a nightmare.
The problem these women have can be boiled down to this:
They don’t like being human. They can’t come to grips with the reality of being human. And they don’t want anyone to do it, either.
Bingo!
These lesbians and their disgust at the thought of having sex with a man are EXACTLY the same as the homophobe whose obsessed with his inherent disgust at the idea of having sex with another man.
You know what all this reminds me of? This: http://jezebel.com/5788765/christian-men-beg-women-not-to-dress-like-sluts
Specifically, the line where the guy says “I am thankful that God made me to be attracted to women” and I’m just like “NO YOU ARE NOT fool. You shudder in catatonic terror at your own heterosexual malehood.” Totally the opposite direction, but it seems like the same problem: people who hate the facts of their humanity. I guess they just wish we were all infinitely-modular transhumanist cyberpeople BLEEP BLOOP.
Hey, don’t pick on us transhumanists! We like sex just fine, and look forward to a future expansion of existing types of sex, and of all new types of sex.
I think we need to really take back our state from this “feminist” ideology. It’s not “feminist” – it’s a kind of female separatism. It’s like black separatism in the 70’s : No matter what you call it, it was racism as bad as anything spewed by white people.
This brand of feminism is a kind of anti-human male-hatred. There’s nothing else to it.
We need to reclaim our state. I think someone should find a way to make a doc about that, too.
It needs to say a lot by focusing on a single issue or thread. One excellent independent doc was “IndoctrinateU” – if you haven’t seen it, download it immediately and watch it, in between servicing your husband and polishing the silverware.
A good issue to bury this philosophy, preferably directly targeting government influence, would be genius.
Dear Gorbachev, there’s been a lot of independent documentaries already made about how too many of the freedoms originally in the US are being lost, etc. It takes some effort to find them, though. The place to find them that takes the least effort is YouTube. You can watch them there for free. Thank God for the people who also put their documentaries out there for free! Yes, the 1’s I’ve learned about also sell their movies on DVD which is great, but they’re to be commended for caring enough about getting the word out, etc., by also putting them for free on YouTube. This is 1 of the truly wonderful things about doing stuff and not wanting a cent for it. The 1st 1 I saw was “America: Freedom to Fascism” and I’m pretty sure it’s on YouTube still. You talk about “bury this philosophy”. By that do you mean literally order these people to shut up? Not give them the right to speak? If this is what you mean, then you’re against free speech for them. If you’re against it for them, then they can also easily be against it for YOU. It’s an all or nothing thing. “Targeting government influence”-what exactly are you talking about here?
Some women are not comfortable wih heterosexual sex, finding “penis in vagina” a kind of invasion and maybe this is why they turn to Lesbian relationships. That’s understandable. However there is something insane about the attitude of these women quoted in your blog who are apparently filled with hatred againt women who think differently and who are perfectly happy with the type of men-women relationship that have existed throughout human history.
Are we really meant to take seriously statements like:
“When a woman reahes orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression”?
and
“sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman”?
The sad fact is that these clearly disturbed women are taken seriously, even called as “expert” witnesses in support of anti-prostitution or anti-porn laws. I don’t for one instant believe that male politicians believe one word of the nonsense spewed by people like MacKinnon or Hughes, but they’re politically convenient in furthering oppressive laws.
It’s hardly suprising that the knee-jerk reaction of most people is “rabid, mouthfoaming bullshit”.
Take what these neofeminists say, and switch the gender of one participant.
“sex, even consensual sex between a married gay couple, is an act of violence perpetrated by one man against another”
“When a man reahes orgasm with a man he is only collaborating with the gay agenda, eroticizing his own oppression”
and especially:
“The act which men commonly perform on prostituted men is penis-in-anus sexual intercourse. There is nothing “natural” about that act.”
Anybody making such public statements would be denounced as homophobic. Self-proclaimed liberals* would play the statement over and over, interspersed with their own denunciations. Self-proclaimed conservatives would avoid the question, sorta-kinda denouncing the statements in ways which they could deny on radio. That “nothing ‘natural'” crack would have gay protestors marching.
This is nothing but anti-heterosexual bigotry, which is in no way preferable to anti-homosexual bigotry. Left, right, center, or off the axis, this should be denounced, loudly. Yes, they have the right to say bigoted things, but the rest of us have the right to call it what it is: bigotry.
* Oops, sorry; make that “self-proclaimed progressives.” Few actual politicians, at least, have the balls or ovaries to call themselves liberals, even if they sort of are. But these can only be sort of, because they have to have that “well, I’d call myself progressive not liberal” deniability. Such a thing gets you branded a liberal anyway, and a wishy-washy liberal at that.
Even to question their motives, their conclusions or their assumptions is to be a womyn-hater to these people.
They don’t represent anything we’d ever want to see as “normal” human behavior: were their philosophies ever enacted on a large scale, the result would be a kind of femo-centric male-genocidal stalinist “utopia”.
But this doesn’t say what’s at the core of it.
They hate being female. They hate the fact of their gender and ex. They despise the vast majority of women for not being uncomfortable with it: And they project all of their fears, self-loathing and disgust onto men. Men are just a convenient target.
In actual fact, if you read what they write, it’s very clear that they hate themselves- the themselves that they actually are, not the way they see themselves – with a loathing and passion that dwarfs the level at which they hate everything male and all men.
They reserve their bitterest invective for other women, not men, if you read carefully.
They need to be removed from any position of power. Their entire mindset is self-annihilatory and the society they imagine is one of segregation, abuse and permanent victimization.
They and their Marxist fellows (and they’re all hard-core marxists, these) have sodomized and raped dozens of societies and six generations of people the world over.
The moment someone comes up and says that this is some ideal or other, and that we can perfect society, they should be put on the first train and sent out of town. Utopianists always destroy. They never, ever create.
And these women aren’t even that. They’re mentally ill. But even saying this and making normal observations brands you a woman-hater.
I love women. I have great respect for them. I just don’t have illusions. And partof that lack of illusions is this:
If you think maleness is a crime and only lesbians are real women, your option is to fuck off and leave heterosexual women, men and gay men for that matter alone.
And heterosexual sex is normal, and it’s an act which we’re designed and programmed for down to the very core. Every last aspect of being human is designed to ensure reproduction and sex is the means to this end.
It’s normal. If these women don’t like it – they’re welcome to stop being members of the Human race. If they can’t do this, then we need to make sure they stop destroying *human* societies,
So that’s actually our responsibility. Maggie’s doing her work well.
Freud had a phrase for this “penis envy”. While that is a simplistic diagnosis for most things, it makes sense when looking at these wack jobs. They hate the fact of being female
Exactly. That’s what my March 27th column was about.
If the world was one half as bad as the neo-feminists claim, they would be locked in insane asylums by the Patriarchy. Indeed this is a reoccurring theme on the Radical Left; if George Bush had been even slightly like Hitler (as so many deranged protesters were happy to claim) the anti-war protests of the Bush era would have been broken up with bulldozers and tanks, and survivors would have been jailed.
There are sensible, honest people on the Left, but the Radical Chic Left is composed largely of people who like to pretend that they are engaged in a life or death struggle with a dark force that, if it actually existed as they imagined it, would snuff them out like a candle in a wind tunnel. The Neo-feminists strike me as a particularly sad case, as they clearly suffer from a deep self-loathing. They aren’t the first people who wanted to rebuke God for making two sexes, the Shakers did the same. but the Shakers were at least CHEERFUL about it, and gave us the charming song “simple gifts”. I can’t imagine a neo-feminist song that I’d want to hear.
And, yes, I know that the Far Right has its fair share of self-persecuted nuts. But the Right has the grace to be ASHAMED of the John Birchers. The Left gives THEIR nuts tenure.
Dear CSP, THANK YOU for giving credit where it’s due. It’s wonderful to read on here a POSITIVE said about a group instead of the constant negatives. Thank you for saying that there are good, sensible, honest people who are liberals. The same goes for some conservatives and moderates also. Actually, the John Birch Society was originally funded at least in part by some in the Rockefeller family (they also funded many WONDERFUL eugenics programs. They should be proud!) as a distraction and to literally divide people. The “Communist Threat” was made out to be worse than it actually was by them and that was on purpose. Before any screaming starts, yes, I know that the Russians at 1 time had all these weapons, the Cold War had some reality to it and too many people were persecuted/killed by Communists. But, 1 reason John Birch Society was made was to exaggerate all this, make it out worse than it really was and get people to live in constant fear INSTEAD OF doing what needed to be done to at least try for true, GOOD change in society. Unfortunately, the influence of the Birch Society is still strong with some in what’s called the 9/11 Truth Movement and that influence is used for the same bad reasons as they originally were.
” Consistent with this belief, Jeffreys has described marriage as a form of prostitution, whereby women guarantee men sex in return for subsistence. ”
Hmm. I can think of a few men who might wonder where all that guaranteed sex went.
What we’re dealing with here is a sort of extreme solipsism. It is common for people to assume that those who are like them — men, women, black, white, etc. — must needs think like them. They believe that their thoughts are the natural way people think. In this case, if a neofeminist is not attracted to men or not interested in sex or wouldn’t be a prostitute, then the only women who do his do so because they are mentally ill or coerced or deluded.
The thing is, we usually ignore such twerps. If someone came along claiming to know how all white people think, he’d be ignored unless he were doing a comedy bit. But with gender, we allow quite a bit more of this in general (e.g., the Weiner Scandal, in which we’re being told that no woman wants to get sexts and all women consider sexting infidelity). And with the neofeminists, we encourage this delusion to show how tolerant and open-minded we are and because their bullshit supports some people’s personal kinks, like keeping prostitution illegal or banning porn.
The porn thing really grates because it’s so factually challenged as to be laughable. We live in the Era of Porn and also an era with crashing rates of sexual violence and declining divorce rates. Amateur porn, porn for women, porn involving women of all shapes and sizes — how are these bad things?
To be strictly fair, I don’t think much of the correlation of the spread of Porn with falling rates of sexual violence. I’ve run into the assertion before, and it has always struck me that the correlation of aging populace with a fall in sexual violence was likelier to be significant.
Which hardly lets the anti-porn hysterics off the hook, since the ravening hoards of porn incited rapists they assured us Porn would cause never put in an appearance. It’s like the Gun Control argument; I don’t have to believe that widespread gun ownership causes a fall in violent crime to believe that the Dodge City (Hollywood style) conditions that Gun Control advocates have consistently predicted would follow any decrease in Gun Control have yet to appear.
I wonder if these feminists have heard of traumatic insemination (also known as hypodermic insemination) before.
It puts human heterosexual intercourse in a totally differently light.
Well, when you get right down to it, that’s how viral reproduction works, isn’t it? The virus invades the body of a host, “rapes” individual cells and turns them into virus “wombs” which are destroyed when they “give birth”. Pretty nasty, when you think about it. 🙁
Viruses also have a mechanical look to them. I’ve stated many times (I’m not the first to do so) that biology is Nature’s nanotechnology (or if you prefer, God’s nanotechnology).
I’ve heard some of this before but taken together this shit is unbelievable. So unbelievable, it turns women away from feminisim.
Women already have the right to refuse sex in marriage (or anywhere else). The cost of this is that if your husband wants to have sex and you don’t (over a period of time), it’s grounds for divorce. These women refuse to recognize reality – that rape does not come from porn and that though there is a fetish for rough fellatio, women have their own dominance fantasies and porn when it comes to men. There are guys who like to get shit on and who like to wear diapers, all in the course of heterosexual sex. These women are not only holy crusaders, they’re goddamn liars.
Hahahahaha……these women are effin crazy.
I challenge any of them to a public debate on any topic at any location of their choosing. My contact info is readily available online.
>When the sex war is won prostitutes should be shot as collaborators for their terrible betrayal of all women.
Wow. Well, you’d better bet I’m not going to go to the wall easily!
I’ve run into these types before. Usually, when I tell them that working in sex work was a better life for me than working in retail, and that I wasn’t miserable, they end up telling me, although usually in nicer words, that I must be too stupid or crazy to see my own abuse and degradation. Can’t win arguing with them, if I don’t agree with them, I’m evil or stupid.
I’ve been in romantic relationships with men and women. I’ve loved both. Once you look beyond the plumbing, it’s the person one really falls into love with.
As for the whole “porn is rape” thing, all I can say is that wasn’t my experience. And perhaps these women don’t know the difference between reality and a performance.
I’m so tired of the whole “sex workers are too stupid to know better” attitude that so many people carry. What I’ve done brought pleasure to people. I don’t see that as a bad career choice.
Dear comixchik, those of us who choose not to be sex workers and want to keep sex as free as possible, not literally charge money for it, etc., get tired of being told we’re “literally dumb” because we choose NOT to charge. I’ve brought pleasure to people also and got some compliments for it, etc. I learned a ton through these experiences. Were they ALL great? NO. But, I kept at it and met some good men who broke the ###*** that all men are ###***, etc., and who were way less sexually frustrated during the years I saw them.
This variety of feminism always bothered me because there seems to be no way out. Well, no practical way out as anything that could end the species seems highly impractical. They see the victimization of women by men as inherent in our gender. Some of these women if pressed, but acknowledge that men COULD change for the better, but they don’t focus on that possibility. Andrea Dworkin might acknowledge the existence of a feminist man in the distant future, but if you claimed to be one she would doubt it I think.
Without hope for change, it’s all just doom and gloom. In fact, I don’t really see the point of writing so much about it if none of them really focused on how to make things better.
This is why sociological theory is so important for feminism. If sociology is what determines behavior, then that provides an avenue for real change. Namely, you provide an example of what should be, you change people’s attitudes. Changing the culture is like moving a mountain, and changing you own culture is like moving the mountain you’re standing on, yes, but at least it’s something.
It’s much better than all these pessimistic, sad people trying to separate themselves from society and dreaming of the day they blow it all up and can finally put all the Bourgeois/whores/g-men/people-I-don’t-like up against the wall. At least with a sociological view, there is a “someday” where nobody has to die, we can live harmony…well more so than previously anyway.
Unfortunately though, this subset of feminism gets in the way of real solutions. It gives plenty of ammo for critics, even the crazy ones; It scares away anyone not already familiar with feminism; and often these feminists will go after those who try to make a difference sometimes claiming only their own solutions will work, even though it’s more of a non-solution and moreso fear mongering.
P.S. I really want to say to Ms. Jeffreys quoted at the top, you are a lesbian. THAT is the reason why penis in vagina sex feels unnatural. You are a lesbian THEREFORE you feel no natural attraction to men, and plenty of natural attraction to women. Saying penis in vagina is unnatural is silly, it’s how people normally breed, without it we’d immediately die out. But it’s okay if those who are indeed homosexual do their own thing, but we’d have problems if all women went gay.
Quantum, I don’t think men need to change as men, for the better or otherwise. Certainly there are ways in which I’d like to see human beings change (e.g. more respect for individuals, the recognition of collective action as the moral equivalent of individual action, greater skepticism toward leaders, etc) but none of those are characteristics of men per se, who are for the most part the way they have to be to get their biological job done. The "feminist" idea of a man is a woman with a penis, whom no normal woman – including "feminists" – would have any sexual attraction to. If society ever manages to create such men through genetic manipulation the modified branch of our species is doomed, and good riddance.
The comment by Burchill that all the prostitutes should be shot would be very upsetting and offensive to those of us (I’m 1 of them) who are the surviving family members and/or friends of murder victims. What a wonderful idea she has (being sarcastic here) to make even MORE people go through the HELL of having your family member and/or friend murdered. Murder isn’t the “problem solver” that the 1’s like this ###*** Burchill think it is. So sad and disgusting. It’s so sad that she thinks violence is GOOD and a way to solve things in regards to the subject of sex. I imagine these women would also jump on my head and the heads of the other “wild women” because we’re having sex with anyone at ALL. I know they wouldn’t want to hear about my life and how the sex only friendships I’ve had brought up my self-esteem greatly, taught me many things, etc. Very sad. I find them sad figures that don’t deserve any kind of violence towards them (unlike what Burchill is saying about other women) and hope 1 day they change their ideas on sex. They do deserve the right to say their ideas as ALL do and if that’s taken away from 1 group (like them) then it’s taken away from ALL. They can be confronted with decency and tact and also debated in that way and why not? I think it would be great if they were approached in a decent, tactful way. I have the strong feeling that the 1’s who think what Burchill is saying is great are also the type who don’t even THINK of giving the surviving family/friends of murder victims (MVS) the basic courtesy of condolences and also say/believe the wonderful mentality of “MOVE ON” and “GET OVER IT”. I can’t imagine them having any patience, etc., for the MVS who are working on recovery from their tragedies.
Everyone forgets that most of this is biologically determined – either genes, or epigenetic effects, or embryology or development.
You can’t fight human nature or biology. We’re not blank slates when we’re born: Like cockroaches and dogs, we come preprogrammed to a large extent. All parents notice this about their kids, especially if they have more than one: their temperaments seem to come pre-installed. And the answer to this?
They do.
Given that we’re animals in every sense that every other animal is, expect ideological wars based on redefining what it is to be human to be vindictive and oppressive by nature.
It’s much easier to work with biology. Just be glad we’re not dolphins (rape gangs as a matter of course), some insects (males pierce the female’s body in an attack – which injures her badly – and inseminate her organs internally), some fish (the male attaches itself to a female’s body and atrophies, leaving nothing but testes hanging from her body), or cats (that go through a torturous heat period).
Sex may be disgusting to these women, but it could have been much, much worse.
Remember: Biology programmed us for one thing: Breeding. Even survival is incidental and subject to “breed first”.
feminist or personal feelings be damned, we all exist because we had ancestors who were excellent breeders. Same goes for oak trees and bacteria.
Don’t like it? Then face facts: You don’t like being a living organism.
We can choose not to follow or to modify some of our base programs, like not killing someone when they piss us of, but even then, more often than not we’re playing into our programs in another way.
We’re not separate from nature, different or differently motivated. We are animals. We are exactly like animals.
You can find all of our root behaviors in our related species. That goes for sex, too.
If these women have problems with the various scripts running in our brains, then perhaps they should advocate for removing their consciousnessess, modifying them to extricate the organic programs from them, and then placing them in robots or machines. This is the only way they can create their ideal worlds.
Like what was said in the 60’s (famous feminist): “We can’t allow women to make the choice to be housewives, precisely because if give the choice, far too many women (most?) will make that choice.”
Individual rights are one thing. Civil rights are one thing. Equal rights are one thing. But fighting human nature on a grand scale only ever brings oppression and misery.
Dear Gorbachev, the biggest reason I haven’t had kids is because I knew to bring them into the world while I was an active alcoholic would be abuse. I wouldn’t do that to a child. I drank during my most fertile years. I’ve been sober nearly 12 years now and overall am very glad I’ve been fanatic about not becoming pregnant. That’s 1 thing I did right during my drinking years (I didn’t miss my birth control pill 1 time during those years). So, if all the women are programmed to get pregnant at least once, why did I just with my mind not go along with that? It never caused me a huge amount of upset and still doesn’t. There’s many women like me who have chosen for various reasons to not have kids. The 1’s I’ve met aren’t upset by it, but, unfortunately, they get ###*** from the 1’s who think if you don’t have kids, your life is empty. I know from my own life that’s ###***. An FYI on reasons for murder, especially what are called “crimes of passion” like you describe: a BIG component of that is the mental health of the person who’s enraged. I learned in counseling and reading up on these things the better your mental health, the LESS likely you are to kill someone when enraged. It’s more complicated than you’re making it. It isn’t all just programming you already have.
Maggie —
I find that feminists (who aren’t ugly or lesbians, or lesbians because they can’t get decent enough male interest) often end up with the “bad boys” – they fuck the non-feminist men who shockingly represent the most basic Maleness they claim to detest.
Then they go on about how men are evil etc.
Actions: Even feminists are attracted to men who are, for lack of a better term, men.
Their own sexual attraction betrays them. Says a lot about the ideology.
I’ve also seen them marry eunuchs so they have full-time domestic servants who give them money, while carrying on with women or very young men on the side. If that’s not “pimp” behavior, I don’t know what is.
They often call it “polyamory” when the man in these situations would obviously never choose this situation; often,he’s intellectually browbeaten by ideology.
In effect, it amounts to: A female maximizing her returns based on her own basic psychological programming: Acquiring the resources of one while trotting around, and somehow claiming the loyalty of the income/stability man to free her up for action with others.
In fact, they’re following their bioscript even more closely than monogamous women in traditional relationships. They’re just alpha female cuckolders.
Polyamory generally has three or more people who are engaged in both romantic and sexual relations with each other.
It’s kind of like: Bob loves Carol, and Carol loves Bob and Alice, and Alice loves Carol and Ted. Bob and Ted are friends, but they aren’t in love with each other and don’t have sex with each other. Carol and Ted have had sex, but don’t much any more, and Bob and Alice have had sex, but don’t much any more. Feel free to shuffle the names about so that, for instance, it’s Ted and Bob in the middle of the diagram instead of Carol and Alice, but the overall idea is the same.
Now, I’m not going to deny that there may well be women who set up the sort of relationship you and Maggie have described and who try to call that “polyamory,” but then they could also try to call it “patriarchal oppression” or “liverwurst.” It’s about as much one as the other two.
Or maybe that’s what you were saying already, and I missed it. Hhhmmmnnn…… Now I’m thinking so. Set me straight here?
Thanks for the exposé Maggie. These women are suffering from mind disorder and hence mental illness.
The source of their mind disorder can get traced to the many expressions they heard their mothers speak when their mothers described incidents as such unfolded.
Likely, many went to colleges and universities to hear other females who suffer from similar mind disorder speak. These other females have built up a jargon from which they describe their perception of new incidents under the same mind disorder. Their jargon gets enveloped under the names ‘Women’s studies’, ‘Feminist studies’, ‘Transgender studies’.
Such mentally ill females get encouraged to wallow in and indulge in their mind disorder because it’s useful for a technocratic socialist (bureaucrats deciding who get what and often who does what) agenda.
When are the many going to gain the courage to stand up and call out the entire charade and demand that rather than encourage the mentally ill to stay ill, encourage these women and the many like them to get the help they oh-so desperately need.
When I was a young man – these women got into my head real bad.
I was very much a liberal at the time, and I read a lot on feminism. I was totally convinced that, as a man – I was an opressor. So when feminists talked about how sex was all about men asserting their power I was like … “well, yeah I guess – if you look at it … it’s kind of invasive.”
So I was sure no woman really LIKED sex.
This caused me to play by a whole set of “rules” I drew up …
I never “hit on” a girl until the third date – and I only did it then to prove to her I wasn’t homosexual. LOL
I never … ever showed agression – not even a little bit. Sex was always on her terms – with a lot of effort on my part put forth to proving I was “sensitive” to the female plight. All orgasms – I considered fake because – women didn’t enjoy sex and faking it was their way of being “nice” to me. None of those relationships worked out.
Thank God I met Catherine – who was a total freak. She asked me out – and made the first moves on me. She diagnosed my problems real fast and taught me to unleash the “Viking” inside every now and then.
It was hard though – she would tell me “I want to do this to you” or “I want you to do that to me” – some pretty naughty stuff … and I was like … “Hey, I don’t have to do those things because I respect you”. That’s when she’d tell me – “Look, I only asked because I enjoy it – really I do”.
Well – that helped me a lot but there are still a lot of things I don’t like doing because they make me feel like a complete male “ass” doing them to a woman. So I still have hangups – not that many though.
And – I’ve never really been a male “eunuch” – I’m 6’2″ … 210 lbs and all muscle. I served in the military and I’ve been face to face with some pretty tough guys and lived to tell the tales –
Men are so stupid. I still don’t understand women – but that girl helped me to understand a lot.
Men aren’t stupid, Mark; y’all just tend to be straightforward, while women tend to be sneaky. Even when men lie it’s not generally as convoluted as female lying. And though men will defend themselves from uncomfortable thoughts with straightforward reversals (in other words, reaction formation), women’s psychological defenses are often truly devious.
There’s an emerging pattern here: people seem to have a much more positive and powerful sexual experience if their partner says something visceral like:
“C’mon, bang me like you mean it, I want you to.”
This was a huge resource.
Thanks.
You’re welcome; this column and the “Handy Figures” one are my way of providing my readers with ammunition. 🙂
Sheila Jeffreys has good reason for believing that penis-in-vagina intercourse is unnatural.
After all, her own parents did it and look what that led to.
Sheila Jeffreys is an idiot, I wish she would stop going around giving feminism a bad name, feminism is about equality for all genders and sexualities, and empowering women to make whatever choices they damn well want, she is no feminist!
There is nothing about the content of this reporting that I “like” — but it is definitely worth reporting. *sigh*
[…] of female sexuality. For some third wave or radical feminists, women who enjoy sex with men are eroticizing their own submission to ‘patriarchy’, just to ‘get off’. Once again, how condescending the […]
✍
Maggie, every one of your articles is AMAZING. I’ve been glued to your site for five hours (so far).
“I don’t like men, so nobody else should either.”
Guys, you have no idea what these people are like unless you’ve taken a couple of WMST classes in college. These women are so obviously mentally ill that they’re embarrassing to listen to.
The mandatory “racial issues awareness” class was like that, too.
-lux
PS:
Why, oh WHY haven’t you done a whole page of Paglia quotes??
► “Women will never be taken seriously until they accept full responsibility for their sexuality. If a campus grievance committee has to decide if it was rape, it wasn’t rape.”
► “The problem with America is that there’s too little sex, not too much. The more our instincts are repressed, the more we need pornography.”
► “Feminism, which has waged a crusade for rape to be taken seriously, has put young women in danger by hiding the truth about sex from them.
► “Nature exists, whether feminist academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm. It’s what we’re ‘supposed to’ do. No fancy linguistic game-playing can change that fact.”
I’ve got LOTS more.