Posted on 08/06/2014 5:14:39 AM PDT by servo1969
Just to recall a basic fact: Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple.
This is a developed recap from what I’ve been saying in various comments here and there in the last two years or so. as a radfem I’ve always said PIV is rape and I remember being disappointed to discover that so few radical feminists stated it clearly. How can you possibly see it otherwise? Intercourse is the very means through which men oppress us, from which we are not allowed to escape, yet some instances of or PIV and intercourse may be chosen and free? That makes no sense at all.
First, well intercourse is NEVER sex for women. Only men experience rape as sexual and define it as such. Sex for men is the unilateral penetration of their penis into a woman (or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice) whether she thinks she wants it or not – which is the definition of rape: that he will to do it anyway and that he uses her and treats her as a receptacle, in all circumstances – it makes no difference to him experiencing it as sexual. That is, at the very least, men use women as useful objects and instruments for penetration, and women are dehumanised by this act. It is an act of violence.
As FCM pointed out some time ago, intercourse is inherently harmful to women and intentionally so, because it causes pregnancy in women. The purpose of men enforcing intercourse regularly (as in, more than once a month) onto women is because it’s the surest way to cause pregnancy and force childbearing against our will, and thereby gain control over our reproductive powers. There is no way to eliminate the pregnancy risk entirely off PIV and the mitigating and harm-reduction practices such as contraception and abortion are inherently harmful, too. Reproductive harms of PIV range from pregnancy to abortion, having to take invasive, or toxic contraception, giving birth, forced child bearing and rearing and all the complications that go with them which may lead up to severe physical and emotional damage, disability, destitution, illness, or death (See factcheckme.wordpress.com for her work on the reproductive harms of PIV, click on the “intercourse series” page or “PIV” in the search bar). If we compare this to even the crappiest online definition of violence: “behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something”. Bingo. It fits: Pregnancy = may hurt, damage or kill. Intercourse = a man using his physical force to penetrate a woman. Intention / purpose of the act of intercourse = to cause pregnancy. PIV is therefore intentional harm / violence. Intentional sexual harm of a man against a woman through penile penetration = RAPE.
If we look at the act in more detail (skip this parag if you can’t take it), PIV is a man mounting on a woman to thrust a large member of himself into her most intimate parts, often forcing her to be entirely naked, banging himself against her with the whole weight of his body and hips, shaking her like he would stuff a corpse, then using her insides as a receptacle for his penile dejection. How is this a normal civilised, respectful way to treat anyone? Sorry for the explicit picture, but this is what it is and it’s absolutely revolting and violating.
The term “fuck you” is not an insult for nothing, men know why – it’s the worst thing you can do to a human being. It is in itself an extremely physically invasive act, very often painful, generally at the beginning before the pain may be cut off by the genital arousal; causes all sorts of tears, bruises, swelling, discomfort, STDs, vaginal infections, urinary infections, genital warts, HIV and death. Not to forget the additional sado-gynecological interventions/ costs of PIV-maintenance, and all the secondary physical mutiliation and financial costs that go with our duty to make ourselves look decorative for male sexual consumption – such as hair removal, make-up, starvation or forced feeding, torturous limb deforming or cutting up, etc.
The fact intercourse causes so many infections and tears and warts attests to the unnaturalness of intercourse, that it’s not meant to be. The vagina’s primary function isn’t to be penetrated by a penis but to eject a baby for birth. They are two muscle tissues / sphincters pressed against each other to help the baby be pushed out. Penetration of the penis into the vagina is completely unnecessary for conception.
There’s a reason men need to groom us into it, and why this grooming takes so long- because it’s so grossly violating and traumatising that we would otherwise never submit to intercourse. The only reason we may now not feel raped or have the impression we desired or initiated PIV, is because men broke down our barriers very skillfully and progressively from birth, breaking down our natural defences to pain and invasion, our confidence in our own perceptions and sensations of fear and disgust that tell us male sexual invasion is painful, harmful and traumatic.
Through an all-pervasive and powerful male propaganda, they stuff our minds from infancy with the idea that PIV is normal, desirable and erotic, before we can even conceive of it as something horrifying, and make sure we never see any alternative to their lie – or that if we do, we can no longer take in the information, are punished for thinking and saying otherwise. The fact we may not immediately feel raped doesn’t mean it’s not rape, objectively speaking. To give a classic example, many women in prostitution may not identify the act of prostitution as rape, except if the act wasn’t paid for. It doesn’t stop us from saying that all prostitution is rape. We know that our subjective feelings or thoughts may be colonised by men’s perspectives and as radical feminists we don’t let that override and erase the objective reality of violence. (PS -The reason why ONLY the lack of payment is defined as rape is because the offence here isn’t against the prostituted woman but the pimp who was deprived of his income. Rape comes from rapt, which is an old word for theft of woman-as-property.)
Lastly, from a structural point of view, as a class oppressed by men, we are not in any position of freedom to negotiate what men do to us collectively and individually within the heterocage. Men, by whom we are possessed, colonised and held captive, are the sole agents and organisers of PIV. Men dominate us precisely so we can’t opt out of sexual abuse by them; intercourse is the very means through which men subordinate us, the very purpose of their domination, to control human reproduction.
Your wife at least knows how to give an unambiguous hint.
Just how drunk would a guy have to be....
LMAO!!
I’m sure she has never been “raped”.
She was so ugly, two guys broke into her apartment, she cried “Rape” and they both yelled, “NOOOOOOOOOO!”
-Rodney Dangerfield
If you take this at face value, all sexual acts perpetrated by men are rape. Including homosexual sex acts.
And to kill spiders.
Shhheeez. TMI. (Too Much Information) What’s with these people?
That, and it takes American feminism to turn one (or a few) men's abuse into a life-long hatred for 1/2 of the earth's population.
I actually DID hit that.
This seems to me to be a lot like the same reasoning of poor people hating rich people. I don’t have money therefore I hate those who do.
I ain’t gettin’ no PIV ergo must hate on those that do. I submit the photo of the author above as evidence.
Shades of both Orwell and Huxley. Neither of these authors would have seen the light of day had they tried to get published today, I would think.
At this point, Orwell’s a prophet. Huxley’s approaching that status.
As for this, thing, that wrote this screed. The political discourse from 1900 to 1960 was some of the most radical ever.
In 1970 through the 2000s, discourse became much more subdued, helped I think by the failure of the communist experiment.
Now that representative republic’s time in the petri dish is coming to a close, and the internet has lowered the bar to publishing your thoughts, public discourse is casting itself about, trying to figure out what works best and questioning everything.
I don’t think its a stretch to imagine a lot of women see nothing but downside to having to impose any sort of discipline that would be required to a) share their lives with a man, or b) be any sort of fit mother to another person completely dependent upon them.
This, thing, is just an extreme example of what we already understand as a group - some believe life owes them, that rules are for everyone else, and responsibility is something to which we hold others.
A lot of women’s experience with sex is negative. First time sex was painful, and then they got pregnant, and then he left. That a group of women would grow up and react like this one doesn’t require a leap of conception.
It’s not how you react to adversity, it’s how you respond to it. Here’s a textbook example of reaction to adversity.
pregnancy is not a disease
>>So, I’m guessing PIA and PIM are off the table<<
I’m I a horrible person because I lol ‘d at this
I guess I’m glad you explained what PIV is, because I didn’t understand, but then I honestly wish I hadn’t read this crap.
Seriously feminist psychos have done more to hurt women than men could ever do.
Why did Andrea Dworkin worry about it? She was obviously in no danger of intercourse!
EXCEPT of course if some state chose IWAD (Intercourse With Andrea Dworkin) as their form of the death penalty....but then, of course, that would be considered cruel and unusual.
She came up with the concept to explain her lack of coitus - and lacking such decided to hate men rather than do something about it.
How drunk were you??
You are legendary, I know... but, that would require a WHOLE BUNCH of margaritas for me to get in sniffing distance..
You can say that again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.