Society/Culture Feminism

(Log in to remove this ad.)

kfc1

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Posts
11,089
Likes
9,938
AFL Club
Essendon
had a good lol @ this
https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/
PIV is always rape, ok?

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 “**** 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.
 

tesseract

I am Woman
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Posts
10,059
Likes
1,828
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats, Swan Districts
Here's just a few feminist quotes which evidence the feminist view that consensual heterosexual sex is to be considered rape and/or anti-feminist. Btw, these feminists aren't your average misguided and ignorant coffee shop variety feminists spouting feminism equals equality, these women are part of feminism's brains trust and are novelists, activists and academics.

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist." Ti-Grace Atkinson

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression." Sheila Jeffrys

"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." Catherine MacKinnon

"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference." Susan Griffin
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Chief

110% sass!
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Posts
72,444
Likes
42,476
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
Admin #3,563

cartwright

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Posts
6,120
Likes
5,440
Location
here
AFL Club
St Kilda

TheWoodenSlug

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Posts
5,250
Likes
9,899
AFL Club
Geelong
I always thought Tessie was an unemployable social misfit living in his mum's sewing room.

Turns out he is the Mayor of Albury. Who would have thought?
For reference:

Mayor of Albury said:
I always have encouraged women not to walk alone, to have someone with them at all times, because that in itself is an invitation for someone to take advantage of you.
I guess, depending on your point of view, this could either be seen as victim blaming or encouraging women to take necessary precautions.

I think the use of the word 'invitation' will cause a bit of a stir.

Edit: Beat me to it, cartwright
 

Slippery Pete

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Posts
15,070
Likes
17,219
AFL Club
Adelaide
Earlier this week, SJWs went after "Australia's angriest coach" Alastair Clarkson, suggesting that his actions perpetuated a "one-punch culture", and, anyway, where does a man in his position get off walking alone at night?!

This week, SJWs are outraged over the Albury mayor's comments that women shouldn't walk alone at night, these comments perpetuate a "rape culture," they say, and where does this mayor get off, telling women they shouldn't walk alone at night?!

The sick, diseased cognitive dissonance of the SJW in all its ugly, black-framed glasses-wearing glory. If only they could see themselves as others see them.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Posts
7,072
Likes
5,620
Location
on bail at the time
AFL Club
Collingwood
Earlier this week, SJWs went after "Australia's angriest coach" Alastair Clarkson, suggesting that his actions perpetuated a "one-punch culture", and, anyway, where does a man in his position get off walking alone at night?!

This week, SJWs are outraged over the Albury mayor's comments that women shouldn't walk alone at night, these comments perpetuate a "rape culture," they say, and where does this mayor get off, telling women they shouldn't walk alone at night?!

The sick, diseased cognitive dissonance of the SJW in all its ugly, black-framed glasses-wearing glory. If only they could see themselves as others see them.
I think people are justifiably pissed off with an elected official who says that a 17 year old girl who was allegedly gang-raped at knife point invited the attack. Maybe you think she asked for it, I certainly don't.
 

Slippery Pete

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Posts
15,070
Likes
17,219
AFL Club
Adelaide
I think people are justifiably pissed off with an elected official who says that a 17 year old girl who was allegedly gang-raped at knife point invited the attack. Maybe you think she asked for it, I certainly don't.

Not at all, and neither did Clarkson.
 
Last edited:

TheWoodenSlug

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Posts
5,250
Likes
9,899
AFL Club
Geelong
I think people are justifiably pissed off with an elected official who says that a 17 year old girl who was allegedly gang-raped at knife point invited the attack. Maybe you think she asked for it, I certainly don't.
That's the thing though. You, me, and the vast majority of people don't see a woman walking alone at night (or any behaviour, for that matter) as an invitation to sexually assault them. But most people would be repulsed by the thought of sexually assaulting someone in the first place, so it doesn't really matter if we see it as an invitation or not.

A sex offender (or potential sex offender) absolutely does see certain behaviours as an invitation for assault - they use all sorts of justifications for their actions to convince themselves that they aren't at fault. The victim deserved it; or brought it on themselves; or actually wants to be raped/enjoys being raped etc. Anything to shield themselves from their own evil. These are the people that women (or people in general, really) need to protect themselves from, and their minds work differently to most.

This one seems to have been an opportunistic attack, so it is really about denying them the opportunity in the first place in cases like this.

I should stress that it's not the fault of the victim - at all - and I hope they are caught and charged (though, based on the low number of convictions in sexual assault cases, I won't hold my breath on that one) ASAP. The blame lies 100% with the perpetrators - in all cases - but people also have a responsibility for their own personal safety.


P.S Sorry for the rant - bored at work!
 

cartwright

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Posts
6,120
Likes
5,440
Location
here
AFL Club
St Kilda
That's the thing though. You, me, and the vast majority of people don't see a woman walking alone at night (or any behaviour, for that matter) as an invitation to sexually assault them. But most people would be repulsed by the thought of sexually assaulting someone in the first place, so it doesn't really matter if we see it as an invitation or not.

A sex offender (or potential sex offender) absolutely does see certain behaviours as an invitation for assault - they use all sorts of justifications for their actions to convince themselves that they aren't at fault. The victim deserved it; or brought it on themselves; or actually wants to be raped/enjoys being raped etc. Anything to shield themselves from their own evil. These are the people that women (or people in general, really) need to protect themselves from, and their minds work differently to most.

This one seems to have been an opportunistic attack, so it is really about denying them the opportunity in the first place in cases like this.

I should stress that it's not the fault of the victim - at all - and I hope they are caught and charged (though, based on the low number of convictions in sexual assault cases, I won't hold my breath on that one) ASAP. The blame lies 100% with the perpetrators - in all cases - but people also have a responsibility for their own personal safety.


P.S Sorry for the rant - bored at work!
I do find it interesting we hardly hear this when someone is randomly bashed.
 
Top Bottom