Did you know all heterosexual sex is rape and you don't need to have sex to reproduce?
Well I guess the second part is literally true now but--
wow it sure wasn't like 50 years ago, even.
This is Witchwind, a lesson in what is wrong with feminism.
I don't even know--
My previous post of the series was about how emotional/sexual attachment to men (‘heterosexuality’) exists only within the context of OPPRESSION, GENOCIDE or globally organised violence against women by men as a class. Which means that this emotional bond to men can’t be anything else than an uncontrolled chemical response to that inescapable violence and oppression. A response to which men have conditioned us through a fine-tuned system of repression, deprivation, constraints and reward, grooming and brainwashing – aimed to modify our behaviour to ensure our long-term submission. Within this inescapable subordination to men, we can only fear them or trauma-bond to them: therefore love does not exist towards men.
So there you have it I suppose. All those happily married women?
Actually rape victims.
One aspect I haven’t talked yet about men’s heterocage is the role pleasure plays in securing our sexual submission. In other words, how sexual pleasure with men is manufactured – it’s not pleasure but dissociation from the invasion, pain or fear. It’s always worth reminding FCM’s definition of fear and trauma-bonding inherent to intercourse:
FCM is "FactCheckMe", another blogger of this ilk, apparently.
Get ready for acronyms. I've actually done my research on this and I'll provide translations where I can but I get the feeling that won't always (or even usually) be possible.
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?
PIV is "penis in vagina" which is a decidedly juvenile label for the subject but okay.
Every time I see "PIV" All I think is "benis in fagina :DDDDDDDDDDDDD"
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. … 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.
So are you war buddies or are they rapists?
Because I still keep in contact with people I played FFXI with. It's like we went through a war together.
They are the opposite of people I would call terrorists or rapists.
Before I go any further I just want to pull up again some basics on
consent, violence and oppression, because that applies to every
situation of violence: no matter how much you think you want, enjoy or
choose to submit to an act of violence, violence excludes choice by
definition, so it’s never something you could have chosen.
There you go.
Women are incapable of making informed consent.
Know who else can't make informed consent?
Children.
This is coming from a feminist.
Consent is meaningless and irrelevant with regards to defining men’s
violence and describing the objective reality of it. The only ones to
choose and want are those who do the violence: men. They choose to resort to violence because they want
to obtain something from us that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to
obtain (using us as their dick receptacles, control our reproduction).
Will, calculation, intent and choice of means to achieve their end are
all on their side. Saying that we choose and want it is a reversal and
lie. The illusion of our choice protects men not us, because deception
and reversal is in part how they maintain their rule.
Man.
I feel like a Predator alien now.
This is maybe the most hardcore description of men ever.
Bringers of terror.
We choose where to deliver death.
How can you be a feminist reading this?
Clearly men have it going on.
#1. The pleasure we experience during intercourse isn’t natural, but
groomed. Men teach us how to instantaneously associate the fear, pain
and/or invasion of the penetration to clitoral stimulation, so we
dissociate from it – cut it off – and think it’s pleasurable.
Haha oh wow.
I didn't know humans invented sex.
I thought species before humans had been reproducing via intercourse for millions of years.
Clitoral stimulation may function in the exact same way as dissociation
in a situation of sexual violence because it sends dissociative drugs to
the brain. Dissociation is a drug, so this reaction to PIV may become
an addiction, a rush we crave for like cocaine.
If the clitoris is specifically there to shield women from their violation and rape--
makes you wonder why mammals evolved it in the first place. It sounds maladaptive from that description.
Or maybe men forced women to evolve them.
The great scam of the 20th century goes threefold: that women’s liberation consists in
-
being free to be fucked by any man
-
having orgasms in being fucked by men
-
achieving equality to men with the pill, so we can now
be fucked by men without consequences, that is dissociate PIV from
reproduction.
What it is about is men‘s freedom to rape more
women, and diminishing men’s restrictions in raping already-owned women.
They want to be able to rape even their neighbour’s wife or daughter
and not get in trouble for trespassing other men’s private property.
"Women are property" - feminist blog
I suspect you're getting off on this.
There seems to be two types of colonisation:
There's a term I have a big fucking problem with. Colonization.
I hear it all the time in relation to various shit.
How can you colonize women?
They're not a country.
How are transsexuals part of a colonization process?
Once again: not a country.
The first time I heard this was in relation to slavery in America but once again the black people here aren't being colonized (at least not as we understand it).
Their existence here and continued racism might be a product of colonialism but you can't actually colonize people.
You colonize land.
What happens to the people already there?
I can't say but I hardly believe you can "colonize" 51% of the entire population of earth and if you can then maybe one has to wonder why women allow this.
It's at this point I'd be accused of blaming the victim.
I am not, though. I do not believe in this nonsense.
This isn't a case of individual rape. This is an absurd argument that just being a woman means you're being raped always.
If this shit is all true and the solution is as simple as walking the fuck away why haven't millions of women?
#1: one where the woman is colonised but something of the spell or the
rigidity of the colonisation has been broken somewhere and she is ready
for the leap. In other words, radical feminism has the potential to
create connections and liberate her from invasive male presence. If
talked to about radical feminism, it will immediately make sense, or
very shortly after. These women are great to be around with as a radfem
because convos just flow, there’s no mental blocking out to what you’re
saying and you can trust that she understands the words you use, which
is not a small feat in patriarchy.
PATRIARCHY.
So some women are as crazy as you, basically--
which is true--
#2: one where men have placed auto-immune defences against feminism in a
woman: she is made to fear and block out feminism from her mind or some
parts of it, to see it as a threat, and will eliminate, sabotage or
shut it down or turn against herself and other women. It works very
much like an auto-immune disease or cancer where she is unconsciously,
unwittingly acting on men’s behalf, defending their interest by destroying her healthy cells. (Men are cancer).
So if you say "wow maybe that's a little crazy" you're brainwashed.
So you're free to think what you want to as long as you agree with her.
And she's liberating you.
Remember that always. She considers herself the liberating force here.
Note. I’m writing on colonisation because I’ve been thinking a lot about
relationships with non radfem (though already into feminism) women
lately and how difficult these relationships are. This is a really
important question to me because talking to women about feminism
(spinning) and creating bonds with women in order to decolonise
collectively from men is really what’s most important and what I believe
feminism and liberation is based on. But sometimes I just get so much
shit, and it never stops being painful and exhausting. I make friends
with women, I introduce them to feminism, I’m full of hope that finally
there will be women with whom to discuss and further radical feminism,
just BE with them and not in dissonance as it usually is with colonised
women, but at some point they end up betraying me, hurting me, they stop
and stagnate in the middle of their tracks, may revert even, turn
against me, because i’m too far ahead and they can’t go there yet,
because they’re not ready to meet certain feminist standards, they have a
boyfriend who keeps undoing what she just learned, they’re still not
feminist enough to value our friendship and the feminist space we’re
giving each other, they have no idea how rare and precious it is, or may
still prefer male company. It hurts every time the same.
Translation: they don't think like me so I don't want to deal with them.
I’ve finally figured something out. That we’re not supposed to be angry
against women, as in, our anger against women is purely manufactured by
men. And if we are angry, we’re angry against the male colonisation in
her, not really
her, though what happens is that we confuse it with the woman and hit on her instead.
Even when a woman is shitty it's a man's fault.
This ‘embedded maleness’ or ‘incarnate male presence’ as Mary Daly
called it, are insidious male ideologies that men have hammered into our
psyche, like an anti-personnel landmine fastened inside us which
explodes in contact of other women, so that women turn against us, instead of turning against men and feeling sorry or compassion for the pitiable state that men have put us in.
Holy shit.
I thought Kenshiro was hardcore. Men put mines in women with words.
Fuck.
So hardcore
2 stronk
Also I'm pretty sure a landmine is anti-personnel by definition.
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.
Many languages have no analogue for "fuck you" as an insult.
Not to call you wrong but most people don't speak English.
My first essentialist thought on men’s violence was that only men could
ever build an entire necrophilic society around the raping and
controlling of women’s reproductive capacities because only men are
biologically capable of doing it, using their own biology as weapons
against women – penis and semen. So I saw that patriarchy fitted to
men’s biology to the extent that it is only achievable through their
biological capacity to rape and impregnate women. Also, I saw their
hatred of women partly as an of envy women’s reproductive power and
obsession with their own incapacity to reproduce life.
Except without men women aren't reproducing either, so--
I base it on an intuition and experience: being around with women is
substantially and physically different from being around with men. The
physical and sensory experience is simply different, and I’m not talking
about touching in just a physical way, but the physics of soul-touching
and sparking. Men are incapable of spinning; in every possible sense of
the term. Any energy sent to them never comes back, it’s a dead end, a
black hole, it goes plop, or flop, it stops there and never moves, there
is no real exchange, and at the very least we’re left with a feeling of
unease. Whereas with women, especially with radical feminists, you can
actually feel the spinning going on, the revitalisation, the constant
movement of mind and senses, things just flow.
I'm giving this to you slightly out of context but note that this was on the cusp of "scientific" "research".
So apparently "soul sparking" is hard science.
She also (maybe ironically) cites a study about the corpus callosum that was published 100% by men.
Also I like how her intuition and experience is equivalent to hard science, statistics and years of study and decades to centuries of real science.
When comparing male and female cognitive / sensory powers, I find the
example of male shamans very interesting. In most – if not all – current
traditional societies where shamanism is still practised, males
monopolise this function and pass it only to their son or the next
generation male. Typically, all male shamans across the world have to
resort to drugs in order to “see” and thus perform their “healing”
function as shaman (imitate female healing powers).
Imitate female healing powers that exist.
Fuck you.
Magic is real.
These drugs may be anything from tobacco, hallucinogenic mushrooms or
other products, alcohol or also putting themselves in extreme and
painful physical conditions in the aim of achieving a “second” state.
What is interesting is to see that the drug-taking is primarily a
male practice. Female seers, by contrast, do not traditionally need or
take such drugs.
I'm pretty sure there are women magic users with a tradition of drug use. I can't be bothered to Google it so maybe I'm wrong but I'm almost positive.
I’m certain that men need these external drugs to access parts of their
brain that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to access, because of their
cerebral deficiency. Besides drugs always have a physical cost, they
aren’t without negative consequences to the body and brain, and men
often have almost as little regard to their own bodies as they have for
the external world. I have always deeply distrusted drugs, saw it as a
tool of control and dislike the way it shifts your consciousness in an
artificial and coercive way, that makes it unsafe and unpredictable. I
don’t see the need for an external product when we can simply learn to
connect ourselves naturally, which is a far healthier way of doing it
because it’s something that comes from you, in your own time.
I think drugs are bad so therefore fuck men who take drugs.
Despite deciding consciously that I would always avoid men and male
things the best I could and only interact with women on a close basis,
to protect myself as much as i could, i realised a few weeks ago how
still my thoughts and my life revolved so much around men, because
making a constant conscious effort to avoid men still meant men were
occupying my mental space, the threat of their violence always looming
in the back (or front) of my mind). Obviously men are never very far,
and if they’re not physically there, they spook and infiltrate every
aspect of our lives (to use a Mary Dalian word) with their death
infrastructures. Reminders of men and their system are everywhere in
nearly everything that surrounds us, especially if you live in a
man-made flat our house in a man-made town.
So go and make your own apartment.
No woman is heterosexual. What men call heterosexuality is an
institution where men make women captive for PIV, to control our
reproductive functions and steal our labour. Heterosexuality, or
sexuality with men does not exist, because the only relationship
to men that exists is men’s violence, physical and mental invasion – one
that men have so well crafted and disguised for so long that we can
mistake it for attraction, sexual urges or love. All women’s
“attraction” to men is 100% eroticised trauma bonding / stockholm
syndrome.
HETEROSEXUALITY AIN'T BE REAL.
Man she's fucking wordy.
Using all these words invented by men, too.
Good grief.
Check my fucking privilege, someone.
I HAVE TOO MUCH PRIVILEGE HELP
I CAN'T CHECK IT ALL.
God this blog.
I can't handle how boring this is.
So many words devoted to "people don't think like me so I better not associate with them ever."
Wow.
Oh well.
Let's get some hateful, misogynist rape music going.
