Fun! With Numbers! The Sex-Positive Equation

by FCM

assuming i havent just eaten, and if its the third wednesday of an odd month or something and i am in the mood, i kind of enjoy observing, if not engaging, those silly old male-identified liberal progressive fun-feminists. because every single time i hear one of them speak, it takes me further and further down the rabbit hole. wheeeee! twirling, twirling down the rabbit hole of sex-pos double-think, deeper and deeper into the vast cavernous void that passes for “logic” and “reason” in that post-modern dick-pleasing world. of course, most of the time, its literally impossible to figure out just what in the world they are even talking about. but sometimes, just sometimes, when the planets are aligned just right…

regarding sex, PIV, and pleasure: the only pleasure fun fems care about is PIV. its so obvious. coincidentally, its the only pleasure heterosexual men (including so-called feminist men) care about too. sure, they might envision a PIV-centric sexuality that includes other acts too, but they absolutely cannot fathom a heterosexual sexuality that doesn’t include PIV, at all. thus we get the following sex-positive equation:

dont bullshit me people. i know its true, and so do you.

yes, unfortunately, this is what we are left with, when we break down sex-positivism and start seeing it for what it is. “other” sexual acts literally have no value in a sexual equation, where PIV equals sex. okay? they are worthless. no matter how “diverse” anyone wants to believe their sexuality really is, because they are doing “other stuff too,” the bottom line is that the only thing anyone cares about here is PIV. its the only thing that has value. so “sex” positivism is just a bullshit euphemism for “PIV” positivism, or PIV-reinforcive sexual practice. why is this a problem? heres why:

again, no amount of bullshitting will change the fact that PIV is dangerous, for women. sorry!

and this is one bitch of a big fat fucking problem. oh yes it is. and notice how the second frame actually explains the first: if female risk is actually what anyone (?) finds pleasurable about sex, then its no wonder that “other acts” that arent specifically and particularly dangerous to women are considered worthless, and “not sex” in this paradigm. oral is worthless, because it cant get a woman pregnant. digital penetration and fondling is worthless, because it wont kill her.

now, its worth asking, of course, from whose perspective has all of this been created? do women actually believe this shit? or are they just swallowing (!) the same old PIV-reinforcive paradigm that men who like sticking their dicks into women have always maintained is true? the one, true heterosexuality that all straight and partnered women must adhere to, no matter how disgusting, painful, morbid and ultimately deadly the consequences, to women?

and that PIV is even “pleasurable” at all, when so many women dont even like it, and they know how dangerous it is, and try actively to mitigate its effects, with varying degrees of success, for virtually their entire lives?

now, regarding the old “radfems is conservatibbs!” dodge, this is just a straight up lie, now isnt it? is there a single fucking thing on this page that a religious conservative would find agreeable? excepting of course that religious conservatives completely buy into the exact same PIV-reinforcive paradigm that the fun-fems, liberals, and self-identified feminist men buy into too, and that i have just described here. whatever you do, do try not to notice that.

on that note, i highly recommend sheila jeffreys’ excellent book “the spinster and her enemies,” which absolutely destroys any possible argument that early or modern radical feminists were sexually conservative, and asks the question: from whose perspective would “abstinence” and “deprivation” appear to be the main themes, when women were and are trying to save womens lives, and the quality of their lives, from death, disease, and unwanted childbearing due exclusively to PIV?

that is all.

this post was previously published at femonade.


20 Comments to “Fun! With Numbers! The Sex-Positive Equation”

  1. From the moment men created their Male Supremacist System men have continuously defined ‘female sexuality’ from the male phallocentric perspective. ‘Sex’ is never ‘sex’ unless the penis is actively involved. That is why there continues to be mass male propaganda exhorting/demanding women submit to PIV/PIA because it provides heterosexual men with sexual pleasure. Sex guide manuals are not a 21st century creation because man (I am referring to the male of the human species of course) has always ensured a constant supply of these books are published to enforce the male mantra – sex is not sex unless the penis is penetrating the female body and sometimes the male body!

    The penis has always been worshipped by man (sic) as the epitome of ‘real human sex’ because no penis = no sex has occurred! The term ‘foreplay’ was created by male sexologists to reinforce their lie that ‘female sexual pleasure’ cannot happen unless the penis is actively engaged in penetrating the female body. In other words penis not penetrating the female body means no sex has occurred!

    Reign of the Phallus provides an excellent analysis of Ancient Greek male propaganda concerning the spurious marvels of the (puny) male sex organ. Men have to keep proclaiming they alone are the definitive experts on what supposedly passes for female sexuality and it is always to sexually service men. That is why Ancient Greeks worshipped the puny penis/phallus.

  2. as a general matter, when analyzing a logical proof as applied to real facts, there are 2 parts to the analysis. the first part is the “logic” itself, and whether it works (which in this case i believe it does, in the mathematical sense). and the second part is whether the assumptions/premises are true. in this case, i believe they are, and that this is demonstrable, and has been demonstrated by radfems all over the radosphere, and also in books.

    thanks for reading!

  3. Again, the truth about PIV and the phallocentric/rape culture isn’t some convoluted enigma and yet when you attempt to explain this to people they stare at you as if you’re giving a lecture on statistical physics or you’re some buzzkilling religious zealot. Their feigned bewilderment wreaks with a misogynistic motive. Men have a vested interest in maintaining the sadistic, phallocentric narrative that governs human sexuality, and women–who have been trained from birth to be sexual masochists– are compelled to assist them, but *now* it’s “feminist”. This obsession with shoving dicks and phallic objections into every orifice on a female’s body, drenching/being drenched in semen, and engaging in painful sexual activity that could lead to permanent injuries are blatant examples of Patriarchy has corrupted our sexual psyches and pornofied “feminism”.

    The funfems refuse to acknowledge their pornofied Stockholm Syndrome and that their “prose” and behavior are enabling Patriarchy’s tyrannical monopoly over human sexuality. That’s why it’s no fucking wonder why the bros loooovvve sex-positive “feminism”; men can sit back and let the funfems do all the campaigning for them. So long as they continue to promote sadomasochism, phallocentricity and Orwellianize them by referring to them as “empowerment” and “sex-positivism”, they’re fulfilling Patriarchy’s hatefully perverse design for women’s sexuality, whether they admit it or not. March on funfem minions, march on…

    P.S. I know “Orwellianize” is not a word. I had a brain-fart and couldn’t think of a word to illustrate my meaning.

  4. orwellianize is so totally a word. or, it is now!

    and YES, its not that complicated, at all. women around the world, literally billions of us across time and place understand that this is true, and that PIV is harmful to women, and that men inflict terrible suffering upon girls and women with their dicks, the likes of which men never experience. the “comparison” at the end there, where i say that its actually worse for women and men never experience this kind of harm isnt necessary to the analysis BTW of whether its harmful to women, and whether men should stop doing it. the comparison IS relevant, however, in any discussion about equality, or sex-equality, or in any cost-benefit analysis related to PIV. women suffer consequences that men dont. women suffer all the consequences men suffer, in life generally, but WRT penile penetration specifically, AND THEN SOME. this is absolutely relevant to feminist discourse bc its a way that men harm women and support their own male power. it should ALSO be seen as relevant in egalitarian or fun-fem discourse that centers equality, (radfems arent as concerned about equality as such, but are concerned with female oppression including womens reproductive reality) but for some reason, its not seen as relevant, even to the alleged egalitarians. and therefore, its terribly revealing as to what the fun-fem and egalitarian discourse is really about, and says alot about how far they are willing to go, and what assumptions and male-centric bias they are and which they are not willing to examine and give up to achieve their own stated goals.

    in other words, they arent dedicated to sex-equality at all costs. they arent even willing to stop centering PIV (or give it up completely) and thats just one thing. a pretty important one, but still. it shines a bright light on all of it, and its simple and easy to see, for anyone who wants to see it.

  5. The thing is, males are now paying (some) females to say that they are “feminists” as long as they say the proper dick-sucking things. That never used to be the case. No wonder young women are confused.

    Young dick-sucking female = gets cookies$$$
    Young dick-sucking female + says she’s feminist = gets cookies$$$ + cookies$$$

    That’s what you’re up against. Therefore, there will always be “fun-fems”.

  6. yes, corporate-sponsored feminism is SO BAD. feminism for fun-n-profit is NOT feminist. and if you would lose your livelihood, or if your quality of life would DECREASE if feminism succeeded, you are probably doing feminism WRONG.

    i think those of us who arent spending a lot of time on “creating womens culture” type stuff and imagining a gynocentric future stuff should probably spend more time doing that. we could use mary daly as a model of course.

  7. Notice how there seems to be this really big obsession with:

    A- the size of the penis
    B- the tightness of the vagina
    C- the violence of the sexual act

    All 3 of these, even on their own, are intended to ensure that the sexual act is painful- to the woman. Combined, their sadistic intent becomes nearly palpable. You could add to this the withholding of “foreplay”, which is crucial in lubrication.

  8. Here is a man, some sort of “medical professional”advising women on how to have sex on a popular website called ivillage (I put all men who are “medical professionals” in scare quotes, especially those who treat or advise women) . Because women know nothing about sex, but men do, and therefore men have to *teach* women what sex is and how it should be done:

    To avoid desensitisation as well as vaginal discomfort and soreness during this process, a woman must be both internally (vaginally) and externally (clitorally) ‘well lubricated.’

    There are many good supplemental lubricants on the market you can try but you can also encourage ‘natural’ lubrication by starting any multi-orgasmic exploration with a pelvic or vaginal massage. ‘It’s kind of like setting the table before a beautiful meal,’ says Mars. ‘As you continue, be sure to keep up the lubing so you can keep grooving.’

    Read more: Secrets of multi-orgasmic women | iVillage UK
    Parenting: Information & advice

    So *first* he suggests you buy a product to get a woman lubricated, but he concedes that on second thoughts you might as well have a stab at “natural” lubrication… because that dick has to be stuck in somehow.

    Men really don’t have a clue do they. Not a fricken clue. And he’s getting *paid* to advise women on sex.[boggles]

  9. Hey all, hope that I drop in from time to time is okay.

    In the U.S., doctors report that from 22-43% of American women every year report a decreased desire for sex.”Hyposexual desire disorder”. They can’t find a pill!

    Hmm. If 1 out of 3 or, 1 out of 4, women are abused/raped/molested does that equal to 22-43% of adult women reporting to their doctor that they have decreased interest in sex.!

    Of course, sex is meant in this data, to mean PIV. Of course! No, they did not then ask the women if they a) masturbate, and b) are bored and disinterested in PIV routine.

    PIV = “kiss grope fuck” routine. Yawn.

    80% of them do not climax from PIV, and who knows, of the 20% remainder, I wonder who lies. In my scrupulous studies, adventures, and trying to speak the truth to generations of females now I realize how many of us faked, and I wonder, how many still do?

    So, the old “survival of the fittest” noble savage spreading his seed to save the species through random reproduction, might now be best remanded to just go talk to Onan, and then just go spill it on the ground. The world is awash in seed. Hence, no need for PIV. No biological mandate. Period.

    Please, Rain, make your movie asap involving a reverse, the mirror-image of male porn. NOT the gay sexxay kind that would get some of them off. What about a scene, a gang of women, leering over prone male, doing the verbal abuse (same words as for females in porn, like “hey you know you want this bastard”..) and the 10-15 women masturbate over his cowering body and emit fluids and drip menstrual bloods co-mingled with their vaginal/cervical/labial juices, as they pleasure over their shared experience of humiliating a man in his sexual space.

    I don’t see what harm a few cartoons, witty exposes, parodies, tongue-in-cheek artistic renditions and other catty creations of wild womanhood could do to prick the latex bubble of phony male entitlements?

  10. Exactamundo Cherry. Any woman who needs to be supplementally lubricated is not going to have multiple orgasms.

    “It’s kind of like setting the table before a beautiful meal” No it’s more like wanting to groove on a beautiful vege salad as a main when all that’s on offer is meat.

  11. yes cherry thats the perfect example isnt it? NOT bc stimulating the vulva is “sex” and NOT bc its pleasurable for the woman….but bc you have to go through the motions to prepare her for PIV. because PIV = sex = PIV. it really couldnt be more obvious.

    thing is, the PIV-pozzies and alt-sexers do the same damn thing. none of them is willing to take PIV off the table for any reason, and that reveals the truth of their NOT-alt-at-all belief system. again, that PIV = sex = PIV. in the mathematical sense, these things are equal to everyone. the math works. all you have to do is perform an honest, no-bullshit assessment of the situation, and thats what you find there. its not that hard to see. if you dont have intercourse, you havent had “sex.” maybe not every encounter (although in almost all, even so) and maybe not with the same frequency or intensity over time or whatever, but certainly in every het “sexual” relationship that would be recognizable as such to anyone, PIV is absolutely required at some point. thats bc these things are equal. in the mathematical sense, they are interchangeable. the denial about that FACT in the fact of incontrovertible evidence that its true is both stunningly banal, and pointless.

  12. and their analogies are so telling arent they? saying that giving a woman sexual pleasure is “like setting the table” reveals how much the speaker believes that women are objects to be used. reminds me of how hugo was moved to share his story of attempting to murder his ex, when some dood shared his own story of one time accidentally letting out the dog he was dog sitting for, and feeling terrible about it. it revealed that hugo believes that women are analogous to dogs, and that accidentally harming a dog is as bad as purposely harming a woman. hugo has of course made analogies between women and animals before, when he said that organizing slutwalk was like “herding cats” and when he welcomed people to make “adopt a slut” jokes when they had to share a venue with an adopt-a-pet function.

  13. PIV and rape are one and the same thing. Given its risks and consequences to women, no women would consent to PIV under normal circumstances, that is, would she not be groomed to it by force, psychic violence or decades of endoctrination. PIV only exists because of men imposing it to women, individually and collectively. Women don’t choose it, any part of it, we just get to accomodate to it, and that’s what rape is, *at the very least*. I used to say that any non-desired PIV/genital contact is rape, but in fact, it makes no sense because (a): it’s possible to have genital stress-related stimulation even during a rape with the use of violence (which sometimes gives the impression you’ve desired it when in fact it makes you feel horrible) and (b): the risk of PIV always remains, so except for reproductive purposes only, PIV can never be desired by any women for fun or recreative purposes under normal circumstances. So PIV *is* rape.

    This quote is telling: “To avoid desensitisation as well as vaginal discomfort and soreness during this process, a woman must be both internally (vaginally) and externally (clitorally) ‘well lubricated.’”

    What this is doing, is telling women to distrust their bodies, not to take the physical symptoms of pain seriously and relate it to the fact that PIV is rape.
    The text acknowledges that pain, soreness and discomfort are normal symptoms in PIV, which is evidence that men know that women don’t naturally enjoy it and that it only exists because men impose it on women and women don’t have any choice. The only difference from the radfem perspective here is that it’s in their interest to maintain PIV, so rather than urging women to find ways of getting rid of rape/PIV, they put the blame on women and make her believe that PIV is fine, it’s just her body that’s defective, so if she’s nagging about pain, just put some lube please and shut up.

    And at any rate, even by very minimal standards, any guy putting lube so it “slides better” is a clear-cut rapist.

    Comparing women to food that men consume ( = analogy between the knife and the penis) => cannibalism and complete destruction of women. Why? Because PIV is destruction of women. It really does the harm that men say it does and intend to do.

  14. yes, PIV would never be done “for pleasures sake” outside of a patriarchy where men made all the rules and framed all the issues, where women had true agency, including institutional power to NAME THINGS and to frame issues, and where we meaningful choices about that. the PIV-as-sex paradigm simply doesnt make any sense, outside a context of sexual violence and misogyny and coersion. the consequences for women are severe, and cause extreme, regular and ongoing stress. it is nothing short of terrorism, and considering that the #1 most predictable female-specific response to PIV is to become emotionally bonded because of it, PIV is also deliberately and obviously used as mind control. the PIV = sex = PIV paradigm really really has to go. and the extreme negative response of all men to that proposition is very good evidence that radical feminists are right about that.

  15. and the comparison between rape and PIV really put this in perspective. the consequences overlap, at the very least. we must get our heads around that, its so important.

  16. Please, Rain, make your movie asap involving a reverse, the mirror-image of male porn. NOT the gay sexxay kind that would get some of them off. What about a scene, a gang of women, leering over prone male, doing the verbal abuse (same words as for females in porn, like “hey you know you want this bastard”..) and the 10-15 women masturbate over his cowering body and emit fluids and drip menstrual bloods co-mingled with their vaginal/cervical/labial juices, as they pleasure over their shared experience of humiliating a man in his sexual space.

    A similar thing already exists and is called “squirt bukkake”. Basically, a group of women wait in line to “squirt” (well, we all know they are actually urinating) on one man. Sometimes they also squirt on other women but this is just some new more hardcore variation on the usual girl-on-girl conundrum. As is to be expected, however, the women are not the beneficiaries of this type of porn – it’s done for male users who like to see either others or a male proxy degraded. As usual, male masochists & sadists are very much interested only in their gain and no one else’s.

    So yeah, it is not really a mirror image. More like just one point on the continuum of domination and subordination representing conventional male sexuality.

  17. “There are many good supplemental lubricants on the market you can try but you can also encourage ‘natural’ lubrication by starting any multi-orgasmic exploration with a pelvic or vaginal massage. ‘It’s kind of like setting the table before a beautiful meal,’ says Mars. ‘As you continue, be sure to keep up the lubing so you can keep grooving.’”

    I love the way “natural” is put in quotes and is a secondary afterthought, as if products should be considered first.

    And I dig the way his name is “Mars” (aka, Mars and Venus).

  18. kurukuroshoujo: any ideas using mirror image not gratifying male masochists sadists? Predators study prey. Turn the tables.

  19. Some women squirt, but very few. It’s a pitiful male fantasy that is meant to make them feel like they are REALLY turning the women on!

    I was thinking about opening my own magazine, a magazine of naked erotic Italian men, in romantic settings, for the pleasure of FEMALE viewers ONLY. All scenes will either have males alone featured, or males in equal or subordinte positions to females. End of story. Will sell like wildfire, cause, we all know, it’ll be the only one of its kind..,.

%d bloggers like this: