It’s the Trauma-Bonding Talking

by FCM

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? 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.

because we all know that pregnancy can kill you, or make you very ill, even if you have an early abortion. right? (imagine sitting under your desk at work and puking into a trashcan, if it helps bring it home…not that most women really need a visual. but there is going to be someone on this thread who says they still dont get why PIV is so bad.)

this has got to be traumatic, no? i mean, how could it not be? this is a serious question.

speaking of trauma…when men go into battle with each other, they form intense, emotional bonds. in relation to each other, these men are known as “war buddies.” and its a close relationship, to say the least. the feelings that the shared experience of death-defying elicit are “intimate,” in the extreme. this is commonly known to be the case. it just is. something happens to the human mind when we encounter life-threatening situations with other people. we…bond. and women are human beings. yes, they are.

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. the problem is, of course, that the men dont feel the same way. because theres nothing dangerous to men about PIV, really, at all. they were just getting their dicks wet. or, you know, “making love.” we were the ones putting everything on the line. and if it seems like they dont get what it is that we were doing with them…well its because they dont. nor do they care to.

heres a bit from google on trauma-bonding:

Exploitive relationships can create trauma bonds-chains that link a victim to someone who is dangerous to them. Divorce, employee relations, litigation of any type, incest and child abuse, family and marital systems, domestic violence, hostage negotiations, kidnapping, professional exploitation and religious abuse are all areas of trauma bonding. All these relationships share one thing: they are situations of incredible intensity or importance where there is an exploitation of trust or power.

bolds mine. you see, any man who demands PIV or engages in it for that matter is making himself dangerous to women, by definition. and when a woman trusts a man to keep her safe…if that man demands or engages in PIV with her, he is exploiting that trust.

“stockholm syndrome” might seem a bit extreme to apply to most het relationships that arent traditionally abusive…but theres something going on here. at least, for those of us who arent essentialist, and who just dont believe this shit about women when it comes to sex “feeling” so deeply, and stuff, and things.

because the sad, sick truth of it is that every single man with whom we have ever had intercourse is just some tool who laid pipe, at our expense. thats all. if it hurts to think about it that way…well it hurts, whether or not you choose to think about it. thats kind of my point, actually. PIV hurts and is harmful to women, but not to men. how can you tell? we form emotional bonds with men we have fucked, that are inappropriate, and not reciprocal. work backwards, if you have to, if you cant see that PIV hurts, and is dangerous to women. look at the most common “female response” to PIV (emotional attachment), and tell me it doesnt look a hell of a lot like another commonly-recognized bonding-response to having experienced extreme terror, and the fear of death.

women also manage not to stalk or murder our lovers, really, ever. they are our war-buddies, afterall. not our pets, our our property. see how womens alleged “obsession” with men really has no correlate with mens sexual obsession with women? a more reasonable correlate (besides stockholm syndrome) would appear to be a kind of one-sided war-buddy syndrome, which normally creates intense emotional bonds between people, who face death with each other, in times of war.

those are my thoughts at the moment. that, and something i might have wondered about if i were about 15 years younger, cause i dont really care at this point: if we made PIV *more* traumatic for men, would they have the common decency to pick up the fucking phone the next day, but without going all stalker?

a version of this post was previously published at femonade.


64 Comments to “It’s the Trauma-Bonding Talking”

  1. I class myself as a RadFem, but I’m really struggling to see your point of view on this. I’m in a het relationship (have been for 17 years) and I’ve never once found PIV traumatic. I understand about rape (someone close to me was raped a few years ago unforunately) so I know how traumatic some PIV can be. But I fail to see how in an equal respectful het relationship PIV can be traumatic? We’ve always practised safe sex, both tested early on our relationship, always used condoms and only stopped when were TTC. Now H has had the snip so we can stop using them.

    I’m not trying to obtrusive in any way, I’m just finding it hard to see your POV on this. Other than this post I find myself agreeing with on a lot of things that you write, and I enjoy your blog quite a lot.

  2. because you can die from it. because its foreseeable that an unwanted pregnancy will result inside your body, and thats extremely worrisome and troubling and even terrifying. if we didnt live in a male-supremacist world, and if instead, women’s reality were centered and womens perspective was taken into consideration and considered valuable, our reproductive-related pain and terror would not be normalized and invisiblized, and NOONE would “struggle” to see that when something is harmful to women that its harmful, that it matters, and that it should end.

    and i have not heard of another explanation for women emotionally bonding after PIV that makes any more sense than this one. all other explanations are essentialist, except this one, which recognizes that women are human beings, and are having a human response to being traumatized.

  3. @Angela –

    It concerns me when women say they are in a committed relationship with a man and that they have no worries about becoming pregnant and that they don’t need condoms (or other forms of birth control) because their PIV partner has had a vasectomy.

    What about STDs which can also be life-threatening? Is he still being tested regularly and for what exactly? The CDC does not recommend testing men for HPV yet males are those who spread the virus. But then again males don’t have cervices that can, and very often do, become cancerous.

  4. and it concerns me when women and men use the examples of infertile women, contraception and vasectomy to “rebut” the point that PIV is harmful to women, and causes unwanted pregnancy. implying that PIV might be less traumatic for women under circumstances where harm-reduction is used, or where the harm is mitigated or avoided only underscores the radfem point, it doesnt refute it at all.

    it does, however, completely normalize female reproductive related pain and stress, including the prophylactic regimen. its STRESSFUL. its time consuming, its expensive, and its not even 100% effective. so theres that.

    and so far there are still no attempts to explain the bonding-reponse that arent essentialist, saying that “thats just the way women are.”

  5. I have told a fun fem friend about it and she replied that the inappropriate bonds with men are culturally dermined because PIV only happens with few other people during a lifetime. Hence PIV with many men would be the answer. – Fight fire with fire, I guess? (It does not work in reality, just look at firefighters!) I think that they unconsciously know about it too but they are less honest. They try to escape it via many men instead of eliminating the source of the problem.
    As a Dworkin fan, I suggest that the mere transgression of bodily boundaries is also a traumatic element in itself in addition to a possible pregnancy.

  6. I’m a married het, married for many years. I think women are so conditioned to believe that PIV is normal and necessary that we don’t even question what we have to go through in order to engage in it. There is the constant risk of pregnancy, STD’s, birth control side effects, cervical cancer, PID. Even if none of these things happen to us personally, we live with the fear of them all and have to constantly engage in self defense, what is called “safe sex.” Safe sex is harm reduction, it’s not freedom from harm.

    I am actually so radical that I believe that the conditions in our culture make it impossible for women to truly consent to PIV. Given our conditioning and the cultural narrative, you do not really have the right to refuse to engage in PIV, not in a relationship anyway. We tell women that men must have PIV or their health is at stake. Our health is allegedly at stake too, we’re defective, frigid, unhealthy, if we don’t have PIV. Not only is there something wrong with you, the guy will leave you or probably have lots of affairs if you don’t go along with it. So “consent” is like, “consent or there will be dire consequences!” That’s not really choice or freedom or consent.

    Do some women have PIV because they genuinely enjoy it and believe the risks are worth it? Maybe, but most simply accept that PIV is inevitable, disregard the consequences, and figure out how to make the best of it.

    Tim Gunn (gay guy, fashion guru) said something recently, he said when the AIDS epidemic came along, many people like him decided sex was just not worth dying for, not if you valued yourself. Women rarely get to make this kind of choice. PIV is presented as inevitable and your only option is to attempt to reduce the harm you may experience.

    I’ve never really heard a woman who has divorced say, “well at least I got 20 years of PIV out of the deal.” There’s a pretty strong cultural narrative that says women provide PIV in a sort of exchange. Exchange for flowers, candy, gifts, financial support, or to keep their partners happy. If PIV is viewed as something women should receive some form of compensation for, than it really isn’t an equal, consensual deal. At best it’s an exchange.

  7. There’s quite a few things that have gone over my head in your comments so forgive me if I’m a bit “thick” in my response. But you say that women bond with their PIV partners after PIV because it’s traumatic, does that mean that love doesn’t exist then? Romantic love that is.

    @Sargasso Sea – no he isn’t regularly tested hasn’t been since we first got together. Because I trust him not to cheat, does that make me naïve?

    Is it really hard to believe that I enjoy PIV?

  8. Hi. I’m a long-time reader, but this is my first comment here. (I think it’s the first, anyway. I’ve been trying to reach out more and lurk less. I’ve dropped a few comments here and there around the radfem blogosphere, so I may have commented here before and forgot, so don’t hold me to that.) Thank you all so much for providing this invaluable service. This blog and other radical feminists blogs keep me sane. I don’t know any other radfems in real life and it helps to know that I’m not the only one in the world.

    Anyway, on to the subject at hand. Has anyone else reached a point where the trauma bonding just doesn’t “take” anymore? When I was with my ex-fiance, I got to the point where I hated sex and just wanted him to stay away from me. This was before I really got into radical feminism, so that wasn’t a factor. I found him attractive and I loved him. (Until he kept pushing me to have sex when I didn’t want to. Then I started to hate him.) But I got to the point that I didn’t even want him to touch me. And this happened early on in the relationship. Of course, that didn’t mean that I stopped letting him touch or stopped having sex. I had to “work through my issues” to save the relationship, you see. That’s how I saw it. Until I couldn’t take it anymore. Then I saved my money from my low-wage job and eventually was able to leave. Fortunately, I never went through with marrying him and never got pregnant.

    That had never happened to me in previous relationships. I was always thoroughly bonded and enjoyed sex, or at least the non-PIV aspects. As far as PIV, I could take it or leave it, didn’t hate it, didn’t love it. I always figured it was just part of the whole deal. No PIV would have meant no cuddling, no kissing and no cunnilingus. Boo. And honestly, I would have felt terribly rejected if a partner hadn’t wanted to have PIV with me, even if it wasn’t the highlight of the sexual experience for me.

    Funny thing is, I didn’t even like most of these guys that much until I started having sex with them. I was so desperate for affection that it didn’t matter whether I liked them or not. After having sex, I would inevitably fall in love with them.

    But now I look back and I’m disgusted even at the sex I had that I wanted at the time. It makes me want to puke. I don’t want to

    Celibacy is where it’s at for me right now. But I’m starting to acknowledge that I’m sometimes attracted to women. I look back and I think I always have been, but wouldn’t admit it to myself. I still get mild “crushes” on men (usually on fictional characters, which is an embarrassing quirk to admit to, but at least they’re harmless) even though at this point in my life I don’t ever want to even touch a man again.

    I think that if, when I was young, I hadn’t seen lesbianism as absolutely taboo and hadn’t started getting all trauma-bonded to men instead of admitting to myself that I was crazy about my best female friend, I might never have gotten involved with men at all.

    I think men know exactly what they’re doing when they get in a hurry to have sex and get us bonded to them. If they didn’t why would we want them? Why would we see being in a relationship with someone who expects us to do all the domestic drudgery, provide sex on demand, and give their names to the children we nurture with our bodies as something at all desirable?

    I’m sorry this is so long and so personal, but the trauma bonding thing got me thinking. At any rate, I’m glad the spell of trauma bonding has broken for me and I hope I’m not the only one. I hope it starts to break for women all over this world.

  9. this is not about “enjoying” PIV so please do not go there. its a derailing tactic because pleasure is not the point, and pleasure does not erase the harms of PIV. any sexual pleasure that women may get from PIV must always be weighed against the harms and we perform this cost-benefit analysis all the time. from mens perspective, it looks like prudery, or frigidity, but thats not what it is at all.

    re romantic love, that is an astute point and its completely relevant. yes, i believe that most of what we regard as “romantic love” is actually trauma bonding from PIV, and that “making love” is really emotional manipulation and deliberate mind control on the part of men, who know that women tend to become bonded after PIV and men do this to women anyway. actually, i shouldve posted this on valentines day! as an anti-valentine i guess. romantic love, at least within the context of het relationships, is essentially a euphemism for trauma bonding, and what men do to women to emotionally manipulate and control them.

  10. I think men know exactly what they’re doing when they get in a hurry to have sex and get us bonded to them. If they didn’t why would we want them? Why would we see being in a relationship with someone who expects us to do all the domestic drudgery, provide sex on demand, and give their names to the children we nurture with our bodies as something at all desirable?

    THIS. thanks for de-lurking!

  11. So does that mean that all romantic love is basically a lie?

    (I’m asking so much because I’m trying to get my head round it and understand it, rather than trying to refute what your saying).

  12. i think that in the absence of PIV-induced trauma bonding, which would necessarily mean that the PIV-as-sex paradigm had ended, and which probably also mean that the patriarchy had fallen, that “romantic love” and het relationships and a lot of other things would look so different as to be unrecognizable. and i think that as long as we are living with the PIV-as-sex paradigm and its attendant trauma bonding, that it is literally impossible to know what is authentic “love” and what isnt, in the context of het relationships where PIV is a part of that.

    i think after patriarchy that relationships in general wouldnt be as traumatic as they are now. for example, there would be familial, social and financial safeguards in place that would ensure that a breakup didnt leave you homeless, or that one partner losing a job woudnt have the same effect. so much of what we think of as “having a history” with someone is really just surviving a series of traumatic events that didnt kill you. and PIV-related trauma bonding is a part of that. but it doesnt have to be that way.

  13. and romantic love from mens perspective probably feels alot like ownership, or what women would recognize as a feeling of ownership as opposed to love the way women feel love. it wouldnt surprise me at all if men cant even feel love the way women feel it, bc for women love is so traumatic in ways it can never be for men. women are likely trauma bonded to their children too, for obvious reasons, where men wouldnt and couldnt be. its something to think about.

  14. Angela, I wouldn’t characterize believing that your life partner wouldn’t “cheat” as naïve. I would be more inclined to say that it’s a learned female behavior to look statistics, your own common sense and at least hundreds of years worth of anecdotal evidence in the face and say all of it isn‘t true.

    All I’m saying is that is a rude awakening to be diagnosed with HPV-induced cervical cancer years after last having PIV within a “monogamous”/”unprotected sex” relationship. It takes a while to show up as an abnormal pap and all that believing (accepting something as true) in between was just that, accepting it as true.

  15. And at the risk of derailing on the Trauma Bonding (sorry!) but I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that colon cancer, throat cancer and brain cancer (via the eyes) are now being recognized as HPV-related cancers.

    So, again, it’s not just about the V at all.

  16. If I look back to my PIV experiences in the past, fear of pregnancy, STDs, HIV was aways there and made the PIV traumatic and stressful.
    However if I think about how it made me feel, there was also something more to it that exacerbated the trauma-bonding. I think the fact of having a penis thrust into you is also in itself trama-bonding, as in gives this horrible, obsessive and very painful urge to bond. Like having your insides split, it’s something inherently invasive. Your body is litterally prodded, penetrated, occupied and surrendered to someone else, in a state of extreme vulnerability, nudity, having someone on the top of your body and all over you and in you. It’s a completely unnatural and a very extreme situation to go through, we don’t usually interact with people this way except when we’re owned by men, which they groom us to get used to over decades. Being naked in front of someone and “offered to” is highly stressfull, and it’s no surprise nudity and being prodded while naked is also used as a torture or humiliation technique. I was always scared of it, it felt like being put on a plate and spread-eagled to be eaten. I don’t think it’s a coincidence men call it that way either.

    I don’t think we’re meant to be penetrated at all actually. PIV was a violation of my bodily integrity, and when he would leave the body there was always this horrible sensation of part of me being ripped away, like there was a hole in my body. Despite the genital stimulation which gave me the impression that I enjoyed it: in fact it was simply mechanically and externally stimulated and had nothing to with pleasure or reciprocity or mutual desire. And I really think the PIV + genital stimulation functions like an addictive trauma mechanism of extreme stress + release of stress through genital stimulation followed by a “low”, like in drugs – so you need to be “filled in” again and again, like drug urges, you end up just being a fuckhole, litterally. Our body is groomed to respond by genital stimulation to external male prodding, but it’s groomed, not natural. Because it’s trauma-inducung, it’s never satisfying though, it feels completely hemorrhagic emptying, I would always feel like shit after it, used, “fucked” as men say.

    I don’t think we know what love or desire really is either. We’re not in a position to really know, not in this world. At any costs, love is not this ripping, terror-inducing, soulsucking and destructive trauma-bonding. This war and occupation against us, against our bodies, that they call “love” so we can’t put words on what they do to us.

  17. dawdlemouse:

    “Has anyone else reached a point where the trauma bonding just doesn’t “take” anymore? When I was with my ex-fiance, I got to the point where I hated sex and just wanted him to stay away from me.”

    This happened to me, there was a very clear turning point too, similar to your situation. The last guy I had PIV with kept insisting till I surrendered and that’s when the trauma-bonding and genital stimulation stopped short and the rapes started to be really painful and dissociative. It was disgusting. But I felt I had no right to say no cause he kept buying me things. We didn’t stay together for long though. Since then I have not wanted men to touch me anymore either. Celibacy has been the best thing that happened to me, I feel whole, or more than before at least.

  18. FCM: “stockholm syndrome” might seem a bit extreme to apply to most het relationships that arent traditionally abusive…

    What do you mean by this? Relationships don’t need to be abusive for there to be stockholm syndrome. Its built by how men treat us collectively all the time since we’re born. A man sometimes just had to show some mild attention and look at me, be vaguely nice and “compliment” my body, for me to bond emotionally to him in a complete stockholmy way. This in itself is the beginning and continuity of abuse.

  19. Germaine Greer in The Female Eunuch is terrific on ‘love’. It’s really worth reading.

  20. True, Witchwind. The impact on women over a lifetime does make you want to bond with men who appear kind, in a completely stockholmy way. It’s almost like that bad cop, good cop thing. All the cops act like complete dicks so when the “good cop” finally shows up, you’re so grateful, you become vulnerable and willing to do whatever he says, in this case, go against your instincts and confess.

    I don’t think romantic love exists, I think it’s a lie. The other kind, where you unconditionally care for somebody, I think that’s a wonderful thing, but the cultural narrative makes sure to distinguish between the two. Why? Because romantic love isn’t really love, it’s kindness, protection, empathy., financial support,…… exchange for PIV.

  21. I don’t think romantic love exists, I think it’s a lie. The other kind, where you unconditionally care for somebody, I think that’s a wonderful thing, but the cultural narrative makes sure to distinguish between the two. Why? Because romantic love isn’t really love, it’s kindness, protection, empathy., financial support,…… exchange for PIV.

    this is so well said yttik. and its true, we do make a distinction between the two. we wouldnt do that if they were the same thing. and this really makes it very clear whats going on when men leave over having their PIV cut off, or why they threaten to, or why women fear it. because its not really love at all, its the other thing. “unconditionally caring about” someone is not a spell that can be broken, but romantic love absolutely is. it can be broken and when you wake up from it, you can barely believe your eyes. this happens all the time. “what did i ever see in him” etc etc.

  22. Please everyone read Dee Graham’s Loving to Survive on this subject. I think her radfem analyses are on par with Dworkin’s. Nobody has heard of her though (quelle surprise) .

    Kate Millet, another woman that nobody outside radfem circles as heard of, rips apart romantic love in Sexual Politics.

    ETA: Thank you FCM for bringing this concept out into the open. As you know it has helped me a lot.I think that if a large number of women understood this idea, even if they didn’t believe it applied to them, it would change the world. Because once the idea is “out there” it will always be there at the back of a woman’s mind.

  23. IN a nutshell, Dee Graham theorizes that not only are individual women traumatically bonded to individual men, but that a phenomenon exists called “societal Stockholm syndrome”, where we are bonded to men as a group. What this means is that if certain members of the oppressor group show us kindness, we jump on that chance of hope, and bond to that particular man, convincing ourselves he’s different–all the while completely forgetting that he benefits from being a member of his caste and that he benefits from the oppression of women, and indeed it’s possible that the only reason any woman has given him a second glance in the first place is because women are completely oppressed economically and psychologically.

    From Loving TO SUrvive:

    “If providing sexual and reproductive services to men please men, women will provide these services in the (unconscious) hope of welding a bond between us and men–a bond that might be used to prevent or thwart (further) sexual violence. If this analysis is correct, women will most desire men to express love to us during the sexual act. The need for such expressions of love will be greatest during sex because it is during sex that the nature of the relationship of a particular man to a particular woman is established.

    To have sex with a man, a woman needs to feel the man is sufficiently bonded to her that either he would not be violent with her or she would be able to persuade him to stop being violent if he became so. THis is a reason that male expression of love during sex are highly sought by women.

    Interestingly, many women report that sex is the only time or the primary time that their male partners are sensitive or loving towards them. As victims of male terror, most women will do whatever we can do, or have to do, to keep men being kind to us. If male kindness occurs primarily during sex, most women will want sex with men and want it often. In fact, because survival depends on men’s kindness, when men’s kindness is expressed “in bed”, women will be strongly drawn to have sex with men despite the many ways in which “normal sex” resembles rape (cf MacKinnon 1983). WHen done lovingly and nonviolently, sex with a man can provide adult females feelings of mastery over sexual exploitation. WHen sex is not accompanied by kindness, it is likely to be experienced by women as simply another form of male violation.[my bold]

    Recall that, under conditions of terror, victims are intensely grateful for small demonstrations of kindness shown to them by the abuser. If a man expresses love to a woman during sex, when exactly those parts of a woman’s body most responsible for her membership in the subordinate group (female) and subjected to male violence are exposed to him, and she feels most vulnerable, the woman is likely to feel intensely grateful and to bond. Women are thus less likely than men to separate love and sex. And, expressions of love in the context of sex are likely to create more intense bonds in women than in men.

    If a man shows a woman kindness *during* sex, the woman will bond to the positive side of the man and deny his violent side. (Consider here women’s denial of their anger at men regarding pornography, rape, incest and sexual harassment.) In other words, she will view him as different from other men, incapable of being violent toward her or other women. Or she will view men as a group as “not really all that violent” (Such cognitive distortions help the woman feel more in control and less helpless). Women deny our anger at men and bond to men’s positive or gentle sides, which are experienced when men are being sexual or romantic (which includes being sexual).

    In our zeal to find a man who will not violate us sexually and who will protect us from other men who might violate us, women who have found such a man will work to keep him as a protector rather than a violator. We do this by remaining hypervigilant to men’s needs, particularly their sexual needs.

    Much of the message that a woman tries to communicate to the man is that *he* is special. *He* is the only man that she will permit to share these moments with (“have his way with”) her. *He* is the *only* man with whom she *chooses* to have sex. Even if their sex is marked by violence or innuendos of violence, she tries to communicate to him that he is special–she only chooses to do this with him. In this way she seeks to have him treat her as special, to see her as valuable, despites his feelings regarding women in general. In this way she also solicits his aid in helping to ensure she will not be violated by any other man.

    THe rank of this man among women is important to the woman’s safety. If the man has the (physical, financial, intellectual etc) means to prevent other men from doing violence to her or to ensure that they never do violence to her again, her feelings of safety and her actual safety are increased. This is why it is important to women, as victims of terror, to align ourselves with men who have power of some sort.”

    Dear GOD the *denial* I have been in astounds me. WHen I read Loving To Survive it brings it home how much I personally have been adhering to the rules which help me personally survive in a patriarchy without even realising what I was doing!!! That’s how well conditioned women are to survive a reign of terror.

    And i’ve been thinking that it might even be in our DNA, in the sense that the women alive today all have sixth sense (that we’re taught to ignore) regarding men because we’re the women whose ancestors made it. Women who subconsciously trusted men died basically. I don’T believe that there is a woman alive today who doesn’t understand that men are a great threat to her life. WOmen understand it. We just bury it deep inside and deny it. OTherwise how could we get up and go to work?

    Graham concludes that the bond is a lie. It doesn’t work. A woman is more likely to be raped and murdered by her husband than a man on the street. A woman is more likely to be raped by the friend who offers to walk her home “for her safety” than a random stranger. Statistics show women are actually safer alone and *not* bonded to a man.

  24. I always found the theme of this post valuable, and I am really enjoying (sort-of) the conversation here. At its most simplistic: Romance and Porn are two sides of the same coin of propaganda. Pavlov’s Dog conditioning, and orgasm is a powerful conditioning mechanism. Similarly, Marriage and Prostitution are two sides of the same social institution. As I think Dworkin pointed out, women (both individually and collectively) are forced into negotiating a contract around PIV, and playing the Game “Let’s Make a Deal”. Most women around the planet, don’t even have minimal rights in negotiating such a contract. Right-wing women try to make their deals for safety around marriage, liberal left-wing women try to make their deals for safety around prostitution and harm-minimisation through access to male-controlled reproductive technologies (including abortion/contraception). Dworkin also described this process as the “protection racket”, women-as-a-class must provide sexual servicing in return for ‘protection’. What both tend to ignore is that a) the collective contract with men is that both institutions must be supported by significant numbers of women – b) men are notorious for breaking contracts (especially when there are no penalty clauses for breaches)- c) men hold all the power, all the ‘chips’, all the ‘cards’, and negotiation between equals is just not possible.

    Besides which, you can’t negotiate with terrorists.

    Where right and left-wing women keep trying to get improved ‘conditions’ in making their deals with different groups of men for protection, radfems cross-arms and say “No Deal”.
    Or !No Pasaran!.

  25. Statistics show women are actually safer alone and *not* bonded to a man.

    And imagine the magnitudes of *safer* we could be if we were not just *alone*, but bonded with other women and girls in colonies for example, again, as it used to be. 🙂

  26. yttik, that’s a really interesting parallel you drew with gay men. I’ve read that gay men going around sleeping with each other during the eighties and contracting AIDS can be likened to mass suicide grounded in masochism and self-hatred. Homosexuality has always been despised in a patriarchy (with good reason from a patriarchal point of view, in the sense that it turns men into “bitches” (in men’s minds) and only women are supposed to fill that role. The concept frightens all men), and gay men took this hatred out on their own bodies by not caring enough about their lives to refrain from having unprotected sex.
    And it’s been said before at femonade, but PIV is a form of masochism among women too. Why don’t we respect our bodies enough not to bother?

  27. As usual it is the discussion in the comments rather than the post itself which clarify the issues and make me glad to be a radfem. Re Dee Graham – thank you for this recommendation CBL. Thanks specifically for posting an excerpt from her book. This phrase “consider here women’s denial of their anger at men regarding pornography, rape, incest and sexual harassment” is perfect: how we can keep from a revolution when the situation is as bad as it is, I don’t know.

    We should be so outraged as to be moved to action by even ONE rape, even ONE violent porn movie, the existence of even ONE SINGLE image of child pornography. Instead we have child porn rings where contributors are praised for images that depict crying or distressed children, and a porn industry that produces films where women are literally strung up like punching bags masturbating while a man punches them.

    I can no longer countenance the oft touted reply “that’s an extreme example”. Even if that were true I don’t care! I want it to stop! I don’t care if some men are offended that I feel threatened every time I see a man in the street; I’m not just making this shit up because I’m an ivory-tower feminist – it’s a response to the way I’ve been treated by men my whole life, in a world where that is the REALITY created be men. I’m not ever, ever going to let a man get away with insisting on the disclaimer ‘not ALL men are like that’ whenever any criticism of misogyny occurs, ever, ever again.

  28. Collective trauma bonding: YES. I found myself at work the other day in a distressed state and when one of my older, more senior male colleagues spoke soothingly to me and asked “is there anything I can do to make things easier for you?” I felt an inexplicable sexual tenderness toward him. I wanted to curl into his protection and despite the fact that I had never had a sexual feeling for him before (in fact the very idea horrifies me) this feeling was inextricable from sexual connection. The sexual bonding happened specifically because of my distressed state and was triggered by him speaking soothingly and offering to alleviate my suffering. I couldn’t make sense of this til now, but these posts have clarified it for me. I am trauma bonded to men as a group because of patriarchy and my own experiences of hetero relationships and PIV.

  29. Your last post, Sea, that’s *exactly* what Dee Graham is getting at!

  30. I have told a fun fem friend about it and she replied that the inappropriate bonds with men are culturally dermined because PIV only happens with few other people during a lifetime. Hence PIV with many men would be the answer.

    yes thats a plan. take the “inappropriate” out of the “inappropriate bonds” by normalizing it, and having these bonds will all men, or many men. ffs. the desperate logic of the fun fems astounds once again. thanks!

    i do however think that there is something traumatic for women around paternity specifically, and that there is something there worth examining. men control women through paternity, its a very specific control and a deliberate one. while not knowing who the sperm donor was might alleviate whatever trauma we have over paternity, it doesnt alleviate the harms and trauma of the PIV itself, no matter how many men you do it with. its still gonna knock you up, and it can still kill you. birth control can kill you too, or it can fail. that last part is particularly tricky, and slips under the radar constantly. the harm-reduction methods themselves are dangerous, and dont even work all the time. the risks (of pregnancy and complications up to and including death) can be mitigated somewhat, but it never goes away. birth control doesnt take these away.

  31. I’m new to this, but the more I read, the more I begin to think I am a radfem.
    This post and discussion are making me wonder if PIV is eradicated, can a het relationship be considered healthy? Or could a het relationship progress to become healthy if both partners are willing to challenge and dissect their personal attitudes towards love and relationships and make changes to become a more equal/ loving partnership.
    Also, in an ideal world, would PIV be used when both partners wanted to have a baby or would atificial methods have to be used to avoid trauma to the woman?

  32. i dont see how male medicine or male science and technology will ever be good for women or for humanity or for the planet, or that men taking total control over reproduction will ever be a good idea ever. so i cannot imagine that reproductive technology will be the answer. if there was no coersion involved at all and women were in complete control in every way, from the individual level to the level of institutions that would become applicable should a pregnancy occur, (neither of which is true now, especially not at the institutional level) i think that reproduction on womens terms could be made just a part of life, and potential and actual pregnancy and childbirth would be part of what it means to be female, without the social and political implications that plague it currently. so, i think it could be made *less* traumatic. and there would be no such thing anymore as unwanted pregnancy, so no such thing as fear of unwanted pregnancy either. the PIV-as-sex paradigm would be right out, so you would never say that “PIV as sex was no longer traumatic” because there wouldnt be any such thing as PIV-as-sex.

    but since even a wanted pregnancy can kill you, PIV engaged in for purposes of creating a wanted pregnancy (wanted by the woman) would probably always be traumatic, but even that could be made less. one thing thats so terrifying for women, for example, even WRT wanted pregnancies, is that if they die or are very ill, their existing children wont be taken care of, or if they suffer a difficult pregnancy, they could lose their jobs and become homeless. and the rear and reality of what men do to women and children who arent taken care of is terrifying and traumatic. the fear and reality of medical abuse (some call it medical rape) involved in pre- and post-natal medicine and childbirth are terrifying and traumatic. those kinds of things could be fixed so that the inequality was removed, and the harmful patriarchal influences could be removed. what was left would be much better than anything we have now.

  33. I think economic freedom for women would be a step in the right direction for reducing trauma bonds. I think it is so common to have financial fears that many women don’t even recognize it. Many women aren’t thinking about the health risks of PIV, they’re thinking about how to afford contraception. Many women aren’t thinking about the impact of an abortion, they’re trying to figure out how they’re going to pay for one. Many women don’t consider the health risks of pregnancy, they’re worried about paying for medical care and child birth. Many women don’t consider the sacrifice required to raise a child, they’re too busy being worried about how they will provide for one. So a great deal of women’s energy is spent on worrying about financial issues, almost to the exclusion of anything else. Economic injustice and inequality forces women to be vulnerable to men. Naturally the patriarchy wants to keep things this way, because if you removed the economic vulnerabilities, women would not only be less likely to bond with men, they would be free to start considering some of the other dangers and health risks associated with PIV.

    Recently Italy became concerned about their low birth rate. It appears that women now have more economic freedom so they aren’t having as many babies. PIV is still thriving, but sure enough, the article hinted that there could be an “unhealthy” decline in PIV if this “independent woman trend” continued. You had to read between the lines, but that was basically what they were saying. If women were not financially dependent on men, many of them might start to see no benefit to engaging in PIV at all.

  34. Not only is PIV compulsory, it is synonomous with sex. The very definition of heterosexual intercourse is penetration of the vagina by the penis. Sex education in schools grooms children for PIV – it is an inevitability, not a choice. In religious schools PIV is taught as the sole purpose of marriage and abstinence only delays the inevitability, while government schools teach harm reduction in the form of condoms/birth control but either way PIV is sex and sex is compulsory.

  35. PS isn’t it completely GREAT that more women are waking up from the matrix and coming out as radfems? I can’t wait til there are so many that I get to meet some in my actual real non-virtual life. Thank you RadFem Hub for being a lifeline for all of us 🙂

  36. When I was sexually assaulted last year I tried to “help” my attacker after I’d fought him off because he hit his head and was bleeding and was very drunk. He did not hit his head from me fighting him off by the way, he turned and walked into a glass door and got a blood nose. I literally held him upright, soothing him against his pain and drunkenness. His blood got all over my clothes. I asked him who I could call to come and get him. I used his mobile to call his girlfriend and told her her boyfriend had hit his head and was drunk and needed a lift home. I never mentioned the assault to her.

    A few days later he tracked me down to apologise and being a well-groomed handmaiden of the patriarchy and, I now understand, trauma bonded to my attacker, I took the “educational” approach by trying to get him to imagine his mum or sister in my position. He appeared contrite, and I sent him a copy of Gail Dines’ “Pornland” thinking my assault was an opportunity to teach a male that the sexual objectification of women is wrong. I couldn’t understand why I still felt angry and betrayed. I’d done everything my mother (herself a rape victim) had taught me to do: turned the other cheek, turned my bad situation into a ‘learning experienc’, tried to make my attacker empathise so he would learn that his behaviour was wrong and yet I felt sick, betrayed, dirty, angry, guilty…

    This was what lead me to become a Radical Feminist. Until this post I haven’t even been able to understand my own behaviour after the attack. Trauma bonding. Wow. Thanks.

  37. Thanks FCM for your willingness to speak/write so bluntly. I think regardless of pleasure, and I agree with you that pleasure is not the point, and even if there were no physical or emotional dangers with PIV, men are the enemies and sleeping with the enemy is usually not a well-advised choice. But the fact remains that PIV sex is compulsary (thanks Sea) and it harms women every day, and the threat of it being forced upon us is always there.

  38. CW, your reaction is so common but it’s just simply never talked about. Lots of women get concerned about the feelings of their attacker right after he has abused her. It could be that she’s worried about his feelings, or it could be that she feels she’s “in love” with him, depending on how the trauma has affected her.

    The whole thing is so confusing to women, because the media goes on and on about how victims of male violence have to “overcome their trust issues” … as if us putting the incident behind us and trying to forget what men are like is a sign of *good* mental health; as if learning to trust men again is a goal we should be aiming for! Lies, all lies.

  39. What also happens a lot I think is not wanting to denounce the rape because we’re afraid of hurting the rapist’s feelings. Because usually his life is going on just fine after that, he has friends, a job, he’s respected, nothing’s changed. Or you think that he didn’t do it on purpose, he just likes me and I don’t, I don’t want to hurt his feelings by saying it was horrible to me, so I just smile politely and say sorry. It seems too difficult to disturb his nice life “just because of me saying he raped me”. Anyway that’s how I felt, and how many women I know felt too.

    Trauma-bonding is such an important point in men’s domination over women, without this, dominating us and imposing PIV would be so much harder. It’s so important that adult men barely have to move a finger to insure the complete emotional bondage of women to them, it’s completely effortless – once this is secluded, they can litteraly do anything they want to us. *at the very least* they only have to be mildly polite, because any kind of attention from men, even outright assault, triggers bonding and a sense that we should be so grateful for this attention and we should be very sorry and shameful if we rejected it. I think trauma bodning is all the more important today that since some women have gained (a very relative) amount of economic independence, men have tripled the efforts in “romantic prince charming”/porn/femininity grooming propaganda via any kinds of possible media, and I believe girls are far more emotionally dependent to men far earlier than before and this emotional dependence is very resistant to any amount of “economic” power they may then be granted by men. another reason for this is that economic “independence” is gained by being dependent on MORE men (not less) in the work field.

    The only way out of this is radfeminism! Seeing the truth about men! Yay!

  40. This is an excellent post and the comments are so enlightening too. Brilliant stuff. I’ve nothing more to elaborate that hasn’t been already said.

  41. yes its so telling that a sign of mental health in women is to trust men, and that we are supposed to agree with mens categorizing our learning and experience WRT men and mens bad behavior and mens aggregate behavior as “baggage.” what they mean is that mentally healthy women are willing victims to men (and resistance is a symptom of our mental illness). and in no other area is learning, experience and education referred to as “baggage” except this one. this is incredibly revealing. it really is.

  42. Yes, “baggage”. Or “jaded”.
    Are the women at the radical hub “jaded”? What d’you reckon?

    A random online dictionary says jaded means :”Cynically or pretentiously callous”

  43. WOw… I love you all. That’s it.

  44. Daisy, to even smear a bit of sperm onto the vulva is enogh to cause a pregnency without science (see instruction manuals for condoms – they don’t protect from such incidents). PIV is not even necessary in order to reproduce (that’s merely a trope). Even in reproduction, as far as humans are concerned, I think that PIV as reproduction is a social construct. Except for rad fems, almost everyone else is an essentialist when it comes to reproduction and heterosexuality.

  45. I don’t think there is any such thing as romantic love. It is an invention of the culture based on myths. If you actually read the myths that romance is based on you will find that while there is a whole lot going on in them love is remarkable for its absence.
    Love is an activity based on a commitment to the physical and emotional well being of another person equal to your own.

  46. Good point Feuerwerferin! These little things slide up all by their own, no need for fucking. Men can just go pack their dicks away and forget about sticking them in everything like their life depends on it and like it’s the only thing they know. I wish this would come true. They can also get rid all the horrible towers they built while we’re at it, because really, what do we need to be reminded about dicks all over the place for?

    And yes, reading old patriarchal myths is always very useful. I havn’t found one patriarchal myth that doesn’t say it all about men’s patriarchal mechanisms. And nothing much to do with love indeed. Their myths are all about stealth, raptures (as in women “bride” kidnapping), rape, forced impregnation, mass killings of women, atrocities, deceit, manipulation, male conquering, war, etc…

  47. I’m sorry that I haven’t read all the posts here because there are so many of them, so please alert me if I’m speaking of an already made point or something. It’s hard, I really don’t think I can read all of them. Anyway, I’ve read what youv’e posted here (and another post somewhere else). Most people wouldn’t ever say these things, so its refreshing to here something like this.

    It’s quite true, what you say, that, given the fact that penetration (implied the involvement of semen or not) can cause problems such as STDs, pregnancy, etc. for women, women are inherently put at risk during copulation (although I think two men can give each other STDs too, that’s why they wear condoms, although I know that isn’t your point here) and so copulation is automatically dangerous to women.

    I;m not so sure about your “terror-bonding” example though. It seems that your assuming that the bonding can only be due to terror on the part of a woman (open or not so open terror). But that seems like an example not really backed here. You would really need to supply something other than that is seems a lot like a war bonding experience. Further, its a bit of an assumption to say the feeling wouldn’t be reciprocal. I may not have ever had sex before, but I can tell you that there ARE men I know, even if it is a minority, that would understand a woman not feeling pleasure during copulation or not needing copulation to form the emotional attachment.

    But I think your best point is the argument about female v male enjoyment of copulation. How does one determine consent in a society? I believe there is none, for anything. Or at least no way to really prove there is. Here, for example, we could say that women are directly raped, or they are forced into it due to blatant circumstances, or it is a form of economic oppression, or that it is a matter of superficial education, or (here is the most subtle) that because we live in a hetero-as-normal society, most people will start having opposite sex copulation first and be inclined toward that type of pleasure(conditioned over time) (then if you ask a woman “how can you like penetration?” she of course says “yes I do” not only due to social norms but due to the fact that has become normal for her). I suppose it isn’t a permanent bias though, as we can change what we like, but that might be an explanation. My point is that you may never be able to prove that people liking copulation is socially determined because it seems so vague, even though it’s true. You could do a scientific experiment, but that might be cruel and challenging.

    My question to you is this. Let us hypothesize the liberation you propose. What would you do with those who still prefer copulation for pleasure. Obviously, there would be less of them, but there are always a minority of people from the old, old ways that persist. Would you force them to stop their heterosexual behavior? I know that isn’t implied in what you typed here, but it is a question I have.

    I hope it is understood here that I AM using copulation to refer to PIV (if it seems off, like saying sex instead of PIV, then just focus on the meaning behind the word, not the word itself)

    And to another comment, I’m not sure “PIV = reproduction” is a social construct, unless, of course, you have some data on societies where people did not engage in that way to produce children (of course, then it still could be, I suppose). I know for a fact that unless you are educated in what happens, many people around the world probably do not know that reproduction results from copulation. After all, it is not immediate. It surprised me at first to learn that, but I have learned of a couple of instances where people really don’t know the fact. (but of course, these were just a few instances and I may be wrong). Obviously you don’t need copulation, especially not now given modern technology, and so you can’t be accurate today and claim the two are equatable. However, when did we start learning that sperm and eggs were how reproduction occurred? Are there any records that you know of that even have people transferring their sperm by hand? As far as I know, we didn’t know about cells until 1665, and copulation went on before then. My point is that you couldn’t say “copulation = reproduction is a social construct” before people knew of a method to transfer genetic material from one to another, or even if that is how reproduction worked. (Of course, that’s no excuse for ignorance of educated people today, I suppose)

    And to another comment, why hasn’t there been a revolution yet (a question people always ask when trying to revolutionize) is because a revolution is just so hard, regardless of how bad circumstances look. In reality, past revolutions were done not only because they dealt with less fundamental issues than argued here, but because people actually had to do things that haven’t been done in a while (the extreme is open and well supported violence). You actually have to shove ideas in peoples’ faces, people who think you are crazy, stupid, evil, wrong and come up with all sorts of well thought out reasons why you are wrong. The only complication is when you question your own resolve, your own argument (Maybe they’re right). But, if your not doing that, then you can fight (with or without violence) for your beliefs. And, if you’re loud enough others will join. And if you’re even louder you can make change.

    That’s the problem with today’s organization, and this is no means of disrespect to you. But people today expect the internet to be the new means of organization and change. That is not correct. I can ignore websites. I can ignore my computer. But, I can’t ignore people outside, in the street, in my way, because I have to go there, whether I like it or not. The internet should be reserved for organization, and sending messages over long distances, not for making change. You need to print, march and shout! THAT is how to do it. THAT is how you can make life a little bit better than it is. And, even if your enemies (or people with alternate ideas!) are doing that to, at least you’ll be on even footing. I can only hope that what ever we decide to do, it isn’t for anything oppressive.

    But I also learned a lesson from the Zapatista movement down in Mexico: if you want to make change, and you can’t get society moving the way you want it, make your own autonomy and live there, set up some cameras to alert the international media and make some wooden guns to keep out the government that’ll inevitably come knocking, and you will have your peace.

    And I haven’t ever heard of radical feminism before and haven’t really been exposed to feminism. But, it makes sense, and I see nothing wrong with the ideas that you present here, so I think you could really convince anybody. I would just hope that if your organization ever gains the ability to make change, you would still allow people the option to be heterosexual, because even if it is harmful,promoting inequality, promoting slavery…once you qualify what freedom is, you’ve automatically limited it and really eliminated it. We all know people use nicotine knowing full well the harmful side effects. We can conceive of a world were nicotine is used oppressively, that we need it to be happy, that it is normal to use it, that it is part of being human, all for the sake of a company (given the right social norms). I, for one, could never argue, however, that nicotine should be made illegal, despite the fact that I would never use it. But in a world were nicotine is considered bad, I have to actually choose to use it, there is no way that I could be conditioned to use it. SO it may be with heterosexuality: if it is considered bad, but is legal, then I have to choose to do it, and can never be forced into it. You tell me if that’s the right way to go about this.

  48. Hi Fourmis, your questions are the usual ones that people ask when they first come across this concept. Take a browse through this blog and perhaps some of the posts at femonade, especially the comments section, and you will find the answers.

    ETA: many “primitive” cultures didn’t realise that men played a role in reproduction. They never put two and two together. WHy would they, really? WHole cultures assumed that women brought life into the world all by themselves. We *do* have records of this, and there’s no reason to believe that most societies didn’t begin with this same ideological outlook. When people began farming animals that’s when the connection was made, and paternity was discovered, and it went downhill for women from then. Intercourse then became a social construct designed to keep male power (wealth, property) in place and in almost every country in the world women’s role dropped to chattel status. A change in society took place and the woman-as-sole-creator belief disappeared and was replaced by what is known today as “patriarchy.” Or in radfem theory, the changes can be referred to as “the patriarchal takeover.”

  49. “What would you do with those who still prefer copulation for pleasure. ”

    I don’t understand your question. Why would you do anything with them? Unless you mean rapists. In which case the answer is obvious.

  50. Ah… now it’s clear. Fourmis is talking about *men* . As in *men* who might prefer copulation for pleasure. Am I right Fourmis?
    As I said, best do some reading on the subject.

  51. I just don’t get it, I am a female and in my 20 years of intercourse I have never feel traumatized for PIV. I don’t think I have no choice because nobody forces me to have PIV. I am independent, I don’t need men for anything, and I choose to have PIV for the pleasure I get. I never had a STI, because I always use condoms, and I never dreaded a pregnancy for the same reason. I don’t feel that I have any trauma because I practise PIV.

    I never wear skirts because, I never wear make up or high heels, I am childless because I want and I could. I can avoid PIV if I choose because nobody forces me to do it. I know that I am a priviledged woman because of that, but I also know a lot of woman that are in the same situation. Do you really think that all PIV is traumatic? In every women?

  52. Finding radfem blogs online has been such a breath of fresh air for me, almost a religious experience where what you’re reading is the Truth that you’ve always known deep down all along. I was of course exposed to funfeminism in college and on other blogs, and all the sex pos stuff just drove me crazy and never clicked. I’ve always thought PIV seemed so invasive (because it IS) and, from what I had heard, totally unbeneficial to women (not to say I didn’t eventually have PIV and experience pleasurable sensations, but never without the dread of pregnancy or just feeling invaded). My high school boyfriend experienced quite the mindfuck when, trying to explain my lack of interest in PIV, I asked him if he would rather be the one “poking someone in the eye or getting poked” (lame and i’m sure the pleasure guys get is more than if they were poking someone in the eye, but the best metaphor i could come up with at that moment). I always thought I was a freak for feeling skeezed out by PIV, so THANK YOU for letting me know I’m not alone in being critical of it.

    Which brings me to the big issue I have with the whole criticism: how do you address (or criticize) the fact that it is “natural”? As in, occurs in mammals in order to reproduce and propogate the species. Does this mean that animals are raping? witchwind, you in particular said something about it not being natural, I would love to hear more about that because I want to believe that! A lot of issues I have thought about I think about in terms of whether it occurs in nature or not for it’s justification; for example, porn doesn’t occur in nature, men can definitely survive without it and should not look at it as their right as males. Also, homosexuality exists in plenty of species, so I don’t see how people can logically oppose gay rights.

    Thanks so much for addressing this! Love this blog

  53. Hi Beaubelle!

    Well, PIV is natural for animals because they have hormonal drives which pushes them to copulate at given times, either during estrus or at given seasons, according to their biological needs. Since they copulate only when their nature/body tells them to, it can’t be rape in my opinion.

    Humans on the other hand have no pre-ordained sexuality: there’s nothing in the human body that pushes us to copulate at any given time, we don’t have any hormonal drives during estrus that forces us to seek a mate for PIV and it’s not part of our basic and necessary body functions/needs like peeing or breathing. sexuality is completely social and learned. It’s been seen on some adults who’ve never learned about PIV not to know “how to make a baby” and it didn’t cross their minds to do PIV. PIV isn’t natural but socially institutionalised by men through compulsory heterosexuality, marriage and rape. It certainly isn’t a recreative practice either since men use it as a *weapon* against women to control them – and it IS a weapon of war given the harm it causes women. And as Feuerwerferin says, PIV isn’t even necessary for reproduction since sperm on the vulva is enough to cause pregnancy. Plus the trauma-bonding (trauma = survival mechanism to something wrong being done to you = that something needs to stop). Plus the fact that having something the size of an erect penis thrust into your body with a naked man all over you is in itself deeply invasive despite the genital stimulation that is most often just reactive or mechanically activated after years of grooming and is usually only triggered after some first seconds of pain. (PAIN!! that’s a normal body sign telling something’s *wrong!*). without counting that at the beginning of PIV grooming it’s most often just painful, irksome, or at best there’s not much sensation, and the girl usually feels she *has* to do it because she’s already groomed to believe her value lies in being fucked by men.

    Anyway, these are many reasons that make me say PIV is in no way a natural human practice, and that women’s vagina isn’t meant to be penetrated at all, but only meant to expel a baby.

  54. The info about animal vs human copulation is from a fantastic radfem book by Paola Tabet called “des outils et des armes” (unfortunately it can only be found in French and italian as far as I know) and as far as I know it’s the only book I’ve ever read that studies the mechanisms by which men institutionalise PIV and the reproductive harms against women.

  55. Hi, beaubelle, good question, this is an issue, How lucky we are to be educated and savvy enough to adddress it. Biologically, considering the stages of a woman’s life, PIV (penis in vagina) sex seems “natural”.

    Is it?
    There is desire, There is domination. There is slavery.
    There is illness. Please think more deeply. Why do you engage in something so unhealthy?

  56. beaubelle, what you say sounds like a naturalistic fallacy:

    elengendros, if trauma bonding is a psychic mechanism, it does not have to occur in everyone and not with same intensity. Traits apply in general but there are always some exceptions. I have felt that PIV was invasive even though I enjoyed it. I just used to lack the knowledge and honesty to criticize it. I don’t know. Maybe you are an exception or perhaps you might change your mind later.
    Still, I think men know that it is an invasive act (I have read men’s writings about it – an it’s disgusting to say the least) but women usually don’t know about it/are in denial about it. Personally, I used to sense/feel that there was hostility implied by men in the act of PIV but couldn’t understand it until I have read Dworkin and also writings by male anthropologists who said something very similar (one admited it straight out). Care to read a few books about it?

  57. Thanks for that book name, witchwind…

  58. Feuerwerferin, I don’t know if BeauBelle wants to know which books have male anthropologists admitting their hostility but I SURE DO! please share some titles. THANKS

  59. ooh yes please! I always love quoting men who openly admit hating women and doing so through PIV.

  60. I can’t wait to read those articles and books!

    I actually hope to write a book about feminism sometime soon, possibly about the Disney movies and their women.

  61. I’m sorry, I have read it in German. The best to quote is Hans Peter Duerr: “Obszönität und Gewalt”. It is also easy to read. And then there is Rolf Pohl “Feindbild Frau”. Also look up the fitting footnotes and endnotes.

  62. at what point in our evolution do people think PIV became unnatural?

  63. at the moment it began to have political implications, PIV became POLITICAL. it is not necessary to veer off into “natural” vs “unnatural” to make the political point, which is incontrovertible.

%d bloggers like this: