Protégé : Leur violence est de la haine. Leur haine est sadique.

Cet article est protégé par un mot de passe. Pour le lire, veuillez saisir votre mot de passe ci-dessous :

Publié dans crime contre l'humanité | Saisissez votre mot de passe pour accéder aux commentaires.

Un crime de masse organisé par les hommes contre les femmes : à quand son abolition ?

Abolitionnisme Louise Michel

La proposition de loi sort demain.
Elle serait importante que celles qui le peuvent diffusent sur leurs comptes facebook et twitter nos arguments !

http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2012/01/05/abolitionnistes-du-systeme-prostitueur-ce-que-nous-sommes-ce-que-nous-voulons_1625629_3232.html

http://mouvementdunid.org/Bientot-une-proposition-de-loi

http://sandrine70.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/lutte-contre-le-systeme-prostitueur-il-faut-penaliser-le-client/

http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2013/07/02/il-est-temps-de-penaliser-le-client-prostitueur_915424

https://christineld75.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/le-manifeste-de-la-honte-et-de-notre-colere/

http://www.slate.fr/tribune/69153/prostitution-abolition-impasse-reglementarisme

http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2012/01/05/pourquoi-il-faut-abolir-ce-pretendu-metier_1626240_3232.html

_________

Focus sur les violeurs

Prostitution : paroles d’hommes

Prostitution : men’s word

Prostitution : men’s word, with subtitles

Focus on Men Who Buy Rape / Focus sur ces hommes qui se paient un viol

Notre langue est le langage de la torture, Rebecca Mott at RadFem 2012.

Privilèges des proxénètes vs « droits » des femmes, par Kathleen A. Lahey. 

_________

Pour une analyse théorico-politique.

Prostitution : Le modèle nordique, by Janice Raymond, CATW – EN & Fr,

Prostitution is not « sex » « trade »

La prostitution n’est ni du travail ni du sexe

Ozon les fantasmes masculins sur les victimes de viol.

Consent vs Desire

Why BIG Porn INC had to be written ? An interview with Hennie Weiss

Viol, arme de génocide. Turning genocide into pornography

Global Rape-politics

Archives FR & EN Prostitution / Viol / Pornographie par Lise Bouvet

Qui recourt à la prostitution ? Les victimes ou les agresseurs ?

50 shits of Grey – Le pornolibéralisme à l’œuvre

Cherry Smiley against prostitution

Propos élémentaires sur la prostitution, Annie Mignard

Meghan Murphy, about the idea of « choice »

« La prostitution : ni choix ni empowerment », témoignent-elles.

Le pouvoir magique de l’argent des hommes en matière de viol.

_____________

Le patriarcat est un génocide comme un autre.

« Inégalité entre hommes et femmes » veut dire Crime contre l’humanité

Carole Pateman, Le contrat social est un contrat sexuel passé entre hommes.

http://www.feministes-radicales.org/are-women-human/consentement-notion-scelerate-dune-guerre-sexuelle/

http://www.feministes-radicales.org/prostitution-et-metaphore-economique/

Mackinnon To be a prisoner

Publié dans arnaque, crime contre l'humanité, féminisme, industries, masculinité, mensonges pro-sexe, sex-positiv, viol | Marqué avec , , , , , | Laisser un commentaire

Grooming / pimping into heterosexuality, by Witchwind

Grooming / pimping into heterosexuality:
politics of love part II.

Part I is here.

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. There is no other form of attraction to men possible than that. None. Any woman “sexually” or “sentimentally” attached to a man is ONLY trauma-bonded to him. This is a universal rule under patriarchy.

[To clarify, I use trauma-bonding and stockholm syndrome (or societal stockholm syndrome) interchangeably. To me it's the same thing that's being described, except that I find that the word 'trauma-bonding' more accurately defines the context of violence + response to it than a word with “Stockholm” and “syndrome” in it. It's clear: you bond as a reaction to violence-trauma.]

As a historical note, the term “heterosexuality” only started to be used in the late 19th century by the male psycho contingents and was first coined by a German man apparently (this is in the context of Freudian psychoanalytical backlash against women). It was invented to replace the term “normalsexual” – which was probably too overtly political – and to oppose it to “homosexual”. The men in the psychogenocidal departments invented it for the following purposes:

  1. pathologise lesbianism (and homosexuality) and treat it as a deviance to be cured punished. / pathologise women who resisted PIV and marriage and chose to bond with women instead;
  2. define men’s sexual ownership of women as the norm (= their use of women as dick holes and breeders = rape /impregnation / forced childbearing /abuse);
  3. define men’s sexual ownership of women as a “sexuality” and “sexual orientation” so to hide the violence of it;
  4. naturalise it, that is, define it as a natural biological drive in both men AND women.

If we look at the etymology of the term:

Heteros = different (from the greek).

Sexuality = sexuality.

So the literal meaning of heterosexuality = sexual orientation/ attraction / practice of sexual & love relationship with a member of the opposite sex. Does the word “heterosexuality” define the reality of our relationship to men in patriarchy? Nope. We need to stop using that word and the word “straight” when referring to women occupied by men, because it’s incorrect. I also often see the term “heteronormativity” flying around. This applies only to men. Women are within no norm in the “hetero” world, because we’re not the beneficiary subjects of it, we’re the primary victims and targets of it. !!

Back to where I started. We really need to know and understand how our traumatic responses to men work. I see some feminists wondering why women would still be attracted to men after becoming feminist, why they would stay around to “date” them. They don’t understand why these women would remain “het” if they’ve been able to see how dangerous men are. Not to mention those who believe the only reason women stay with men is for supposed “benefits” – forgetting along the way that forced proximity (captivity) to men + PIV/male violence is THE definition of our oppression and that there is no way we can benefit from it! None at all, ever ever! To believe that, is to believe MEN’S anti-woman lies that oppression is good or natural for us. That we can somehow enjoy it, want it or cope with it. This is a lie; it’s not feminist to believe that, it doesn’t fit our reality at all. Really, this is basic understanding of how men’s violence and brainwashing operate.

Men know how we react to their violence and deliberately manipulate our responses to increase their control over us, and to decrease the efforts it takes them to do so. It’s in men’s interest to disguise their violence as much as possible. It’s not for nothing that modern western patriarchy has perfected “psycho” and “behavioural” (brainwashing and mind-control) sciences for centuries as a powerful anti-women’s liberation tool, and that men rely so heavily on it to keep us at their knees, or rather, below their dicks. It’s part of the global male infrastructure that ensures men a constant supply of ready-tamed and pre-possessed women to effortlessly stick their dicks in, impregnate and abuse. The more it grows, the easier it is for each individual man to break any woman’s will and trick her into PIV and being owned by him – and maintain submission level with the help of men’s institutions.

And so to groom women into “heterosexuality”, the most efficient form of mind-control they found is to traumatise women from birth through parental/family/child (often sexual) abuse – and from then on, use this traumatic memory/PTSD to abuse women without women being aware of it (or of the extent of it). The point is to drive the abuse directly into our unconscious, making it impossible for us to escape it because we’re no longer able to perceive men’s abuse as abusive at the conscious level. In other words, the strategy is to program us to respond to men’s violence through dissociation and trauma-bonding, and cloak/rename these responses as “love” or “attraction” to men – so on the top of it they make us believe we want it.

Let’s recall what trauma-bonding is: if we look at Dee Graham’s work (p.4, Loving to Survive), for a woman to trauma-bond to a man:

  1. she must perceive her captor – the man – as having powers of life and death over her
  2. she must believe that she cannot escape, and that therefore her life depends on her captor
  3. she must be isolated from outsiders so that his perspective is the only perspective available
  4. she must feel as if her captor – the man – showed her some kindness or attention.

This situation of captor-to-hostage is the situation of all women to all men. (This is also the point that D.G. makes in her book). That is, all men hold all women captive. All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. Men’s world is like a vast prison or concentration camp for women. This isn’t a metaphor, it’s reality. Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men. We are forced to depend on men and male infrastructures for our survival. Men’s perspective (and men’s language that names their perspective) is the only perspective available and we are isolated from other women and woman-centred perspectives. Not all men rape / abuse us at all times – a man just being polite might cause us to feel grateful and t-b.

So just by looking at the reality of men’s domination of women, it holds that emotional or sexual attachment to men can always only be trauma-bonding, because for it not to be trauma-bonding, men would have to not be our oppressors. But there’s more to this than what Dee Graham says, so I’m building on her theory here.

The reason so many of us trauma-bond so instantly and intensely to men in our proximity and sometimes to just any man that crosses our way, whether we are lesbian, celibate, separatist or “het”, is that we are programmed and groomed to react in this way to male threat since birth. The key to understanding this is dissociation, since trauma-bonding is a form of dissociation; so before I continue into the female child-grooming theory i’ll explain what I mean by dissociation and why trauma-bonding is a form of dissociation. Sorry if it’s a bit long but I have yet to find a shorter way of explaining it.

Dissociation is a normal survival reaction to intentional, human(male) violence. The condition for dissociation is when we perceive we can’t escape the violence, and are “frozen” on the spot. Most if not all men’s violence against women fits this criteria, because it takes place within a context of captivity to men. The closer and more dependent on the abuser we are, the more we will have to dissociate, especially at young age, especially if the abuse is ongoing. Also, the more the violence is socially hidden, unnamed, denied or renamed as something else, the more likely we are to dissociate from it, because we can’t connect our response to the situation (we feel bad but can’t perceive the violence as violence). This is a mindfuck which causes freeze fright, and dissociation.

Dissociation is when, in a situation of being trapped in violence, the brain creates a neuronal short-circuit so we don’t die of stress. Stress/fear is a normal reaction to an endangering, unsafe situation and means that adrenalin and cortisol gets sent to the heart and brain to react fast, think fast and get away fast. If we can’t make sense of the danger and get away from it, the brain shuts everything down to stop the emergency reaction from continuing (the sending of adrenalin + cortisol) because otherwise it could intoxicate our body and we can die from it. The brain then sends some other drugs (close to endorphin and Ketamine) to create an amnesia or blank in the mind, and to numb the pain. This is dissociation. Other ways of sending these dissociative drugs than directly from the brain is through genital arousal, trauma-bonding, or by taking external drugs such as alcohol or other anaesthetisers. Dissociation is what causes the traumatic memory, that is, unconscious memory of the violence which remains stuck in the lymphatic system (short-term memory place) because of the short-circuit – it couldn’t connect to the other parts of the brain anymore to get into the long-term memory, where we store our experiences and can learn from them. The memory never being processed, it comes back to us in invasive ways – either through flashes, dreams, sensations, or in more cryptic ways such as with somatic disorders, re-enacting similar trauma with other people, etc.

So yes, dissociation works like a DRUG, whether as an internal biological/chemical function or with the help of external products, when the internal one is no longer strong enough to numb the pain. This means that we may become addicted to the dissociation, and therefore the violence that triggers the dissociative state might become addictive too. And men make sure that the only available activities for women are violent and dissociative: from PIV to mutilating “femininity” practices to social binge drinking to traumatic relationships or workaholism, etc.

When we think of dissociation we imagine extreme torture and then feeling outside of our body, or feeling high: even if it can be that, very often it may be as simple as having a blank in the mind after seeing a misogynist advert, or forgetting the conversation you were having as you saw a man sexually harass his “girlfriend”, or feeling aroused when you come across a man that looks like the one you’ve previously trauma-bonded to / or who previously abused you, or having the urge to drink a glass of beer after some men insulted you (just to give some random examples). Because men’s violence is present in our everyday lives, so is dissociation, but most often we don’t realise how disconnected we are until we reconnect again some way or another and become more aware of the violence.

Now to heterosexuality and dissociation. Relationships with men or any sexual intention from their part is, when not repulsive and making you want to run away – necessarily dissociative and trauma-bonding. That’s because of the combined violence/perceived niceness inherent in “heterosexuality” (+ points 1, 2 and 3 from Grahams’s conditions for stockholm syndrome).

  1. To trauma-bond, on top of everything D.G said, there needs to be actual violence or threat of violence, not just the perception of it. Our perceptions and responses never trick us, we only trauma-bond to people who represent a real threat or within an unequal, unsafe setting. Being around any man constitutes a threat to us, because they are our oppressors. Being wanted by a man and him treating you as if you were his is inherently violent. That’s anything from him showing he wants you, “dating” with you, being in a relationship or married to him. In either case, it consists in some kind of physical or mental violation from his part, on top of the constant threat of PIV/rape he represents as a man, whether he decides to enforce it or not.
  2. Second, men brainwash women into believing that a man wanting us is positive attention. Worse, we are persuaded that we can’t EXIST, be happy and whole if a man doesn’t want us. They conduct heavy brainwashing on girls and women to force the perspective that PIV isn’t rape but “sex”, that sexual harassment is “seduction”, “courting” and men owning us is “love”, “romance”. We are to actively seek men to want us and this should be at the centre of all our worries and activities. And no matter how violent he is when he wants us, it means he likes me. We should be grateful.

Because of this, anything within “heterosexuality” from men merely being polite in our presence to “dating”, to buying us a drink to regular PIV/rape to brutally attacking us may cause a similar reaction of trauma-bonding (depending on how groomed to it we are in the first place) because if he wants us, it means positive attention. And a man “liking us” means EXISTING, being saved, rescued from non-existence or near death. And so we may feel grateful for that attention even if it was horrendous, horribly destructive – we may go back to him because we feel guilty not to show our gratitude for that attention. We feel obligated to thank him. We are left to blame ourselves for the awfulness of the experience, because there is no other explanation available to us. It’s our fault if it felt wrong, we just chose the wrong guy, we’re not liberated enough to enjoy it, we didn’t do enough to please him, etc.

This means that male sexualised invasion (heterosexuality) is essentially a mindfuck. The violent/nice aspect of it is inherent to heterosexuality. What’s perceived as nice IS the act of invasion itself, there is no separation between the perceived acts of niceness and the violence here. So if we’re made dependent on male sexual violence, perceived as positive attention, it is experienced only through a dissociated state. We can’t experience the violence on a conscious level because we can’t see why it makes us feel awful despite the “love/attraction” (Trauma-b.). We know we feel bad but we can’t connect it to the situation because it can only mean positive attention. And there is nothing, nobody to confirm the reality of this violence. We can only deny, suppress our responses and dissociate from it – and blame ourselves for feeling bad. It’s a mindfuck because it’s a paradox: the thing we are told is supposed to do most good to us, what we are supposed to cling on for life and seek forever, is exactly what does most harm to us. On one hand our existence is made to depend on being wanted by a man, but on the other our existence is endangered by being around with this man. If we can’t make sense of it, we stay trapped, freeze fright, and trauma-bond to the man.

So because of this nice/violent mindfuck nature of male sexual invasion (heterosexuality), dissociation is almost automatic, and it takes the form of trauma-bonding. We flip to this TB state in men’s presence all the more automatically if we were “drugged” on it for years, especially if we had lots of PIV/rape that caused genital arousal, which increases the intensity of TB tenfold (the intensity of TB and dissociation is always proportionate to the violence). It intoxicates us and we immediately lose our senses, it’s like being driven outside of our body. It’s like being an empty shell filled up by him, clinging on to him even if he’s a bastard. It instantly creates a state of melancholia because we’re driven outside of ourselves, but because we’re colonised by the guy we think it’s because we’re missing HIM. In fact we’re missing ourself and it feels very painful, like you’re being eaten up from the inside. This is the ongoing genocide of women by men. Even though they kill many of us, they need us alive and tied to them so they can keep using for PIV/reproduction, so what they do is kill us from the inside as much as they possibly can, drive us outside of our bodies, into exile from ourselves.

This automatic trauma-bonding reaction to men that we might mistake for sexual urges or falling in love is one of the main reasons separatism from men is so important. As long as men are our oppressors and probably as long as they have dicks, they will be a threat so the only way to prevent TB from happening is to avoid any close contact with men. if we TB, it’s not in our control, especially if we were heavily “drugged” on TB / PIV before. Choosing to be only around with women isn’t a special identity or a VIP radfem status that other lesser feminists have to attain, it’s a matter of protection. Even after several years of not interacting with men any more and choosing to love only women, I still get invasive flashes and dreams of PIV/rape, and I still TB to men if I can’t avoid them and they’re “friendly”. I hope it will dissipate more over time though.

The reason we may switch to TB to men so quickly in the first place though, instead of other forms of dissociation or being horrified by what boys and men are and avoiding them like the plague, is really because men program us to react in that way to abuse from since we are born, and by the time we’re grown up, this mechanism becomes like a second skin. TB to parents/fathers, more than any other form of dissociation, is the primary template to which we are raised as girls, which men then build on to abuse us as adult women. It would be completely impossible for men to subordinate us the way they do without parental/men’s abuse of girls.

now please enjoy my super diagram on child grooming!

grooming-girls by witchwind, éducation au sexisme

Some notes on the diagram: the centre of the circle is the core, bare minimum of child abuse inherent in the patriarchal “family”. IOW the conditions in which women give birth to girls are inherently abusive in patriarchy. We are owned by a woman who’s owned and abused herself by a man.

Basically with girls we have the same configuration, the same paradox as with heterosexuality where the very people who we’re emotionally and physically dependent on to survive are those who are endangering our life, attacking our integrity through treating us as possessions, lack of care, neglect and abuse. We can’t escape our parents: abandonment effectively means death. We are terrorised of being further harmed or abandoned.

Because there is no way as a baby, infant or child to make sense of this mindfuck violence as the reality of it is never named or confirmed, as we are utterly alone with our suffering and powerless in this situation, our instinctual reaction is to trauma-bond to our parents and blame ourselves for their mistreatment. We think that if they don’t take care of me or treat me badly, it’s because they don’t like me, because I’m bad, I’m not lovable, I’m a stain, I’m disposable, I’m a monster inside, I’m not worth being loved and protected, I’m a bad girl.Winning our parents’ approval and pleasing them, desperately wanting to be “loved” by them and dissociating from the neglect or abuse is a survival reaction.

This abusive captivity to owners (parents) is called family and love, and we are supposed to be forever grateful to our parents.

To this captivity/trauma-bonding we add patriarchal “education”, often administered from birth, which consists in suppressing in the child any expressions of anger, distress (which is always justified) or individual will, through punishments and rewards. If a child cries or screams, to express normal needs or protest her condition, she has to be “corrected” by being shouted at, scorned, finger wagged, put in a corner or beaten. She might also be rewarded by attention or good marks for being obedient. Then adults deny us the right to express any anger or resistance to this treatment, because “it’s for our own good”. This is the slow but steady grooming to dissociate from violence – being punished for reacting to the violence, and the reality of the violence being constantly denied, we learn to suppress our normal responses to abuse and our capacity to defend ourselves from it. We learn to fragment our minds and experience the ongoing violence only on an unconscious level, to survive. The more extreme the violence, as in with severe psychological, sexual or physical abuse, the more we live in dissociation.

To this, of course, we add steady grooming to sexually service men and brainwashing into PIV, constant sexual harassment and abuse from men in general, mutilating femininity practices and general hatred of females.

This is the template on which grooming to heterosexuality is fixed. I think the reason we can so easily switch to trauma-bonding to men, experience men’s approval as such a matter of life or death, perceive that our self-worth is so dependent on somebody else’s external attention even if they are repugnant oafs, is because this is how we learned to live and survive as a child, from birth. Then we simply continue to adapt in this way to male violence as we grow, we know no other way to react to abuse. The system of captivity to parents is the same as with male ownership / relationships to men. Same isolation, same captivity, same need to dissociate / TB from ongoing abuse, etc. There’s no way we would dissociate so easily from men’s abuse were it not for this treatment as girls. There’s no way we would go near men at all.

So, all these words to explain in every way possible that heterosexuality doesn’t exist and our “urges” to bond with them emotionally or sexually aren’t natural drives but normal PTSD reactions to years of abuse and mind-programming.

Publié dans arnaque, couple, masculinité, viol | Marqué avec , , , | Laisser un commentaire

The butterflies, or unpeeling the politics of love Part I. by Witchwind

The butterflies
or unpeeling the politics of love Part I.

Here is Part II.

Men lie about everything. Or in other words, they do the most atrocious and disgusting things to us, and call it something else, for instance they call it love.

When I was really young I always wondered what it meant to “be in love”. It was painted everywhere as the “must” thing to experience for a woman, the thing you had to experience to be fulfilled. It was always depicted as some super special state that struck you like lightening and transcended you and changed the way you behaved. Quite frightening when you think of it. I never “fell” in love with anybody when I was young, and was always wondering whether I was normal or not. I’d tell people in a moany way, “i’ve never fallen in love”, and they would say to me “ah, you’ll see, it’ll come one day when you’re not expecting it”. It felt exactly the same way when people explained to me what god and faith was and apparently I was supposed be transcended by this super feeling during the rituals in mass or something, except that I never felt anything and it all was completely artificial and deadening at best, having to pretend, and feeling guilty about pretending, just like coupledom.

I remember a boy approaching me when I was 9 or so and he wanted to “go out with me”. We were supposed to hold hands and it felt utterly odd and fake (what was the difference between “being with him” and “not being with him”? The blandness and unnaturalness of it was pretty mortifying), I didn’t feel anything except unconformable about having to hold hands just to show the world that I belonged to him, which I didn’t like because I thought it was wrong to belong to someone, but I also felt guilty for not feeling that special love state that I was meant to feel, I thought it meant I was heartless.

Anyway, a few rapes / PIV / abusive relationships later, as I was still adolescent, I “fell in love”, or so I thought. All I knew was that it was very intense, so I assumed THAT must be love! FINALLY!!

now, what exactly was it that I felt? My responses to first being “seduced” (chased) and kissed (physically invaded and held captive) by a man – and him wanting to see me again – included:

  •  blank in the mind
  •  not knowing what to say or do
  •  my heart racing
  •  sweating
  •  obsessive, invasive thoughts about him to the extent that it would prevent me from concentrating on other things or experiencing other things fully
  •  spending hours or a long time preparing what I would say to him before i’d see him
  •  nervousness
  •  insomnia
  •  those so-called “butterflies” in the stomach, that is, stomach tensions
  •  blushing
  •  checking myself in the mirror and controlling my body appearance more obsessively than I would normally do, and being more afraid than usual of being ugly, not intelligent enough, or whatever
  •  Desperate waiting of signs of contact from his part. An email, a text, a phone call… checking my phone and emails obsessively and my heart dropping when nothing would come.
  •  A painful feeling of loss, separation, emptiness (that is, feeling empty, non-existent without his presence) and even of being ripped apart inside the chest. A sensation that would intensify in his absence or if he would be sadistically cold or distant, or after PIV or physical invasion.
  •  A constant state of scorching melancholia, varying in intensity. It is a state in which you are trapped between a perceived nothingness out there and the horror of your own solitude / emptyness in there (or what you are made to believe is solitude of the soul) so i’d drift melancholically outside of my body, begging silently to hook myself onto him (or someone else).
  •  Finding beautiful things in the man where there weren’t any.

Yeah. Nothing in here is love. It’s just terror of being abandoned, and terror full stop. Or what we call trauma-bonding. Yet everywhere these very normal responses to harm, neglect and captivity by men are described as love, even when the woman (say in a “romantic” novel) DIES from this supposed love. And this isn’t just projection, in every case the abuse and threat by men in relationships is real, because PIV, because men are our oppressors and captors and we fear them, because the compulsory physical invasion that men define as sex, the real neglect, lies and manipulation, etc.

Needless to say, this first experience was extremely painful. The guy was something like 13 years older than me, I was still a minor, and my “love” to him would be all the more strong that he was very fleeting, would contact me only every now and then when he needed to fuck (rape) me. I was too grateful for him paying any attention to me to be even aware of his abusive behaviour, or understand what it meant. I was confused that he only wanted to see me sporadically, instead of starting a relationship, which is the way in which this love is supposed to be expressed. If he liked me enough to “desire” me, why didn’t he want a relationship? Not knowing whether he “loved” me or not made me constantly anxious. The emotional distance, neglect and constant waiting for him made the pain acute.

Fast forward a year, I finally realised that he’d used me and had no respect for me. I decided to give up on hoping that he’d “fall in love” (= get into the promised relationship). The instant i’d done that, I felt such an amazing sense of freedom. It felt like all the weight of the world had suddenly disappeared!! I wasn’t tied, bonded to him anymore. I was independent. I didn’t have to live my entire life according to him, waiting and yearning for him. The illusions suddenly fell apart and I saw him as some useless guy. I told myself: never again will I be so naïve with a man! I was unlucky I thought, and I should just have picked a better man, and been more careful.

The problem was, that over the next five or six years, this pattern kept repeating and repeating and repeating itself. Every man I trauma-bonded to either was only interested in using me for PIV (rape) or had no interest in me at all. I thought something was wrong with me, maybe I wasn’t pretty enough, skinny enough, boobed enough, outward going enough, mature, seductive, whatever. I couldn’t get it what it was that I lacked. I didn’t understand why I accumulated so many failures. Why did they never stay? Why was I so unlucky in “love”? Alternatively, I wouldn’t trauma-bond but then i’d be fully aware that I didn’t want the PIV and physical invasion (when I wasn’t so much aware of it with the others, because of the trauma-bonding) and it would be even more humiliating. I was still too grateful for the attention though to ward them off, so it would be painfully disgusting and i’d hate myself for what I perceived was self-betrayal.

When I was “attracted” they didn’t want, but when I didn’t want, they wanted. It didn’t make sense.

I did see there was a pattern and tried things to avoid being in such pain. I decided I would stop having PIV with men I didn’t know well or hadn’t started an official relationship with. The aim was to hold off PIV with men who were “attracted” to me until I had gotten to know them and knew they wouldn’t use / abuse me just for PIV, and would want a serious, committed and equal relationship, based on mutual discovery, friendship, etc. At least if I “fell in love” with them, they wouldn’t have fucked me, I thought. Well guess what, all that happened was that I continued to trauma-bond to men, except that after them “being attracted” to me (inviting me for drinks, or whatever) they would just lose interest in me because they couldn’t get out of me what they wanted, and they’d find another woman that was more compliant sooner or later. That was painful too. And it didn’t stop some men to rape me anyway.

Because all this was still so confusing and painful, I would think about it a lot, and ask a lot of questions to others, to see what were other’s experiences. The things that I began to figure out, bit by bit, were:

  1. That the intensity of the trauma-bond could wither away after some time of knowing the man as a friend or acquaintance.
  2.  That the “love” in question had nothing to do with the men’s individual character or the fact that I appreciated them for what they were, but all to do with what they represented to me – usually a figure of authority, being much older than me, or having a higher status. It would actually prevent me from seeing them for what they were (lying rapey shitbags). The more distant or cold they were, whether or not they had decided to physically invade me, the more painful the “love” (trauma-bonding) would be.
  3.  Also, I acknowledged to myself that this “love” feeling was too intense to bear and never led me anywhere except desolation. It wasn’t natural and was a sign that the relationship was unhealthy. I assumed that there must be a problem in the way I loved, that if it were really love it couldn’t possibly be so painful and alienating. So I started to seek out why this happened to me and to break the pattern in some way. I began to pay close attention to how it worked and what it did to me.
  4.  I decided to stop seeking to be in a “love relationship” with a man until I had sorted myself out, and also to seek men with whom I could be equal in age and status to prevent trauma-bonding. I told myself “your’e not going out with a man until you know you can “love” without being in pain.” If I were going to feel love, it would have to be a feeling of calm and serenity, of wholeness and happiness, and there should be absolutely no fear, dread of loss, anxiety or anything like that towards the man, otherwise it would mean that it wasn’t love but trauma-bonding or S/M and I should stay away from the guy, or wait until it withered away to make an informed decision. Seduction in itself was wrong, artificial and alienating, because it was treating me like something to be owned so if I was to have a physical relationship with a man, it would have to be after some time of friendship and closeness, and come “naturally”.
  5.  Soon after, I observed that constantly and secretly hoping for a love relationship to happen wherever I would go was painful in an of itself because I would always end up with a feeling of loneliness, dissatisfaction, like something special wasn’t happening – in a state of expectation of something external happening to me rather than self-centredness. It construed myself as inherently alone and empty, as being only a half of a person in the need of being filled by a man (or another person). As inherently lacking and not whole. As if I couldn’t bear being with myself, I had to disappear in a man / coupledom to “exist” – this is extremely woman-hating and annihilating of self. Waiting to depend on him and wait for him to receive love, and of course it would never come. I finally saw the utter reversal and lie of all this shite. I realised I had to give up the very desire to be in a relationship so not to feel constantly alienated. I remember very well making this decision and felt such a sense of freedom and happiness to be with myself after that. It felt like a reconciliation.

From then on things unfolded pretty fast. This is when feminism seriously kicked in, when I realised PIV, sexualised physical invasion of women and control of our reproductive organs were how men oppressed and harmed us. That PIV was inherently harmful, humiliating and that we weren’t meant to be penetrated. And where I understood the general structure of male violence and patriarchy. My whole world blew apart.

Well, guess what, all of a sudden men weren’t interested in me at all. Because I’d always stay away from any kind of “seduction” before I’d get to know the guy well, they’d simply steer off from me very soon, before I could even get to know them in fact. Har har. This was an eye-opener. It made me see that men weren’t interested in equal relationships at all with women. None of them. There were no “nice guys” or exceptions. They weren’t interested in me, not even as friends, because they couldn’t make out of me what they wanted. All they wanted was to be able to use me as a PIV-socket and as their property, because that was my function as a woman in male land, and if I didn’t fulfil that function, I was of no interest to them.

And after setting some final rules for interacting with men, to protect myself from their disgusting women-hatred (complete openness to feminism, not the slightest hint of misogyny, capable of conversing about it without the slightest defensiveness or making me feel awkward in any way), men just disappeared from my life. Not one ever fit to the criteria, even though my rules weren’t very radical and were individualistic.

I saw that however much individual effort I’d put in a relation with a man, even without PIV or outside of “seduction”, it would always be unequal with them, because they are our oppressors and captors, and they feed off our energy and us trying to change them. There would never be complete protection from trauma-bonding to them, or fear of their violence, or from being prevented to go the end of my thoughts. It didn’t matter what they did individually to be nice or not, it’s what they are and represent as a male class. Even to this day if a man is kind to me or just smiles I can still feel this “attraction” and gratefulness that I’d feel before and tried to get rid of, which simply means that men are still our captors and there’s no way we can completely get away from stockholm syndrome so long as they hold us captive. Which is precisely why I know I have to stay away from them as much as I can.

So yes, the end of peeling down men’s lies about love and coupledom was the beginning of separatism from men, and the beginning of radical feminism!

Publié dans couple, masculinité, viol | Marqué avec , , , , | Laisser un commentaire

Where your gag comes from. BDSM is erotization of ancient torture.

 

Where your gag comes from.

http://gynocraticgrrl.tumblr.com/post/38099240634/where-your-gag-comes-from

 (TW: sexualized racism + misogyny, slavery)

Discretion is highly advised.

Apparently, for some people (usually white in my experience**), it’s difficult for them to comprehend the perspective that BDSM kink culture is neck-deep in racism and misogyny, particularly in the sexualization of racist-misogynistic historical practices. It’s become quite clear to me over months of pointing out the eerie similarities between the master/slave dynamic that’s common place in bondage subculture and the master/slave dynamic that was quite vividly practiced through patriarchal gender roles between men and women, as well as slavery…that many people struggle with being able to draw parallels between the techniques of torture slaves were subjected to and the methods of punishment “subs” are subjected to in kink culture. From the whipping to the gags.

It’s been communicated to me, based on the hesitant and confused reception of this argument, that I’m going to need to get visual. This post will include illustrations and imagery that may be potentially disturbing to some viewers, as well as triggering to people who feel mentally disarmed by images of black slavery and female oppression. This will not be my final post on the topic, but it will be an introduction to much larger, much more elaborate posts addressing the racist-patriarchal narratives usually replicated in kink culture (this does not exclude femdom kink practices, which I’ll be writing about in future posts).

 

I’ll first like to point out the gag. A torture device used to stop, “Negro Heads, with punishments for Intoxication and dirt-eating.”

 

 

[Slave Mask: Image Reference, NW0191.

Source: Jacques Arago, Souvenirs d’un aveugle. Voyage autour du monde par M. J. Arago … (Paris, 1839-40), vol. 1, facing p. 119]

 

While the tin collar…

 

[Slave Mask Image Reference, NW0192. Source: Thomas Branagan, The Penitential Tyrant; or, slave trader reformed (New York, 1807), p. 271. (Copy in Library Company of Philadelphia; also Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, LC-USZ62-31864)]

…was used to punish “drunkenness in females,” and the mask on it functions as a “punishment and preventative of….dirt eating.”

In some cases, along with the gags, “…a flat iron goes into the mouth, and so effectually keeps down the tongue, that nothing can be swallowed, not even the saliva, a passage for which is made through holes in the mouth-plate…when long worn, [it] becomes so heated as frequently to bring off the skin along with it.” – US Slave: Slave Tortures: The Mask, Scold’s Bridle or Brank. (NB : toutes les photos de femmes « blanches » reproduites sur cette page sont des photos qui érotisent et déréalisent la torture, car elles sont des photos de films, donc faites pour mentir sur la souffrance des femmes. Ce choix éditorial est pour le moins misogyne).

Here’s another illustration of a tin mask sometimes used by Brazilian slave masters for reasons documented as to stop, “…[slaves] who were prone to eat earth or dirt to wear…”

 

 

[A water color by Jean Baptiste Debret (held by a museum in Rio de Janeiro); published in Ana Maria de Moraes, O Brasil dos viajantes (Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, 1994), image 469, p. 93. Also published in Jean Baptiste Debret, Viagem Pitoresca e Historica ao Brasil (Editora Itatiaia Limitada, Editora da Universidade de Sao Paulo, 1989), p.128, a reprint of the 1954 Paris edition, edited by R. De Castro Maya). (source: University of Virginia)]

 

Torture Devices With A Misogynistic History

 

A scold was defined as: “A troublesome and angry woman who by brawling and wrangling amongst her neighbours breaks the public peace, increases discord and becomes a public nuisance to the neighbourhood.” The device was a locking iron muzzle, metal mask or cage which encased the head. There was an iron curb projecting into the mouth which rested on the top of the tongue. This device prevented the shrew from speaking. In some instances the iron curb was studded with spikes which inflicted pain if the victim spoke. Some branks had a bell built in which drew attention to the scold as she walked through the streets. The woman would be humiliated by the jeering and comments from other people.

 

THE SCOLD’S BRIDLE

 

[Scold’s Bridle: This was a metal frame place over a woman’s head. It had a bit that stuck in her mouth to prevent her talking. The scold’s bridle or branks was used in Scotland by the 16th century and was used in England from the 17th century. It was last used in Britain in 1824].

Made by blacksmiths, the bridle was a cage-like device, made from iron. It was approximately nine inches high and seven inches wide, and was fitted to the woman’s head. The most basic type was made of a band of iron, which was hinged at the side and had a protruding part, or tongue piece, that could be flat or with a spike, which went into the woman’s mouth, to hold her tongue down. Another band of iron went over her head, the front of which was shaped for her nose to go through. Depending on the design, the bridle could be uncomfortable, painful or torturous, and scarring of the tongue was not uncommon. Some had a bell secured to a spring, which was attached to the bridle, so the wearer could be heard as she approached.

 

 

 

Some houses had a hook in the wall at the side of the fireplace where the wife would be chained, until she promised to behave herself and curb her tongue. Although sometimes fitted to a nagging wife by the local gaoler (jailer) at the request of her husband, or by the husband himself, it was more often a punitive sentence ordered by a magistrate. Judicial bridles were more elaborate than the basic type; they always had at least one spike and they could be locked. They also had a chain attached to the side of the bridle, with a ring on the end. This could be used to publicly humiliate the woman by leading her through the town, or staking her at a designated area for a set time period. The amount of time the bridle was worn could be from 30 minutes to several hours, depending on the seriousness of the offense, during which time the miscreant would not be able to eat or drink. It was also said to be used on witches to prevent them from chanting or casting spells.

It’s pretty evident that when some women, especially women of color , argue that BDSM kink culture has an overwhelming amount of racist-misogyny embedded in its practice of reenacting  bondage and inequitable dynamics, they have a reasonable argument worth considering. It’s not difficult to understand the viewpoint that some kinks take things steeped in the actual subordination and oppression of people and turn it into a sexualized drama that’s just “fun and games,” for the (hopefully consensual) participants involved.

_________

** Féministes Radicales ne partage pas cette partition faite ici entre la perspective qu’ont les femmes racisées et celle qu’ont les femmes dites « blanches ». Le SM et le BDSM sont un ensemble de techniques de cruauté mentale et de tortures sexuelles et corporelles issues du patriarcat en tant que tel, en tant que système de pouvoir des hommes (de n’importe quelle groupe social) sur n’importe quelle femme. Ainsi, l’axiome d’analyse pertinent de ces pratiques est le genre, en tant que hiérarchie et violence du groupe de hommes contre le groupe des femmes.

Le fait que les femmes non-racisées critiquent moins les pratiques de torture sexuelle ne signifie pas qu’elles auraient un passé moins lourd d’esclavage ou de tortures. Ceci est totalement faux, et si on l’entend dans certaines thèses prétendues « black-feminists », c’est par pure intériorisation de la misogynie des luttes androcentrés (black panthers et Angela Davis aux EU ou courant de Franz Fanon en France). Par exemple, les femmes blanches aristocrates puis bourgeoises ont elles aussi connu durant des siècles les cages de fer individuelles qui brisent le mouvement et détruisent profondément le corps (toutes les formes de corset par exemple). Il est étonnant (et pas) que cet article n’en fasse pas mention car le corset est l’un des instruments de torture les plus prisés chez les fétichistes et autres pro-BDSM. De même, le MALLEUS MALEFICARUM a été utilisé massivement contre des blanches, et démontre que les « subversifs » pro-SM n’ont rien, vraiment rien, inventé en matière de torture sexuelle et de scénarios de mise aux aveux et de dressage des femmes.

Le manque de conscience du préjudice chez les femmes « blanches » vient d’un phénomène central dans la lutte féministe : les femmes n’ont guère de conscience politique en tant que groupe, car pour exister comme sujet légitime, elles doivent tout inventer en matière de lutte (conscience de classe, perception de la réalité et du préjudice subi, organisation de la lutte), et faire le deuil de l’histoire des mouvements rebelles masculinistes (tous les mouvements non féministes). De fait, l’effort étant trop considérable face à la surdité dominante et à la violence des hommes « camarades », elles capitulent et greffent leur nausée politique et leur rage sur celles du sujet politique légitime socialement, à savoir l’homme. Or les femmes « blanches » ont pour seuls précédents historiques les luttes des hommes racisés ou de gauche (ce qui explique que la majorité des critiques des systèmes de viol (prostitution, pornographie, industries du « jouet ») se focalise sur la « marchandisation » « du corps » des femmes et non sur le sexisme et la torture intrinsèque à ces pratiques.

De fait, les femmes racisées ont une conscience plus aigüe des préjudices que noues, classe persécutée en raison de notre sexe, subissons en tant qu’humain déshumanisé. En effet, elles peuvent s’ancrer psychiquement (sentiment de légitimité, colère irréductible, lucidité sur les contours de l’ennemi principal) et matériellement (crédibilité sociale, moyens de lutte) dans une tradition de lutte androcentrée forte, légitime, voire encensée (les hommes anticolonialistes), qui a déjà imposé le rapport de force sur ces questions de torture et d’esclavage.

read also :

Susan-Hawthorne-Ancient-Hatred-its-Contemporary-Manifestation-the-torture-of-Lesbians

http://www.feministes-radicales.org/are-women-human/sadomasochisation-de-la-culture-plan-de-reajustement-structurel-du-canon-sur-les-cibles/ 

stop porn

 

Publié dans arnaque, couple, féminisme, mensonges pro-sexe, sex-positiv, viol | Marqué avec , , , | Laisser un commentaire

Le vagin n’est pas un organe sexuel. (Pas plus que l’anus ou la bouche).

I – Le consentement à l’inégalité n’est qu’une arnaque

Bourdieu, dans le dernier chapitre de son torchon idéologique La domination masculine, rejoint bien d’autres phallophiles dans son idée d’un îlot social où s’éprouverait la sexualité. En guise d’analyse sociologique, il a recyclé un mythe patriarcal : la « pénétration sexuelle » vue comme un acte magique isolé de la domination masculine. Pure affirmation qui nie les faits les plus criants.

Les hommes agissent dans un contexte et non comme des astronautes qui alunissent pour cueillir les Mystères de La femme. Le contexte dans lequel les hommes noues pénètrent est une société sexiste, haineuse des femmes, organisée par l’inégalité à tous ses niveaux : exploitation, menace de viol et d’anéantissement, viol et meurtres de masse, et usage unilatéral de la violence et de l’insulte dite « sexuelle ».

Les raisons invoquées sont pour le moins suspectes :
- « le devoir de procréer » … quand on sait que les hommes dans les patriarcats tuent et violent en masse les enfants et que nombre de patriarcats organisent la pénétration non reproductive ;
- « la pulsion irrésistible » ou « le cri de la couille sous pression » … quand on sait que chaque homme, de même qu’à une autre échelle chaque société sexiste, agit selon une stratégie particulièrement bien rodée

Dans ce contexte et pour ces raisons le « consentement » n’est que reddition.

II – Quand l’Homme créa le sexe de la femme.

Les hommes, comme caste dominante, ont littéralement créé un organe sexuel chez les femmes : le vagin.
En effet, cet organe, d’un point de vue biologique, est un organe reproducteur. Non pas sexuel. Il est la continuité de l’utérus, pour dégager celui-ci de l’étranglement osseux du pubis.
Il n’est pas fait pour la pénétration telle qu’elle est pratiquée par les hommes :
* profonde (qui détruit donc le col de l’utérus)
* compulsive (hors projet de procréation)
* frénétique (quelque soit l’état d’excitation de la femme, les hommes organisent la pénétration, y compris en déversant des kilotonnes de lubrifiant à une population qui a un lubrifiant naturel)
* invasive (et vouée à s’étendre à tous les orifices des femmes).
* sadique et vouée à multiplier les risques pour les femmes. Les hommes au fil des millénaires multiplient les pratiques à risques sanitaires :
- ils pilonnent plusieurs femmes en même temps [coépouses, femmes en prostitution, maîtresse, fille ou nièce, fillettes par leurs réseaux du tourisme du viol]
- par tous les bouts possibles [répandant les virus qui provoquent le cancer ou d'autres maladies mortelles ou invalidantes ou les bactéries de l'intestin, par une pratique, la pénétration, qui multiplie les risques de transmission pour les femmes].

Dans les faits : d’un point de vue biologique et d’un point de vue des pratiques sociales (au vu des risques de douleur, lésion, grossesse, transmission de maladie), le vagin n’a rien à voir avec la « sexualité récréative » que les hommes y voient.

Les risques qu’ils noues font encourir n’ont rien de naturel, la pénétration comme pratique sexuelle n’a rien de naturel. Donc le plaisir qu’ils tirent de toute cette mascarade coïtale ressemble fort à ce qu’ils font dans tous les autres domaines : domination.

Ils ont créé le vagin comme organe sexuel par le viol systématique. Ainsi, une pratique invasive impliquant des risques mortels (mort en couche, IST) ou vitaux (grossesse non désirée) est devenue : a) dans les sociétés traditionnelles, un « devoir »; b) dans les sociétés post-sadiennes, et plus encore depuis la revanche pornographique de la « libération sexuelle », une « sexualité de plaisir ».

En transformant le vagin en organe sexuel, les hommes comme caste ont, dans un même geste de violation, colonisé les femmes et naturalisé cette colonisation.

Au point qu’ils ont nommé l’orifice du vagin : « entrée du vagin », signifiant clairement que cet organe était « fait pour » être pénétré et bâillonné, et non plus pour faire sortir la vie (enfant et sang).

Au point qu’ils ont fini par nommer cet orifice : « trou », signifiant clairement que cet organe n’existait pas, et était « fait pour » être anéanti, non plus pour faire s’écouler la vie des générations et le sang de la création.

Avec l’offensive porno de ces 50 dernières années, la bouche d’abord (avec Deep Throat, où tout le film a été réalisé à coups de viols, séquestration et menaces de mort à l’encontre de Linda Boreman) et l’anus (avec Dernier Tango à Paris, où la sodomie était une viol de Marlon Brando contre Maria Schneider) sont devenus d’autres « entrées » dans notre corps.

Les hommes ont créé des « spot sexuels » sur notre corps, des « entrées » pour leur pénis. Comme les colons envahissent un territoire en créant d’abord un comptoir, une zone de débarquement, pour créer une brèche dans l’intégrité physique, puis désorganiser profondément les circuits vitaux, et enfin mettre sous contrôle, en lardant le territoire de no-man’s-land. [lire Andrea Dworkin, chap.7 d'Intercourse].

Trois man’s land.

Tous trois renommés « trous ». Car le pilonnage intensif laisse des traces, et qu’il est primordial pour les hommes de nommer explicitement leurs cibles et leurs victoires.

Make war on women, not love, hate pistole

Une seule solution : autre chose que la pénétration.

Pour inventer une sexualité non reproductive, non soumise aux risques mortels ou vitaux.

Pour inventer une sexualité de plaisir, basée sur nos organes sexuels : clitoris et nymphes. (« L’éjaculation féminine » qui se produirait par une pénétration appuyée ou profonde n’a rien d’une preuve que le vagin serait « fait pour la pénétration ». La lubrification est une réaction physiologique au risque d’abrasion et de lésion, donc loin de prouver qu’il faille pratiquer la pénétration compulsive, elle prouve qu’il faut procréer de manière moins brutale et moins profonde. Qualifier cette réaction « d’éjaculation », comme qualifier le clitoris de « petit pénis qui peut bander », sont autant de réquisitions viriles de notre anatomie pour noues faire croire, avec Gallien, que le sexe féminin est un organe en miroir du sexe masculin, le fourreau « fait pour » l’épée).

Pour en finir avec ces mesurettes de « prévention » : les campagnes de diffusion de préservatifs, pilule et pour l’avortement. Ces mesurettes détournent les énergies des féministes et sabotent notre libération (qui est se tenir à distance raisonnable de la première source de violence au monde, les hommes). Car
a) elles sont dangereuses (le lubrifiant noues surexpose au risque d’IST, le suivi presque à vie par les gynécologues à cause des risques occasionnés par la pénétration et l’avortement renforcent le contrôle de la médecine patriarcale sur noues), toxiques pour noues (pilule à cancer, latex à allergies) et la planète (plastique de l’industrie porno-sex-toys, hormones de synthèse).
b) Mais surtout, elles organisent la pénétration compulsive ! En effet, l’avortement, la pilule et le préservatif transforment définitivement le vagin en man’s land, car le pénis y a plus sa place qu’un enfant ou nos règles.

Enfin pour restaurer une intégrité physique qui définira très clairement le viol … comme violation. Car en patriarcat, les pratiques sociales (masculines, policières, judiciaires, médiatiques) sont tellement imprégnés de culture de viol qu’il n’est pas rare d’entendre, en guise de classement (moral ou institutionnel) d’affaire de viols, des phrases comme :

« Vous savez, c’est parole contre parole, car la différence entre un rapport sexuel et un viol, c’est le consentement de Madame » …

Ce qui veut dire que :
- L’intentionnalité coupable de l’agresseur (sadisme, volonté d’anéantir, envie de triomphe, projet d’effacer l’altérité) serait sensiblement la même que l’intentionnalité du partenaire sexuel**.
- Les femmes consentiraient à des pratiques qui peuvent être qualifiées de viol, au sens d’actes commis par l’usage de la menace, la contrainte, la surprise ou la force.
Or il n’y a rien de plus vrai !
Les hommes sont pas peu fiers de leur « sexualité sans sentiments » caractérisée par la froideur affective, l’égoïsme, la plaisir à « faire l’homme » et à contrôler les actes … par leur industrie pornographique, ils célèbrent même une sexualité « offensive », puant la passion haineuse, fleurie de regards agresseurs et d’insultes.
Les femmes, elles, consentent à une « sexualité » masculine faite de :
- menaces (les « mots sexuels », courtois, argots ou porno, ne sont qu’insultes et menaces de viol ou de dol);
…. pratiquée par des hommes qui agissent en usant de :
- la contrainte (pesant de leur poids sur noues, noues surplombant de leur taille, noues coinçant contre le lit ou le mur ou par une position où noues n’avons plus aucune prise sur eux ni de liberté de mouvement)
- la surprise (ils sont en position d’initier les actes, de désirant, alors que noues sommes en position de « répondre », de « consentir » et d’être « excitées » uniquement par leurs actes sur noues, ce qui crée une hiérarchie des désirs et des décisions)
- et parfois la force (les « jeux » du SM-chic).
Les spectacles de Jean Marie Bigard – qui en un soir peut rassembler 5000 personnes – ou la prose des « libertins » comme Philippe Caubère ou le succès organisé de 50 shades of Grey sont des exemples de la culture du phallus vengeur ou tout permis qui imbibe toutes les couches sociales. De fait, les « pratiques sexuelles » dans un patriarcat sont organisées de telle manière à blanchir tous les viols, et tous les viols, même les plus brutaux (crime organisé, sadisme, torture, barbarie, mutilation) sont voués à être estampillés « sexualité » (prostitution, BDSM, pornographie, sodomie, fellation, gang bang, labioplastie, vaginoplastie) [lire "La violence sexiste occultée dans l'affaire DSK" ou "Quand une femme est agressée, le doute n'est pas permis"].

Or si on redéfinit le viol comme violation de l’intégrité physique :

1) on se débarrasse de quelques épines rhétoriques en matière de viol
« Monsieur, on a retrouvé du sperme (ou du lubrifiant) dans le vagin de Madame … qu’y faisait votre pénis ? Aviez-vous l’intention de procréer ? Prouvez-nous que vous aviez tout prévu matériellement: logement, budget, etc. Rien de tout ça ? Vous êtes coupable de violation ! … On a retrouvé du sperme dans la bouche de Madame … qu’y faisait votre pénis ? Vous êtes coupable de violation et de tentative de meurtre par étouffement ! Que faisait votre pénis dans son anus ? Vous êtes coupable de violation et d’acte de torture ! On a constaté des lésions sur le vagin de Madame. Ce n’était pas un pénis, c’était un bâton, qu’est-ce qu’il faisait là ? … vous appelez ça un « god » ? vous vous prenez pour qui ? Acte de torture !« .

2) on introduit le viol dans l’atteinte aux droits humains et on réhabilite les femmes comme sujet des droits humains.
Car la pénétration, et ses pratiques actuelles (assortie d’insultes, de gestes humiliants comme tenir les cheveux ou éjaculer au visage, de menaces de viol [les hommes disent qu'ils "défoncent" ou "enculent" quand ils envahissent par l'anus]…), déroge point par point à un des principes premiers des droits humains qui est le droit à l’intégrité physique et morale de la personne humaine. De plus, le viol par coït, en tant que ciblant les femmes, et les femmes comme reproductrice, serait qualifiable de torture et  acte de génocide (voir qualifications proposées par Catharine MacKinnon dans Kadic v. Karadzic).  

3) on entame une réelle décolonisation mentale, car rien n’est pire pour un être opprimé que d’être envahi physiquement par son oppresseur. Rien n’est plus destructeur de l’intégrité mentale, de l’espoir d’en réchapper un jour que d’avoir le colon en soi. Si, peut-être une chose : aimer son colon. Ressentir un attachement traumatique pour lui, alors que les hommes sont notre première cause de mortalité, et pratiquement la seule cause de viol. Pire, voir une source de plaisir dans la pénétration, alors qu’elle est la cause majeure de notre souffrance en tant que femmes (la peur du viol, la peur de la douleur, la haine de nos règles, la honte pour notre être et la peur de la grossesse). Ce n’est pas un hasard si la préoccupation majeure des conjoints violents est de pilonner leur femme, à des fins récréatives et reproductives. Ce n’est pas un hasard si le souci majeur des manuels de sexologie ou des industries proxénètes est d’inonder les femmes d’injonctions à jouir de et sous la trique. Ils savent que l’on aliène définitivement les subalternes en les envahissant, en les colonisant de l’intérieur (et quoi de plus efficace qu’un fils du Père), et en leur donnant l’illusion d’y réaliser leur être et leur plaisir. Ils le savent par cette conscience dominante de leur domination, que les sexologues et les psychanalystes du siècle dernier ont parfaitement illustrée [lire Sheila Jeffreys The Spinster & her Enemies].

4) on en termine avec les mesures de libéralisation ou d’industrialisation de l’accès des hommes au vagin : les bras de fer autour de l’avortement ou de la prostitution. Il n’y aura plus besoin de réclamer aux hommes de noues laisser avorter pour affirmer notre « liberté à disposer de notre corps » car, en dehors des viols aggravés (qualifiés par la simple présence du pénis dans la vagin hors désir d’enfant de Madame) et des maladies fœtales graves, il n’y aura plus de grossesses à interrompre. Il n’y aura plus besoin non plus de faire des contorsions rhétoriques pour qualifier les crimes commis au nom de la prostitution par tous les hommes s’y affairent, prostivioleurs ou proxotueurs.

La pénétration est violation.

Une seule solution : Autre chose !!

Décolonisons nos vies, fermons les frontières de notre être à l’ennemi !

_________

Le mythe de l’orgasme vaginal, Anne Koedt, 1970

_________

** Il est étonnant de voir que les analyses biologiques dans des affaires de viol se cantonnent à rechercher la présence de sperme et les traces d’infection. Pourquoi ne fait-on pas de recherche sur la composition du sperme ? Il doit bien y avoir une différence physiologique entre la sécrétion d’un homme qui désire autrui et celle d’un homme qui veut déshumaniser l’autre, non ? Ou peut-être pas … car, dans nos cultures du viol, désirer une femme n’est rien d’autre pour un homme que s’exciter à l’idée de l’anéantir ou la posséder, prendre plaisir à se sentir sujet d’un acte sur l’autre, devenu objet réactif voire passif, bref, désirer la faire « femme », et lui « homme ».

Publié dans arnaque, couple, crime contre l'humanité, féminisme, masculinité, viol | Marqué avec , , | 11 commentaires

Let’s de-colonize our lives, close the borders of our being to the enemy !

1) Intercourse is made under conditions of fear, inequality, so « consent » is surrender.

2) Men as a dominant class created a sexual organ in women in order to colonize them : the vagina. This organ is, biologically, a reproductive organ. Its purpose is not to be penetrated nor to be a sexual toy for men. But men turned it into a sexual organ. They created it by systematic rape. So physical invasion, which includes pain, risk of pregnency, higher risk of HIV and Deadly disease, became :a) in traditional countries, duty, and b) in post-Sade’s-Turn countries, entertainment, fun, pleasure … all that « necessary », « natural » … and sadistic « sexuality » that men imposed to women.

Men creat intercourse as a compulsive entertainment. And they increase the risks for women. AIDS-infected men wittingly rape girls, all over the world, to « clean » themselves. Men refuse to put condom to invade prostituted women, because they want to reign supreme over them, and to fantasize about making her pregnant. Men marry or invade many women at the same time, in many societies. So They inoculate the disease we have.

Men don’t invade us only by the vagina, but also by the mouth and the anus. So they « opened » 3 gates in our being, like soldiers colonize a country by building maritime settlements : they first create a breach in the physical integrity, in order to desorganise and put under control.

Remember how they call this gates : holes. Why our organs are holes for them ? because they pound them over and over again.

Let’s de-colonize our lives, close the borders of our being to the enemy !

We must de-colonize our own mind and body from this practice (even between women) because it is created and organized by men to destroy our integrity. And most of all, I think that we can’t redefine rape if we do not stop any kind of violation. « Consent » is not a
feminist issue. « Desire » is a big problem in a sadistic societies where cultural standards lead us to eroticize our own destruction. To define rape, I’d rather talk about « violation » : a penis has nothing to do in a vagina if it’s not for procreation. It has nothing to do in a mouth or in an anus !

It would solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy and abortion. It will solve the problem of dramatic intoxication of women by control pills.

Publié dans couple, féminisme, masculinité, viol | Laisser un commentaire

Domestication, by The Arctic Feminist

reblogged from : http://thearcticfeminist.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/domestication/ 

Last night I had a few thoughts I put on my tumblr:

Men use fucking and breeding as a way to pacify women.  It literally retards our ability to process reality.  The earlier they start this process the more effective it is.  Child rape is necessary to maintain the patriarchal system.  Ensuring that another generation of women will go gladly into the caste of available vagina men have deemed them best suited to.  It is not necessary for every woman to be raped in childhood for this process to work.  Just enough of us.  Everyone has several child rape and incest survivors in their day to day life.  Its more common than being left-handed.

Intercourse is about domestication.  Plain and simple.  The easiest way men have figured out to control us is through the act of fucking.  Now there’s the obvious #1 reason why this is effective.  Women become vulnerable through pregnancy and the care taking of children.  Knock a woman up and you’ve got her trapped.  Easy-peasy.  The threat of pregnancy also works in instilling the same psychological effects.  Your mind is preparing for impending doom.

But its not just the pregnancy factor that makes it so damned problematic.  The act of intercourse, as Andrea Dworkin wrote extensively on, is in itself a violation an act of possession.  This violation of women results in our capacities being utterly thwarted.  This is not an accident.  This is why men do it.  This is why men rape little girls.  They’re creating the next generation of “sexually empowered women”, the prostituted woman, the right-wing woman, the handmaiden.  The more it takes place, the easier the mind separates from the body, the easier it is to endure over and over again.  This process has the ultimate effect of separating a woman from her own truth.  The only truth she can understand is men’s.  Separated as she is from herself and thus all other women she simply cannot understand.

The dissociation one must engage in to endure the terrorism that is male sexual violence creates mental blocks.  In doing rape trauma recovery one often finds they’ve developed blocks around being able to understand and articulate experiences.  They also can see just how much of their lives have been thwarted and controlled by the fact that they went through the rapes.  In itself blocking human possibility.  The will of the individual human to express themselves fully.  All stopped because some man’s dick.

So yes, it is of utmost importance that women who can, not participate in the act of heterosexual fucking.  Each time this occurs the same physiological responses are taking place.  The mind is preparing for doom, the body stores the blocks, the self is violated.  Everything breaks down easier.  Not having intercourse is an act of self-love.  Self-preservation.  Self-actualization.

Publié dans arnaque, couple, masculinité, viol | Laisser un commentaire

Andrea Dworkin Occupation / Colaboration, Intercourse Chap.7

INTERCOURSE Chapter 7

Occupation/Collaboration

by Andrea Dworkin
Copyright © 1987 by Andrea Dworkin
All rights reserved.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/IntercourseI.html

 Oh, God, who does not exist, you hate women, otherwise you’d have made them different. And Jesus, who snubbed your mother, you hate them more. Roaming around all that time with a bunch of men, fishing; and sermons-on-the-mount. Abandoning women. I thought of all the women who had it, and didn’t even know when the big moment was, and others saying their rosary with the beads held over the side of the bed, and others saying, « Stop, stop, you dirty old dog, » and others yelling desperately to be jacked right up to their middles, and it often leading to nothing, and them getting up out of bed and riding a poor door knob and kissing the wooden face of a door and urging with foul language, then crying, wiping the knob, and it all adding up to nothing either.

EDNA O’BRIEN, Girls in Their Married Bliss

This is nihilism; or this is truth. He has to push in past boundaries. There is the outline of a body, distinct, separate, its integrity an illusion, a tragic deception, because unseen there is a slit between the legs, and he has to push into it. There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse: with being entered. The vagina itself is muscled and the muscles have to be pushed apart. The thrusting is persistent invasion. She is opened up, split down the center. She is occupied–physically, internally, in her privacy.

A human being has a body that is inviolate; and when it is violated, it is abused. A woman has a body that is penetrated in intercourse: permeable, its corporeal solidness a lie. The discourse of male truth–literature, science, philosophy, pornography–calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some confidence. Violation is a synonym for intercourse. At the same time, the penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse; a normal use; it is appropriate to enter her, to push into (« violate ») the boundaries of her body. She is human, of course, but by a standard that does not include physical privacy. She is, in fact, human by a standard that precludes physical privacy, since to keep a man out altogether and for a lifetime is deviant in the extreme, a psychopathology, a repudiation of the way in which she is expected to manifest her humanity.

There is a deep recognition in culture and in experience that intercourse is both the normal use of a woman, her human potentiality affirmed by it, and a violative abuse, her privacy irredeemably compromised, her selfhood changed in a way that is irrevocable, unrecoverable. And it is recognized that the use and abuse are not distinct phenomena but somehow a synthesized reality: both are true at the same time as if they were one harmonious truth instead of mutually exclusive contradictions. Intercourse in reality is a use and an abuse simultaneously, experienced and described as such, the act parlayed into the illuminated heights of religious duty and the dark recesses of morbid and dirty brutality. She, a human being, is supposed to have a privacy that is absolute; except that she, a woman, has a hole between her legs that men can, must, do enter. This hole, her hole, is synonymous with entry. A man has an anus that can be entered, but his anus is not synonymous with entry. A woman has an anus that can be entered, but her anus is not synonymous with entry. The slit between her legs, so simple, so hidden– frankly, so innocent– for instance, to the child who looks with a mirror to see if it could be true–is there an entrance to her body down there? and something big comes into it? (how?) and something as big as a baby comes out of it? (how?) and doesn’t that hurt?–that slit which means entry into her– intercourse–appears to be the key to women’s lower human status. By definition, as the God who does not exist made her, she is intended to have a lesser privacy, a lesser integrity of the body, a lesser sense of self, since her body can be physically occupied and in the occupation taken over. By definition, as the God who does not exist made her, this lesser privacy, this lesser integrity, this lesser self, establishes her lesser significance: not just in the world of social policy but in the world of bare, true, real existence. She is defined by how she is made, that hole, which is synonymous with entry; and intercourse, the act fundamental to existence, has consequences to her being that may be intrinsic, not socially imposed.

There is no analogue anywhere among subordinated groups of people to this experience of being made for intercourse: for penetration, entry, occupation. There is no analogue in occupied countries or in dominated races or in imprisoned dissidents or in colonialized cultures or in the submission of children to adults or in the atrocities that have marked the twentieth century ranging from Auschwitz to the Gulag. There is nothing exactly the same, and this is not because the political invasion and significance of intercourse is banal up against these other hierarchies and brutalities. Intercourse is a particular reality for women as an inferior class; and it has in it, as part of it, violation of boundaries, taking over, occupation, destruction of privacy, all of which are construed to be normal and also fundamental to continuing human existence. There is nothing that happens to any other civilly inferior people that is the same in its meaning and in its effect even when those people are forced into sexual availability, heterosexual or homosexual; while subject people, for instance, may be forced to have intercourse with those who dominate them, the God who does not exist did not make human existence, broadly speaking, dependent on their compliance. The political meaning of intercourse for women is the fundamental question of feminism and freedom: can an occupied people–physically occupied inside, internally invaded–be free; can those with a metaphysically compromised privacy have self-determination; can those without a biologically based physical integrity have self-respect?

There are many explanations, of course, that try to be kind. Women are different but equal. Social policy is different from private sexual behavior. The staggering civil inequalities between men and women are simple, clear injustices unrelated to the natural, healthy act of intercourse. There is nothing implicit in intercourse that mandates male dominance in society. Each individual must be free to choose–and so we expand tolerance for those women who do not want to be fucked by men. Sex is between individuals, and social relations are between classes, and so we preserve the privacy of the former while insisting on the equality of the latter. Women flourish as distinct, brilliant individuals of worth in the feminine condition, including in intercourse, and have distinct, valuable qualities. For men and women, fucking is freedom; and for men and women, fucking is the same, especially if the woman chooses both the man and the act. Intercourse is a private act engaged in by individuals and has no implicit social significance. Repression, as opposed to having intercourse, leads to authoritarian social policies, including those of male dominance. Intercourse does not have a metaphysical impact on women, although, of course, particular experiences with individual men might well have a psychological impact. Intercourse is not a political condition or event or circumstance because it is natural. Intercourse is not occupation or invasion or loss of privacy because it is natural. Intercourse does not violate the integrity of the body because it is natural. Intercourse is fun, not oppression. Intercourse is pleasure, not an expression or confirmation of a state of being that is either ontological or social. Intercourse is because the God who does not exist made it; he did it right, not wrong; and he does not hate women even if women hate him. Liberals refuse categorically to inquire into even a possibility that there is a relationship between intercourse per se and the low status of women. Conservatives use what appears to be God’s work to justify a social and moral hierarchy in which women are lesser than men. Radicalism on the meaning of intercourse–its political meaning to women, its impact on our very being itself– is tragedy or suicide. « The revolutionary, » writes Octavio Paz paraphrasing Ortega y Gasset, « is always a radical, that is, he [sic] is trying to correct the uses themselves rather than the mere abuses . . . » 1 With intercourse, the use is already imbued with the excitement, the derangement, of the abuse; and abuse is only recognized as such socially if the intercourse is performed so recklessly or so violently or so stupidly that the man himself has actually signed a confession through the manner in which he has committed the act. What intercourse is for women and what it does to women’s identity, privacy, self-respect, self-determination, and integrity are forbidden questions; and yet how can a radical or any woman who wants freedom not ask precisely these questions? The quality of the sensation or the need for a man or the desire for love: these are not answers to questions of freedom; they are diversions into complicity and ignorance.

Some facts are known.

Most women do not experience orgasm from intercourse itself. When Shere Hite, in her groundbreaking study, asked women to report their own sexual experiences in detail and depth, she discovered that only three in ten women regularly experience orgasm from intercourse. The women’s self-reports are not ideological. They want men, love, sex, intercourse; they want orgasm; but for most women, seven out of ten, intercourse does not cause orgasm. The women want, even strive for, orgasm from intercourse but are unable to achieve it. Hite, the strongest feminist and most honorable philosopher among sex researchers, emphasizes that women can and must take responsibility for authentic sexual pleasure: « the ability to orgasm when we want, to be in charge of our stimulation, represents owning our own bodies, being strong, free, and autonomous human beings. » 2

Intercourse occurs in a context of a power relation that is pervasive and incontrovertible. The context in which the act takes place, whatever the meaning of the act in and of itself, is one in which men have social, economic, political, and physical power over women. Some men do not have all those kinds of power over all women; but all men have some kinds of power over all women; and most men have controlling power over what they call their women–the women they fuck. The power is predetermined by gender, by being male.

Intercourse as an act often expresses the power men have over women. Without being what the society recognizes as rape, it is what the society– when pushed to admit it–recognizes as dominance.

Intercourse often expresses hostility or anger as well as dominance.

Intercourse is frequently performed compulsively; and intercourse frequently requires as a precondition for male performance the objectification of the female partner. She has to look a certain way, be a certain type–even conform to preordained behaviors and scripts–for the man to want to have intercourse and also for the man to be able to have intercourse. The woman cannot exist before or during the act as a fully realized, existentially alive individual.

Despite all efforts to socialize women to want intercourse– e.g., women’s magazines to pornography to Dynasty; incredible rewards and punishments to get women to conform and put out–women still want a more diffuse and tender sensuality that involves the whole body and a polymorphous tenderness.

There are efforts to reform the circumstances that surround intercourse, the circumstances that at least apparently contribute to its disreputable (in terms of rights and justice) legend and legacy. These reforms include: more deference to female sensuality prior to the act; less verbal assault as part of sexual expressiveness toward women; some lip service to female initiation of sex and female choice during lovemaking; less romanticizing of rape, at least as an articulated social goal. Those who are political activists working toward the equality of women have other contextual reforms they want to make: economic equity; women elected to political office; strong, self-respecting role models for girls; emphasis on physical strength and self-defense, athletic excellence and endurance; rape laws that work; strategies for decreasing violence against women. These contextual reforms would then provide for the possibility that intercourse could be experienced in a world of social equality for the sexes. These reforms do not in any way address the question of whether intercourse itself can be an expression of sexual equality.

Life can be better for women–economic and political conditions improved– and at the same time the status of women can remain resistant, indeed impervious, to change: so far in history this is precisely the paradigm for social change as it relates to the condition of women. Reforms are made, important ones; but the status of women relative to men does not change. Women are still less significant, have less privacy, less integrity, less self- determination. This means that women have less freedom. Freedom is not an abstraction, nor is a little of it enough. A little more of it is not enough either. Having less, being less, impoverished in freedom and rights, women then inevitably have less self-respect: less self-respect than men have and less self-respect than any human being needs to live a brave and honest life. Intercourse as domination battens on that awful absence of self-respect. It expands to fill the near vacuum. The uses of women, now, in intercourse– not the abuses to the extent that they can be separated out–are absolutely permeated by the reality of male power over women. We are poorer than men in money and so we have to barter sex or sell it outright (which is why they keep us poorer in money). We are poorer than men in psychological well-being because for us self-esteem depends on the approval–frequently expressed through sexual desire–of those who have and exercise power over us. Male power may be arrogant or elegant; it can be churlish or refined: but we exist as persons to the extent that men in power recognize us. When they need some service or want some sensation, they recognize us somewhat, with a sliver of consciousness; and when it is over, we go back to ignominy, anonymous, generic womanhood. Because of their power over us, they are able to strike our hearts dead with contempt or condescension. We need their money; intercourse is frequently how we get it. We need their approval to be able to survive inside our own skins; intercourse is frequently how we get it. They force us to be compliant, turn us into parasites, then hate us for not letting go. Intercourse is frequently how we hold on: fuck me. How to separate the act of intercourse from the social reality of male power is not clear, especially because it is male power that constructs both the meaning and the current practice of intercourse as such. But it is clear that reforms do not change women’s status relative to men, or have not yet. It is clear that reforms do not change the intractability of women’s civil inferiority. Is intercourse itself then a basis of or a key to women’s continuing social and sexual inequality? Intercourse may not cause women’s orgasm or even have much of a correlation with it–indeed, we rarely find intercourse and orgasm in the same place at the same time–but intercourse and women’s inequality are like Siamese twins, always in the same place at the same time pissing in the same pot.

Women have wanted intercourse to work and have submitted–with regret or with enthusiasm, real or faked–even though or even when it does not. The reasons have often been foul, filled with the spiteful but carefully hidden malice of the powerless. Women have needed what can be gotten through intercourse: the economic and psychological survival; access to male power through access to the male who has it; having some hold–psychological, sexual, or economic–on the ones who act, who decide, who matter. There has been a deep, consistent, yet of course muted objection to what Anais Nin has called « [t]he hunter, the rapist, the one for whom sexuality is a thrust, nothing more. »3 Women have also wanted intercourse to work in this sense: women have wanted intercourse to be, for women, an experience of equality and passion, sensuality and intimacy. Women have a vision of love that includes men as human too; and women want the human in men, including in the act of intercourse. Even without the dignity of equal power, women have believed in the redeeming potential of love. There has been–despite the cruelty of exploitation and forced sex–a consistent vision for women of a sexuality based on a harmony that is both sensual and possible. In the words of sex reformer Ellen Key:

She will no longer be captured like a fortress or hunted like a quarry; nor will she like a placid lake await the stream that seeks its way to her embrace. A stream herself, she will go her own way to meet the other stream. 4

A stream herself, she would move over the earth, sensual and equal; especially, she will go her own way.

Shere Hite has suggested an intercourse in which « thrusting would not be considered as necessary as it now is. . . [There might be] more a mutual lying together in pleasure, penis-in-vagina, vagina-covering-penis, with female orgasm providing much of the stimulation necessary for male orgasm. » 5

These visions of a humane sensuality based in equality are in the aspirations of women; and even the nightmare of sexual inferiority does not seem to kill them. They are not searching analyses into the nature of intercourse; instead they are deep, humane dreams that repudiate the rapist as the final arbiter of reality. They are an underground resistance to both inferiority and brutality, visions that sustain life and further endurance.

They also do not amount to much in real life with real men. There is, instead, the cold fucking, duty-bound or promiscuous; the romantic obsession in which eventual abandonment turns the vagina into the wound Freud claimed it was; intimacy with men who dread women, coital dread–as Kafka wrote in his diary, « coitus as punishment for the happiness of being together. » 6

Fear, too, has a special power to change experience and compromise any possibility of freedom. A stream does not know fear. A woman does. Especially women know fear of men and of forced intercourse. Consent in this world of fear is so passive that the woman consenting could be dead and sometimes is. « Yeah, » said one man who killed a woman so that he could fuck her after she was dead, « I sexually assaulted her after she was dead. I always see them girls laid out in the pictures with their eyes closed and I just had to do it. I dreamed about it for so long that I just had to do it. » 7 A Nebraska appeals court did not think that the murder « was especially heinous, atrocious, cruel, or manifested exceptional depravity by ordinary standards of morality and intelligence, » and in particular they found « no evidence the acts were performed for the satisfaction of inflicting either mental or physical pain or that pain existed for any prolonged period of time. » 8 Are you afraid now? How can fear and freedom coexist for women in intercourse?

The role of fear in destroying the integrity of men is easy to articulate, to understand, hard to overstate. Men are supposed to conquer fear in order to experience freedom. Men are humiliated by fear, not only in their masculinity but in their rights and freedoms. Men are diminished by fear; compromised irrevocably by it because freedom is diminished by it. « Fear had entered his life, » novelist Iris Murdoch wrote,

and would now be with him forever. How easy it was for the violent to win. Fear was irresistible, fear was king, he had never really known this before when he had lived free and without it. Even unreasoning fear could cripple a man forever. . . . How well he understood how dictators flourished. The little grain of fear in each life was enough to keep millions quiet. 9

Hemingway, using harder prose, wrote the same in book after book. But women are supposed to treasure the little grain of fear–rub up against it– eroticize it, want it, get excited by it; and the fear could and does keep millions quiet: millions of women; being fucked and silent; upright and silent; waiting and silent; rolled over on and silent; pursued and silent; killed, fucked, and silent. The silence is taken to be appropriate. The fear is not perceived as compromising or destroying freedom. The dictators do flourish: fuck and flourish.

Out of fear and inequality, women hide, use disguises, trying to pass for indigenous peoples who have a right to be there, even though we cannot pass. Appropriating Octavio Paz’s description of the behavior of Mexicans in Los Angeles–which he might not like: « they feel ashamed of their origin . . . they act like persons who are wearing disguises, who are afraid of a stranger’s look because it could strip them and leave them stark naked. » 10 Women hide, use disguises, because fear has compromised freedom; and when a woman has intercourse– not hiding, dropping the disguise–she has no freedom because her very being has been contaminated by fear: a grain, a tidal wave, memory or anticipation.

The fear is fear of power and fear of pain: the child looks at the slit with a mirror and wonders how it can be, how will she be able to stand the pain. The culture romanticizes the rapist dimension of the first time: he will force his way in and hurt her. The event itself is supposed to be so distinct, so entirely unlike any other experience or category of sensation, that there is no conception that intercourse can be part of sex, including the first time, instead of sex itself.

There is no slow opening up, no slow, gradual entry; no days and months of sensuality prior to entry and no nights and hours after entry. Those who learn to eroticize powerlessness will learn to eroticize the entry itself: the pushing in, the thrusting, the fact of entry with whatever force or urgency the act requires or the man enjoys. There is virtually no protest about entry as such from women; virtually no satire from men. A fairly formidable character in Don DeLillo’s White Noise, the wife, agrees to read pornography to her husband but she has one condition:

« I will read, » she said. « But I don’t want you to choose anything that has men inside women, quote-quote, or men entering women. ‘I entered her.’ ‘He entered me.’ We’re not lobbies or elevators. ‘I wanted him inside me,’ as if he could crawl completely in, sign the register, sleep, eat, so forth. I don’t care what these people do as long as they don’t enter or get entered. »

« Agreed. »

« ‘I entered her and began to thrust. »‘

« I’m in total agreement, » I said.

« ‘Enter me, enter me, yes, yes. »

« Silly usage, absolutely. »

« ‘Insert yourself, Rex, I want you inside me, entering hard, entering deep, yes, now, oh.’ » 11

Her protests make him hard. The stupidity of the « he entered her » motif makes her laugh, not kindly. She hates it.

We are not, of course, supposed to be lobbies or elevators. Instead, we are supposed to be wombs, maternal ones; and the men are trying to get back in away from all the noise and grief of being adult men with power and responsibility. The stakes for men are high, as Norman 0. Brown makes clear in prose unusually understated for him:

Coitus successfully performed is incest, a return to the maternal womb; and the punishment appropriate to this crime, castration. What happens to the penis is coronation, followed by decapitation. 12

This is high drama for a prosaic act of commonplace entry. Nothing is at risk for her, the entered; whereas he commits incest, is crowned king, and has his thing cut off. She might like to return to the maternal womb too–because life outside it is not easy for her either–but she has to be it, for husbands, lovers, adulterous neighbors, as well as her own children, boys especially. Women rarely dare, as we say, draw a line: certainly not at the point of entry into our own bodies, sometimes by those we barely know. Certainly they did not come from there, not originally, not from this womb belonging to this woman who is being fucked now. And so we have once again the generic meaning of intercourse–he has to climb back into some womb, maternal enough; he has to enter it and survive even coronation and decapitation. She is made for that; and what can it matter to him that in entering her, he is entering this one, real, unique individual.

And what is entry for her? Entry is the first acceptance in her body that she is generic, not individual; that she is one of a many that is antagonistic to the individual interpretation she might have of her own worth, purpose, or intention. Entered, she accepts her subservience to his psychological purpose if nothing else; she accepts being confused with his mother and his Aunt Mary and the little girl with whom he used to play « Doctor. » Entered, she finds herself depersonalized into a function and worth less to him than he is worth to himself: because he broke through, pushed in, entered. Without him there, she is supposed to feel empty, though there is no vacuum there, not physiologically. Entered, she finds herself accused of regicide at the end. The king dead, the muscles of the vagina contract again, suggesting that this will never be easy, never be solved. Lovely Freud, of course, having discovered projection but always missing the point, wrote to Jung: « In private I have always thought of Adonis as the penis; the woman’s joy when the god she had thought dead rises again is too transparent! » 13 Something, indeed, is too transparent; women’s joy tends to be opaque.

Entered, she has mostly given something up: to Adonis, the king, the coronation, the decapitation for which she is then blamed; she has given up a dividing line between her and him. Entered, she then finds out what it is to be occupied: and sometimes the appropriate imagery is of evil and war, the great spreading evil of how soldiers enter and contaminate. In the words of Marguerite Duras, « evil is there, at the gates, against the skin. » 14 It spreads, like war, everywhere: « breaking in everywhere, stealing, imprisoning, always there, merged and mingled . . . a prey to the intoxicating passion of occupying that delightful territory, a child’s body, the bodies of those less strong, of conquered peoples. » 15 She is describing an older brother she hates here (« I see wartime and the reign of my elder brother as one » 16). She is not describing her lover, an older man fucking an adolescent girl. But it is from the sex that she takes the texture of wartime invasion and occupation, the visceral reality of occupation: evil up against the skin–at the point of entry, just touching the slit; then it breaks in and at the same time it surrounds everything, and those with power use the conquered who are weaker, inhabit them as territory.

Physically, the woman in intercourse is a space inhabited, a literal territory occupied literally: occupied even if there has been no resistance, no force; even if the occupied person said yes please, yes hurry, yes more. Having a line at the point of entry into your body that cannot be crossed is different from not having any such line; and being occupied in your body is different from not being occupied in your body. It is human to experience these differences whether or not one cares to bring the consequences of them into consciousness. Humans, including women, construct meaning. That means that when something happens to us, when we have experiences, we try to find in them some reason for them, some significance that they have to us or for us. Humans find meaning in poverty and tyranny and the atrocities of history; those who have suffered most still construct meaning; and those who know nothing take their ignorance as if it were a precious, rare clay and they too construct meaning. In this way, humans assert that we have worth; what has happened to us matters; our time here on earth is not entirely filled with random events and spurious pain. On the contrary, we can understand some things if we try hard to learn empathy; we can seek freedom and honor and dignity; that we care about meaning gives us a human pride that has the fragility of a butterfly and the strength of tempered steel. The measure of women’s oppression is that we do not take intercourse–entry, penetration, occupation–and ask or say what it means: to us as a dominated group or to us as a potentially free and self-determining people. Instead, intercourse is a loyalty test; and we are not supposed to tell the truth unless it compliments and upholds the dominant male ethos on sex. We know nothing, of course, about intercourse because we are women and women know nothing; or because what we know simply has no significance, entered into as we are. And men know everything–all of them–all the time–no matter how stupid or inexperienced or arrogant or ignorant they are. Anything men say on intercourse, any attitude they have, is valuable, knowledgeable, and deep, rooted in the cosmos and the forces of nature as it were: because they know; because fucking is knowing; because he knew her but she did not know him; because the God who does not exist framed not only sex but also knowledge that way. Women do not just lie about orgasm, faking it or saying it is not important. Women lie about life by not demanding to understand the meaning of entry, penetration, occupation, having boundaries crossed over, having lesser privacy: by avoiding the difficult, perhaps impossible (but how will we ever know?) questions of female freedom. We take oaths to truth all right, on the holy penis before entry. In so doing, we give up the most important dimension of what it means to be human: the search for the meaning of our real experience, including the sheer invention of that meaning– called creativity when men do it. If the questions make the holy penis unhappy, who could survive what the answers might do? Experience is chosen for us, then, imposed on us, especially in intercourse, and so is its meaning. We are allowed to have intercourse on the terms men determine, according to the rules men make. We do not have to have an orgasm; that terrible burden is on them. We are supposed to comply whether we want to or not. Want is active, not passive or lethargic. Especially we are supposed to be loyal to the male meanings of intercourse, which are elaborate, dramatic, pulling in elements of both myth and tragedy: the king is dead! long live the king!–and the Emperor wears designer jeans. We have no freedom and no extravagance in the questions we can ask or the interpretations we can make. We must be loyal; and on what scale would we be able to reckon the cost of that? Male sexual discourse on the meaning of intercourse becomes our language. It is not a second language even though it is not our native language; it is the only language we speak, however, with perfect fluency even though it does not say what we mean or what we think we might know if only we could find the right word and enough privacy in which to articulate it even just in our own minds. We know only this one language of these folks who enter and occupy us: they keep telling us that we are different from them; yet we speak only their language and have none, or none that we remember, of our own; and we do not dare, it seems, invent one, even in signs and gestures. Our bodies speak their language. Our minds think in it. The men are inside us through and through. We hear something, a dim whisper, barely audible, somewhere at the back of the brain; there is some other word, and we think, some of us, sometimes, that once it belonged to us.

There are female-supremacist models for intercourse that try to make us the masters of this language that we speak that is not ours. They evade some fundamental questions about the act itself and acknowledge others. They have in common a glorious ambition to see women self-determining, vigorous and free lovers who are never demeaned or diminished by force or subordination, not in society, not in sex. The great advocate of the female-first model of intercourse in the nineteenth century was Victoria Woodhull. She understood that rape was slavery; not less than slavery in its insult to human integrity and human dignity. She acknowledged some of the fundamental questions of female freedom presented by intercourse in her imperious insistence that women had a natural right–a right that inhered in the nature of intercourse itself–to be entirely self-determining, the controlling and dominating partner, the one whose desire determined the event, the one who both initiates and is the final authority on what the sex is and will be. Her thinking was not mean-spirited, some silly role reversal to make a moral point; nor was it a taste for tyranny hidden in what pretended to be a sexual ethic. She simply understood that women are unspeakably vulnerable in intercourse because of the nature of the act–entry, penetration, occupation; and she understood that in a society of male power, women were unspeakably exploited in intercourse. Society–men–had to agree to let the woman be the mind, the heart, the lover, the free spirit, the physical vitality behind the act. The commonplace abuses of forced entry, the devastating consequences of being powerless and occupied, suggested that the only condition under which women could experience sexual freedom in intercourse–real choice, real freedom, real happiness, real pleasure–was in having real and absolute control in each and every act of intercourse, which would be, each and every time, chosen by the woman. She would have the incontrovertible authority that would make intercourse possible:

To woman, by nature, belongs the right of sexual determination. When the instinct is aroused in her, then and then only should commerce follow. When woman rises from sexual slavery to sexual freedom, into the ownership and control of her sexual organs, and man is obliged to respect this freedom, then will this instinct become pure and holy; then will woman be raised from the iniquity and morbidness in which she now wallows for existence, and the intensity and glory of her creative functions be increased a hundred-fold . . . 17

The consent standard is revealed as pallid, weak, stupid, second-class, by contrast with Woodhull’s standard: that the woman should have authority and control over the act. The sexual humiliation of women through male ownership was understood by Woodhull to be a concrete reality, not a metaphor, not hyperbole: the man owned the woman’s sexual organs. She had to own her sexual organs for intercourse to mean freedom for her. This is more concrete and more meaningful than a more contemporary vocabulary of « owning » one’s own desire. Woodhull wanted the woman’s desire to be the desire of significance; but she understood that ownership of the body was not an abstraction; it was concrete and it came first. The « iniquity and morbidness » of intercourse under male dominance would end if women could exercise a materially real self-determination in sex. The woman having material control of her own sex organs and of each and every act of intercourse would not lead to a reverse dominance, the man subject to the woman, because of the nature of the act and the nature of the sex organs involved in the act: this is the sense in which Woodhull tried to face the fundamental questions raised by intercourse as an act with consequences, some perhaps intrinsic. The woman could not forcibly penetrate the man. The woman could not take him over as he took her over and occupy his body physically inside. His dominance over her expressed in the physical reality of intercourse had no real analogue in desire she might express for him in intercourse: she simply could not do to him what he could do to her. Woodhull’s view was materialist, not psychological; she was the first publisher of the Communist Manifesto in the United States and the first woman stockbroker on Wall Street. She saw sex the way she saw money and power: in terms of concrete physical reality. Male notions of female power based on psychology or ideas would not have addressed for her the real issues of physical dominance and power in intercourse. The woman would not force or rape or physically own the man because she could not. Thus, giving the woman power over intercourse was giving her the power to be equal. Woodhull’s vision was in fact deeply humane, oriented toward sexual pleasure in freedom. For women, she thought and proclaimed (at great cost to herself), freedom must be literal, physical, concrete self-determination beginning with absolute control of the sexual organs; this was a natural right that had been perverted by male dominance–and because of its perversion, sex was for women morbid and degrading. The only freedom imaginable in this act of intercourse was freedom based on an irrevocable and unbreachable female will given play in a body honestly her own. This was an eloquent answer to reading the meaning of intercourse the other way: by its nature, intercourse mandated that the woman must be lesser in power and in privacy. Instead, said Woodhull, the woman must be king. Her humanity required sexual sovereignty.

Male-dominant gender hierarchy, however, seems immune to reform by reasoned or visionary argument or by changes in sexual styles, either personal or social. This may be because intercourse itself is immune to reform. In it, female is bottom, stigmatized. Intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior: communicating to her cell by cell her own inferior status, impressing it on her, burning it into her by shoving it into her, over and over, pushing and thrusting until she gives up and gives in– which is called surrender in the male lexicon. In the experience of intercourse, she loses the capacity for integrity because her body–the basis of privacy and freedom in the material world for all human beings–is entered and occupied; the boundaries of her physical body are–neutrally speaking– violated. What is taken from her in that act is not recoverable, and she spends her life–wanting, after all, to have something–pretending that pleasure is in being reduced through intercourse to insignificance. She will not have an orgasm–maybe because she has human pride and she resents captivity; but also she will not or cannot rebel–not enough for it to matter, to end male dominance over her. She learns to eroticize powerlessness and self- annihilation. The very boundaries of her own body become meaningless to her, and even worse, useless to her. The transgression of those boundaries comes to signify a sexually charged degradation into which she throws herself, having been told, convinced, that identity, for a female, is there– somewhere beyond privacy and self-respect.

It is not that there is no way out if, for instance, one were to establish or believe that intercourse itself determines women’s lower status. New reproductive technologies have changed and will continue to change the nature of the world. Intercourse is not necessary to existence anymore. Existence does not depend on female compliance, nor on the violation of female boundaries, nor on lesser female privacy, nor on the physical occupation of the female body. But the hatred of women is a source of sexual pleasure for men in its own right. Intercourse appears to be the expression of that contempt in pure form, in the form of a sexed hierarchy; it requires no passion or heart because it is power without invention articulating the arrogance of those who do the fucking. Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men’s contempt for women; but that contempt can turn gothic and express itself in many sexual and sadistic practices that eschew intercourse per se. Any violation of a woman’s body can become sex for men; this is the essential truth of pornography. So freedom from intercourse, or a social structure that reflects the low value of intercourse in women’s sexual pleasure, or intercourse becoming one sex act among many entered into by (hypothetical) equals as part of other, deeper, longer, perhaps more sensual lovemaking, or an end to women’s inferior status because we need not be forced to reproduce (forced fucking frequently justified by some implicit biological necessity to reproduce): none of these are likely social developments because there is a hatred of women, unexplained, undiagnosed, mostly unacknowledged, that pervades sexual practice and sexual passion. Reproductive technologies are strengthening male dominance, invigorating it by providing new ways of policing women’s reproductive capacities, bringing them under stricter male scrutiny and control; and the experimental development of these technologies has been sadistic, using human women as if they were sexual laboratory animals–rats, mice, rabbits, cats, with kinky uteri. For increasing numbers of men, bondage and torture of the female genitals (that were entered into and occupied in the good old days) may supplant intercourse as a sexual practice. The passion for hurting women is a sexual passion; and sexual hatred of women can be expressed without intercourse.

There has always been a peculiar irrationality to all the biological arguments that supposedly predetermine the inferior social status of women. Bulls mount cows and baboons do whatever; but human females do not have estrus or go into heat. The logical inference is not that we are always available for mounting but rather that we are never, strictly speaking, « available. » Nor do animals have cultures; nor do they determine in so many things what they will do and how they will do them and what the meaning of their own behavior is. They do not decide what their lives will be. Only humans face the often complicated reality of having potential and having to make choices based on having potential. We are not driven by instinct, at least not much. We have possibilities, and we make up meanings as we go along. The meanings we create or learn do not exist only in our heads, in ineffable ideas. Our meanings also exist in our bodies–what we are, what we do, what we physically feel, what we physically know; and there is no personal psychology that is separate from what the body has learned about life. Yet when we look at the human condition, including the condition of women, we act as if we are driven by biology or some metaphysically absolute dogma. We refuse to recognize our possibilities because we refuse to honor the potential humans have, including human women, to make choices. Men too make choices. When will they choose not to despise us?

Being female in this world is having been robbed of the potential for human choice by men who love to hate us. One does not make choices in freedom. Instead, one conforms in body type and behavior and values to become an object of male sexual desire, which requires an abandonment of a wide- ranging capacity for choice. Objectification may well be the most singly destructive aspect of gender hierarchy, especially as it exists in relation to intercourse. The surrender occurs before the act that is supposed to accomplish the surrender takes place. She has given in; why conquer her? The body is violated before the act occurs that is commonly taken to be violation. The privacy of the person is lessened before the privacy of the woman is invaded: she has remade herself so as to prepare the way for the invasion of privacy that her preparation makes possible. The significance of the human ceases to exist as the value of the object increases: an expensive ornament, for instance, she is incapable of human freedom–taking it, knowing it, wanting it, being it. Being an object–living in the realm of male objectification–is abject submission, an abdication of the freedom and integrity of the body, its privacy, its uniqueness, its worth in and of itself because it is the human body of a human being. Can intercourse exist without objectification? Would intercourse be a different phenomenon if it could, if it did? Would it be shorter or longer, happier or sadder; more complex, richer, denser, with a baroque beauty or simpler with an austere beauty; or bang bang bang? Would intercourse without objectification, if it could exist, be compatible with women’s equality–even an expression of it–or would it still be stubbornly antagonistic to it? Would intercourse cause orgasm in women if women were not objects for men before and during intercourse? Can intercourse exist without objectification and can objectification exist without female complicity in maintaining it as a perceived reality and a material reality too: can objectification exist without the woman herself turning herself into an object–becoming through effort and art a thing, less than human, so that he can be more than human, hard, sovereign, king? Can intercourse exist without the woman herself turning herself into a thing, which she must do because men cannot fuck equals and men must fuck: because one price of dominance is that one is impotent in the face of equality?

To become the object, she takes herself and transforms herself into a thing: all freedoms are diminished and she is caged, even in the cage docile, sometimes physically maimed, movement is limited: she physically becomes the thing he wants to fuck. It is especially in the acceptance of object status that her humanity is hurt: it is a metaphysical acceptance of lower status in sex and in society; an implicit acceptance of less freedom, less privacy, less integrity. In becoming an object so that he can objectify her so that he can fuck her, she begins a political collaboration with his dominance; and then when he enters her, he confirms for himself and for her what she is: that she is something, not someone; certainly not someone equal.

There is the initial complicity, the acts of self-mutilation, self-diminishing, self-reconstruction, until there is no self, only the diminished, mutilated reconstruction. It is all superficial and unimportant, except what it costs the human in her to do it: except for the fact that it is submissive, conforming, giving up an individuality that would withstand object status or defy it. Something happens inside; a human forgets freedom; a human learns obedience; a human, this time a woman, learns how to goose-step the female way. Wilhelm Reich, that most optimistic of sexual liberationists, the only male one to abhor rape really, thought that a girl needed not only « a free genital sexuality » but also « an undisturbed room, proper contraceptives, a friend who is capable of love, that is, not a National Socialist . . .  » 18 All remain hard for women to attain; but especially the lover who is not a National Socialist. So the act goes beyond complicity to collaboration; but collaboration requires a preparing of the ground, an undermining of values and vision and dignity, a sense of alienation from the worth of other human beings–and this alienation is fundamental to females who are objectified because they do not experience themselves as human beings of worth except for their value on the market as objects. Knowing one’s own human value is fundamental to being able to respect others: females are remade into objects, not human in any sense related to freedom or justice–and so what can females recognize in other females that is a human bond toward freedom? Is there anything in us to love if we do not love each other as the objects we have become? Who can love someone who is less than human unless love itself is domination per se? Alienation from human freedom is deep and destructive; it destroys whatever it is in us as humans that is creative, that causes us to want to find meaning in experiences, even hard experiences; it destroys in us that which wants freedom whatever the hardship of attaining it. In women, these great human capacities and dimensions are destroyed or mutilated; and so we find ourselves bewildered–who or what are these so-called persons in human form but even that not quite, not exactly, who cannot remember or manifest the physical reality of freedom, who do not seem to want or to value the individual experience of freedom? Being an object for a man means being alienated from other women–those like her in status, in inferiority, in sexual function. Collaboration by women with men to keep women civilly and sexually inferior has been one of the hallmarks of female subordination; we are ashamed when Freud notices it, but it is true. That collaboration, fully manifested when a woman values her lover, the National Socialist, above any woman, anyone of her own kind or class or status, may have simple beginnings: the first act of complicity that destroys self-respect, the capacity for self-determination and freedom–readying the body for the fuck instead of for freedom. The men have an answer: intercourse is freedom. Maybe it is second-class freedom for second-class humans.

What does it mean to be the person who needs to have this done to her: who needs to be needed as an object; who needs to be entered; who needs to be occupied; who needs to be wanted more than she needs integrity or freedom or equality? If objectification is necessary for intercourse to be possible, what does that mean for the person who needs to be fucked so that she can experience herself as female and who needs to be an object so that she can be fucked?

The brilliance of objectification as a strategy of dominance is that it gets the woman to take the initiative in her own degradation (having less freedom is degrading). The woman herself takes one kind of responsibility absolutely and thus commits herself to her own continuing inferiority: she polices her own body; she internalizes the demands of the dominant class and, in order to be fucked, she constructs her life around meeting those demands. It is the best system of colonialization on earth: she takes on the burden, the responsibility, of her own submission, her own objectification. In some systems in which turning the female into an object for sex requires actual terrorism and maiming–for instance, footbinding or removing the clitoris– the mother does it, having had it done to her by her mother. What men need done to women so that men can have intercourse with women is done to women so that men will have intercourse; no matter what the human cost; and it is a gross indignity to suggest that when her collaboration is complete– unselfconscious because there is no self and no consciousness left–she is free to have freedom in intercourse. When those who dominate you get you to take the initiative in your own human destruction, you have lost more than any oppressed people yet has ever gotten back. Whatever intercourse is, it is not freedom; and if it cannot exist without objectification, it never will be. Instead occupied women will be collaborators, more base in their collaboration than other collaborators have ever been: experiencing pleasure in their own inferiority; calling intercourse freedom. It is a tragedy beyond the power of language to convey when what has been imposed on women by force becomes a standard of freedom for women: and all the women say it is so.

If intercourse can be an expression of sexual equality, it will have to survive– on its own merits as it were, having a potential for human expression not yet recognized or realized–the destruction of male power over women; and rape and prostitution will have to be seen as the institutions that most impede any experience of intercourse as freedom–chosen by full human beings with full human freedom. Rape and prostitution negate self-determination and choice for women; and anyone who wants intercourse to be freedom and to mean freedom had better find a way to get rid of them. Maybe life is tragic and the God who does not exist made women inferior so that men could fuck us; or maybe we can only know this much for certain–that when intercourse exists and is experienced under conditions of force, fear, or inequality, it destroys in women the will to political freedom; it destroys the love of freedom itself. We become female: occupied; collaborators against each other, especially against those among us who resist male domination–the lone, crazy resisters, the organized resistance. The pleasure of submission does not and cannot change the fact, the cost, the indignity, of inferiority.

Publié dans féminisme, masculinité, viol | Marqué avec , , , , | Laisser un commentaire

La pénétration, une arme de destruction massive de notre intégrité

par Je Putréfie le Patriarcat.

Le coït, une aberration totale (sauf si on regarde sa fonction dans le patriarcat)

Je viens de découvrir avec beaucoup de joie une phrase de Christine Delphy dans la video de sa présentation du livre « femmes de droites » d’Andrea Dworkin à Violette & Co. Enfin un peu de bon sens! Elle parle brièvement de l’arnaque du « libéralisme sexuel » et la fonction qu’ont les contraceptifs et avortements dans le maintien de l’asservissement des femmes par les hommes – (qui passe par le coït):

« l’avortement, c’est ce qui va rendre toutes les femmes disponibles à tous les hommes. [...] Une des excuses que les femmes pouvaient fournir pour ne pas coucher avec un mec c’était qu’elles ne pouvaient pas être enceinte, car après elles n’avaient plus la contraception, elles n’avaient plus l’avortement ».

Or, aujourd’hui, la pilule et l’avortement font que nous n’avons plus ce moyen de négociation possible, nous n’avons plus d’excuses pour refuser le coït aux hommes. Alors même que la pilule ne permet pas d’éliminer le risque de grossesse (il le réduit seulement) car une grande partie des avortements aujourd’hui se font chez des femmes entre 15 et 27 ans, qui prennent la pilule. Prendre la pilule, ce poison, ce toxique, subir cette invasion tous les matins, tout ça pour quand-même vivre avec la peur de tomber enceinte, la peur d’oublier sa pilule. Quelle arnaque. Combien de fois il n’y a ni préservatif, ni pilule, et que malgré tout, on prend le risque de « céder » au coït car on pense à la pilule du lendemain, et au pire, on se dit, il y a l’avortement. On ignore la peur, la terreur d’être enceinte car on veut croire au mythe qu’être égale à un homme c’est pouvoir baiser comme lui, sans conséquences. On essaie d’ignorer le fait que s’il n’avait pas insisté, initié, s’il n’y avait pas cette pression, cet horrible sentiment d’obligation, la peur de refuser car sinon on est rejetée, jamais on n’aurait pensé au coït. On essaie d’oublier qu’on n’en a pas envie, pas vraiment, pas tout à fait, il y a quelque-chose qui cloche. On veut croire désespérément au mensonge que l’on nous inculque, que « femme + pilule = homme ».

On ne pourrait pas être plus loin de la vérité. Comme tout ce qui est patriarcal, le fait que tout ça soit une libération pour les femmes est une inversion absolue: la réalité et que ça a assuré la continuation et le renforcement de notre asservissement total. La seule vérité que cela contient, c’est que c’est effectivement une libération des contraintes et obstacles à l’accès des hommes aux femmes, par le viol / coït. Or le coït ne peut jamais être une pratique récréative pour les femmes car aucun contraceptif n’élimine les dommages causés par le coït: même le stérilet et la ligature des trompes n’empêche pas à 100% les grossesses – je connais plusieurs personnes qui sont nées des deux. Les dommages du coït ne peuvent être que légèrement mitigés, sachant que les contraceptifs hormonaux, stérilets + avortements sont en eux-mêmes des conséquences graves du coït sur notre santé et intégrité. Le coït comme pratique récréative est forcément inégalitaire, car il comporte des risques tellement énormes pour les femmes (grossesses non-désirées, avortements, complications liées aux deux, possibilité de mourir des complications ou de l’accouchement, problèmes de santé graves suite à des années de prise de pilule, etc) alors que pour les hommes, il existe des risques vraiment infimes (MST) et ceux-ci peuvent de toutes façons être totalement éliminés.

Voici ce qu’en dit Factcheckme:

if we are very, very lucky, perhaps some of us, for some period of time, can mitigate the severity and frequency (but not the occurrence) of the female-specific harms perpetrated on us, by men. and female-specific harm includes the risk of female-specific harm…which is harmful in itself, because its stressful and requires behavior and thought modification, because we were born with babymakers in a rape culture, and that has meaning. oh yes it does.

Nous avons donc les facteurs suivants:

1. nous, les femmes, à l’inverse des hommes, avons une machine à reproduire des bébés à l’intérieur de nous.

2. Cette machine à bébés s’enclenche lorsqu’un sperme entre en contact avec un ovule fécondable, c’est à dire lorsque le sperme passe par le vagin jusqu’à rencontrer l’ovule au bout, dans la trompe. Généralement ça se fait par ce qu’on appelle le « coït », l’insertion du pénis dans le vagin, mais la simple déposition de sperme sur la vulve peut suffire à rendre enceinte. (donc même l’idée que le coït soit nécessaire à la reproduction est un mythe)

3. Les hommes savent tout ça, que sperme dans vagin = grossesse.

4. Bien que sperme dans vagin / pénis dans vagin = grossesse, les hommes ont érigé le coït comme pratique hétérosexuelle obligatoire, et nécessairement régulière (« récréative »), appellent ça « sexe » (associé au plaisir) et font en sorte que l’hétérosexualité aussi soit obligatoire. [oui, ce sont les hommes qui l'ont érigé et pas les femmes, car toutes les règles sont édictées par et pour les hommes. C.f. patriarcat].

5. coït = 0 risque pour les hommes; coït = énormes risques pour les femmes (pouvant entraîner la mort); cette pratique est donc nécessairement et biologiquement inégalitaire, oppressive et dommageable pour les femmes. Malgré cela, les hommes continuent à vouloir nous soumettre en permanence au coït, coûte que coûte, quitte à nous faire gober des hormones ou insérer des bouts de ferraille dans l’utérus pour qu’on croie que ça a pas d’incidence sur noues.

6. Quand tu sais que ce que tu fais c’est dommageable pour l’autre, et pour l’autre uniquement, et que tu continues quand-même à le faire, c’est que la nuisance / la destruction est intentionnelle. Car sinon, en sachant les conséquences, si tu ne voulais pas nuire, tu aurais arrêté ton action / ton geste tout de suite. Les hommes savent les conséquences qu’a le coït sur les femmes. Or les hommes n’arrêtent pas le coït.

7. Le coït comme pratique régulière remplit très bien sa fonction: celle de nous détruire. Ce n’est pas un accident. Il a été intentionnellement conçu pour nous détruire, nous asservir aux hommes et surtout nous réduire à du bétail pour reproduire des humains mâles (cf Claire Michard et Paola Tabet).

8. Le fait que les hommes savent que c’est dommageable pour nous et uniquement pour nous, qu’ils insistant tant à ce que nous nous soumettions au coït, et qu’ils mettent tant d’énergie à nous faire croire que c’est du sexe, du plaisir, de la libération malgré que le coït soit totalement inutile autant sur le plan du plaisir que sur le plan reproductif (tout plaisir génital chez noues provient uniquement du clitoris et non du vagin, qui est un muscle), est une preuve de l’intentionnalité de l’usage du coït comme outil de démolition des femmes à l’échelle massive.

Pour reciter Factcheckme:

Men know that women are impregnable, as a sexual class, and thats why they rape almost exclusively girls and women, and almost exclusively *not* other men. raping female-bodied persons is like throwing spaghetti against the wall, and knowing some of it will stick: by raping women, all women, regardless of age, and not men, (individual men perhaps, but not men-as-a-class) they know that pregnancies will result. they just wont be around to see it.

Et ici: (source)

considering that men know that intercourse is harmful to women, including the risks of disease and pregnancy; and understanding that female-specific reproductive harm is central and critical to male political and interpersonal power; and considering that intercourse-as-sex is therefore the very foundation of patriarchy itself — [...] no sane, healthy, competent etc. person would voluntarily engage in it, considering the risks.  get it?

so sane person.  no human person.  no man.

you see, there is not a man in the entire world, if the risks of intercourse applied to men, who would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER choose to engage in it for pleasures sake.  never, ever, ever, ever, ever would a man voluntarily place himself in harms way like that, and that includes the most submissive, masochistic and self-hating man.  NO man would EVER do this.

Tout ça pour dire que l’unique raison pour laquelle l’on puisse croire que le coït soit normal et naturel pour nous alors que notre réalité dit exactement l’inverse – c’est à dire que c’est destructeur et totalement anti-naturel voire d’un danger mortel – c’est parce que les hommes, par tous les moyens, nous ont tellement lavé le cerveau avec leur propagande pro-coït, que le coït nous paraît immuable et inévitable comme la roche, au point que toute alternative ou cessation immédiate du coït pour notre santé et intégrité ne soit même pas pensable.

Etant donné que toutes les définitions de la réalité qui nous sont imposées par les hommes ne sont fondées qu’à partir de l’expérience qu’en ont les hommes, et surtout comme la seule définition du coït qui existe est celle qui se base sur l’expérience qu’en ont les hommes, (c’est à dire une érection et pénétration / éjaculation sans conséquences), ceci fait que nous n’arrivons pas à définir et à identifier ce qu’est le coït à partir de notre réalité: qui n’est qu’aliénation, destruction de la santé, peur, maladies, colonisation – qu’il y ait une excitation génitale ou non qui se rajoute à cela ne change en rien cette réalité; cela peut seulement en changer notre perception. Et d’ailleurs, certains hommes ne se privent pas de stimuler le clitoris pendant le coït, pour que petit à petit, notre corps associe mécaniquement le coït à une excitation génitale. Ceci n’est qu’un processus de dressage, pour semer la confusion et nous faire croire qu’au fond nous aimons ça, car les premiers coïts sont dans l’immense majorité douloureux ou sans plaisir.

Cette imposition et impression dans nos cerveaux de leur perspective de la réalité opposée et antagoniste à la nôtre équivaut à de la violence psychologique, ou même de la torture psychologique, car ce n’est autre que que du lavage de cerveau dans des conditions permanentes d’extrêmes violences exercées par les hommes contre noues. Cette violence psychologique, ou ce lavage de cerveau qui consiste à déréaliser les violences qu’ils nous infligent ainsi que leurs conséquences et les nommer par l’inverse de ce qu’ils sont (« amour », « sexe », « plaisir », « érotisme », etc.) ont pour effet et pour but de nous dissocier totalement de nous-mêmes et de ce que nous ressentons, vivons, lorsque nous subissons les coïts et les effets du coït. Ça nous empêche d’identifier ce qu’on subit comme étant préjudiciable pour noues, au moment où on le subit. ça nous empêche donc d’avoir conscience qu’on subit des violences; et donc de nous en protéger, de fuir, de préserver nos intérêts, d’exprimer la violence, notre réalité etc. ça colonise notre conscience. C’est fait exprès: pour qu’on continue de subir, pour qu’on ne s’échappe pas – car là-dessus repose la domination des hommes sur noues. donc les sensations de peur (ou autre) qu’on peut ressentir avant, pendant ou après nous paraissent insensés, sidérants. Le silence absolu sur notre réalité, en plus de l’inversion de la culpabilité sur les femmes, fait que l’on se retrouve dans un isolement total, et la seule option qui noues reste c’est de s’accuser soi-même de se sentir mal. Ces sensations sont intolérables, alors on essaie de les oublier à tout prix ou de faire comme s’ils n’existaient pas car rien ne vient cfndirmer notre réalité.

Donc, je résume. L’idée que le coït c’est de la sexualité est un sordide mensonge, une arnaque absolue. Les hommes méprisent les femmes précisément parce qu’ils savent que ce qu’ils font aux femmes, c’est à dire les pénétrer avec leur pénis, c’est les mépriser, et jamais ils ne voudraient que l’on leur fasse la même chose. Ils méprisent les femmes pour subir ce que jamais eux n’accepteraient de subir, en tant que sujets dans le patriarcat. D’ailleurs, il suffit de faire un tour dans leur langage: ils sont très clairs sur le fait que l’acte de pénétrer une femme c’est l’humilier, la dominer, c’est l’insulter, l’arnaquer, la « baiser » – c’est bien pour cela que c’est une insulte de le dire à un homme, qui n’est pas sensé être pénétré. Il ne fait aucun doute que le coït n’est pas pour les femmes, ou un échange intime et amoureux avec une femme, mais contre les femmes et pour les hommes, les pénétrants.

Croire qu’on peut distinguer entre des coïts désirés et des coïts-viols est illusoire; la réalité est qu’AUCUNE femme ne désirerait un coït dans un état de non-colonisation par les hommes et de lavage de cerveau qui nous dissocie de notre vécu et de la pleine conscience des conséquences du coït sur noues. En d’autres termes, AUCUNE femme n’accepterait de pratiquer le coït de façon récréative, juste comme ça, étant pleinement éclairée et consciente des conséquences du coït sur notre santé et notre intégrité, le risque à prendre étant bien trop énorme, pour des gains au mieux totalement inutiles (la reproduction – il suffit que le sperme soit déposé sur la vulve – ou le plaisir, lorsqu’il est présent – pouvant se remplacer par toute autre manière de stimuler le clitoris, qui, je rappelle, est l’UNIQUE source d’excitation génitale). ça nous paraîtrait complètement aberrant, insensé et suicidaire de nous infliger cela, en fait ça ne nous viendrait même pas à l’esprit.

Le coït, par définition, détruit les femmes, est violent (et au mieux inutilement invasif et intrusif si c’est dans un but reproductif), est imposé à toutes les femmes par des années de dressage à l’hétérosexualité dès la naissance et l’élimination de toute alternative, la violence psychologique et toutes les autres formes de violence: c’est donc un viol, par définition. Certains actes, comme par exemple couper les cheveux de quelqu’un, peuvent être violents ou pas violents selon le contexte dans lequel c’est fait, c’est à dire selon si la personne dont les cheveux sont coupés l’a demandé ou subi, contre son gré. Mais ce n’est pas le cas du coït, dont le préjudice est inhérent pour les femmes, quel que soit le contexte, qu’il soit en apparence voulu ou non-voulu par la femme. Comme pour le coup de poing ou le coup de couteau, le coït est à considérer comme une infraction et une atteinte sur autrui de la part de celui qui l’inflige, c’est à dire de l’homme.

Je suis consciente que c’est impensable pour la plupart d’entre noues de dire cela, mais c’est d’une logique absolue.

Voir aussi ses autres articles de FCM sur le sujet (y’en a plein d’autres, mais en voici des échantillons):

http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/its-the-trauma-bonding-talking/

http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/the-intercourse-series/

 

PdV (Pénis dans Vagin) La suite

Prenons les choses autrement.

Sortons de toutes discussions sur le plaisir, parce que visiblement ça obscurcit les esprits et l’idée centrale de l’article. Considérez ce qui suit, quel que soit le plaisir qui puisse être obtenu par le PdV. Car ce qui suit vaut que l’on en prenne du plaisir ou non, quelle que soit votre définition du plaisir.

Les résistances au bon sens sont décidément phénoménales. Personne (ou presque) ne semble répondre directement au fait que le PdV soit de façon inhérente un risque et un danger qui peut être mortel pour les femmes, alors que ça ne l’est pas pour les hommes. Malgré cela, partout dans le monde, le PdV s’impose comme LA pratique hétérosexuelle incontournable, forcément fréquente ou régulière, « récréative », et d’une façon générale, les hommes sont incités à mettre leurs bites presque exclusivement (et prioritairement) dans les vagins des femmes – les femmes en âge de procréer étant les principales cibles. Le PdV est défini comme du sexe, comme de la sexualité, et les risques et les conséquences que ça représente pour les femmes sont au mieux minimisés, normalisés, sinon ignorés ou naturalisés, comme si c’étaient des conséquences normales d’une situation inévitable, naturelle, immuable comme la roche.

(j’arrête de dire le coït parce que tout le monde croit que je parle de toutes les pénétrations, or ici je ne parle spécifiquement QUE du PdV – bien qu’une analyse de la pénétration d’un point de vue féministe radicale soit évidemment pertinente).

Le postulat patriarcal / des hommes est le suivant:

1. PdV = sexe sans conséquences + nécessité hétéro (plus ou moins strictement, mais c’est généralement vrai)

2. Conséquences du PdV régulier pour les femmes = conséquences NORMALES d’une situation NORMALE (PdV).

Or ce postulat est Faux. Le PdV est une conséquence normale d’une situation ANORMALE (et par définition non-naturelle, puisque comme toute pratique humaine sociale, elle est éduquée, non instinctive…). La situation anormale étant d’exposer en permanence, fréquemment, ou à intervalles plus ou moins régulières, les femmes au risque de grossesse. Qu’elles le veuillent ou non, qu’elles y prennent du plaisir ou non. Et que soumettre les femmes régulièrement, fréquemment ou même de temps en temps au risque de grossesse, c’est extrêmement dommageable pour les femmes.

D’abord, le fait simple d’exposer une femme, par le PdV, au risque de grossesse en lui-même est un dommage, un préjudice, car cela nécessite de prendre des mesures pour mitiger ce risque, qui génère au MINIMUM du stress, la peur que ça fonctionne pas (préservatif – et c’est souvent que ça fonctionne pas), des moyens intrusifs qui brisent l’intégrité physique, psychique (pilule, stérilet, implant, ligature des trompes, stérilisation) et ont des conséquences graves sur la santé, qui peuvent inclure dans les pires cas le cancer, les maladies cardiovasculaires, des accidents graves, un handicap à vie, la mort. Même les cas graves sont fréquents mais totalement minimisés et considérés comme normaux.

Donc les conséquences décrites plus haut, c’est dans les meilleurs cas, ceux où on a eu de la pure chance, c’est à dire les cas où le risque de grossesse n’a pas abouti à une grossesse, les cas où on a réussi à mitiger le risque, mais pas éliminer le risque. AUCUN contraceptif n’élimine le risque du PdV. TOUS les contraceptifs comportent un facteur de risque plus ou moins élevé, y compris la ligature des trompes (elles peuvent repousser – une amie est née d’une trompe ligaturée). Et tous les contraceptifs, excepté le préservatif (celui le moins utilisé!!! On se demande pourquoi) ont des conséquences directes et graves sur la santé des femmes, en plus d’être intrusives physiquement et psychiquement, stressantes, parfois coûteuses, nécessitant de plus des consultations gynécologiques invasives, sadiques et stressantes.

Je récapépète: Pour les femmes en âge et en capacité de procréer, celles que les hommes exposent le plus au PdV, le risque de grossesse en lui-même ne s’élimine pas. C’est à dire que le risque reste toujours là, et donc également les conséquences des mesures prises pour mitiger le risque.

Ensuite, les conséquences du PdV incluent: grossesse non-désirée (traumatisant et invasif) suivi d’un avortement (traumatisant et invasif, qui peut causer des complications, des vomissements, des déchirements, la perforation utérine, une infection locale, une dépression, des pensées suicidaires, une hémorragie, et pour finir, des décès). Ou une grossesse menée à terme (9 mois de grossesse, extrêmement invasif et traumatisant surtout si non-désirée) qui inclut un accouchement d’une douleur généralement atroce, toutes les autres conséquences listées ici, qui peuvent mener dans les pires cas à des complications d’une gravité extrême, comme les fistules (regardez le magnifique film du fistula foundation), ou à la mort. Ok?

Etant donné que la majorité des hommes dans le monde refusent même de mettre la capote durant le PdV, et que l’immense, immense majorité n’accepterait pas même une vasectomie, qui pourtant est sans douleur (sous anesthésie), sans conséquences sur la santé (comparé à tous les contraceptifs existants pour les femmes, excluant le préservatif) il est certain qu’aucun homme, jamais jamais jamais de sa vie, n’accepterait le PdV si ça avait les mêmes conséquences sur lui que sur les femmes. Le bon sens voudrait qu’ils soient horrifiés et indignés de ce que leur font les femmes par le PdV, et ils arrêteraient tout de suite, ça serait suicidaire de continuer, ça n’aurait aucun sens.

toute mutilation corporelle au nom du maintien du PdV est totalement aberrant et inutilement destructeur, car il suffit de cesser le PdV comme pratique récréative (mais même pour féconder, le PdV est inutile: sperme sur vulve / orifice du vagin SUFFIT) c’est sans risques, ne requiert aucune modification destructive et mutilante du corps, simple comme bonjour!

Pourquoi les hommes nous mettent donc dans des conditions permanentes d’exposition au risque de grossesse, et appellent ça sexe?

Pourquoi les hommes contraignent-ils les femmes à la pratique régulière du PdV si les risques sont aussi graves pour les femmes?

Le fait est que les hommes continuent de mettre leur bite dans le vagin des femmes JUSTEMENT parce qu’il y a ce risque de grossesse. Qu’ils en soient conscients ou non n’a aucune importance, le fait est qu’ils connaissent tous le mode d’emploi pour traiter une femme comme un homme doit traiter une femme qui lui appartient, c’est à dire mettre sa bite dans son vagin, et éjaculer dedans.

Je parle bien de contrainte sociale, car toutes les formes de pressions sont mises en place par les hommes pour qu’on n’ait PAS d’autres alternatives possibles – allant de l’endoctrinement à l’hétérosexualité, mariage et au PdV par toutes les institutions patriarcales qui existent (le PdV est promu et normalisé absolument partout, par l’état, la religion, l’économie, les médias, des films lambda, magasines, presse, littérature, musique, culture, à la porno => toutes ces institutions étant contrôlées par les hommes) à la mise en dépendance affective et économique voire institutionnelle (mariage), à la violence individuelle et collective des hommes / institutionnelle, à la répression sociale en cas de non-conformité – mais souvent cette répression est tellement omniprésente qu’elle est intériorisée, où on n’en est pas conscientes car elle est normalisée. Que se passe-t-il si on refuse le PdV? Quelles sont les réactions du conjoint et des autres? Quelle est sa propre réaction?

L’accès des hommes aux femmes par le PdV, et donc l’exposition permanente des femmes au risque de grossesse, et par là le contrôle et l’appropriation des fonctions reproductives des femmes et l’appropriation des femmes en tant que telles par le PdV et le viol / « mariage », est le pilier de leur domination sur les femmes. Là dessus repose le patriarcat et sur quoi se greffent toutes les autres formes de domination patriarcale, puisque le patriarcat consiste d’abord et avant tout en le fait que les hommes soumettent les femmes de façon permanente et régulière au PdV, dans le but de forcer la reproduction d’humains mâles, et accessoirement de nouvelles reproductrices d’humains mâles. (Cf Paola Tabet « des outils et des armes » et Claire Michard). Les femmes sont réduites mondialement au rang, statut et fonction de « sexe pour l’homme », de « réceptacle » à sperme et à bite pour une raison: car c’est ce qui permet aux hommes d’avoir la mainmise sur les produits de la reproduction, la paternité, les enfants. Ils organisent donc la société de sorte à ce que les femmes n’aient pas d’autre choix que de subir les PdV réguliers, et soumettent les femmes à la captivité permanente par le « mariage » (maintenant « l’hétérosexualité », le « couple »), la traitent comme un objet marchand à échanger d’homme à homme, entre hommes.

Ce qui constitue l’identité masculine, patriarcale, est de pénétrer une femme, est d’être le pénétrant, celui qui est dessus. Tout le rapport au monde des hommes est basé sur la pénétration, la colonisation d’autrui, du monde de l’univers – l’univers autre étant considéré femme. Ce qui constitue la fonction des femmes dans le patriarcat (car ce n’est pas une identité dans le sens où ça ne permet pas d’être sujet, au contraire c’est un anéantissement du sujet) c’est d’être pénétrée par un homme, de lui servir de réceptacle creuse pour le produit de son sperme – l’enfant.

Les contraceptifs modernes jouent un énorme rôle à nous faire croire que nous nous sommes libérées de la tyrannie du PdV, or ce que ça a fait c’est justement l’inverse: ça a renforcé et normalisé encore davantage la contrainte au PdV comme pratique régulière, et renforcé notre colonisation. ça joue un énorme rôle dans la propagande libérale de « libération sexuelle » qui n’est autre que nous vendre le modèle de viol pornographique et prostitutionnel comme étant de la sexualité. Et la pilule ça contribue à nous faire croire qu’on peut y trouver un intérêt à servir de réceptacle à sperme pour n’importe quel homme, au lieu d’un seul dans le cadre du mariage. Je ne suis évidemment pas contre l’utilisation de contraceptifs lorsqu’ils peuvent éviter une grossesse, mais les contraceptifs ne sont pas une libération. Nous devons viser plus haut que recoudre les plaies et nous ramasser à la petite cuillère après des années de PdV. Une étape de la libération c’est déjà la cessation immédiate et sans appel du PdV, et par ailleurs une dé-hétérosexualisation de masse, étant donné le danger et l’épuisement des ressources que les hommes représentent pour les femmes (violences par conjoint, harcèlement, violences économiques, etc).

Publié dans arnaque, couple, féminisme, masculinité, viol | 2 commentaires