Imagine a bee rn in a hive muttering "the beekeeper is not real because he is not intervening or helping me at all with this disastrous relationship I have with another bee". now imagine that's you talking about the good lord. now imagine a dog with a propeller hat on
You ever think about many peices of media have zero women and thats just perfectly normal but if a peice of media has an all female cast people get... like that? Women should be allowed to kill over this btw
"Don't be anti-AI because if you don't keep up with technology you'll be left behind" okay boohoo you tell me. What skill is required to use an AI. What training or personal advancement am I being left behind on. Is it likely that using an AI chatbot will ever require a degree of skill that the average 7 year old cannot perform. And on the flip side, what skills are you LOSING by using AI. What are you gonna do when the subscription prices skyrocket and you have to re-learn how to write an email or do 10 minutes of independent research or even think of your own social media caption. Which of us is actually likely to be "left behind" because of AI.
no don’t worry i totally love how we shamed women out of using vagina imagery in their art ever again but i have to see 500 degenerate posts about girl dick every time i open social media
i caught a peep of the War on Anal™️ on twitter. this is what i have to say. idk how formatting works on here anymore but this is long lol.
the “sex positivity” and “sexual liberation” and “sexual freedom” ideology has always championed unrestricted sexual access to and rape of women and children. it has always maintained a strong pro-rape current, a movement that reduces women to public property, a view that venerates male orgasms over female personhood, and a celebration of sexual violence against women and children. it is an attack on feminists who have agitated for any kind of sexual ethics that sought to limit male sexual entitlement, from age of consent laws, to marital rape laws, and so on.
industrial patriarchy had to adapt to women attaining the legal, social, and political ability to deny men sexual access to them, and “sexual liberation” is that patriarchal adaptation—the abuse, violence, and degradation of women is fine if the women themselves desire it and we are discouraged from interrogating this desire and who benefits from it.
we must not think of sexual liberation or “sex positivity” as an enemy to patriarchal religion—they are simply rivals. the sexual liberationist truly hates the so-called “puritan” not for any genuine moral reason, but because the “puritan” has the potential to say no to men. nevermind the fact that the puritan movement was not anti-sex and the sex positive advocates are misusing the term. the term’s utility to the sex positive movement is that it can be used as a slur to demean women who want a type of sexual ethics that disentangles violence from sex. the patriarchal theologist hates the fact that women can say no to men. they both see women’s boundaries as a threat. they see a sexual ethics that opposes violence against women as a threat. the dressing may be different, but the skeleton is the same. they are two opposing male supremacist ideologies vying for dominance. feminists reject both.
wilhelm reich, the godfather of this ideology, experimented on and sexually abused children, pat califia supported incest, child sexual abuse, and sexually abused a woman, gayle rubin extensively supported child sexual abuse and child pornography, the latter two were responsible for the spread of BDSM and its foundational links to queer theory, sadism was named after marquis de sade, a notorious rapist who tortured his victims. i could go on forever lol. these are some of the main architects of sexual liberation. look into any of these thinkers or most male psychologists who sought to naturalize women’s sexual subordination and you will uncover biological determinism—specifically related to the notions that “sex is a need,” that men’s sexual entitlements are natural, and women’s sexual inferiority and their desire to be dominated is natural. the notion that consent means a sex act cannot be critiqued, that consent purifies a sex act, no matter how violent, lies at the foundation of a patriarchal sex culture.
this critique isn’t limited to any one sex act, either. the social context that drives and encourages women to engage in anal, blowjobs, and choking is certainly not neutral under this rotten culture and should be critiqued from a feminist perspective. but you’ll find that feminists eviscerated the “normal” heterosexual act of intercourse (PIV) and how women are treated in it with much harsher terms than any other sex act lol. don’t allow the pro-rape advocates to call you a “puritan” because you’ve taken exception to the most normative sex act. the feminist critique takes everything to task, especially intercourse.
a lot of women and girls are taking their blinders off but are not reading the extensive feminist literature on this subject. dworkin’s “intercourse” is a good starting point for a feminist critique, but you’ll also have to read stuff that will piss you off and disgust you, like some of the thinkers i listed above lol. it’s a horrible stain on human history in my humble opinion. we can only achieve a truly ethical sex culture when this tumor of an ideology is excised, in conjunction with its main political rival, patriarchal religion.
idk how formatting works on this site any more lol under the read more i have citations for my polemic if you wanna look!
here are a couple of excerpts from a sexual freedom advocate, rene guyon, in 1939. this is from his book, “sexual freedom.” see anything familiar?
women who impose sexual boundaries, limitations and sexual ethics are rejecting their “natural” position as sex objects to be used by men—we call this biological determinism. a rejection of men’s sexual desires is viewed as “anti-sex.” the concept of sex itself is conflated with male entitlement, so if you object to male entitlement, sexual liberationists will likely call you “anti-sex.” they have been doing this for over a century. don’t let them. keep your feet on their necks lol.
again, women who deny men’s “natural right” to sexually access women are viewed as aberrations that require corrective recalibration. they simply don’t understand their “natural role” as objects. women who don’t embody their “natural role” as objects of male desire are rejecting womanhood (!!!), and rejecting womanhood is an attack on nature, and we must not attack nature, because it benefits men, of course. society has been panicking about women who abstain from heterosexual sex for decades, because our ability to say no is a serious threat to male supremacy.
as a result, celibate women, women who simply do not seek male partnership regardless of their sexual identity, and lesbians are viewed as insufficiently female or un-woman (shoutout to monique wittig) and thus a threat to nature. this is why both the left and right freaked out when enough women were mumbling about a potential sex strike a few years ago lol. this is why you’ll find that both sides will chastise women for low birth rates. speaking of low birth rates, let us turn to page 267…
do i even need to break this one down lol bro’s saying that women who get too many rights, women who go into male-dominated fields, and women want equality are losing sexual appeal to men. women who limit men’s sexual access to them are neglecting their “natural role” as mothers, and the birth rate is falling as a result! this was published in 1939! nothing is new. also, a bit of early “divine feminine” coping—the idea that women who arouse men are the ones with the real power, right, right? sound familiar?
here, this entire passage is a quote from gaston rageot, a male writer. do i even need to break this down lol.
feminism is a rejection of human nature. both sexual liberationists and patriarchal religion take umbrage with our ability to limit or restrict men’s “natural” entitlements, because men’s ability to sexually subjugate women is integral to their social status as men, and receiving their subjugation is what makes you a proper woman. kill it all with fire lol. critical support to the hysterical gen z puriteens.
Kate Millett, in "Sexual Politics" (1968), wrote a great takedown of the ideas of "women like being dominated during sex" and "women are naturally suited to caring for babies".
iirc, "Enlightened Sexism" (2010) by Susan J Douglas covers the 21st century version of "sexual liberation" and sex positivity.
theartofmadeline
2087
stormborns
prguitarman
areudirty
janainaart
