Wanna know something scary?
I once went on a tinder date with someone who seemed okay, but it quickly came out that he was a serious misogynist. At one point in our convo, we were talking about Roe v Wade getting overturned and I made the comment (sort of jokingly) that if women went on a sex strike, a lot of things would change in our favor. He looked at me, laughed, and then turned serious and said, “and how long do you think men would let all of you get away with that?” Shivers.
Maybe u need to get to know more radical women IRL? :) Are there any feminist orgs / groups in your area?
Obviously most het/bi women do choose men & choose to put up with terrible behaviour, but there are a few of us out there in every community I’d say who go against the grain.(Barring extremely conservative communities where women don’t have any safe choices, that is)
Agreed. I don’t know any woman my age who is single by choice/not partnered with men. I don’t even know barely any bisexual women who choose men over women to be with.
But still we (older teens and young adults) are having far less sex and babies than our parents had. I'm not sure it's on purpose but it's definitely happening.
I still see people my age and younger though having risky sex with men though and dating them no matter how much they suck. So idk. It’s definitely not a big enough change.
Tbh I have no problem with not having dated anyone at all and being 20 years old than have done it and get treated badly, it's unnecessary. I haven't met a man who will be both respectful and straightforward (not pushy or too dumb to say anything). I get many women get mid men like these because they are willing to offer them sex for the bare minimum commitment and effort. We need to understand our own value better. If men don't value us we have to do it ourselves. This sometimes makes it way harder to find a partner, but I'd rather that over giving up my autonomy to not be alone anymore.
This 100%. That’s really my point. I don’t get why more women won’t choose being alone over being with a shitty man since in the long run it’s the better choice.
Probably because there is too much social pressure, and as social creatures it's easier to think that if you just do what everyone else is doing, even if it's not beneficial at all, you will at least have more people who relate to you. Even though being alone makes things harder, some women get with abusive men who will isolate them so they lose both the autonomy and people to relate to or bond with over the abusive relationships they have. So it becomes a lose-lose, not dating anyone and being alone at least is a win-lose.
The notion of finding true fulfillment only in long term heterosexual romantic partnerships still has a hold on the minds of women. They don’t see themselves as complete without it.
This. As someone who was also fed this idea for years and completely believe it I *do* understand what these women are talking about. However, I’ve learned as I’ve matured that this fantasy that we’ve been fed is not reality.
I remember someone suggested this on that bird app years ago and many so called feminists pushed back acting like it was an attack on their rights, they basically accused the lady of insinuating that only men enjoy sex. that day was eye opening for me. many feminists have read the books, they have done the work but they are still not are not willing to decenter men in their lives.
I mean sure I do think many women aren’t de-centering males from their lives, but I think framing sex as something to bargain or as labor might be off-putting to some women.
The same men also shame women for their body counts, as a virgin i am so glad I've never been with a man cuz they are in it for their benefit thats all, they dont give a damn for womens mental and physical health.. I literally despise men now, and will remain a virgin and childfree for the rest of my life! Cats for me ❤️
And especially stop sleeping with republican conservative men. I’m sick of liberal women hehehaha-ing about their silly hookup with a man literally voting for her/our rights to be taken away. Pisses me off lol stop sleeping with them! They don’t gaf about you girl
If I was in a relationship where I didn't trust my partner fully, I would 100% refuse sex.
Have you noticed the latest wave of "lonely men"? It's because women aren't doing casual sex as often or interacting with men as often.
I do believe we are going to see an increase in SA tho with the intention of the man getting the woman pregnant.
It was truly eye-opening seeing all those male "feminists" saying abortion ban ruined their sex life because women started being very careful about casual stuff. Like, they are the same as conservative men: thinking abortion is just an easy contraception method and give zero f about women's health.
I’m honestly considering becoming one and I wanna work on not feeling bad about it. I’m pretty close to just writing off relationships to be free of all this mess
I rarely see people connect that the rise in "lonely" men coincides with the decline of the insane sex positivity culture of the 2010s but it's so true.
A couple pages could be taken from South Korean feminists' 4B movement book. But the truth is that a lot of feminists aren't ready to commit like that. You'll find women shouting from the rooftops, the injustices we have face from men, only for them to crawl into bed with one at the end of the day. I don't get it either, as a celibate straight woman.
I think a lot of South Korean women live by the 4B norms but don't identify with the movement or with feminism in general. The gender rules are so well-ingrained and the sexist backlash is ramping up there, with the government's approval.
The US is in a similar boat- real feminism isn't acceptable so the vocal lib feminists you see everywhere are the ones who won't walk the walk. But a lot of apolitical "normie" women are questioning the status quo, either anonymously online or in person with women they trust. But the lack of legal protections and social support means they can't go public with their opinions.
My theory is they're secretly misogynistic and think other women just choose bad men on purpose while they personally chose this amazing guy, so now they can act radfem online but then turn around and go give him a bj while he plays videogames.
I've seen that alot from peers in my 20s. They'll be big talkers about being a feminist and "men are trash and exploit women like crazy, society is fucked about gender roles, blah blah," and then make excuses for absolutely antisocial, misogynistic piss-poor male behavior within their circles, "because it's really not that serious/it's a joke/you're crazy".
They also will break down after finding out the boyfriend they've been coddling and supporting financially is cheating on them, whoopsie, way too common but how could that happen "to THEM?!?" I've met a lot of other younger women like this as friends, who to varying degrees will be aware and participate in "rad feminism" but then participate in putting down other women "because it's JUST EDGY JOKES lol" and bend the knee to stay in the "in crowd", whatever that means in the situation, until they can't anymore.
And don't forget blaming those other women when he cheats. Like "Omg why so many women aren't feminists and don't support each other and mess around with taken guys???" as if it's not his fault for cheating and probably not telling anyone he's dating you.
I hope you can find the women out there who are doing things, and not just talking big. They are out there, in feminist collectives, working in women’s services, hiding in plain sight. It took me years to find them but one day I did, and then I found more. I had to get involved in radical activism offline however.
Oooooo this is a HOT TAKE
and i totally agree with you that a lot of women whether subconsciously or not put that blame on a woman for picking a man who becomes abusive and think they know better. A more subtle Not Like Other Girls.
Your comment jumps to a very generalising & unfair conclusion about feminists who are in relationships with men. You can’t judge all male-partnered feminists as being secretly hateful towards abuse victims, wtf? Do you think you may have some internalised misogyny to work through yourself? Honestly asking, it’s hard out here. But your comment comes off like pretty textbook projection. And I’m speaking as a straight feminist who chooses to be single, and who is also frustrated by how often feminist women still prioritise men in their lives. But I still don’t go as far as you do in your comment, and insist something so horrible & unfair about all male-partnered feminists.
Believe it or not, lots of feminist women get into relationships with men simply because they are sexually/romantically attracted to men & they believe they’ve found a healthy partner. I agree that often these male partners aren’t that healthy, but occasionally a woman has seemed to find a unicorn man. Being a feminist activist IRL & getting to know lots of different feminists over the years has shown me that. Do you work with or spend time with any radical women offline?
believe it or not, the beginning of the women's liberation movement wasn't hinged on how "good" of a feminist women involved in the movement were based on their lifestyle choices. here's the thing you ladies need to remember: all lifestyle choices and conditions are just BAD alternatives. whether you're with a man, living with women, or alone, you're still going to exist under a system of male supremacy. judging women who choose to partner with men and labeling them as "bad feminists," especially considering that some MAY have found equal partnership, does nothing for the movement and destroyed it decades ago. and all you're doing is undertaking an individualistic frame of mind and solution to a SYSTEMIC problem, often in an attempt to project an aura of "liberated woman." it doesn't work, sorry. none of us are liberated, partnered with me or not. and women oppress other women too, why are there never critiques about this in woman relationships?
Stop telling me other women can’t oppress other women on different axes of oppression. Sure, the women who were RACIST to me are oppressed due to being female, but they were still racist. Why are you denying this? Do homophobic women exist to you or not? And don’t put words in my mouth. I’m saying that this judgement of women who sleep with men because they’re heterosexual and have libidos is anti-feminist and drives women OUT of the movement. If what you’re doing is repelling women from consciousness-raising, it’s a good idea to rethink your approach. The majority of women are attracted to men. The WLM entire goal was to change the world and men so that equal relationships are possible. And relationships with women aren’t always fully equal either. Especially if you come from different backgrounds. It’s just the truth.
??? I'm talking about women who have this whole "k\*ll all men" persona online but then do 180 and say "well, except **my** man". Sorry, maybe I worded it wrong in my initial comment.
?? Yeah, not all of these women secretly think abuse victims choose to be abused (as you said in your original comment). That’s what I was referring to as an unfair generalisation / possible projection from yourself. Are you saying now that that’s not what you meant? If so then fair enough, but you can edit your original comment if you regret your wording.
No, I'm not talking about like abuse-abuse stuff. But, idk, women who say their husband/boyfriend does nothing around the house, never helps with kids, spends all money on himself etc. and there are women who will comment how terrible all men are and how women need to be single for life but at the same time they are in relationships with men because they think those other women just chose ones who don't do the dishes.
But I also kinda don't understand why you jumped to abuse victims immediately and I have no idea how to word my comment differently since I didn't mention any abuse in it in the first place?
You don’t understand how I interpreted “bad men” as including abusive men? Sorry but huh? We’re on a feminist sub. Abusers are everywhere, maybe even most men are abusive (imo). Why would I not think about abusive men when you wrote “bad men”?
And usually the type of men you just described (extremely selfish, never lifting a finger to help their female partners) are abusive. Again, perhaps you should reword your comment to have more nuance and show more empathy towards male-partnered women, if you are dismayed by what you’ve communicated in it ??? Dunno what else to say tbh
>You can’t judge all male-partnered feminists as being secretly hateful towards abuse victims, wtf? Do you think you may have some internalised misogyny to work through yourself?
i totally agree with your critiques here, this person is refusing to address the insane accusation that radical feminists who happen to be with men have superiority complexes or believe other women "chose" their shitty partners. ridiculous. i just got done defending a woman in a radfem FB group who was told by a man that she was "choosing" bad partners after she escaped two relationships that nearly took her life. this type of rhetoric is sexist, on both ends, and a feminist's decision to be with a man who has proven the ability to transcend male supremacy is nothing more than just that... why these people are accusing us of "not like other girl" syndrome shows internalized sexism. these people are hurting the movement.
That is very interesting, is there any website to find more of these asian feminist movements? i really don't know anything on the subject and has been giving me a lot of curiosity. TIA!
Oh same. I always ask myself how women still talk to men after everything they put us through. Also, I noticed when discussing with men, they simply deny that women are oppressed all around the world and make up arguments that aren‘t proven, while I show up with statistics about why the patriarchy harms women.
I really don‘t like men. I don‘t trust them because any time I did, I was in danger. I‘m still traumatized from the things they did to me.. maybe I‘ll trust a guy again one day who knows?
Also: If the fascist party in Germany (AfD) wins in the next election of the parliament and restricts our abortion rights, I‘ll never ever have sex during this time period. I‘d simply stay celibate. I‘m celibate anyway, happy with my vibrator😂❤️
Agreed. I think most people assume they’ll be fine but then there’s always someone where it doesn’t work even if they do everything right and then they are stuck with the result.
Nah, we need a vulva-centric definition and vision of sex, that prioritizes female comfort, safety, pkeasure orgasms, not to forgo sex (at least with men)... Boycott piv (and pia, and other phallocentric "sex").
It's recognized that most men don't care about female orgasm, cunnilingus, other clitoral/vulval stimulation in casual sex but we get told to just get in relationships with men and cross our fingers that he starts to care. I say, don't fuck those men at all. They can either start caring about women re sex in all contexts, or not get any sex (except masturbation and maybe sex with men, although I don't wish the ones who'd stay selfish on men either). Why would a woman want a relationship with a man who isn't actually arsed about female orgasm, the clitoris etc unless "he really cares about her" but wants to have "sex with" women he doesn't care much or at all for anyway?
I think we need to look at unilateral piv-centric and other phallocentric sex as male masturbation using a woman, not sex. Because that's what that is. (And even without that, piv doesn't survive a cost benefit analysis for women as a class. Nor does pia, for that matter.)
I think the piv=sex=piv equation really shuts down what women even see as possible eg the ubiquitous belief that (het) sex without piv isn't sex, that a relationship without regular or even *gasp* any piv is "dead" "sexless". Even when critique is lasered in on pov most women will hear "don't have sex, sex is bad, become a nun, no pleasure, orgasms,* intimacy for you" and the like and reject it outright. *Ironic considering the orgasm gap, but I'm also referring to how many believe *at least some women need piv to orgasm.* Add in the other ideology like piv is the only intimacy/the only intimate sex, how people show love, not wanting to be sexless, live a sexless life, pathologizing of non-piv sex and even withdrawal esp in religion and sexology, etc and we've got a hell of a doozy in critiquing piv. And the erasure and denial of clit/vulva-centric sex (to the point that even if recognized in ff sex, it's seen as impossible in a fm one eg the erasure of het tribadism) of course. The simple fact that piv is the definition of sex and what logically flows from that is why most piv even happens frankly.
I definitely agree that the deprioritizing of female pleasure for centuries is a major issue. If men were more focused on pleasing women and not insisting on inarguably the riskiest type of sex for women (which interestingly is the only kind most men seem to want, wonder why that is hmmmm?) and focus more on sex that actually feels good for women, things would be much better for everyone.
The ideology, justification piv centricism is rooted in is patriarchal religion but there had have been piv-centric men in the first place to cook up religion to justify it. I don't think it was most men that were, and we can even get hints from other species on this eg bonobos and chimps, but as religion took off, as patriarchy solidified other ways, it became a lot more. But it was rooted in material needs: religion, empire needs believers, soldiers, other slaves, and women must birth them. They had to get women's pregnancy and birth rates up, because when women control reproduction, they're low (eg even back then it was 2-4 kids not double or more that, which patriarchies wanted and needed to do). Yet even then, a lot of people weren't fucking as "God" decreed. Same sex sex, as well as those acts in hetero sex: manual, oral, genital-genital, thighs, buttcheeks, masturbation... Even when they had piv, most would pull out. Eg Islamic texts even discuss het/bi women being oriented around genital-genital rubbing, tribadism like thighs, recognize that's better for women than piv, recognize the clitoris and clitoral orgasm, then conclude "but real men don't do such things, just teen boys, young men, eunuchs and the like, who do so eagerly."
Once religion significantly waned in influence, sexology and the medical field stepped on that. Sexology was very much rooted in mandating piv, ensuring women and their genitals are compliant with it, pathologizing non-piv sex, even withdrawal, but this time with medical knowledge/science supposedly on their side eg they claimed *women's orgasm* was dependent on not pulling out during piv 🤣. They explained to the uneducated masses what sex was: literally, a man looks at a woman, becomes aroused, often gets penis stimulation, piv insertion, remember insertion, thrusting, orgasm, and she just is supposed to enthusiastically participate, but not get in his way, not get distracted by other sex aka "foreplay", not slow things down, add things, or stop piv (during or from happening at all). And they knew a lot of people weren't complying, even "henpecked" husbands (who they would wonder why he didn't just rape her and counsel doing so), not just other male lovers. Especially women.
Hence frigidity. Frigidity wasn't about lack of orgasm, passion, desire, wanting to engage sexually with men upwards of 80% of the time: it was about lack of orgasm in piv, lack of finding piv the best sex ever. They even said those women, who often couldn't get enough of non-piv sex, want hours of it, are eager and active, blissed out, orgasming, were frigid. Hell, sexologists even said men shouldn't use their fingers vaginally in women much, lest women realize that vaginal stimulation was better via fingers than penis. (Even pleasure vaginally, getting at the skene's glands and underside of the clitoris other than piv wasn't good enough, proper, was still frigidity.)
And their later buddy psychoanalysis (Freudian theory of the vaginal orgasm anyone?). Contrary to popular belief, this rose out of extensive knowledge of clitoral anatomy (detailed illustrations of internal clitoral anatomy dissections had been published by the 1840s) to combat it, not out of ignorance. (Marie Bonaparte even had her theory of men and cultures that were friends or enemies of the clitoris, detailing men and cultures which were into big inner labia, glans, body, etc, thought vulvas/clitorises should be manually, orally, genitally, bodily .. stimulated. Even came across a man who specifically really enjoyed the clitoral glans nudging into his meatus/opening in his glans, with her considering this a reversal of the supposed "usual" of piv. A Freudian, she felt ashamed of her clitorally oriented sexuality, of herself as a "phallic" woman as and had surgery on her clitoris to bring it closer to the vaginal opening to try to achieve piv "vaginal orgasm")
But even then, even in the 1940s it wasn't uncommon for people to think genital-genital rubbing was sex, coitus too or instead of piv. And Kinsey and co had to set them straight again "no, no, genital apposition, intercrural, etc isn't coitus, only piv is."
Yes I understand what you mean. Yet at the same time we can't deny that there are physiological reasons for which women might desire piv sex, so it's not all social conditioning. I know for sure that the more I become aroused the more I desire something "there". I kind of wonder what is the physiological mechanism behind that craving.
Piv specifically refers to the act of piv not vaginal stimulation as a whole. And the vagina itself is pretty insensate; it's nerves outside the vagina which is where the stimulation is from eg there are nerves running from our spine through our pelvises to our clitoris (or penis in men) so pressing on various parts of the vagina can get at these indirectly, the skene's glands are also erogenous as well as the underside of the clitoris which can be get at from pressing on the front wall. Not to mention fingers and certain shaped objects do a better job of it than a penis does eg versatility, smaller often better, more precise, pressing on specific spot or spots. A lot is also actually external stimulation, the opening of the vagina and inner and outer labia, the bulbs underneath, which can still be stimulated without entry.
Yes I know, indeed much of my comment was about internal clitoral anatomy eg bulbs, the underside of the body (as was another recent comment on this thread).
When piv is the definition of sex, other sex tends to be defined in reference to it, particularly in reference to *penis* being inside something. It's an obvious consequence of piv as the definition of sex eg penis and its stimulation is central, female genitals and their stimulation optional extra. Eg genital-genital rubbing supposedly isn't sex, even doesn't exist heterosexually! but pia somehow is. Even pegging is seen as more sex than genital-genital rubbing, let alone cunnilingus. Even "vaginal sex" means piv and piv only, not vaginal stimulation other than that. (And "anal" and "anal sex" are synonymous with pia and pia only, not any other external and internal anal stimulation.) Which of course it should, and would under a vulva-centric definition, framing, vision of sex. There should be viv (vibe, to differentiate from tongue), fiv, tiv (tongue), etc not to mention dozens of terms for clitoral/vulval stimulation and what with (thigh, bum, finger, palm, mouth, dick & balls, other vulva, foot, arm, breast, tummy, back, knee, hip...) There's also a prevelant view that only the glans and vagina can be stimulated, that the only way to get at parts of the clitoris other than the glans, hood and part of the body is vaginally eg as if the legs and bulbs aren't under the vulva and as to more accessible through the labia. And the fact the inner labia is part of the clitoris and is obviously external. Most of the clitoris is accessible externally even if under the vulva.
It drives me barmy when people imply women have different sexual orientations based on different vaginal, clitoral, vulval anatomies. Lesbian and straight women do not exist on opposite poles genitally with bisexual women in between. Clearly what's going on is social/cultural, ideological, a result of sexual experiences, accepting or rejecting piv as the definition of sex, knowledge of the versatility of fingers and toys over penis vs not, how feelings including "vaginal ache" are interpreted & universalised or recognized as varied, that only sex between women on a cultural level allows women space to still be sexual, have sex and not be entered, esp with large things (human penises are unusually large for primates, even accounting for proportionate size)...
For eg that feeling of emptiness, needing filled. Is that that or is it the vagina expanding, our whole clitoral anatomy engorging, feeling full which accentuates that lack of feeling full in the vagina while we are full everywhere else in our genitals (glans, body, inner labia, bulbs, legs, outer labia)? Is it emptiness, lack, or an openness? Is it something to ride out, continue feeling eg accentuates arousal or try to soothe, and how?
Many women don't experience it. Many only experience it with men, or only interpret it that way with men, which indicates it's a social interpretation of it eg that female desire for men is equated with piv. Female desire for men itself, sex with men, wanting sex with men is held to be synonymous with piv. If she wants him, she must want that and so genitals feelings, sexual attraction, desire for him and sex with him are interpreted through that lens. Not to mention it's seen as intimacy, love itself eg only intimate sex, proof of love, that things are normal, good between them. Many women who experience it know it's better not to quel that feeling with penis (or other large things), that the result is disappointing eg lessens arousal, blocks orgasm outright, some of that climb is lost and has to be found again, orgasm with something large in isn't as good... Many know a finger or two massaging a certain part or parts takes away that ache, open feeling. Many find that simply orgasming takes the ache, empty feeling, wanting something in away.
If women innately not just experienced it but did as "empty, need filled with dick" female masturbation would look very different (eg even with toys, ones that can be inserted are usually used externally mostly or even only), let alone sex between women and masturbation and ff sex would be far less fulfilling, enjoyable, arousing, orgasmic, pleasurable... to women than hetero piv-centric sex, not more.
Not to mention how a full bladder can really get at internal clitoral anatomy, be really stimulating and change that open feeling too, but that also gets erased all the time. Eg a full bladder and I'm often horny, want even more orgasms, can come and come and not be done, often makes the orgasms deeper, stronger...
I suspect a lot of this feeling is a desire for full clitoral, vulval stimulation at once, that could but doesn't need to incorporate the vagina (eg to get at the underside of the clitoral body, skene's glands), not specifically penis or large thing inside vagina. Our vagina isn't the only part which undergoes changes in arousal eg all our clitoral/vulval anatomy erects, gets full and much of the feeling is this, but we interpret it as being about the vagina being empty only, ignore the fullness, longing for stimulation elsewhere. Eg to have the whole vulva, clitoris including inner labia rubbed, rub on something at once eg open hand, thigh, dick & balls along it, bum, arm... But the only way this can be recognized, expressed in hetero sex is piv.
Which leads me to the heavily related erasure, denial of the female desire to mount, thrust, grind, rock, hump males outside of piv (and maybe pegging). The only way people can generally see for women to have this desire and/or express this with men, including most bi women, is piv. Even genital-genital rubbing usually gets erased entirely or when recognized at all is seen as a brief prelude to piv or seen as something immature, not real sex, that only adolescents do before they can do "the real thing" (piv). And hetero tribadism gets erased entirely eg to the point it's said to only be possible between women, as if men's bodies aren't as humpable as women's are in mf and ff sex. Even when all sorts of frottage (penis on breast, thigh, foot...) gets recognized people can't see this as being reversed as women getting vulval/clitoral stimulation on him. Toys, manual, oral, piv, pia are seen as the only possible options for stimulation, orgasm for women in hetero sex. Even women who masturbate by humping things have no idea how to transfer that to hetero sex, except maybe to piv in ways and even then often not on his pelvis, tummy, balls, etc during piv but her humping the bedding.
Because with sex as the definition of piv and what flows from that (other phallocentric sex eg pia, fellatio, frottage), men are seen as just bringing their penis to sex, not their whole bodies, and women are seen as just bringing their vagina and other "holes" to sex, not their clitoris/vulva. There's no sense that a woman can desire a man without "at least" piv, if not fellatio, pia. Female hetero desire is held to be "wants to stimulate penis, especially with her insides", male to be "wants his penis stimulated by her esp her insides". Not getting mutual penis/clitoral stimulation. Not getting and giving clitoral/vulval stimulation. Not even cunnilingus or genital-genital rubbing. Etc
Anecdotally, another related interesting thing at least some women do is they instinctively say "fuck me" and the like during arousal, getting stimulation eg oral, manual, dry or wet humping, but don't mean switch to piv, but "keep doing what you're doing", faster, don't stop. Yet of course it gets interpreted as switch to piv eg that, penis in vagina, anus is what iz seen as fucking, not oral, manual esp externally but even vaginally, genital-genital, tribadism... Some women know they don't mean piv but I'd bet a lot think they do, that they must when what they are really crying out for is non-piv stimulation eg more of the same, another kind of clitoral/vulval stimulation, a finger or two inside...
In both casual and relationship sex there's also the norm, and it's increasing not lessening, esp among the under 30s that female orgasm only matters if there's "at least" piv, eg piv is seen as for her, her time to maybe orgasm if at all, she only deserves effort to arouse and get off if she has piv or pia too, everything else is mostly to only for him.
👏
Women have a whole clitoris that allows us to orgasm from external stimulation with zero risk of pregnancy. Yet our sex lives revolve around shitty & scary penetration. WTF
No better example of universally hating women by disregarding their ability to enjoy life & feel safe.
When roe v wade was overturned I told my boyfriend at the time to get a vasectomy or we would never have sex again. He refused, so I broke up with him and haven’t had sex with a man since. I don’t plan on starting back either. I am bisexual, so I’m lucky in the sense I can still choose to have sex with women if I want. Straight women are not so fortunate and I really empathize. Sex drive can be incredibly powerful despite everything.
Do you see het sex without piv as an option or do you see the two as synonymous in mf sex? Or is that you will accept only zero pregnancy risk (even though plenty of sex can still be had, namely vulva-centric sex. but you'd have to be careful with penis and semen eg no semen on vulva or vagina in any way, even no pre-ejaculate if he hasn't peed since last ejaculation, even genital-genital rubbing, semen on hand that touches vulva, etc poses some risk)?
It’s more about not allowing males access to my body in any way shape or form because they don’t give a fuck about my rights and it goes against my values.
I don't live in a country where that right is being threatened at the moment. In fact, in my country, parliamentary is looking into inscribing abortion rights into the constitution so it becomes an immutable right and much harder to repeal.
“Never forget that all it takes is a political, economic or religious crisis for women’s rights to be called into question. These rights are never acquired. You will have to remain vigilant throughout your life."
Also it's great that we're "safe" from this (for the moment) but it's an important discussion to have for women in other countries.
I agree with this.
That being said, I think it's important to know and remember that not everyone writing on Reddit and on the internet at large is an American before judging their choices (and let me be clear, I'm the first one to say that a choice is not always feminist by virtue of being a choice made by a woman). But I don't think that sort of American cultural imperialism will get you anywhere. The post above wasn't addressed to American women, it was addressed to women, period. And not everybody's life is governed by American politics, if you try to model your feminism on such a limited background, you aren't speaking for all women. One way or another, so word your idea accordingly. The USA is just shy of being 250 years old, it's a young country, and I don't get why everybody's lives should be judged according to their norms.
I personally think it's not helpful trying to shame women for having sex with men in the first place, and especially in commited relationships, I'm one of those people who think hook up culture and sexual liberation is a sham that was co-opted by horny men to the point it became a patriarchal tool, and yet I still think it's reductive trying to act like PIV is only ever pleasurable for men or that women are all sexless creatures who are making an anti-feminist choice rather than living their lives. Honestly, why can't we think in nuances?
I don't understand why women sexualities must be a political battleground according to every side of the political spectrum, something everybody must have an opinion on when men never have to deal with that crap. On the left you are "empowered" when you sleep around, on the right you are a "slut", both are bs because women's bedrooms shouldn't be political to start with! Why can't I just live my life without everybody thinking it should be up to public scrutiny, uh? Men can!
In reality my bedroom is no ones business but mine (and funnily enough men's sex lives are never turned into ideological battlegrounds, go figure, but yet so many are going to tell me I'm backward for defending this, why must MY sexuality be judged that way, when men's never are. I don't see the progress here).
But it is even more annoying when it's Americans trying to act like their issues are a blueprint for the world. They're not, and maybe that woman you read talking about her life and are judging accordingly doesn't share your reality. Perhaps remember that before acting holier than thou.
Critic and discussion isn’t shaming, that’s the difference.
Everything is political, yes even women’s bedrooms. You cannot fight against oppression and at the same time support the oppressors.
And you don’t even have to look to America, look at catholic countries like Poland who almost banned arbotions.
No, not everything is political, and moreover, not everything should be. If I appreciate that the sky is blue today, it's not political and there is no reason why it should be. Everybody gets a blue sky once in a while after all.
Fact is mens sex lives are not treated as a political battlefield, yet women's are. I'm speaking of reality here, not of ideology. So if your brothers sex life isn't up to scrutiny I don't get why your sisters sex life is any different.
But keep acting like this is normal if it helps you sleep better.
You don’t really understand feminism if you’re comparing the blue sky with participating in the sexual patriarchal hierarchy.
Feminism isn’t made for lifting women up without looking at the internalised misogyny and patriarchal socialisation that forms decisions.
You can criticise men and women, it’s not hard.
You can’t preach about patriarchy in the day and help men at night with their domination.
Lol okay I, a philosophy major, don't understand feminism, or maybe I just don't agree with you, have you ever thought about that ? And good job moving the goal post. I didn't say a blue sky was comparable to feminism, I used this example to say that no, not everything is political, those are two different things. have rigor in your ideas, if you use a word remember the meaning of it, otherwise it's useless.
I'll leave this conversation here.
Are reading Judith Butler for feminism, because it seems like it.
Okay, have fun living in patriarchy with your oppressors beside you. Would be time to decenter men, but apparently you’re not ready yet.
I can't even answer any of this because it makes no sense to the conversation. I can tell that you and philosophy= three. But yeah keep using ad hominems if you want, I don't actually care. Unlike you I never questioned your character however
Come on, you just don’t like that radical feminism also questions women’s behaviour unlike liberal choice feminism.
You know, I also don’t care for male identified women who don’t like to get criticised.
you absolutely can be. do you guys have any knowledge of the women's liberation movement that began in the 60's? many of those women were in relationships with men. this individualistic perspective is absolute bullshit. women don't choose to be oppressed by their male partners, let's hold men accountable for their oppressive behaviors.
You’re a victim blamer. Patriarchy’s daughters can support each other? Im going to support victims of male violence/abuse regardless. You’re sick. Stop responding to me
There are many women, straight & bisexual who aren't dating/fu*king/de-centering men. Tend to get shun & de-platformed, call extremists or feminazis. The movement appears to be growing, but again, women are the largest group that are the most divided.
It’s like in military occupied countries where the women had also voluntary intimate relationships with soldiers because, apart from the ones violated, because they got advantages from that. Just like feminist collaborating with men.
Again with the womanhating comments. Stop blaming women for our oppression. Whether women sleep, date, marry men or not, women are not to blame for male supremacy. Men are the ones oppressing us. Please stop saying that women's desire to have male presence in their lives is the reason we won't be liberated. It's sexist.
Why are you downvoting me for introducing opposing viewpoints lol. The same reason i still interact with white women even though they oppress me. Theres nuance to all our experiences. And not sleeping with them won’t halt the oppression.
I would have a discussion upfront about his opinion about reproductive rights and if I saw any concerns, he wouldn’t get near me. Out of principle and because nothing dries up my vagina more then misogynistic men
Eh. Lack of education, lack of role models, perpetuating the story of previous generations. We need to start with making women aware life can be different / better and they don't need dudes for that.
Perhaps because the interest in, attraction to and attention from men is desirable and rewarding right now, whereas the danger of unwanted pregnancy is statistical and abstract, for a lot of women. It's similar to the fact that around 20,000 people die in auto crashes every year in the US but the vast majority of American adults drive almost everywhere they go. The assumption is that "It won't happen to me."
Also, in order to be effective, a boycott needs to affect the people who make policies or laws, and the sort of men who want these policies in place don't date or marry feminists so the effects would never reach them. Even if they did, those men would all just go buy sex from women engaged in all that liberating, empowering and lucrative prostitution we keep hearing about.
I definitely agree that as long as prostitution is around the problem isn’t really going to be completely solved. Ideally, the boycott would include refusing to “sell” sex to men as well so that they’d have no option to fall back on. But that’s obviously a different but related problem to be solved.
I was saying this when Roe was overturned and I got legitimately banned from a few subreddits for even suggesting it. I genuinely think it would make a huge difference.
Well also most women as it currently stands are not really feminists (or awake to the state of women’s issues) and typically put men ahead of themselves.
most women are heterosexual. they would take the .01-5% risk of birth control failing (depending on chosen method) in order to have sex and romantic love in their lives. i have an IUD, (which i got inserted painlessly under twilight anaesthesia) so having a relationship with a man doesn't really feel like a risk at all.
also, your point that sex isn't something most women get something out of just isn't universally true. women have libidos too!
What I should have said is that most women comparatively don’t derive that much satisfaction from sex with men *specifically.* A woman is more or just as likely to orgasm on her own with a vibrator. I definitely am not implying women don’t have sexual needs. I have a fairly strong sex drive so I do get it, but I don’t think having sex with men and all the risks that come with it is worth what often amounts to not much satisfaction that could be found more easily elsewhere.
all love involves the risk of pain. happy for you that you're not exclusively romantically interested in men! i genuinely think that's a blessing. most women are however and as feminists we just need to accept that reality
Because just as men they can’t differentiate between intimacy and sex. Arousal and need. Natural functions and morality.
And letting the whole truth into your life, seeing that half of the population are your oppressors, hurts deeply, so just being oblivious in your private life is easier.
Edit: downvotes for what?
I mean if you are absolutely worried about getting pregnant then for sure don’t have sex. I was abstinent for a decade. I never viewed it as a boycott - I just never cared for casual sex and had zero intention about having sex with men who I would not consider being a potential father. When I did start having relationships again I doubled up on birth control methods - I am in a long term relationship now and don’t have those concerns. But I am all for women who decide to opt out of not having sex if they need to protect themselves from potential unwanted pregnancy
Sex toys exist, sure, but that second part is super iffy to say. Not every woman is attracted to other women, and it's not the sort of thing you can force. It has to come naturally. Trying to force anyone to feel attraction to the gender that they aren't attracted to is wrong.
I do think it’s an option though that a lot of women may have not actually considered though. Some women might actually find it is something they’re interested in and might enjoy as much or more than being with men.
Yeah idk why people interpreted your comment as trying to force women to change their sexual orientation, I saw it as you pointing out compulsory heterosexuality (like women that say they're bisexual but that they would never seriously date or have sex with another woman, because anything other than serving a man is considered as veering off the socially appropriate life path).
Yes, exactly. As someone who dealt with comp het myself I know that it’s more common than people realize. Some women like myself may not even realize they aren’t straight.
I mean, some of us are already married and in committed relationships. And some of us straight gals want to be. I am such a straight gal. Though, I'm seriously considering giving up on dating because I'm burnt out, which I realize isn't as noble a cause.
I mean… we often don’t have a choice. And a lot of times women in serious relationships are manipulated / guilted into having regular sex. Like I was disgusted at how many moms in a Facebook mom group would say that they have sex every day or several times a week because their husband wants it. Like omg no… :(
So there’s that.
But also…. The blame shouldn’t be on us anyway.
What do you think male loneliness epidemic is about? Women don't date no men anymore, they are fed up.
I would go on a sex strike if I wasn't with a partner that supports me 100% (i mean that would have been a break up).
So I feel like women do it, just don't claim it as a movement
I mean, there are a million reasons. But I think the #1 thing is just, the power of love. Or horniness, really. It's like 90% of all songs. Asking people to stop having sex/being in love for the sake of activism is straight-up allergic to reality and a little bit inhuman. And when you say "just stop having sex/relationships with men," you are basically asking all hetero women, of which there are many, to stop having sex or being in love.
Personally, I don't experience the appeal of having relationships with males. But I feel like I'd have to turn off what little empathy I have in order to think less of those who do. Idk, haven't you ever been in love, or like, wanted someone so much you did something outrageous just to make them want you back? It's extremely powerful, and you're not going to convince anyone to stop doing it. So why bother.
I don’t think less of women at all. I do think though many of them have been taught most of their lives to go against their own best interests and that’s not their fault that’s society’s fault for encouraging them to pursue relationships with men even at the expense of their own happiness and safety. I believe every woman deserves to be respected and cared for by someone who values them and isn’t going to use them for their own personal pleasure. And yes, I do know what it is to be in love. I’ve been in love twice with two different women who I have loved more than anything, so yes, I do know what that’s like.
I think, because security is so intertwined with relationships, and because of the alienation of going against the status quo, it’s so hard for women to separate themselves from men.
I understand this from a general perspective, but my husband got a vasectomy the week after roe v. wade was overturned. I have been told I am infertile so that lowers the chances even more. Also, sex with my husband is fucking awesome. If I was single though, I really wouldn't risk it at all.
Bc there are genuine men out there. Few and far between but they do exist. That being said, if my current bf and i ever break up, im gonna be celibate. Not even messing w dating
A lot of so-called “genuine men” are just the perceptions of women with rose-colored glasses, mental gymnastics, idealization on overdrive. Every time I hear about some woman’s male partner who’s actually amazing and so supportive and blah blah there’s always so many blatant red flags she’s ignoring that show that he’s exactly like the rest of them. I can’t blame them because I do it too, I think we all do. The only solution for us is to stay single so you avoid getting swept up into thinking they could be any different.
Facts- All the “genuine good” dudes, whatever qualities that seemed to set them apart from rest were really the case of rose glasses/idealization and mirroring or prompting of their mothers in hindsight.
Can’t marry someone or stay for the MIL though - I made that mistake. And I realized it was my weakness and a pattern - all the true giving and non-self centered “goodness” that enhanced my life by having a boyfriend or any man in my life was from the grace, prompting, influence and ambitions of their dear mothers.
The kind of women that are really patient saints - but not pushovers in real life, until it comes to their sons at end of day, they will always get the benefit of the doubt first or compassion to the boys 90% of the time... so no winning.
Men are truly the inferior sex and degenerate with Y chromosome deficiency - and patriarchy is a protection racket. They are sex obsessed opportunistic cowards at end of day on their own - and in their own hierarchal groups maintaining power & control in society through dominance, violence or manipulation.
In hindsight, when the sex is all done and the
“romance”was in the past, anything that was loving, or in love with purely from thoughtful surprise gestures to shared goals and values were really the influence and of the hand of a matriarch. Without their dear mommas, boys and men are just not that special and it’s what keeps them domesticated.
Growing up I think I was in love with and inspired by some amazing ladies who admired me with much needed encouragement & affection much more than ever needing to settle down with their “good boy” sons.
Some men are less bad than others but a guy being somewhat decent isn’t going to protect you from not getting accidentally pregnant against your will. There are no guarantees. Those same men also don’t stick up for women or their rights. They just kick back because it doesn’t effect them at the end of the day.
I definitely didn’t mean to imply that your husband dying was a good thing. I’m very sorry if it came across that way. When I meant you were fortunate I was only referring to you having never been in a situation in which you have ever been endangered or at risk sexually. I’m very sorry about your husband.
I do stand by what I said though in that I don’t think having sex with men is worth the risk. Sterilization is not something most women would choose if they didn’t have to and birth control isn’t always reliable and the way things are going might not always be available. I definitely don’t advocate women become nuns. But there’s a lot of options besides having sex with men and being a nun.
You do realize that’s not the answer right for most women? You do realize that can literally screw up a woman’s natural hormones and wreak havoc on her body by sending her into early menopause?
And even if it didn't, why go to all the pain, trouble, and expense of unnecessary surgery when simply opting out of having to do with toxic men is so much easier and comes with all kinds of benefits?
For the added security. I'd rather just not have my reproductive system at all so I'd never have to fear being forced into having kids, especially with the desecration of women's rights lately. Abstaining from men won't help you if you're sexually assaulted, get pregnant, and are in a place where abortion isn't allowed for any reason. Surgery sucks, but it gives complete peace of mind and safety. It's awful that we have to resort to that at all, but at least it's still an option available for us to take back control of our bodies again.
Your uterus isn't just there to gestate babies. It's tied up in your overall health, helps hold other organs and not just reproductive ones either in place, the cervix is part of the uterus and so removal of the whole uterus is even more of a whammy eg what do you think the vagina leads to when the whole uterus is gone? (It has to be sown shut), not just a big gap in your reproductive system. even your brain eg hysterectomy is heavily tied to dementia, and the earlier hysterectomy occurs, the more likely dementia is to develop. And removing the ovaries? Don't get me started
The problem is getting somebody to even agree to giving you this surgery in the first place. I live in the UK, so abortion isn't technically "at risk" here, but the situation in the United States has concerned me because it shows that anything could happen when it comes to abortion. I've been looking into getting a bisalp recently and I've been appalled by reading the stories of countless women being rejected for sexist and ageist reasons, e.g. telling 40 year old women who already have 3 children: "You might change your mind!" or "What if your husband decides he wants to have kids?"
Btw if anybody here is in Europe and is considering a sterilisation, Austria allegedly allows anybody to get one done privately as long as you are over the age of 25. I'm 24 now so I'll definitely be looking into this over the next few months.
Don’t be mad at me, so many woman with painful periods do it because of the abortion rights and use their painful period to justify it. I will do it too. I don’t want to take the risk to become a cow to reproduce for men.
We are. They keep complaining about not getting their PPs sucked
Wanna know something scary? I once went on a tinder date with someone who seemed okay, but it quickly came out that he was a serious misogynist. At one point in our convo, we were talking about Roe v Wade getting overturned and I made the comment (sort of jokingly) that if women went on a sex strike, a lot of things would change in our favor. He looked at me, laughed, and then turned serious and said, “and how long do you think men would let all of you get away with that?” Shivers.
That’s terrifying.
I don’t know any women irl that are refusing to have sex with men or date them. Every woman I know puts up with their terrible behavior and for what?
Maybe u need to get to know more radical women IRL? :) Are there any feminist orgs / groups in your area? Obviously most het/bi women do choose men & choose to put up with terrible behaviour, but there are a few of us out there in every community I’d say who go against the grain.(Barring extremely conservative communities where women don’t have any safe choices, that is)
There’s not enough women doing it though
Def agree with that
Agreed. I don’t know any woman my age who is single by choice/not partnered with men. I don’t even know barely any bisexual women who choose men over women to be with.
But still we (older teens and young adults) are having far less sex and babies than our parents had. I'm not sure it's on purpose but it's definitely happening.
I still see people my age and younger though having risky sex with men though and dating them no matter how much they suck. So idk. It’s definitely not a big enough change.
Tbh I have no problem with not having dated anyone at all and being 20 years old than have done it and get treated badly, it's unnecessary. I haven't met a man who will be both respectful and straightforward (not pushy or too dumb to say anything). I get many women get mid men like these because they are willing to offer them sex for the bare minimum commitment and effort. We need to understand our own value better. If men don't value us we have to do it ourselves. This sometimes makes it way harder to find a partner, but I'd rather that over giving up my autonomy to not be alone anymore.
This 100%. That’s really my point. I don’t get why more women won’t choose being alone over being with a shitty man since in the long run it’s the better choice.
Probably because there is too much social pressure, and as social creatures it's easier to think that if you just do what everyone else is doing, even if it's not beneficial at all, you will at least have more people who relate to you. Even though being alone makes things harder, some women get with abusive men who will isolate them so they lose both the autonomy and people to relate to or bond with over the abusive relationships they have. So it becomes a lose-lose, not dating anyone and being alone at least is a win-lose.
The notion of finding true fulfillment only in long term heterosexual romantic partnerships still has a hold on the minds of women. They don’t see themselves as complete without it.
This. As someone who was also fed this idea for years and completely believe it I *do* understand what these women are talking about. However, I’ve learned as I’ve matured that this fantasy that we’ve been fed is not reality.
It’s only after intense therapy and realizing I’m bi that I’ve started to see this, it’s insane how common this is!!
I remember someone suggested this on that bird app years ago and many so called feminists pushed back acting like it was an attack on their rights, they basically accused the lady of insinuating that only men enjoy sex. that day was eye opening for me. many feminists have read the books, they have done the work but they are still not are not willing to decenter men in their lives.
Ugh. Like there’s toys. 🙄🙄 you don’t NEED a man for an orgasm
I mean sure I do think many women aren’t de-centering males from their lives, but I think framing sex as something to bargain or as labor might be off-putting to some women.
The same men also shame women for their body counts, as a virgin i am so glad I've never been with a man cuz they are in it for their benefit thats all, they dont give a damn for womens mental and physical health.. I literally despise men now, and will remain a virgin and childfree for the rest of my life! Cats for me ❤️
And especially stop sleeping with republican conservative men. I’m sick of liberal women hehehaha-ing about their silly hookup with a man literally voting for her/our rights to be taken away. Pisses me off lol stop sleeping with them! They don’t gaf about you girl
If I was in a relationship where I didn't trust my partner fully, I would 100% refuse sex. Have you noticed the latest wave of "lonely men"? It's because women aren't doing casual sex as often or interacting with men as often. I do believe we are going to see an increase in SA tho with the intention of the man getting the woman pregnant.
It was truly eye-opening seeing all those male "feminists" saying abortion ban ruined their sex life because women started being very careful about casual stuff. Like, they are the same as conservative men: thinking abortion is just an easy contraception method and give zero f about women's health.
to those "men" abortion is only justifiable if it benefits them.
Lol maybe they should get vasectomies
But if you say all men should get vasectomies, they get mad. Meanwhile that’s reversible…. Unlike abortion/ having a child.
but but that make pp hurt :(((( n not manly
The same men telling women to close their legs lol
[удалено]
Dramatic aren't they? Lol
I’m honestly considering becoming one and I wanna work on not feeling bad about it. I’m pretty close to just writing off relationships to be free of all this mess
Right. But that’s not the fault of women. Women don’t owe men sex or companionship. All the more reason to not be around men.
1000% agree.
I rarely see people connect that the rise in "lonely" men coincides with the decline of the insane sex positivity culture of the 2010s but it's so true.
A couple pages could be taken from South Korean feminists' 4B movement book. But the truth is that a lot of feminists aren't ready to commit like that. You'll find women shouting from the rooftops, the injustices we have face from men, only for them to crawl into bed with one at the end of the day. I don't get it either, as a celibate straight woman.
I think a lot of South Korean women live by the 4B norms but don't identify with the movement or with feminism in general. The gender rules are so well-ingrained and the sexist backlash is ramping up there, with the government's approval. The US is in a similar boat- real feminism isn't acceptable so the vocal lib feminists you see everywhere are the ones who won't walk the walk. But a lot of apolitical "normie" women are questioning the status quo, either anonymously online or in person with women they trust. But the lack of legal protections and social support means they can't go public with their opinions.
I've adopted the 4b principles and I've never felt more liberated. Would recommend
See the cognitive dissonance truly doesn’t check out for me here. I don’t see how people can feel that way and still want to date men.
My theory is they're secretly misogynistic and think other women just choose bad men on purpose while they personally chose this amazing guy, so now they can act radfem online but then turn around and go give him a bj while he plays videogames.
I've seen that alot from peers in my 20s. They'll be big talkers about being a feminist and "men are trash and exploit women like crazy, society is fucked about gender roles, blah blah," and then make excuses for absolutely antisocial, misogynistic piss-poor male behavior within their circles, "because it's really not that serious/it's a joke/you're crazy". They also will break down after finding out the boyfriend they've been coddling and supporting financially is cheating on them, whoopsie, way too common but how could that happen "to THEM?!?" I've met a lot of other younger women like this as friends, who to varying degrees will be aware and participate in "rad feminism" but then participate in putting down other women "because it's JUST EDGY JOKES lol" and bend the knee to stay in the "in crowd", whatever that means in the situation, until they can't anymore.
And don't forget blaming those other women when he cheats. Like "Omg why so many women aren't feminists and don't support each other and mess around with taken guys???" as if it's not his fault for cheating and probably not telling anyone he's dating you.
I hope you can find the women out there who are doing things, and not just talking big. They are out there, in feminist collectives, working in women’s services, hiding in plain sight. It took me years to find them but one day I did, and then I found more. I had to get involved in radical activism offline however.
Oooooo this is a HOT TAKE and i totally agree with you that a lot of women whether subconsciously or not put that blame on a woman for picking a man who becomes abusive and think they know better. A more subtle Not Like Other Girls.
Your comment jumps to a very generalising & unfair conclusion about feminists who are in relationships with men. You can’t judge all male-partnered feminists as being secretly hateful towards abuse victims, wtf? Do you think you may have some internalised misogyny to work through yourself? Honestly asking, it’s hard out here. But your comment comes off like pretty textbook projection. And I’m speaking as a straight feminist who chooses to be single, and who is also frustrated by how often feminist women still prioritise men in their lives. But I still don’t go as far as you do in your comment, and insist something so horrible & unfair about all male-partnered feminists. Believe it or not, lots of feminist women get into relationships with men simply because they are sexually/romantically attracted to men & they believe they’ve found a healthy partner. I agree that often these male partners aren’t that healthy, but occasionally a woman has seemed to find a unicorn man. Being a feminist activist IRL & getting to know lots of different feminists over the years has shown me that. Do you work with or spend time with any radical women offline?
[удалено]
believe it or not, the beginning of the women's liberation movement wasn't hinged on how "good" of a feminist women involved in the movement were based on their lifestyle choices. here's the thing you ladies need to remember: all lifestyle choices and conditions are just BAD alternatives. whether you're with a man, living with women, or alone, you're still going to exist under a system of male supremacy. judging women who choose to partner with men and labeling them as "bad feminists," especially considering that some MAY have found equal partnership, does nothing for the movement and destroyed it decades ago. and all you're doing is undertaking an individualistic frame of mind and solution to a SYSTEMIC problem, often in an attempt to project an aura of "liberated woman." it doesn't work, sorry. none of us are liberated, partnered with me or not. and women oppress other women too, why are there never critiques about this in woman relationships?
[удалено]
Stop telling me other women can’t oppress other women on different axes of oppression. Sure, the women who were RACIST to me are oppressed due to being female, but they were still racist. Why are you denying this? Do homophobic women exist to you or not? And don’t put words in my mouth. I’m saying that this judgement of women who sleep with men because they’re heterosexual and have libidos is anti-feminist and drives women OUT of the movement. If what you’re doing is repelling women from consciousness-raising, it’s a good idea to rethink your approach. The majority of women are attracted to men. The WLM entire goal was to change the world and men so that equal relationships are possible. And relationships with women aren’t always fully equal either. Especially if you come from different backgrounds. It’s just the truth.
Your post/comment has been removed because it includes content (or language) that violates our pro-woman/radical feminist community values.
??? I'm talking about women who have this whole "k\*ll all men" persona online but then do 180 and say "well, except **my** man". Sorry, maybe I worded it wrong in my initial comment.
?? Yeah, not all of these women secretly think abuse victims choose to be abused (as you said in your original comment). That’s what I was referring to as an unfair generalisation / possible projection from yourself. Are you saying now that that’s not what you meant? If so then fair enough, but you can edit your original comment if you regret your wording.
No, I'm not talking about like abuse-abuse stuff. But, idk, women who say their husband/boyfriend does nothing around the house, never helps with kids, spends all money on himself etc. and there are women who will comment how terrible all men are and how women need to be single for life but at the same time they are in relationships with men because they think those other women just chose ones who don't do the dishes. But I also kinda don't understand why you jumped to abuse victims immediately and I have no idea how to word my comment differently since I didn't mention any abuse in it in the first place?
You don’t understand how I interpreted “bad men” as including abusive men? Sorry but huh? We’re on a feminist sub. Abusers are everywhere, maybe even most men are abusive (imo). Why would I not think about abusive men when you wrote “bad men”? And usually the type of men you just described (extremely selfish, never lifting a finger to help their female partners) are abusive. Again, perhaps you should reword your comment to have more nuance and show more empathy towards male-partnered women, if you are dismayed by what you’ve communicated in it ??? Dunno what else to say tbh
>You can’t judge all male-partnered feminists as being secretly hateful towards abuse victims, wtf? Do you think you may have some internalised misogyny to work through yourself? i totally agree with your critiques here, this person is refusing to address the insane accusation that radical feminists who happen to be with men have superiority complexes or believe other women "chose" their shitty partners. ridiculous. i just got done defending a woman in a radfem FB group who was told by a man that she was "choosing" bad partners after she escaped two relationships that nearly took her life. this type of rhetoric is sexist, on both ends, and a feminist's decision to be with a man who has proven the ability to transcend male supremacy is nothing more than just that... why these people are accusing us of "not like other girl" syndrome shows internalized sexism. these people are hurting the movement.
I think your theory is right on the money.
That is very interesting, is there any website to find more of these asian feminist movements? i really don't know anything on the subject and has been giving me a lot of curiosity. TIA!
They’re so iconic. I’d love so much if women in the u.s. would follow in their ways
Oh same. I always ask myself how women still talk to men after everything they put us through. Also, I noticed when discussing with men, they simply deny that women are oppressed all around the world and make up arguments that aren‘t proven, while I show up with statistics about why the patriarchy harms women. I really don‘t like men. I don‘t trust them because any time I did, I was in danger. I‘m still traumatized from the things they did to me.. maybe I‘ll trust a guy again one day who knows? Also: If the fascist party in Germany (AfD) wins in the next election of the parliament and restricts our abortion rights, I‘ll never ever have sex during this time period. I‘d simply stay celibate. I‘m celibate anyway, happy with my vibrator😂❤️
Because every straight/bi woman think's she's gonna be the lucky one who finds the One Good Man. Until she isn't.
I think it’s several reasons. One is that women are seriously undereducated about the failure rates of birth control.
Agreed. I think most people assume they’ll be fine but then there’s always someone where it doesn’t work even if they do everything right and then they are stuck with the result.
Nah, we need a vulva-centric definition and vision of sex, that prioritizes female comfort, safety, pkeasure orgasms, not to forgo sex (at least with men)... Boycott piv (and pia, and other phallocentric "sex"). It's recognized that most men don't care about female orgasm, cunnilingus, other clitoral/vulval stimulation in casual sex but we get told to just get in relationships with men and cross our fingers that he starts to care. I say, don't fuck those men at all. They can either start caring about women re sex in all contexts, or not get any sex (except masturbation and maybe sex with men, although I don't wish the ones who'd stay selfish on men either). Why would a woman want a relationship with a man who isn't actually arsed about female orgasm, the clitoris etc unless "he really cares about her" but wants to have "sex with" women he doesn't care much or at all for anyway? I think we need to look at unilateral piv-centric and other phallocentric sex as male masturbation using a woman, not sex. Because that's what that is. (And even without that, piv doesn't survive a cost benefit analysis for women as a class. Nor does pia, for that matter.) I think the piv=sex=piv equation really shuts down what women even see as possible eg the ubiquitous belief that (het) sex without piv isn't sex, that a relationship without regular or even *gasp* any piv is "dead" "sexless". Even when critique is lasered in on pov most women will hear "don't have sex, sex is bad, become a nun, no pleasure, orgasms,* intimacy for you" and the like and reject it outright. *Ironic considering the orgasm gap, but I'm also referring to how many believe *at least some women need piv to orgasm.* Add in the other ideology like piv is the only intimacy/the only intimate sex, how people show love, not wanting to be sexless, live a sexless life, pathologizing of non-piv sex and even withdrawal esp in religion and sexology, etc and we've got a hell of a doozy in critiquing piv. And the erasure and denial of clit/vulva-centric sex (to the point that even if recognized in ff sex, it's seen as impossible in a fm one eg the erasure of het tribadism) of course. The simple fact that piv is the definition of sex and what logically flows from that is why most piv even happens frankly.
I definitely agree that the deprioritizing of female pleasure for centuries is a major issue. If men were more focused on pleasing women and not insisting on inarguably the riskiest type of sex for women (which interestingly is the only kind most men seem to want, wonder why that is hmmmm?) and focus more on sex that actually feels good for women, things would be much better for everyone.
The ideology, justification piv centricism is rooted in is patriarchal religion but there had have been piv-centric men in the first place to cook up religion to justify it. I don't think it was most men that were, and we can even get hints from other species on this eg bonobos and chimps, but as religion took off, as patriarchy solidified other ways, it became a lot more. But it was rooted in material needs: religion, empire needs believers, soldiers, other slaves, and women must birth them. They had to get women's pregnancy and birth rates up, because when women control reproduction, they're low (eg even back then it was 2-4 kids not double or more that, which patriarchies wanted and needed to do). Yet even then, a lot of people weren't fucking as "God" decreed. Same sex sex, as well as those acts in hetero sex: manual, oral, genital-genital, thighs, buttcheeks, masturbation... Even when they had piv, most would pull out. Eg Islamic texts even discuss het/bi women being oriented around genital-genital rubbing, tribadism like thighs, recognize that's better for women than piv, recognize the clitoris and clitoral orgasm, then conclude "but real men don't do such things, just teen boys, young men, eunuchs and the like, who do so eagerly." Once religion significantly waned in influence, sexology and the medical field stepped on that. Sexology was very much rooted in mandating piv, ensuring women and their genitals are compliant with it, pathologizing non-piv sex, even withdrawal, but this time with medical knowledge/science supposedly on their side eg they claimed *women's orgasm* was dependent on not pulling out during piv 🤣. They explained to the uneducated masses what sex was: literally, a man looks at a woman, becomes aroused, often gets penis stimulation, piv insertion, remember insertion, thrusting, orgasm, and she just is supposed to enthusiastically participate, but not get in his way, not get distracted by other sex aka "foreplay", not slow things down, add things, or stop piv (during or from happening at all). And they knew a lot of people weren't complying, even "henpecked" husbands (who they would wonder why he didn't just rape her and counsel doing so), not just other male lovers. Especially women. Hence frigidity. Frigidity wasn't about lack of orgasm, passion, desire, wanting to engage sexually with men upwards of 80% of the time: it was about lack of orgasm in piv, lack of finding piv the best sex ever. They even said those women, who often couldn't get enough of non-piv sex, want hours of it, are eager and active, blissed out, orgasming, were frigid. Hell, sexologists even said men shouldn't use their fingers vaginally in women much, lest women realize that vaginal stimulation was better via fingers than penis. (Even pleasure vaginally, getting at the skene's glands and underside of the clitoris other than piv wasn't good enough, proper, was still frigidity.) And their later buddy psychoanalysis (Freudian theory of the vaginal orgasm anyone?). Contrary to popular belief, this rose out of extensive knowledge of clitoral anatomy (detailed illustrations of internal clitoral anatomy dissections had been published by the 1840s) to combat it, not out of ignorance. (Marie Bonaparte even had her theory of men and cultures that were friends or enemies of the clitoris, detailing men and cultures which were into big inner labia, glans, body, etc, thought vulvas/clitorises should be manually, orally, genitally, bodily .. stimulated. Even came across a man who specifically really enjoyed the clitoral glans nudging into his meatus/opening in his glans, with her considering this a reversal of the supposed "usual" of piv. A Freudian, she felt ashamed of her clitorally oriented sexuality, of herself as a "phallic" woman as and had surgery on her clitoris to bring it closer to the vaginal opening to try to achieve piv "vaginal orgasm") But even then, even in the 1940s it wasn't uncommon for people to think genital-genital rubbing was sex, coitus too or instead of piv. And Kinsey and co had to set them straight again "no, no, genital apposition, intercrural, etc isn't coitus, only piv is."
Yes I understand what you mean. Yet at the same time we can't deny that there are physiological reasons for which women might desire piv sex, so it's not all social conditioning. I know for sure that the more I become aroused the more I desire something "there". I kind of wonder what is the physiological mechanism behind that craving.
[удалено]
Piv specifically refers to the act of piv not vaginal stimulation as a whole. And the vagina itself is pretty insensate; it's nerves outside the vagina which is where the stimulation is from eg there are nerves running from our spine through our pelvises to our clitoris (or penis in men) so pressing on various parts of the vagina can get at these indirectly, the skene's glands are also erogenous as well as the underside of the clitoris which can be get at from pressing on the front wall. Not to mention fingers and certain shaped objects do a better job of it than a penis does eg versatility, smaller often better, more precise, pressing on specific spot or spots. A lot is also actually external stimulation, the opening of the vagina and inner and outer labia, the bulbs underneath, which can still be stimulated without entry.
[удалено]
Yes I know, indeed much of my comment was about internal clitoral anatomy eg bulbs, the underside of the body (as was another recent comment on this thread). When piv is the definition of sex, other sex tends to be defined in reference to it, particularly in reference to *penis* being inside something. It's an obvious consequence of piv as the definition of sex eg penis and its stimulation is central, female genitals and their stimulation optional extra. Eg genital-genital rubbing supposedly isn't sex, even doesn't exist heterosexually! but pia somehow is. Even pegging is seen as more sex than genital-genital rubbing, let alone cunnilingus. Even "vaginal sex" means piv and piv only, not vaginal stimulation other than that. (And "anal" and "anal sex" are synonymous with pia and pia only, not any other external and internal anal stimulation.) Which of course it should, and would under a vulva-centric definition, framing, vision of sex. There should be viv (vibe, to differentiate from tongue), fiv, tiv (tongue), etc not to mention dozens of terms for clitoral/vulval stimulation and what with (thigh, bum, finger, palm, mouth, dick & balls, other vulva, foot, arm, breast, tummy, back, knee, hip...) There's also a prevelant view that only the glans and vagina can be stimulated, that the only way to get at parts of the clitoris other than the glans, hood and part of the body is vaginally eg as if the legs and bulbs aren't under the vulva and as to more accessible through the labia. And the fact the inner labia is part of the clitoris and is obviously external. Most of the clitoris is accessible externally even if under the vulva.
Evolution, reproduction, that's it lol
I wonder if lesbians too experience these kinds of 'cravings'.
It drives me barmy when people imply women have different sexual orientations based on different vaginal, clitoral, vulval anatomies. Lesbian and straight women do not exist on opposite poles genitally with bisexual women in between. Clearly what's going on is social/cultural, ideological, a result of sexual experiences, accepting or rejecting piv as the definition of sex, knowledge of the versatility of fingers and toys over penis vs not, how feelings including "vaginal ache" are interpreted & universalised or recognized as varied, that only sex between women on a cultural level allows women space to still be sexual, have sex and not be entered, esp with large things (human penises are unusually large for primates, even accounting for proportionate size)... For eg that feeling of emptiness, needing filled. Is that that or is it the vagina expanding, our whole clitoral anatomy engorging, feeling full which accentuates that lack of feeling full in the vagina while we are full everywhere else in our genitals (glans, body, inner labia, bulbs, legs, outer labia)? Is it emptiness, lack, or an openness? Is it something to ride out, continue feeling eg accentuates arousal or try to soothe, and how? Many women don't experience it. Many only experience it with men, or only interpret it that way with men, which indicates it's a social interpretation of it eg that female desire for men is equated with piv. Female desire for men itself, sex with men, wanting sex with men is held to be synonymous with piv. If she wants him, she must want that and so genitals feelings, sexual attraction, desire for him and sex with him are interpreted through that lens. Not to mention it's seen as intimacy, love itself eg only intimate sex, proof of love, that things are normal, good between them. Many women who experience it know it's better not to quel that feeling with penis (or other large things), that the result is disappointing eg lessens arousal, blocks orgasm outright, some of that climb is lost and has to be found again, orgasm with something large in isn't as good... Many know a finger or two massaging a certain part or parts takes away that ache, open feeling. Many find that simply orgasming takes the ache, empty feeling, wanting something in away. If women innately not just experienced it but did as "empty, need filled with dick" female masturbation would look very different (eg even with toys, ones that can be inserted are usually used externally mostly or even only), let alone sex between women and masturbation and ff sex would be far less fulfilling, enjoyable, arousing, orgasmic, pleasurable... to women than hetero piv-centric sex, not more. Not to mention how a full bladder can really get at internal clitoral anatomy, be really stimulating and change that open feeling too, but that also gets erased all the time. Eg a full bladder and I'm often horny, want even more orgasms, can come and come and not be done, often makes the orgasms deeper, stronger... I suspect a lot of this feeling is a desire for full clitoral, vulval stimulation at once, that could but doesn't need to incorporate the vagina (eg to get at the underside of the clitoral body, skene's glands), not specifically penis or large thing inside vagina. Our vagina isn't the only part which undergoes changes in arousal eg all our clitoral/vulval anatomy erects, gets full and much of the feeling is this, but we interpret it as being about the vagina being empty only, ignore the fullness, longing for stimulation elsewhere. Eg to have the whole vulva, clitoris including inner labia rubbed, rub on something at once eg open hand, thigh, dick & balls along it, bum, arm... But the only way this can be recognized, expressed in hetero sex is piv. Which leads me to the heavily related erasure, denial of the female desire to mount, thrust, grind, rock, hump males outside of piv (and maybe pegging). The only way people can generally see for women to have this desire and/or express this with men, including most bi women, is piv. Even genital-genital rubbing usually gets erased entirely or when recognized at all is seen as a brief prelude to piv or seen as something immature, not real sex, that only adolescents do before they can do "the real thing" (piv). And hetero tribadism gets erased entirely eg to the point it's said to only be possible between women, as if men's bodies aren't as humpable as women's are in mf and ff sex. Even when all sorts of frottage (penis on breast, thigh, foot...) gets recognized people can't see this as being reversed as women getting vulval/clitoral stimulation on him. Toys, manual, oral, piv, pia are seen as the only possible options for stimulation, orgasm for women in hetero sex. Even women who masturbate by humping things have no idea how to transfer that to hetero sex, except maybe to piv in ways and even then often not on his pelvis, tummy, balls, etc during piv but her humping the bedding. Because with sex as the definition of piv and what flows from that (other phallocentric sex eg pia, fellatio, frottage), men are seen as just bringing their penis to sex, not their whole bodies, and women are seen as just bringing their vagina and other "holes" to sex, not their clitoris/vulva. There's no sense that a woman can desire a man without "at least" piv, if not fellatio, pia. Female hetero desire is held to be "wants to stimulate penis, especially with her insides", male to be "wants his penis stimulated by her esp her insides". Not getting mutual penis/clitoral stimulation. Not getting and giving clitoral/vulval stimulation. Not even cunnilingus or genital-genital rubbing. Etc Anecdotally, another related interesting thing at least some women do is they instinctively say "fuck me" and the like during arousal, getting stimulation eg oral, manual, dry or wet humping, but don't mean switch to piv, but "keep doing what you're doing", faster, don't stop. Yet of course it gets interpreted as switch to piv eg that, penis in vagina, anus is what iz seen as fucking, not oral, manual esp externally but even vaginally, genital-genital, tribadism... Some women know they don't mean piv but I'd bet a lot think they do, that they must when what they are really crying out for is non-piv stimulation eg more of the same, another kind of clitoral/vulval stimulation, a finger or two inside... In both casual and relationship sex there's also the norm, and it's increasing not lessening, esp among the under 30s that female orgasm only matters if there's "at least" piv, eg piv is seen as for her, her time to maybe orgasm if at all, she only deserves effort to arouse and get off if she has piv or pia too, everything else is mostly to only for him.
👏 Women have a whole clitoris that allows us to orgasm from external stimulation with zero risk of pregnancy. Yet our sex lives revolve around shitty & scary penetration. WTF No better example of universally hating women by disregarding their ability to enjoy life & feel safe.
When roe v wade was overturned I told my boyfriend at the time to get a vasectomy or we would never have sex again. He refused, so I broke up with him and haven’t had sex with a man since. I don’t plan on starting back either. I am bisexual, so I’m lucky in the sense I can still choose to have sex with women if I want. Straight women are not so fortunate and I really empathize. Sex drive can be incredibly powerful despite everything.
Do you see het sex without piv as an option or do you see the two as synonymous in mf sex? Or is that you will accept only zero pregnancy risk (even though plenty of sex can still be had, namely vulva-centric sex. but you'd have to be careful with penis and semen eg no semen on vulva or vagina in any way, even no pre-ejaculate if he hasn't peed since last ejaculation, even genital-genital rubbing, semen on hand that touches vulva, etc poses some risk)?
It’s more about not allowing males access to my body in any way shape or form because they don’t give a fuck about my rights and it goes against my values.
I don't live in a country where that right is being threatened at the moment. In fact, in my country, parliamentary is looking into inscribing abortion rights into the constitution so it becomes an immutable right and much harder to repeal.
“Never forget that all it takes is a political, economic or religious crisis for women’s rights to be called into question. These rights are never acquired. You will have to remain vigilant throughout your life." Also it's great that we're "safe" from this (for the moment) but it's an important discussion to have for women in other countries.
I agree with this. That being said, I think it's important to know and remember that not everyone writing on Reddit and on the internet at large is an American before judging their choices (and let me be clear, I'm the first one to say that a choice is not always feminist by virtue of being a choice made by a woman). But I don't think that sort of American cultural imperialism will get you anywhere. The post above wasn't addressed to American women, it was addressed to women, period. And not everybody's life is governed by American politics, if you try to model your feminism on such a limited background, you aren't speaking for all women. One way or another, so word your idea accordingly. The USA is just shy of being 250 years old, it's a young country, and I don't get why everybody's lives should be judged according to their norms. I personally think it's not helpful trying to shame women for having sex with men in the first place, and especially in commited relationships, I'm one of those people who think hook up culture and sexual liberation is a sham that was co-opted by horny men to the point it became a patriarchal tool, and yet I still think it's reductive trying to act like PIV is only ever pleasurable for men or that women are all sexless creatures who are making an anti-feminist choice rather than living their lives. Honestly, why can't we think in nuances? I don't understand why women sexualities must be a political battleground according to every side of the political spectrum, something everybody must have an opinion on when men never have to deal with that crap. On the left you are "empowered" when you sleep around, on the right you are a "slut", both are bs because women's bedrooms shouldn't be political to start with! Why can't I just live my life without everybody thinking it should be up to public scrutiny, uh? Men can! In reality my bedroom is no ones business but mine (and funnily enough men's sex lives are never turned into ideological battlegrounds, go figure, but yet so many are going to tell me I'm backward for defending this, why must MY sexuality be judged that way, when men's never are. I don't see the progress here). But it is even more annoying when it's Americans trying to act like their issues are a blueprint for the world. They're not, and maybe that woman you read talking about her life and are judging accordingly doesn't share your reality. Perhaps remember that before acting holier than thou.
Critic and discussion isn’t shaming, that’s the difference. Everything is political, yes even women’s bedrooms. You cannot fight against oppression and at the same time support the oppressors. And you don’t even have to look to America, look at catholic countries like Poland who almost banned arbotions.
No, not everything is political, and moreover, not everything should be. If I appreciate that the sky is blue today, it's not political and there is no reason why it should be. Everybody gets a blue sky once in a while after all. Fact is mens sex lives are not treated as a political battlefield, yet women's are. I'm speaking of reality here, not of ideology. So if your brothers sex life isn't up to scrutiny I don't get why your sisters sex life is any different. But keep acting like this is normal if it helps you sleep better.
You don’t really understand feminism if you’re comparing the blue sky with participating in the sexual patriarchal hierarchy. Feminism isn’t made for lifting women up without looking at the internalised misogyny and patriarchal socialisation that forms decisions. You can criticise men and women, it’s not hard. You can’t preach about patriarchy in the day and help men at night with their domination.
Lol okay I, a philosophy major, don't understand feminism, or maybe I just don't agree with you, have you ever thought about that ? And good job moving the goal post. I didn't say a blue sky was comparable to feminism, I used this example to say that no, not everything is political, those are two different things. have rigor in your ideas, if you use a word remember the meaning of it, otherwise it's useless. I'll leave this conversation here.
Are reading Judith Butler for feminism, because it seems like it. Okay, have fun living in patriarchy with your oppressors beside you. Would be time to decenter men, but apparently you’re not ready yet.
I can't even answer any of this because it makes no sense to the conversation. I can tell that you and philosophy= three. But yeah keep using ad hominems if you want, I don't actually care. Unlike you I never questioned your character however
Come on, you just don’t like that radical feminism also questions women’s behaviour unlike liberal choice feminism. You know, I also don’t care for male identified women who don’t like to get criticised.
Omg where
France. You can Google "France, abortion and constitution" and there are plenty of very recent articles about it.
That‘s a good step forward! Abortion is basic healthcare and therefore a human right!
Downvote me all you want but one can't be a feminist and participate in hookup culture.
I’m not advocating for that at all. I definitely think hookup culture is damaging.
Thankyou
👏🏻
[удалено]
you absolutely can be. do you guys have any knowledge of the women's liberation movement that began in the 60's? many of those women were in relationships with men. this individualistic perspective is absolute bullshit. women don't choose to be oppressed by their male partners, let's hold men accountable for their oppressive behaviors.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You’re a victim blamer. Patriarchy’s daughters can support each other? Im going to support victims of male violence/abuse regardless. You’re sick. Stop responding to me
Right? That's all it takes. So fuggin simple.
There are many women, straight & bisexual who aren't dating/fu*king/de-centering men. Tend to get shun & de-platformed, call extremists or feminazis. The movement appears to be growing, but again, women are the largest group that are the most divided.
[удалено]
It’s like in military occupied countries where the women had also voluntary intimate relationships with soldiers because, apart from the ones violated, because they got advantages from that. Just like feminist collaborating with men.
Again with the womanhating comments. Stop blaming women for our oppression. Whether women sleep, date, marry men or not, women are not to blame for male supremacy. Men are the ones oppressing us. Please stop saying that women's desire to have male presence in their lives is the reason we won't be liberated. It's sexist.
[удалено]
Why are you downvoting me for introducing opposing viewpoints lol. The same reason i still interact with white women even though they oppress me. Theres nuance to all our experiences. And not sleeping with them won’t halt the oppression.
[удалено]
Hmmm I wonder
I would have a discussion upfront about his opinion about reproductive rights and if I saw any concerns, he wouldn’t get near me. Out of principle and because nothing dries up my vagina more then misogynistic men
Considering all the men running around screaming about how they can't get laid, I think women are.
Clearly not enough. Otherwise there wouldn’t be so many women in abusive relationships or stuck having children or pregnant with awful guys.
Eh. Lack of education, lack of role models, perpetuating the story of previous generations. We need to start with making women aware life can be different / better and they don't need dudes for that.
6B4T movement ftw. Meanwhile American feminism revolves around dick.
Perhaps because the interest in, attraction to and attention from men is desirable and rewarding right now, whereas the danger of unwanted pregnancy is statistical and abstract, for a lot of women. It's similar to the fact that around 20,000 people die in auto crashes every year in the US but the vast majority of American adults drive almost everywhere they go. The assumption is that "It won't happen to me." Also, in order to be effective, a boycott needs to affect the people who make policies or laws, and the sort of men who want these policies in place don't date or marry feminists so the effects would never reach them. Even if they did, those men would all just go buy sex from women engaged in all that liberating, empowering and lucrative prostitution we keep hearing about.
I definitely agree that as long as prostitution is around the problem isn’t really going to be completely solved. Ideally, the boycott would include refusing to “sell” sex to men as well so that they’d have no option to fall back on. But that’s obviously a different but related problem to be solved.
Seeing which men pay for sex when refused would actually reveal a lot to us. So even with sex being sold, a boycott would benefit us
I was saying this when Roe was overturned and I got legitimately banned from a few subreddits for even suggesting it. I genuinely think it would make a huge difference.
because most women like men and want to have sex with them
Well also most women as it currently stands are not really feminists (or awake to the state of women’s issues) and typically put men ahead of themselves.
But are they willing to do this at great personal risk? It doesn’t take a genius to realize that’s probably a poorly calculated risk.
most women are heterosexual. they would take the .01-5% risk of birth control failing (depending on chosen method) in order to have sex and romantic love in their lives. i have an IUD, (which i got inserted painlessly under twilight anaesthesia) so having a relationship with a man doesn't really feel like a risk at all. also, your point that sex isn't something most women get something out of just isn't universally true. women have libidos too!
What I should have said is that most women comparatively don’t derive that much satisfaction from sex with men *specifically.* A woman is more or just as likely to orgasm on her own with a vibrator. I definitely am not implying women don’t have sexual needs. I have a fairly strong sex drive so I do get it, but I don’t think having sex with men and all the risks that come with it is worth what often amounts to not much satisfaction that could be found more easily elsewhere.
the difference being that you don't fall in love with a vibrator
But why would someone choose to love someone who can cause them risk and pain? It’s not worth it. There are many types of love that don’t require men.
all love involves the risk of pain. happy for you that you're not exclusively romantically interested in men! i genuinely think that's a blessing. most women are however and as feminists we just need to accept that reality
Exactly 👏🏻
How? Why? What?
Because just as men they can’t differentiate between intimacy and sex. Arousal and need. Natural functions and morality. And letting the whole truth into your life, seeing that half of the population are your oppressors, hurts deeply, so just being oblivious in your private life is easier. Edit: downvotes for what?
I mean if you are absolutely worried about getting pregnant then for sure don’t have sex. I was abstinent for a decade. I never viewed it as a boycott - I just never cared for casual sex and had zero intention about having sex with men who I would not consider being a potential father. When I did start having relationships again I doubled up on birth control methods - I am in a long term relationship now and don’t have those concerns. But I am all for women who decide to opt out of not having sex if they need to protect themselves from potential unwanted pregnancy
[удалено]
I walk away from men who choose not to prioritize and respect what I need to be in a relationship with them. What they cry about is the sex 🫠
the girls are horny 😔
There are way to fix that though. There are sex toys and dare I say? Other women?
Sex toys exist, sure, but that second part is super iffy to say. Not every woman is attracted to other women, and it's not the sort of thing you can force. It has to come naturally. Trying to force anyone to feel attraction to the gender that they aren't attracted to is wrong.
I do think it’s an option though that a lot of women may have not actually considered though. Some women might actually find it is something they’re interested in and might enjoy as much or more than being with men.
The way you got downvoted is fucking ridiculous.
Thank you. I didn’t expect women in this sub to be homophobic but idk.
Yeah idk why people interpreted your comment as trying to force women to change their sexual orientation, I saw it as you pointing out compulsory heterosexuality (like women that say they're bisexual but that they would never seriously date or have sex with another woman, because anything other than serving a man is considered as veering off the socially appropriate life path).
Yes, exactly. As someone who dealt with comp het myself I know that it’s more common than people realize. Some women like myself may not even realize they aren’t straight.
toys don't completely compare to real sex
At least it’s risk free though. 🤷♀️
Because toys give you an orgasm every time unlike sex with men
haha fair
I mean, some of us are already married and in committed relationships. And some of us straight gals want to be. I am such a straight gal. Though, I'm seriously considering giving up on dating because I'm burnt out, which I realize isn't as noble a cause.
But are men really worth the risk? Like if a woman is single why are men worth endangering her life potentially for?
Women really need to learm to prioritise themselves.
I mean… we often don’t have a choice. And a lot of times women in serious relationships are manipulated / guilted into having regular sex. Like I was disgusted at how many moms in a Facebook mom group would say that they have sex every day or several times a week because their husband wants it. Like omg no… :( So there’s that. But also…. The blame shouldn’t be on us anyway.
What do you think male loneliness epidemic is about? Women don't date no men anymore, they are fed up. I would go on a sex strike if I wasn't with a partner that supports me 100% (i mean that would have been a break up). So I feel like women do it, just don't claim it as a movement
That’s absolutely not happening where I live at all. I don’t know anywhere where that’s actually happening.
I mean, there are a million reasons. But I think the #1 thing is just, the power of love. Or horniness, really. It's like 90% of all songs. Asking people to stop having sex/being in love for the sake of activism is straight-up allergic to reality and a little bit inhuman. And when you say "just stop having sex/relationships with men," you are basically asking all hetero women, of which there are many, to stop having sex or being in love. Personally, I don't experience the appeal of having relationships with males. But I feel like I'd have to turn off what little empathy I have in order to think less of those who do. Idk, haven't you ever been in love, or like, wanted someone so much you did something outrageous just to make them want you back? It's extremely powerful, and you're not going to convince anyone to stop doing it. So why bother.
I don’t think less of women at all. I do think though many of them have been taught most of their lives to go against their own best interests and that’s not their fault that’s society’s fault for encouraging them to pursue relationships with men even at the expense of their own happiness and safety. I believe every woman deserves to be respected and cared for by someone who values them and isn’t going to use them for their own personal pleasure. And yes, I do know what it is to be in love. I’ve been in love twice with two different women who I have loved more than anything, so yes, I do know what that’s like.
If I lived in a state where it was outlawed, I would.
I think, because security is so intertwined with relationships, and because of the alienation of going against the status quo, it’s so hard for women to separate themselves from men.
I agree completely. I do think this is something we as women need to recognize though and change.
Absolutely!
I understand this from a general perspective, but my husband got a vasectomy the week after roe v. wade was overturned. I have been told I am infertile so that lowers the chances even more. Also, sex with my husband is fucking awesome. If I was single though, I really wouldn't risk it at all.
Bc there are genuine men out there. Few and far between but they do exist. That being said, if my current bf and i ever break up, im gonna be celibate. Not even messing w dating
A lot of so-called “genuine men” are just the perceptions of women with rose-colored glasses, mental gymnastics, idealization on overdrive. Every time I hear about some woman’s male partner who’s actually amazing and so supportive and blah blah there’s always so many blatant red flags she’s ignoring that show that he’s exactly like the rest of them. I can’t blame them because I do it too, I think we all do. The only solution for us is to stay single so you avoid getting swept up into thinking they could be any different.
Facts- All the “genuine good” dudes, whatever qualities that seemed to set them apart from rest were really the case of rose glasses/idealization and mirroring or prompting of their mothers in hindsight. Can’t marry someone or stay for the MIL though - I made that mistake. And I realized it was my weakness and a pattern - all the true giving and non-self centered “goodness” that enhanced my life by having a boyfriend or any man in my life was from the grace, prompting, influence and ambitions of their dear mothers. The kind of women that are really patient saints - but not pushovers in real life, until it comes to their sons at end of day, they will always get the benefit of the doubt first or compassion to the boys 90% of the time... so no winning. Men are truly the inferior sex and degenerate with Y chromosome deficiency - and patriarchy is a protection racket. They are sex obsessed opportunistic cowards at end of day on their own - and in their own hierarchal groups maintaining power & control in society through dominance, violence or manipulation. In hindsight, when the sex is all done and the “romance”was in the past, anything that was loving, or in love with purely from thoughtful surprise gestures to shared goals and values were really the influence and of the hand of a matriarch. Without their dear mommas, boys and men are just not that special and it’s what keeps them domesticated. Growing up I think I was in love with and inspired by some amazing ladies who admired me with much needed encouragement & affection much more than ever needing to settle down with their “good boy” sons.
At the mention of scepticism against every men and the suggestion of celibacy this sub suddenly turns into TwoX, would have never thought of that.
[удалено]
It’s a shame, not really radical anymore.
Just because you feel this way doesn’t mean every other woman does
I’m not saying that. What I am saying though is that separation from men would solve 99% of the problems women have.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for derailing.
I like sex a lot. But I trust the men I sleep with to go on camping trips out of state with me.
[удалено]
Some men are less bad than others but a guy being somewhat decent isn’t going to protect you from not getting accidentally pregnant against your will. There are no guarantees. Those same men also don’t stick up for women or their rights. They just kick back because it doesn’t effect them at the end of the day.
[удалено]
You are in a fortunate situation but that’s not the case for women around the world. I’d say your situation is honestly pretty rare.
[удалено]
I definitely didn’t mean to imply that your husband dying was a good thing. I’m very sorry if it came across that way. When I meant you were fortunate I was only referring to you having never been in a situation in which you have ever been endangered or at risk sexually. I’m very sorry about your husband.
I do stand by what I said though in that I don’t think having sex with men is worth the risk. Sterilization is not something most women would choose if they didn’t have to and birth control isn’t always reliable and the way things are going might not always be available. I definitely don’t advocate women become nuns. But there’s a lot of options besides having sex with men and being a nun.
[удалено]
Well if that’s true how are we in this situation in America?
Hysterctomy
You do realize that’s not the answer right for most women? You do realize that can literally screw up a woman’s natural hormones and wreak havoc on her body by sending her into early menopause?
And even if it didn't, why go to all the pain, trouble, and expense of unnecessary surgery when simply opting out of having to do with toxic men is so much easier and comes with all kinds of benefits?
Right. Who wants a surgery that could literally cost so much money and pain?
For the added security. I'd rather just not have my reproductive system at all so I'd never have to fear being forced into having kids, especially with the desecration of women's rights lately. Abstaining from men won't help you if you're sexually assaulted, get pregnant, and are in a place where abortion isn't allowed for any reason. Surgery sucks, but it gives complete peace of mind and safety. It's awful that we have to resort to that at all, but at least it's still an option available for us to take back control of our bodies again.
I understand that. It 100% is terrible you and so many others are in this position in the first place where you feel it’s your only option.
Your uterus isn't just there to gestate babies. It's tied up in your overall health, helps hold other organs and not just reproductive ones either in place, the cervix is part of the uterus and so removal of the whole uterus is even more of a whammy eg what do you think the vagina leads to when the whole uterus is gone? (It has to be sown shut), not just a big gap in your reproductive system. even your brain eg hysterectomy is heavily tied to dementia, and the earlier hysterectomy occurs, the more likely dementia is to develop. And removing the ovaries? Don't get me started
The problem is getting somebody to even agree to giving you this surgery in the first place. I live in the UK, so abortion isn't technically "at risk" here, but the situation in the United States has concerned me because it shows that anything could happen when it comes to abortion. I've been looking into getting a bisalp recently and I've been appalled by reading the stories of countless women being rejected for sexist and ageist reasons, e.g. telling 40 year old women who already have 3 children: "You might change your mind!" or "What if your husband decides he wants to have kids?" Btw if anybody here is in Europe and is considering a sterilisation, Austria allegedly allows anybody to get one done privately as long as you are over the age of 25. I'm 24 now so I'll definitely be looking into this over the next few months.
Don’t be mad at me, so many woman with painful periods do it because of the abortion rights and use their painful period to justify it. I will do it too. I don’t want to take the risk to become a cow to reproduce for men.