A Lesbian Theory of the Penis

Posted on | November 11, 2014 | 98 Comments

“Far from being ‘natural,’ phallic sexuality is a moral and political activity. . . . Men’s sexual behaviour is not caused by hormonal dictates. It is because the penis serves the ideological function of symbolizing ‘human’ status that it is so heavily charged with erotic energy, and not because it is driven by testosterone. Men must keep using it because they need to keep proving that they exist, that their ‘humanity’ is inextricably entwined with penis-possession; women must be constantly used by it to prove that men exist, that the sum total of a man is his penis. . . . Anything and everything must be subordinated to penile activity if men are to be what phallic ideology requires them to be.”
— Denise Thompson, Radical Feminism Today (2001)

“That some men rape provides a sufficient threat to keep all women in a constant state of intimidation, forever conscious of the knowledge that the biological tool must be held in awe, for it may turn to weapon with sudden swiftness born of harmful intent. . . . Rather than society’s aberrants or ‘spoilers of purity,’ men who commit rape have served in effect as front-line masculine shock troops, terrorist guerrillas in the longest sustained battle the world has ever known.”
— Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape (1975)

When did I first encounter the feminist claim that rape is not about sex? It was during the 1980s, I’m pretty sure, and I recall being both startled and amused by this well-known element of feminist theory. Startled, I say, because rape so obviously is about sex, and amused at the naivete of anyone who could believe otherwise.

In the nearly four decades since Susan Brownmiller’s Against Our Will elaborated the rape-as-violence motif, it has become increasingly difficult to criticize that ideological claim without being accused of being “pro-rape.” Men who love women — not “love” as a matter of sentimental expression, but “love” as a consistent behavior of care and support — are required to be silent in reaction to the dishonest and deliberate insult that Brownmiller and other radical cadre have promoted as feminism’s truth. As males, we are not allowed to dispute feminism’s authority to speak on behalf of our wives and mothers, sisters and daughters.

As males, we are members of a demonized group of enemies, and everything we might say in our own defense is illegitimate. So when Brownmiller speaks scornfully of “the biological tool” — i.e., the penis — as also a “weapon,” when she implies that we as males derive a benefit from rapists who serve as “front-line masculine shock troops, terrorist guerrillas” in a war of all men against all women, we cannot dispute this hatefully insulting anti-male doctrine without being Kafkatrapped, where our claim of innocence becomes proof of our guilt.

Honest, decent and intelligent people rightly perceive feminism as a limitless doctrine of fanatical hatred. There can be no compromise with this totalitarian belief, nor can there be any “moderate” feminism. The problem, in the 21st century, is that the majority of Americans are neither honest nor decent nor intelligent. Barack Obama never could have been elected president twice in a nation of honest, decent, intelligent citizens. Clearly, our government now operates on behalf of the dishonest, indecent and stupid majority, and the consequences of this political reality should frighten us.

Feminism’s success in gaining hegemonic authority within academia — which the fate of Larry Summers at Harvard conclusively proved — has made it impossible to challenge the truth-making authority of these anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideologues. Every “educated” person under 40 has lived his or her entire life in a world where feminism controls our nation’s intellectual discourse about sex, so that to oppose feminism is to be “anti-intellectual,” no matter how fluent your argument or how prestigious your credentials. Deprived of intellectual prestige and institutional influence, direct opposition to feminism becomes first unfashionable and then nearly impossible.

You could probably count on one hand the number of university professors in America who have uttered a peep of criticism against feminism during the past decade, and the small number of anti-feminist books is buried amid the avalanche of feminist titles that spew forth from academic presses as commodities for taxpayer-subsidized consumption as textbooks in Women’s Studies courses.

So here we have Denise Thompson, author of the 2001 book Radical Feminism Today, a self-described “independent scholar” (meaning she never got a permanent professorship) in Australia, who worked for several years at the New South Wales Social Policy Research Centre. Now 74, Thompson could more logically be viewed as representing radical feminism yesterday, except for the fact that radical feminism is now what it has always been and must always be. While studying dozens of works of feminist theory, I have observed how the tone and terminology shift slowly over the decades. What was first termed “male chauvism” became “sexism” and more recently “misogyny.” What Adrienne Rich called “compulsory heterosexuality” in 1980 is now more commonly called “heteronormativity.” Criticism of “sex roles” or the “sex-caste system” has been superceded by talk of “gender,” and there are always little-noticed skirmishes around the periphery of feminism. What we might call “old-fashioned” radical lesbianism (e.g., Mary Daly, Julia Penelope, Marilyn Frye, Janice Raymond, Sheila Jeffreys, et al.) has for more than two decades been waging a counterattack against the insurgency of “French feminism” and poststructualism as represented by proponents of “Queer Theory” like Judith Butler (Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, 1990).

Nevertheless, feminism remains what it has always been, and Denise Thompson’s Radical Feminism Today is a clear and thorough survey of this ideology. I ordered Radical Feminism Today from Amazon after seeing her books articles repeatedly cited in the notes and bibliographies of other books, including Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed, edited by Diane Bell and Renate Klein (1996) and Rethinking Sexuality by Diane Richardson (2000). I was particularly intrigued by an excerpt, in the latter title, of a 1991 book by Thompson, Reading Between the Lines: A Lesbian Feminist Critique of Feminist Accounts of Sexuality. Richardson cited Thompson while endeavoring to refute the longstanding criticism of “radical feminist analyses as biologically determinist/essentialist.”

Do I really need to wade into the eternal feminist disputes over “essentialism” here? No, it is not necessary to subject the reader to such internecine quibbling over theoretical details, except to say that in these fights among feminists, it is the radical lesbians who stand firm in defense of the idea that “female” is a matter of biology — a scientific fact involving anatomy and chromosomes — and in this particular matter, I find myself nodding in agreement.

Here I must remind readers of McCain’s Law of Feminism:

There are three kinds of feminism:

1. Feminism that is wrong;
2. Feminism that is crazy;
and
3. Feminism that is both wrong and crazy.

When in doubt, it’s usually Number Three.

Radical feminists are all crazy, but they are not always wrong. The radical arguments of crazy lesbians expose the intellectual bankruptcy of so-called “pro-sex” (i.e., liberal heterosexual) feminists.

If biological differences are irrelevant, after all, then there can be no basis for hating men and no way to identify “women” as an actual group suffering from oppression under male supremacy. Yet in order to avoid giving away the ballgame (because admitting that there are real differences between men and women undermines the androgynous egalitarian premise of feminism), radical feminists are required to tread a very narrow theoretical tightrope. With that in mind, here (from page 54 of Richardson’s Rethinking Sexuality) is the quoted excerpt of Thompson’s Reading Between the Lines:

To insist, as radical feminists do, that there are differences between the sexes, and that those ‘differences’ are the stuff of male domination, is not to appeal to ‘biology,’ nor to be pessimistic about the possibility of revolutionary change. In fact, it is to insist on that very possibility, else why would we bother? . . . Why is it not possible to argue both that female and male sexualities are different, or rather (to put it less essentialistically) that women and men have different interests, purposes, desires and needs in relation to sexuality, and that those differences are engendered by specific historical conditions, without positing any essential genesis or causality at all?

Thompson is splitting a fine red hair there, so to speak.

One gets the feeling that what Thompson wants to say is what all feminists really believe but cleverly refuse to say in so many words: Men and women are different — because men are inferior to women.

Anyone who believes feminism is about “equality” is so hopelessly stupid that I doubt they could read or comprehend this sentence.

Feminism isn’t about equality. Feminism is about hate.

As Jim Goad says, every word of feminist rhetoric is intended to “degrade, humiliate, and demoralize men,” and this is especially true as regards feminism’s deliberate demonization of male sexuality.

Thus do we return to Denise Thompson’s rant about “phallic sexuality” being “a moral and political activity.” It is certainly shocking to see a feminist speak of sexual morality, but in what sense do she mean that sexuality is political? Never mind how she might answer that question, however. Here she makes a categorical claim:

“Men’s sexual behaviour is not caused by hormonal dictates.”

The hell you say! Any teenage boy — or any man who remembers what it was like to be a teenage boy — can refute that bullshit. While it is certainly true that human beings are capable of rational action, and are not helpless slaves of biological urges, the hormonal influence on male sex drive is a scientific fact of biology beyond dispute.

Yet a fool believes what a fool believes, and there is no fool quite so foolish as a fanatical feminist fool. A man’s throbbing erection, according to Denise Thompson’s theory, has nothing to do with “hormonal dictates.” The boner is socially constructed, you see, and as Dr. Thompson insists “phallic sexuality” is not natural, there is neither a hormonal etiology nor a behavioral teleology to male sexuality.

C’mon, what’s the only reason any teenage boy ever learned to play guitar? Can I get a show of hands, guitar players? Rock-and-roll exists because of “phallic sexuality.” Wise parents understand this: Your daughter is never safe around a boy who plays guitar.

It’s not just guitars, either. Almost anything teenage boys do, they do as a result of “phallic sexuality.” They play football or they drive fast cars or they wear Abercrombie & Fitch — one way or another, it’s “phallic sexuality” that motivates their behavior. Anyone who doesn’t acknowledge this truth is living in an alternate universe. They certainly have never been a teenage boy or been the parent of one.

“Phallic sexuality” can be restrained and channeled toward constructive purposes, but it cannot be wished away by theoretical abstractions. Did I ever believe — has anyone with a penis ever believed — that his erection derived its “erotic energy” because it “serves the ideological function of symbolizing ‘human’ status”? Does my wife believe this? I’m afraid to ask. Her laughter would be embarrassing.

On the other hand, I must confess to being profoundly intrigued by Dr. Thompson’s Existential Theory of the Boner, whereby my humanity “‘is inextricably entwined with penis-possession,” so that I must keep using it to prove I exist: “I f**k, therefore I am.”

“Anything and everything must be subordinated to penile activity,” according to this feminist interpretation of “phallic ideology.”

Damn. If only some feminist had told me this when I was 14, it would have spared me all that time I spent learning to play guitar.

Brutal sarcasm aside, you see what results of feminism’s insistence that only feminist interpretations of sexuality are valid. Anything a man may claim to know about this own anatomy, his own beliefs and behavior, is unacceptable if it contradicts feminist theory.

Readers will excuse me if I end this article without offering any profoundly insightful conclusion. My 13-year-old son borrowed my old guitar — I have no idea why he wants to learn to play — but I think I might need to borrow it back, to serenade my wife. Maybe I’ll get lucky and my wife will let me prove my existence, IYKWIMAITYD.

This is the latest in the “Sex Trouble” series of articles about radical feminism’s war on human nature. Readers have urged me to produce a book on this topic; since July I have been publishing articles, based on my research and recent news events, as “draft chapters” of this book that I hope to finish compiling next month. Readers have generously supported this project with PayPal contributions, and it is with profound gratitude for this support that I once again remind you of the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

Category: Crime, Intellectuals, Sex Trouble

Comments

98 Responses to “A Lesbian Theory of the Penis”

Mike G.
November 11th, 2014 @ 11:15 pm

Dude! You patriarchalist, heteronormative son of a gun…nailed it again.
A Lesbian Theory of the Penis | That Mr. G Guy's Blog
November 11th, 2014 @ 11:16 pm

[…] A Lesbian Theory of the Penis. […]
William Krebs
November 11th, 2014 @ 11:19 pm

I will start reading feminist works about the penis when women start reading books by men about the joys of natural childbirth.
RS
November 11th, 2014 @ 11:21 pm

Men must keep using it because they need to keep proving that they exist, that their ‘humanity’ is inextricably entwined with penis-possession

It’s a wonder anyone can keep a straight face reading that, given that it is Feminist who feel compelled to constantly remind us that they have a vagina and speak of it as some sort of talisman which bring great power and wisdom. Project thee much, madame?
RS
November 11th, 2014 @ 11:23 pm

And BTW, the older one gets, the more likely Coitus ergo sum becomes, “I pee therefore I am.”
DavidD
November 11th, 2014 @ 11:29 pm

Is “Men ove women….” supposed to say “Men who love women….”?
richard mcenroe
November 11th, 2014 @ 11:58 pm

And here I thought I kept using it because my bladder would detonate if I didn’t…
chris
November 12th, 2014 @ 12:01 am

Sorry to be blunt, but feminists are all about the cock, and hate themselves for it.
Wombat_socho
November 12th, 2014 @ 12:19 am

I’m just waiting for some cloistered feminist to recycle (all unwitting) the line from Zardoz: THE GUN IS GOOD, THE PENIS IS EVIL.
Flyover Pilgrim
November 12th, 2014 @ 12:32 am

I know that quote from Thompson was in English, but darn-it-all, it didn’t make sense in any way.

What in the world was she whining on about?
Ruy Diaz
November 12th, 2014 @ 12:58 am

If that’s what the penis really means in humans, what does it mean in other animals? Is the bull engaging in a ‘moral and political activity’ when he mounts the cow?
Eagle_Eyed
November 12th, 2014 @ 1:00 am

“No, it is not necessary to subject the reader to such internecine quibbling over theoretical details, except to say that in these fights among feminists, it is the radical lesbians who stand firm in defense of the idea that “female” is a matter of biology — a scientific fact involving anatomy and chromosomes — and in this particular matter, I find myself nodding in agreement.”

This is the only logical conclusion a feminist could make, as once you decry sex differences as a “social construct” as the dumber feminist want to, there is no way to distinguish the sexes and thus no ground for the condemnation of one, specially. One could not simultaneously hold:
a)that the American custom of driving on the right side of the road vs. the British custom of driving on the left is a social construct to standardize transportation and make it safer, and
b) that the American version is objectively superior.

No, feminists need for there to be actual sex differences between men and women so that the former can be judged as violating the latter. It isn’t surprising the more masculine of the group (the radical lesbians) are the ones who hold to the more logical position, since logic appeals to masculinity.

Thus the masculine feminists who appeal to logic and reject emotional relativism here tacitly support masculinity as superior to femininity (in at least this area). And the feminine feminists, in arguing for the relativism of sex, now must call their fellow feminists who appeal to masculine features like logic “sexist.”

Hilariously, feminism refutes itself.
Memento Mori
November 12th, 2014 @ 1:05 am

Probably just trying to prove that he exists.
Steve Skubinna
November 12th, 2014 @ 1:12 am

I am reminded of Cicero’s statement, that he wonders how one soothsayer can greet another without laughing.

When two feminists meet it must be a matter of awkward pauses and no eye contact. Or else they are so lacking in self awareness that they may write passages such as you quote without experiencing an immediate “Uh-oh, I’m such a dumbass” moment.
Nigel Rae
November 12th, 2014 @ 4:03 am

A mate of mine in his 40’s was so chuffed that he got a “traveller” last week that he sent texts to all his mates about it.
I remember way back when I was 15 & having sex at least twice a day with my girlfriend, times exponentially on weekends, I still got erections at the most impromptu times. It just happened sometimes & you just had to cover up as best you could.
Most times there was not ANY sexuality at hand. I’d be thinking just how boring “humanities” was & how much I’d rather be playing football, fishing or even drinking beer. And there’d you go – BONER – or Australianese – get a fat.
Nigel Rae
November 12th, 2014 @ 4:25 am

I don’ t know how you guys walk around with those things.
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=4hhjVOG6GKXpmAXIkICYDA&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D8DoARSlv-HU&ved=0CBwQtwIwAA&usg=AFQjCNEJmmkkPA2gvtD7Bszbu1xYje1Q2w
Zeb Quinn
November 12th, 2014 @ 5:01 am

I say forcible stranger rape is about rage. Specifically sexual rage, that is, with a definite sexual component to it.
Fail Burton
November 12th, 2014 @ 5:21 am

Jacqueline Rhodes, in her book Radical Feminism, Writing, and Critical Agency: From Manifesto to Modem (State University of New York Press 2005) writes about Kate Millet “according to Millett, a ‘Sexual Revolution’ would bring about eight conditions: the end of sexual repression; unisex temperament and behavior; reexamination of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ traits; the end of ‘sex role and sex status; the end of the oppression of the young ‘under the patriarchal proprietary family’; ‘bisex,’ or the end of normative heterosexuality; the end of ‘hatred’ sexuality (violence, warfare, etc.); ‘the attainment of the female sex to freedom and full human status.'”

By that standard, men are not only not fully human, but a drag on humanity as a whole. This is also part of the whirly-gig here-today, gone-tomorrow rhetoric that at once embraces the idea there are and are not innate differences between men and women, put at the service of an agenda, not cogent logic. How they can teach the many self-contradictions inherent in this brand of feminism in colleges is something I don’t understand. Intersectional feminists clearly believe in innate differences but if a heterosexual male academic in public life in any way parses that as a negative rather than as an eternal positive (which is inherent to any argument about difference), he is likely to be fired. In fact this sort of rhetoric is a con game, a stacked deck in which men lose coming and going.

In this Orwellian construct, men telling feminists about male sexuality is derided as “mansplaining,” as if the sexuality of both sexes is the sole expertise and inherent domain of women.
Motch
November 12th, 2014 @ 5:37 am

I think people probably rape for a lot of different reasons, just like people murder for a lot different reasons. Some rape is about mere sexual gratification; some rape is a result of sexual rage, as you said; and some rape is just about sadistic cruelty. I don’t buy the radfem line that rape is inherent to all men, or a political act.

Thankfully, the vast, vast majority of men are not rapists, and would not rape under any circumstance. I do actually think it’s possible to have a “rape culture”–see what the occupying Japanese did in China, Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines–but I am grateful and proud that America has a strong, anti-rape culture.
Motch
November 12th, 2014 @ 5:39 am

Not English, it’s in Leftese. There are many superficial similarities, but words in Leftese are detached from concrete meanings, taking on whatever definition suits the speaker.
Fail Burton
November 12th, 2014 @ 5:41 am

Well there’s this from the 1974 Nebula-winning SF novel The Dispossessed, by Ursula K. LeGuin, the same year as Zardoz:

“He patted the thing he wore on his belt, a metal object like a deformed penis, and looked patronizingly at the unarmed woman. She gave the phallic object, which she knew was a weapon, a cold glance.”

LeGuin’s an SF author in the Benny Hill sense and incapable of satire except in the sense of a broken clock being right twice a day. I guessing “The World for World for Forest” was a gun set on automatic that happened to be right. Otherwise she often comes off as the classic shrill harridan feminists claim don’t exist.
Trudy W. Schuett
November 12th, 2014 @ 6:01 am

The language of feminism has always been awkward and weird because they are trying to make total nonsense seem brilliant. Some of them have become adept at doing that, because there is quite often a comfortable living in telling mostly-believable stories.
Fail Burton
November 12th, 2014 @ 6:05 am

I think you’ve hit it right on the head. In some cases it is the rationalization of psychotic breaks with reality, in others sheer disdain. All of it passed off as social justice.
Fail Burton
November 12th, 2014 @ 6:06 am

The point is that it is smeared onto all men.
Amie Holladay
November 12th, 2014 @ 8:51 am

These women write about men in the same way theoretical physicists write about the black holes they’ve never seen and aren’t certain exist but are pretty sure behave in this way and that, if they do in fact exist. It’s like they’ve never even met a man. That Brownmiller quote is the worst! It’s probably true for her & the feminists she knows. Imagine waking up every day wondering if the is the day you’re going to be raped. No thanks!
Adobe_Walls
November 12th, 2014 @ 9:50 am

Cows, or any other animal for that matter, simply don’t over think these things.
Section 9
November 12th, 2014 @ 9:54 am

How the Hell do these people expect to reproduce?

Oh, wait….
NeoWayland
November 12th, 2014 @ 9:58 am

Rape is usually about power.

The rest of the stuff is secondary.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
November 12th, 2014 @ 10:13 am

I think they are jealous of your man junk!
Evi L. Bloggerlady
November 12th, 2014 @ 10:14 am

Yes. Next question.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
November 12th, 2014 @ 10:15 am

Speak for yourself. Haven’t you heard the story of the old bull and the young bull?
Trespassers W
November 12th, 2014 @ 10:21 am

Heh. You said “nailed.”
robertstacymccain
November 12th, 2014 @ 10:26 am

Females have a monopoly on “the authority of experience.” You should read “Homophobia” by Daphnai Patai. It’s really an eye-opener.
PeterP
November 12th, 2014 @ 10:32 am

Its about sex. Where prostitution is legal, there are fewer incidences of rape.
Zohydro
November 12th, 2014 @ 10:42 am

Isn’t Patai’s thing “heterophobia”?
Zohydro
November 12th, 2014 @ 10:45 am

A lot of people used to believe that… Too many still do!
Fail Burton
November 12th, 2014 @ 10:59 am

Yes. Good catch. Just picked it up. And her book The Orwell Mystique.
Fail Burton
November 12th, 2014 @ 11:00 am

Misogyny is embedded in our lingo. Even when I breathe a female angel loses its wings.
Anchovy
November 12th, 2014 @ 11:05 am

Political flexibility. At one time I compiled stats for a large county sheriff’s department. When the administration wanted to show violent crime was up (budget time) rape was a violent crime. When they wanted to show violent crime was down (election time) rape was a sex crime.
robertstacymccain
November 12th, 2014 @ 11:05 am

This is one area — and these are few — where is where basic Freudian psychology is not really all that wrong. Males have a sex drive and a violence drive, and must learn to restrain (repress) both, in order for civilization to exist. The male’s unruly anarchistic urges must be brought under rational control, and the boy must be taught — disciplined, accultured — so that his instincts and urges find productive and socially acceptable outlets.

Male sex instinct, properly disciplined, is sublimated in many ways. It’s not just rock-and-roll, it’s every love song, every work of art, every passionate expression of the love of beauty and many acts of kindness and courage — these are the products of instincts that have been channeled away from mere animal urge by the habits of discipline.

The male instinct for violence likewise requires discipline, and one of the first things a boy must be taught is DON’T HIT GIRLS. Kindness, courtesy and respect toward females is absolutely essential to civilization, and all wise women understand that they have a role in upholding the dignity of womanhood. Therefore, the woman who degrades herself, who is sexually promiscuous and crude, is scorned by women of virtue. Is “slut-shaming” misogyny? Nonsense! Wise women abhor the slut, whose behavior lowers the esteem of all women.

The boy who is not properly disciplined, whose childhood environment is not stable, warm and nurturing, is at risk of abusing women and why? Because without the example of marital love between his parents, without the family stability necessary to the development of orderly habits and civilized attitudes, the boy is prone to grow up with warped attitudes and undisciplined instincts.

Feminism’s deliberate attack on the nuclear family destroys the cradle of decent manhood and, by pitting females against males in an all-or-nothing competition, fosters conflicts between the sexes that elicit violent the instincts of the uncivilized beast that is the boy/man who has grown up without proper discipline.

Go examine the biographies of murderers, pimps, pornographers, serial rapists and sex offenders. Study the family backgrounds of these male monsters and you find over and over again the familiar story of “The Broken Home” (as social workers used to call it), the father who is alcoholic, abusive or absent, the boy growing up with obvious signs of emotional damage, the adolescent misfit, the “moody loner,” the juvenile delinquent. WE KNOW WHAT CAUSES THIS, and every harmful influence on child development is aggravated by feminism’s relentless war against the family and against all traditional moral values of our civilization.

Feminism is a rationalization of women’s failures and emotional deficits, a scapegoating of males — ALL MALES — as responsible for whatever it is that feminists are unhappy about on any given day. There is never an end to unhappiness for people who wallow in misery, and the problem is that by allowing these warped women with damaged souls to influence our law and cultures, we have created circumstances that will make society more harmful to all women.

Heaven help the man with enough courage to stand up to feminism’s insults and say, “LIARS!”

Liars always hate the truth. And when people lack the courage to stand up to their lies, truth is crushed underfoot.
Wraith
November 12th, 2014 @ 11:08 am

Y’ever think there may be a closet conservative or two at The Onion? http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-support-feminism-if-it-means-murdering-all,37301/
NeoWayland
November 12th, 2014 @ 11:09 am

Yes there are.
NeoWayland
November 12th, 2014 @ 11:10 am

It doesn’t matter what is generally believed. It just matters what the rapist believes.
Finrod Felagund
November 12th, 2014 @ 11:25 am

“Then she told me a story about free milk and a cow”
Adobe_Walls
November 12th, 2014 @ 11:45 am

Speaking as an old bull myself I can assure you neither one was thinking.
Adobe_Walls
November 12th, 2014 @ 11:52 am

So when all is said and done Feminists are merely Marxists.
Quartermaster
November 12th, 2014 @ 12:05 pm

What’s with the ageism? Do I have to start using profane words like Wendy’s?
Adobe_Walls
November 12th, 2014 @ 12:07 pm

Buying a prostitute’s time is a business transaction. It also reduces the act to it’s simple and singular gratification. It strips sex of all it’s characteristics usually defined as lovemaking, while sometime feigned the qualities of attractiveness, tenderness and emotional bonding are absent. While a prostitute may mimic enjoying the act, perhaps feeling that’s part of the service, it’s not actually required.
Fail Burton
November 12th, 2014 @ 12:08 pm

This is where the term “bullshit” came from, and gender feminists have brown eyes.
Quartermaster
November 12th, 2014 @ 12:13 pm

At least the speculation of Theoretical Physicists is limited by mathematics. It is a very serious leash and often, when experiments have been run, they’ve been pretty close to the mark. RadFems are restrained only by their fevered imaginations. Which means they aren’t restrained.