A remarkable uproar has been inspired by a radical feminist’s opposition to heterosexual intercourse, which she terms “PIV” (penis in vagina) and denounces as always rape:
First, well intercourse is NEVER sex for women. Only men experience rape as sexual and define it as such. Sex for men is the unilateral penetration of their penis into a woman (or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice) whether she thinks she wants it or not — which is the definition of rape: that he will to do it anyway and that he uses her and treats her as a receptacle, in all circumstances — it makes no difference to him experiencing it as sexual. That is, at the very least, men use women as useful objects and instruments for penetration, and women are dehumanised by this act. It is an act of violence.
As FCM pointed out some time ago, intercourse is inherently harmful to women and intentionally so, because it causes pregnancy in women. . . .
Men, by whom we are possessed, colonised and held captive, are the sole agents and organisers of PIV. Men dominate us precisely so we can’t opt out of sexual abuse by them; intercourse is the very means through which men subordinate us, the very purpose of their domination, to control human reproduction.
Every sane person’s first reactions:
- Is she crazy?
and
- Who is this woman?
The second question is unanswerable, because the absence of any biographical information on her “Radical Wind” blog makes it impossible to know anything about the author. This serves an ideological purpose: Her claims about her own experience cannot be fact-checked, so that she is free to tell any self-serving lie. Anonymity also serves the useful purpose of concealing anything in her biography that might undermine her credibility.
We do not know the author’s age, education or occupation, although we can deduce from linguistic clues (e.g., “organizers” and “behavioural”) that she is British; we can deduce from a reference to “mass” that her family was Catholic; and we know that she attended university. She also offers a tendentiously anti-male sexual history of herself, using “trauma-bond” as a term for “falling in love” with a man:
When I was really young I always wondered what it meant to “be in love” . . . I never “fell” in love with anybody when I was young, and was always wondering whether I was normal or not. . . .
Anyway, a few rapes / PIV / abusive relationships later, as I was still adolescent, I “fell in love”, or so I thought. . . .
(What she discloses here is that her earliest sex acts with men, as a teenager, did not involve romantic feelings on her part.)
Needless to say, this first experience was extremely painful. The guy was something like 13 years older than me, I was still a minor, and my “love” to him would be all the more strong that he was very fleeting, would contact me only every now and then when he needed to fuck (rape) me. I was too grateful for him paying any attention to me to be even aware of his abusive behaviour, or understand what it meant. I was confused that he only wanted to see me sporadically, instead of starting a relationship, which is the way in which this love is supposed to be expressed. If he liked me enough to “desire” me, why didn’t he want a relationship?
(So, after a series of loveless sexual relationships as a teenager, and while still underage, she became involved — and “fell in love” — with a man about 30 years old. The rather unusual nature of her early sexual/romantic history is not explained, nor does the author even seem to realize that her particular experience was so extraordinary as to be quite literally abnormal.)
Not knowing whether he “loved” me or not made me constantly anxious. The emotional distance, neglect and constant waiting for him made the pain acute.
Fast forward a year, I finally realised that he’d used me and had no respect for me. I decided to give up on hoping that he’d “fall in love” (= get into the promised relationship). The instant i’d done that, I felt such an amazing sense of freedom. It felt like all the weight of the world had suddenly disappeared!! I wasn’t tied, bonded to him anymore. I was independent. I didn’t have to live my entire life according to him, waiting and yearning for him. The illusions suddenly fell apart and I saw him as some useless guy. I told myself: never again will I be so naïve with a man! I was unlucky I thought, and I should just have picked a better man, and been more careful.
(Again, note the lack of awareness that her experience was abnormal, and the inability to see her unusual situation objectively.)
The problem was, that over the next five or six years, this pattern kept repeating and repeating and repeating itself. Every man I trauma-bonded to either was only interested in using me for PIV (rape) or had no interest in me at all. I thought something was wrong with me, maybe I wasn’t pretty enough, skinny enough, boobed enough, outward going enough, mature, seductive, whatever. I couldn’t get it what it was that I lacked. I didn’t understand why I accumulated so many failures. Why did they never stay? Why was I so unlucky in “love”? Alternatively, I wouldn’t trauma-bond but then i’d be fully aware that I didn’t want the PIV and physical invasion (when I wasn’t so much aware of it with the others, because of the trauma-bonding) and it would be even more humiliating. I was still too grateful for the attention though to ward them off, so it would be painfully disgusting and i’d hate myself for what I perceived was self-betrayal.
When I was “attracted” they didn’t want, but when I didn’t want, they wanted. It didn’t make sense.
So, to summarize: After a few loveless adolescent sexual trysts, but while she “was still a minor” — perhaps 17 — the author fell in love with a man about 30 years old who exploited her and did not reciprocate her romantic feelings. Then she entered into a pattern of relatively short-term sexual relationships with men (a) toward whom she was “attracted” and who did not reciprocate; or (b) for whom she had no such attraction, but with whom she had sex because she felt “grateful” for their attention.
From this sketchy (and unverifiably anonymous) history, we can approach an answer to the first question: Yes, she is crazy, which is to say her behavior has been irrational and self-destructive, and her inability to cope with disappointment — “I didn’t understand why I accumulated so many failures” — led her to adopt an extreme anti-male worldview, i.e., radical feminism. But this is all radical feminism actually is, the elaboration of mental illness as a political philosophy. Sane, normal and happy women don’t become feminists. However, as the realities of sexual behavior in our culture becomes increasingly abnormal — and widespread sexual promiscuity is, historically speaking, abnormal — fewer women are sane and happy, so feminist beliefs become more commonplace and abnormality is thereby normalized.
Returning to a sane culture, however, would require both sexes to abandon much that we have been taught to consider “progress” and, therefore, feminist insanity will become more common.
Remember pro-abortion “Queer Feminist” Sarah Alcid?
“Heteronormativity and gender roles also rear their ugly heads on Valentine’s Day. Gifts for ‘him’ or ‘her’ are clearly divided and marked and it’s almost impossible to find cards that represent queer couples. . . .
“It’s not hard to see why Valentine’s Day is problematic for many feminists. Celebrated traditionally, Valentine’s Day magnifies many of the very systems of domination that we work to critique and dismantle.”
— Sara Alcid, “Valentine’s Day: What’s A Feminist To Do?” EverydayFeminism.com, Feb. 14, 2013
Anyone who is not a feminist would describe this as the word-salad gibberish of a lunatic, but because feminism has become so commonplace, fewer people have the sanity necessary to recognize it for the madness it actually is, and it is now widely considered “hate” to disagree with these baby-killing lesbian man-haters.
