You must have JavaScript enabled to use this form. Your name. Email The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly. About text formats. Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Lines and paragraphs break automatically. How to cite this page Kelly, Rachel Tess. Subscribe to Jewish Women, Amplified and get blog updates in your inbox. Listen to Our Podcast. 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.
There is no way to eliminate the pregnancy risk entirely off PIV and the mitigating and harm-reduction practices such as contraception and abortion are inherently harmful, too.
Reproductive harms of PIV range from pregnancy to abortion, having to take invasive, or toxic contraception, giving birth, forced child bearing and rearing and all the complications that go with them which may lead up to severe physical and emotional damage, disability, destitution, illness, or death See factcheckme. How is this a normal civilised, respectful way to treat anyone? It is in itself an extremely physically invasive act, very often painful, generally at the beginning before the pain may be cut off by the genital arousal; causes all sorts of tears, bruises, swelling, discomfort, STDs, vaginal infections, urinary infections, genital warts, HIV and death.
Penetration of the penis into the vagina is completely unnecessary for conception. The only reason we may now not feel raped or have the impression we desired or initiated PIV, is because men broke down our barriers very skillfully and progressively from birth, breaking down our natural defences to pain and invasion, our confidence in our own perceptions and sensations of fear and disgust that tell us male sexual invasion is painful, harmful and traumatic.
Through an all-pervasive and powerful male propaganda, they stuff our minds from infancy with the idea that PIV is normal, desirable and erotic, before we can even conceive of it as something horrifying, and make sure we never see any alternative to their lie — or that if we do, we can no longer take in the information, are punished for thinking and saying otherwise. Rape comes from rapt, which is an old word for theft of woman-as-property.
Lastly, from a structural point of view, as a class oppressed by men, we are not in any position of freedom to negotiate what men do to us collectively and individually within the heterocage. Men, by whom we are possessed, colonised and held captive, are the sole agents and organisers of PIV. Everything you said was worded brilliantly. No other form of stimulation is painful, never i. A woman has to make her body not feel pain via piv over time. If you tasted something and it tasted disgusting, why on earth would you force yourself to eat or drink it again and again until your taste buds are so numbed you no longer feel the disgust, and come to believe you enjoy it?
This is pure torture. So is PIV. My ex, who is a sociopath, told me years ago that if women understood what men are REALLY doing to women when they put their penises into us, all women would be virgins and never let a man do it. He said that men assume we must be stupid for falling for this trick, and that the sexual revolution was the mockery of the century, because now women were giving to men for free what they used to have to marry us for.
Obviously there are some major errors in his misogynist analysis of the situation, but the essence of the sentiments do not contradict your analysis at all. Despite sociopaths being pathological liars, I think in this, he was telling the truth about men.
Exactly what they are doing. This is another reason for the livid response to radfems who have figured it out. This is how they force us to react in the face of any kind of violence or torture they inflict on us. High heels are painful and cause the tendon to shorten, to calcify, deforms the limbs and makes walking impossible? A pair of trousers or a top is too tight, stifling, short and uncomfortable?
Men always make fun of women and despise women for submitting to the debasing practices that they force on us. On the one hand, I have no problem with the idea that PIV is extremely risky, that this is totally one-sided and therefore detrimental to women, and that in the context of the level of grooming and violence we all experience the choice to engage in it can in no way be considered free.
The harmfulness of PIV, in my mind, is not necessarily relevant to whether you call it rape or not. The historical censorship alliances between anti-porn feminists and Christian moralists do give cause for alarm, but they strike me as marriages of convenience more than anything else.
Moreover, the same affinity does not apply on this subject. The allegation of puritanism against PIV critics becomes strange when one considers the record: Who has greater respect for that act the Abrahamic religious hierarchy? Straightness has indeed been a narrow road to travel. Going after PIV intercourse strikes at the heart of the traditional family and is anathema to the adherents of Abraham. Radical feminists may well veer into essentialism and conflation of construct with material reality, but if so they do these things for a legitimate political purpose.
Reaction against so-called feminist extremists is exactly that: counterrevolutionary reaction that supports the status quo either explicitly or implicitly. As tons of folks get off just fine from much less risky sex acts, rational reflection shows preference for PIV and penetrative sex in general to be based overwhelming in antiquated if not downright superstitious cultural narratives. Why should we respect irrationality in this matter? Current birth control debates sound absurd when you consider their foundation in a binary opposition between PIV intercourse and the much-dreaded abstinence.
Think about: The way men talk about women who have a lot of PIV. In the early s PIV was and arguably still is supposed to pleasure the man - and a woman enjoying herself was seen as shameful.
0コメント