Archive for the ‘Sex Porn’ Category

One of my all time favorite movies is Midnight Cowboy, for reasons that go beyond being a mere devotee of the acting of Dustin Hoffman, or  the music of Henry Nilsson, a fan of the young Jon Voight, or practitioner of  deconstructionism. Or the fact that  it only got a showing at the seedy theaters in my town when it came out.

It is one of the best, most insightful scripts I have ever read too, and in fact the background guys–like song writer Fred Neil, and script writer Waldo Salt, who survived and thrived after being blacklisted during the red scare of McCarthy–are more incredible than the actors .

Here’s the intro clip:

Midnight Cowboy is the only X rated film in history to ever receive an Oscar. Maybe it was the “gay theme” or maybe it was because it was one of the rare films in all of history to examine the issue of women who sexually abuse young boys; and how women are complicit, if not instrumental  in shaping the sexuality of children (no pun intended–but you will see what I mean). Here is a bit of Joe Bucks nightmare:

Zoom close-up -- Anastasia screaming soundlessly...
... thermometer under Little Joe's tongue... 
... Sally Buck shoves chocolate in her mouth... 
... bewigged poodle licks her fingers... 
... Sally Buck hangs enema can on bedpost... 
... Ratso leads ratpack chasing naked Anastasia... 
... corona of flashlights...

I still remember the run-down, dirty white theater fronts that had it up on the marquee in blue letters, or red; and everything about cowboys fascinated me in that era.Certainly everything about the forbidden letter X fascinated me too.

Being stoic, self reliant, silently suffering  cowboys was what they taught boys to be back then, and to think about being when we got older–little men running around with guns that go *BANG!*,  fighting the bad Indians, and the ‘bad men’ who were-apparently-everywhere. And certainly, we were taught to always tip our hats for the ladies–even if they were sticking enemas in our asses.

But by the time I was old enough to watch it myself, some fifteen or years later, it showed me some things about cowboys that John Wayne and the other cowboy as uber-man posturing of that era never did, and I liked that too.

But I like Midnight Cowboy because it’s just plain old, incredibly good film, full of stunningly complex images that are explained to us with remarkable simplicity.

Midnight Cowboy

Original Movie Poster

Very few films address sex and gender imbalances in ways that are inclusive of the recognition that men are engendered in certain ways that women cannot, or will not understand, even when they see it in action. Women as a rule are either not equipped to understand the male experience, or because of the nature of woman is equipped only to stare at herself, and issues that reflect herself constantly–or something like that…;-)

In the case of Joe Buck, the intrepid male prostitute, our character learns that the world is not equal, and we, as an audience, learn a bit about what creates false constructs of sexuality in the mind of a young boy. And how those constructs lead to poor choices.

In one scene we have the gang rape of a woman who could aptly be called “the town pump”, and Joe Bucks inability to stop that rape–of the woman who he thinks he loves; in another scene, aptly a nightmare, we have Joe Buck being anally raped by his grandmother; and the all too obvious conclusion that male sexuality is undervalued, or disposable to women.

It’s a film about the awakening of America to issues of  the human body as a commodious object, and the reality of under-valued male love. It’s a gay film in as much as it has a theme of men, loving each other, or men who are used by other men, but it’s a human story beyond that.

If you haven’t seen it, rent it, and if you have seen it, rent it again. Or just have a good read tonight--here’s the script.

 

Cover of "Mercy"

Cover of Mercy

Andrea Dworkin‘s Fiction 101: “Lie, for effect.”

The roots of the feminist ‘men are doormats’ dilemma, and why nice guys lose, finally, and always, in feminist theory. They can’t help  themselves–literally! They are dependent upon female narratives.

UPDATE: As predicted, DSK was found innocent and absolved of any wrong doing in this matter, and currently, Naffisatou Diallo is ‘seeking a confrontation’ to avoid being deported, and to vindicate her untenable position.

I am trying to track down this odd obscure detail about Andrea Dworkin, which is probably going to be harder than explaining why the wage gap between men and women is either a  clever falsehood, or a mis-representation of women’s choices.

And even harder than trying to explain why hiding the identity of Dominique Strauss-Kahn‘s rape-accuser, Nafisatou Diallo, is the western version of ‘putting a veil on women.’

Here is Naffisatou Diallo below– false rape accuser, and drug money courier. Her false accusation against Dominique Strauss Kahn could throw the French presidential election.

Tolerating One Lie, Leads to Generations of More Lies: Naffisatou Diallo, false rape accuser

But back to obscure facts for a minute. It seems that John Preston, gay activist, author, and founder of the now-defunct Gay House, Inc. in Minneapolis, remembers Andrea Dworkin being in Minneapolis sometime in 1971.

She claimed she was in Amsterdam at the time as a “battered wife.”

I haven’t the time or the resources to track down everything that feminists claim as truth, and I have learned the hard way that truth to them is not factual, or even ascertainable by standard methodology. Truth is monolithic, not individual, and collective, not personal, so collective lies become truths, and personal truth becomes a lie.

Such is the case in the genesis of Dworkin’s work Mercy, which I will address below. Mercy is also a great part of Dworkin’s belief in lying as an imperative to creating new truths, which is not necessarily ignoble when old truth constructions don’t work anymore but it IS dubious and non-factual nonetheless.

Nor do I want to waste too much time on tracking down one attention getting manipulation of facts, or conflations of statistics after another, like the latest inflation of statistics, or sketchy evidence on sex trafficking by the now soundly debunked Schapiro Group.

But I have a hunch I can find some data about this one claim. After all, Gay House was right up the block from one of my homes.

I am seeking the data because I have a theory that modern feminism is a co-option of womens voices, and a product of CIA social engineering. Sounds all hoolie boolie, huh?

But not so hoolie boolie when you think about a few things:
1) it is now well known that Gloria Steinem was a CIA operative—so much so that Betty Friedan questioned CIA involvement in the women’s movement, and

2)  Dworkin herself was a curiously mobile, though rather penniless  individual who crossed borders, and crossed gender identities so fluidly: not bad for an uneducated girl, until you take into account her affiliation with Steinem[…]; and

3) modern feminism is so deeply allied with the subversion of domestic discourse, and allied with police power that falsehoods are widely circulated as truths—subjectivity has overcome objectivity in truth telling, so much so that the latest ‘study’ of the exploitation of teen prostitutes need only base its assertions on “lookism,” rather than hard data, or what the rest of us know as “facts”.

And then, when you realize that the false rape ideology that drives them, and is popping up all over the media [Assange, DSK , etc.] became a memetic device around the same time that Steinem was sleeping with the CIA chief, and also running around with Henry Kissinger, the great war chief who brought us the severed ears fingers and  hands of Viet Nam, and the sawed off feet of Guatemalan Indians some years later.

Together, they devised perhaps the most clever plan ever of capitalist imperial conquest; and devised one of the best smokescreens against truth in history–next to the bible, of course.

Here, have a look yourself: the word rape is a very popular adword, and a cash cow for bloggers.

Rape is a popular Google Adword--bloggers make money with rape!

But the weight of just one lie can wear you out, and make you feel like nothing is worth it—that life itself is not worth living if lies are the vehicle to truth, or as truth is more commonly known in feminist circles, consensus, monolithic, collective female consensus. And that version of truth is even heavier with the agency of the state behind its telling.

Even so, I am trying to lift Andrea off of my shoulders, and get to the bottom of a simple fact.

More later….

et, al: Inspiring White Female Privilege.

A critique of an introduction, which functions as a rationalization of late-term post-partum white female privilege, abjection,* separatism cloaked in rape anxiety,and feminist cowardice.

This article is written for academic, “school educated” people, but I think it is important to write for non-academic people who should come first. For anyone reading this, who has never been to college, go here ** below the second line down.

For Nell, from Brooklyn–and feminist men: here below, is Nikki Crafts phallic totem.

———————————————————————————————————

Nikki Craft deserves more of the ear than most of her white female, feminist peers.

Why? Because Nikki Craft has ovaries ( I just thought I would see how that sounds–like if I said, “she has balls”-doesn’t carry the same ooomph, does it?).

No: Nikki Craft had balls–no, the gonads, in the sense of the phallus as a metaphorical and transferable human-family totem to actually take on the system. That is, before she located, and centered herself squarely, and interestingly in the middle of groups of naked children–but then changed her course– in order to argue against pedophilic sexual voyeurism of males, a curious position to be in indeed.

Nikki Craft was a warrior, not a whiner.

And Nikki Craft wasn’t a coward in her early activism, sniping from academic turrets of police and state mechanisms of pure power, like Russell[.], or from behind fire-walled, lap-dog guarded pseudo-feminist blogs like Skepchick.com which has recently had quite a discussion about Richard Dawkins, atheist, and sexism.

Most feminist men and women can’t help themselves, stuck as they are in Julia Kristeva‘s “borderline,” structured over a ‘lack’ of something rather than a possession of something, or cowering in the binary disconnect of self and other, like most modern entitled, privileged white feminists who lack the gonads to truly protest, or risk shattering the prolonged period of privileged female abjection.

Ms. Craft once took REAL risks–the same kind of risks that men face every day, and in doing so, was inherently believable, understandable, and respectable in her protests, unlike those who employ themselves merely as female ‘minds’ but inhabiting primarily, female bodies enmeshed in post-structural feminist narratology; and she transcended fear, and ‘her’ self.

She literally risked going to jail ( with all of it’s implied, potential, egalitarianism enhancing potential violence, and potential rape), and was actually jailed 17 times during her protests against misogyny.

You definitely can’t say that about any of the modern, entitled white women who talk, blog, and march in SlutWalks, and cry wolf at the mere possibility of male attention–who equate being spoken to in an elevator with rape , like white young feminist and religious skeptic Rebecca Watson, or joust at penises who have heretical gametes instead of right wing or power structure males.

However, the history of women’s protest in modern times is the history of differential and lesser-charged treatment by authorities in comparison to criminal offenses charged against men, and women of color.

The slap on the wrist is the norm in prosecuting white female criminal acts, and has been throughout the millennium–not the exception–which is not to minimize the effect of not being taken seriously by authority, but to point out the nature of second, third, and 17 th chances for those embodied white and female.

Craft was mad about men looking at pictures of naked women, which took their attention off of her, and other women she knew. She marauded in book and magazine stores, destroying magazines which portrayed naked women, which she felt threatened women’s safety–she took actual as opposed to imagined risks:

Unprivileged men don’t get 17th chances,stomping into stores and shops and wreaking havoc on merchandise; non-white women do not get second guesses, and second chances are rare, even for privileged men.

Black and brown or non-privileged white women are being locked in American prisons at an increasing rate[..], and all of them have historically faced harm that white women have NEVER faced.

However, white women have never faced prison, or the primary violation of their bodies as mere orthographic descriptions denoting criminality, unfathomably above and beyond the cold descriptors of ordinary humanity.

Further: imagine the absolutely unimaginable: that any man who acts in the agency of male, protesting the violence against the male body not just from authority, but from its constant companion of white female privilege that negotiates each male and other identity against racial and sexual pardigms of white female engendered or upholding power–should ever be nominated for an award by his arresting officer!

It could NEVER happen. Male protest, and other bodies for whom male protest attempts to speak, has been co-opted, essentially, at the site of a white woman’s womb.

To even attempt to create a list of men who have been imprisoned, beaten, jailed, and ruined by criminal records compiled by cops would be an exhausting project that would require a multi-billion dollar endowment, because the male body–regardless of race– is and has always been the center of the primary battles of discrimination between privileged men, and privileged women who compete for a voice in their ranks ( those ranks birthed, and upheld by mothers who birthed such men).

The use, control and abuse of male bodies is an agreement between the privileged of both genders; and male embodiment for most men is in and of itself ‘potentially harmful’ to society–men are punished merely for being male, because definitions of crime itself is proscribed male.

The male body that the privileged woman reaches into for phallic energy, and sperm donations is not the same male body that privileged females squeal to, or appeal to in their quest for justice.

In Russel’s introduction, she goes on to state what has become the driving mantra and the essential position of white female privilege-and by using the term white female, I by no means preclude brown, or black contenders for the white female influenced voice of privilege.

Russell admits her cowardice to some degree when says:

And likely, the lesson she speaks of brings her closer to comprehending what it is that keeps white female privilege arguing up the asses of male politicians, police, professors, and feminist lap-dog men, while purporting to care about brown and black women around the world– because jail is a very real possibility for all men, every day, and actual rape, death and harm a fact of life for non-white women.

But white women? C’mon…they are way too scared to take risks like talking to someone in an elevator, much less go to jail for insurrection.Fear of crossing from ‘abject’ reality to “actual reality”*** is what motivates the modern white feminist–fear of losing their entitlement, not fear of actual rape.

Unlike Craft, a primary cowardice that stops white women at the door of actual risk, and perpetuates their privilege, while minimizing the effects of their abject fear projections on men, and leaning on the backs of ‘other and othered’ men and women for actual stories of suffering and inequality.

Or, in the words of Russell:

This dialectic of “fancy” preemptive dialogue is “limned with the abject loss” of white female privilege–a murderous impulse against growing up, being truly equal, or at least facing the violence of ‘reality’ that most men, and non-white women face. It eludes reality, and eludes the presumptions of ‘othered’ male innocence in every discussion, and merely tokenizes actual violence that non-white women face.

Unimaginable, utopian, unavailable, and unattainable as white female perceptions of abject reality is, it is seductive in the least, for privileged, and compliant males, but it borders no reality known by the rest of men, or non white women.

White female abjection is so fetishized, and so normalized that egalitarian options are demonized and co-opted by the collaboration of cowards; the white female abject is a tool to diffuse and disorganize ‘other’ and ‘othered’ male protest, diminished as much by the actual arrests and subsequent brutality that non-white women and othered men face, without letters of recommendation, or commendation from police authorities.

* abjection in Julia Kristeva’s conception: “On the level of archaic memory, refers to the primitive effort to separate ourselves from the animal: “by way of abjection, primitive societies have marked out a precise area of their culture in order to remove it from the threatening world of animals or animalism, which were imagined as representatives of sex and murder” (Powers 12-13). On the level of our individual psycho sexual development, the abject marks the moment when we separated ourselves from the mother, when we began to recognize a boundary between “me” and other, between “me” and “(m)other.”[ needs citation]

But instead of art, or literature, white feminism gives us regurgitation’s of Plato, a structuralist, and Socrates, a pedophile, and always posits her place as an innocent, vulnerable, and unaware of conflict, holding her place at the mirror image abject, never quite seeing, or admitting to seeing, but always looking at herself, and projecting upon others whatthey, not she, sees there, in HER unbroken mirror.

____________________________________________________________

**What I am saying up there above the line where the book-smart but street-dumb paper-people live.

But for everybody else: Don’t white women act like they are a threatened species, and claim they have not enjoyed freedom because white men were in the way? White women have imprisoned white men and black men for generations, with social morality campaigns, and social scares, claiming black men “looked at them, ” assaulted them, ” raped them,” etc., while making black women nurse, and watch their babies while they ran around.

White women negotiate from a perspective of entitlement, but once, some white women, who kicked ass, did cool things that helped all women, like what Nikki Craft did, before she became incredibly fascinated and obsessed being near nudist children.

Yet sadly, modern white women are cowards,who want you to keep them in the position of power that they are used to (listen to them, pay for them, enable them, believe in them, and at all times spoil them like little girls, but never talk about it): and, unlike most people, and most women, especially black, brown, or non-white women, they want you to think that they have a hard time in life, despite the fact that white women have been the primary living, breathing, financial beneficiaries of all of histories wealth, all of histories dead men, and all of histories power.

In fact, white women want you to help ensure their breeding success, against your own, and want you to believe that mixing with them will help protect your childrens future–it won’t. The problem is, you cannot protect your children from them–look at American laws, look at ‘modern’ history–everywhere there is a white woman, there is child rape, slavery, death of fathers, subservience of ‘colored women’, and kidnapping or “adoption” of your non-white children]

*** actual reality is what non-white women, and unprivileged men everywhere face due to the un-modulated voice of white women and their fears, as opposed to the rest of people and their realities.

Porn KeyWords: eight year old girl sucking, eight year old girl tits, prepubescent girl likes mothers tits, under ten year old sexual training, seven year old girl and breasts, eight year old sucks hard, seven year old wants it, eight year old needs training, seven year old needs some cream, young girl needs some cream, eight-year-old girl wants screams for cream, pre-pubescent girl eats cream in moms lap, eight year old girl eats cream while mother looks on.

Mother breastfeeding an eight-year-old girl. Is this child being used by the mother for pleasure? After all, women experience orgasm during breastfeeding.  And I don’t call this an educational video, I call it radical feminist child pornography.

I wonder why any woman would encourage her grown child to suck on her when the kid is eight years old. And I say encourage, because if you notice in the video, the ‘home’ is a virtual cult of mothers orgasmic breasts.

An unplanned orgasm during breastfeeding is one thing- quite normal, healthy, and expected for up to three years of life or so. But eight? How about eleven?

And setting boundaries between adults and children is fundamental to raising healthy children–I won’t even cite that. Boundaries are good, at least, according to ‘society’. As if society is to be believed….”It’s for the children,” they say.

Hmmmmm. According to the video,  “Veronica believes children should decide for themselves…”

Veronica, the mother coos to the child “little monkey…”

I have known a woman who called her vagina ‘her little monkey’; I have known another woman to call her vibrator a little monkey, and called my genitals little monkey as well.

Then to the viewer, Mother Veronica says “She has a soft…strong attachment to it”, speaking about her breastfeeding, near-pubescent daughter. Then she rationalizes the behavior by stating that children who breastfeed longer have higher IQ.

The mother exhibits two rationalizations similar that pedophiles who abuse their children often use: she has a special coded language of cuteness and objectification calling the child her “little monkey,” and also the rationalization that she acts out of love. I am sure somewhere in the literature, you can even find the claim that sex with children makes them smarter, too.

“They may blame the children for being too attractive or sexually provocative. They may also maintain that they are “teaching” the child about “the facts of life” or “love”; this rationalization is frequently offered by pedophiles who have molested children related to them”

Read more: Pedophilia – children, causes, DSM, functioning, therapy, adults, person, people http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html#ixzz1RQg4PcuO

Yukki, sexually abusive, and inappropriate, says I. And how can the child possibly ‘decide for ‘herself? The mother wields ultimate decision making, power, and influence over the girls mind.

If pornography is actually about power relationships and control, or even if equality was a goal, I wonder what the world would think if men had eight year old girls sucking on their tits while they masturbated, or assured us that eight year old boys need their penises held every time they went to the bathroom. We know where that would go…

Breastfeeding grown children is a betrayal of the parents responsibility, and a glimpse of one of the ways that female sexuality–and female abuse of children–takes a different form than sexual abuse of children by males.

Sadly, women feminists, and the actors within the women’s movement are hesitant or dismissive of any suggestion or attempt to categorize this and other inappropriate objectifying or abusive acts that women commit against children as criminal.

Yukki and age- inappropriate, in the very least, says I. But a potential clue about the nature, and difference of sexual abuse of children by women.

Related articles

Hot, sweaty, all-day-long monkey fucking. Monkey fucking, lesbian monkey fucking, mother and infant fucking, bad aunties molesting their nephews and nieces, older women and younger men. Hot African monkey fucking; maternal incest, women who have sex with children. Hot monkey butt sex, all day long.

Porn language is vulgar, but more appropriate for children than flag draped caskets, or social movements that give birth to soldiers instead of scholars.

VULGARITY is a word that upper classes use to oppress the language, speech, and bodies of the lower classes,while upper classes wage wars everywhere, and kill children, using those same peoples bodies. But not all monkey societies use flags, or flag draped caskets, which are more vulgar than language that humans use.

Porn keywords are vulgar, and necessary symbols of culture. But porn keywords don’t always tell the whole tale, and you never know what you might find when you click a link. For instance, what do you get with you cross feminists with ‘fisting’? Here is the answer.

The highly pornographic video above is about bonobos, a tribe of smaller chimpanzees that are led by women, not men. Er…led by females, not males– that fuck to solve all of their social problems. This female led group fucks everyone, all the time, even their own daughters, but never their sons–they leave that to their sisters.

Some scientists say that this adaptation–fucking instead of fighting in times of high stress–relieves social tensions, and keeps the tribe together.Violence is relatively rare in that society–so the scientists say–and we all know what they say about cultural relativism!!

The video is pornographic by definition because it has no literary, creative, or scientific merit despite generations of monkey-fucking porn watchers arguing that these type of videos teach us about ourselfs. Yeah, right, like I want to rub my pussy, my cock, or my ass against something, and then eat till I’m sleepy, and in a snuggling mood…

Bonobos, called pan paniscus, are closely related to humans and chimpanzees–called pan troglodytes (the ape you see at the zoo, or the one who tore this woman’s face off–plastic surgery is soooo NOT feminist… )

Whereas human males and females have a sliding hierarchical scale of when how and with whom to use violence, and chimpanzees use it by default, bonobo’s are a bunch of fuckers, and they solve problems with cunnilingus, pussy to pussy rubbing, blowjobs, fucking and ass rubs.

They are the only matriarchal apes in the whole world, and they have sex with each other, sex with their young, and sex sex sex all day long, especially when food is near. Food is like monkey money*, and it makes them horny.

Some people say they were named wrong, and they should have been called pan promiscuous….or feminist monkeys–which would be incorrect because most feminists believe in violence, and only have sex with people who have lots of monkey money, and chimpanzee friends.

It is scientifically quite possible that we descend in some way from this form of ape, as our DNA is 97-98.5% the same! However, you can observe differences in human behavior and decide for yourself if the people you know are more chimp like, or more bonobo like.

Groups of men and women that center themselves around violence are more likely chimps, and groups that center themselves around sex are more like bonobos.Oh, and of course, who outsource their violence to chimps.

And I am just monkeying around and playing with– examining- language and its symbolic value, but incest is a serious topic. So if you know a girl who is a victim of maternal incest or are a therapist engaged in treating victims of maternal incest, here is a good book for them or you to read, by Beverly Ogilvie that covers the topic extensively.

If you are a boy who has been sexually abused by bonobos, good luck–no one believes you exist.

End Child Sexual Abuse Foundation

Image via Wikipedia

So what are the  desires of powerful women? What is it that ‘turns them on’ beyond power? Where does their healthy urge merge with deviance, or illegal activity?

I suspect the answer is that what turns them on is what turns anyone in power on: the tools of power–rape, violence directed at the poor, child molestation, class and gender oppression, the committing of crimes withouit accountability, and social control. Profiles exist of such people, but these profiles are directed against, embodied, and engendered male.

The difference is that no one has yet questioned what these women are, or what is really beneath the surface of their desires, or how much they fit the sexual profiles of power they themselves have established.

But here below, is a clue, from a recollection of Andrea Dworkin, militant one-winged anti-male feminist, activist against rape, oppression, enslavement, and pornography. In the published recollection, she describes a “love” for her mother, Sylvia ( she does not ‘name’ her father in that same piece) that was in her own words, her “first great romance.

Andrea Dworkin, childhood sexual experience with her mother, and other children.

 I have idyllic memories of childhood in Camden: my brother, my father, and me having tickling fights, wrestling, on the living room floor; me in my cowgirl suit practicing my fast draw so I could be an American hero; a tiny sandbox on our front lawn where all the children played, boys and girls together, our Eden until a certain year when the girls had to wear tops–I may have been five but I remember screaming and crying in an inarticulate outrage. We girls played with dolls on the stoops, washed their hair, set it, combed it out, dressed the dolls, tried to make stories of glamour in which they stood for us. I remember being humiliated by some girl I didn’t like for not washing my doll’s hair right–I think the doll was probably drowning. Later, my grandfather married her mother across the street, and I had to be nice to her.

I was happier when we moved from dolls to canasta, gin rummy, poker, and strip poker. The children on the street developed a collective secret life, a half dozen games of sex and dominance that we played, half in front of our mothers’ eyes, half in a conspiracy of hiding. And we played Red Rover and Giant Steps, appropriating the whole block from traffic. And there was always ball, in formal games, or alone to pass the time, against brick walls, against the cement stoops. I liked the sex-and-dominance games, which could be overtly sadomasochistic, because I liked the risk and the intensity; and I liked ordinary games like hide-and-seek. I loved the cement, the alleys, the wires and telephone poles, the parked cars that provided sanctuary from the adults, a kind of metallic barrier against their eyes and ears; and I loved the communal life of us, the children, half Lord of the Flies, half a prelude to Marjorie Morningstar. To this day, my idea of a good time is to sit on a city stoop amid a profusion of people and noise as dark is coming on.

My question is: what exactly is she re-living on those steps, and why is she seeking her memories of children, and children’s games to re-live it?

We have a father encouraging heroism in the young Andrea; a father establishing a sexual angst based but clear boundary by stopping the play at tickling, but we have a mother who is omnipresent, omniscient, and possibly controlling a child’s deepest fears about death and harm in every situation, and yet that mother is adored.

Dominance in sexual situations; dominance in sexual situations with children; secrecy in dominance games with children. Are glimpses into Andrea Dworkin’s—one feminist among many, but what a feminist she was– inner motivations.

The key, in my opinion, to understanding the motivations, libidos, and power quests of women isn’t going to be found in asking patriarchy the same old questions about men, but from understanding the scant empirical evidence of powerful women’s self-edited, or self- suppressed, self-censored, coded, and hidden dialogues.

In Andrea’s case—and Andrea who became grossly overweight in her later years, like many child victims of maternal sexual abuse—she played out her early sexual power quests in front of her mother, as she said, and her early sexual experimentation, and its direction occurred “half in front of our mothers’ eyes, half in a conspiracy of hiding.”

That conspiracy of hiding is the biggest clue, along with the fact that it was Andrea, and other girls who had other mothers, that played such things out—in front of mothers.

I personally believe that women’s rape fears are the internalized, non-verbally cued, female embodied, and maternally engendered fear that fathers would not approve of the behaviors that mothers instill, encourage, embody, and condone, as long as those behaviors take place in front of women.

And those women, just like cops, like to mediate wider social interactions, and to see what young vaginas are up to, voyeuristically, from the outside looking in.

Andrea never had children, and I suspect it is because she knew herself well, and protected them pro-actively from herself, and her mothers female embodied, voyeuristic Lacanian gaze. Later Andrea extrapolated that gaze into her views of pornography, and projected that gaze onto men in general, rather than being a true hero, and discussing her interactions of childhood sexual dominance play that could likely have been encouraged, embodied, or manipulated by her mother, and the mothers of other girls whom she played with.

That is my pure specualtion of exactly what it is that might lay beneath the surface of feminist projections about male sexuality, after all, the evidence i so scant- but I believe that underneath women’s dialogues lurks Andrea, on the steps, still looking for kids to play with and dominate—and another mother to look at her approval seeking, dominance-based sexual displays.

Nuit Blanche - Key hole sessions - Girls.Greas...

Image via Wikipedia

Moderate feminists have taken a less extreme position and stated that although extremist feminism is a necessary evil to address social problems, primarily rape by men, they note that not all men, and not all sex is controlling of women, or womens choices, and have noted as well that some women have power, and exercise complete choice in their sexual matters. However, the stipulation, the fine print underneath this moderate feminism maintains that womens choices exist within the context of patriarchy, and that matriarchy does not exist. And so women are de facto not in full control of their bodies or choices.

Unlike most social movements, where one can discern a left and a right wing, feminist movement has only one wing, which is a moderate to extreme right social and sexual conservatism. Because militant and extremist feminism exists exclusively on the right wing of promoting violence as a means of control, and both moderate and militant feminists have a basic belief in police infrastructure and intervention in all matters and at all levels of male and female interactions. Lastly, they agree that women and sex are sexual commodities that can be capitalized on, but they disagree on who should maintain the profits that are and can be made by selling womens sexual commodity. None of them have any ideas about male sexuality, or its use and abuse as a sexual commodity.

Thus, there really is no real center, and no left wing of feminism.

There are splinter groups who seldom have a main voice in the discussion, like sex positive feminists. Then there are often times controversial women who feminists disavow as being anti-feminist, conservative, or biased against feminist objectives, even though these controversial women have attained what feminists claim is unattainable for women. Christina Hoff Summers; Ann Coulter; Nadine Strossen to name a few.

These individuals and groups are not dystopian nor Utopian as is the feminist wing. These individuals and small groups are usually more day to day, blue collar, and working class; often what could be called sexually precocious,or deviant, even in moderate terms; sexually liberated, independent minded, and feeling in control of their bodies and their choices. It is apparent what they want, and what they desire, and more often than not, they go out and get it.

Homeschoolers, hippies, church groups and midwife networks who do not necessarily identify with feminism, or agree with its foundations and philosophies are feminist in practice and principle, but not in wider social practice or activism, and with good reason. Womens shopping networks, and working nurses who earn their way to the top of their professions are feminist as well, by doing, not by preaching.

Actions speak louder than words.

BDSM women desire that; feminist prostitutes who desire safer work conditions and legalization of their craft desire that; female truck drivers who love to travel and seek sex coast to coast get that, and soldiers who want paychecks and lots of play or heirarchy based power–and understand the risks–get that.

But in all the dialogue, one thing is clearly, and consistently missing: discussion about truly deviant motivations and behaviors of women who are in power, who wish to attain power, and who commit deviant acts or crimes in order to maintain power.

What does the feminist wing want? What really turns them on? It seems they want it all, and they want a police force at their beck and call that will enable that perspective without question; they want to rule, but they don’t want to actually fight for that power, or explain its rewards—they want police inserted into the dialogue on the pretense of rape, so that they can have that dialogue safely. But what are they protecting that requires such a high degree of safety to discuss or conceal it?

The wider discussion itself did not arise out of thin air. Rape, child rape, social marginalization and gender based oppression is and was an endemic failure of the American state, and failure to prosecute rape was a horrible historical fact.

In fact, women’s groups assertions that possible harassment or rape is the number one concern facing advancement and equality of women, and these actualities have basis in fact, because after all, some men had committed rape, etc., and and we compiled data that confirmed this thesis.

But what other social dialogues and mechanisms enhance thepower of rape anxieties?

And what to do about women who have power, and the same tendencies as anyone in power to use the ‘tools of power,’ which they have made clear are rape, oppression based on gender, and false notions of biological destiny. How do such women abuse power? What deviant acts are they committing in order to mask and fuel their power?

When discussing this one winged feminism, and the endless stream of female consciousness that projects rape fear and rape anxiety upon the men of the nation has one curious side effect: it masks the sexual actions, intentions, sexual desires, and sexual fantasies of these women almost entirely, while displaying that exact power over men.

In projecting that men are rapists; murderers; pedophiles, etc., and going after the data to back those assumptions, we know what it is that they say men are, and that the data aimed at collecting such information supports that men can be what they say men are—but we never quite get a glimpse of what it is that these women actually are, or to know what it is that is at the center of their libidinal reality.

So, if men are prone to rape by nature, prone to violating the basic social compact that prohibits such behavior and in a social and physical position to actually rape–to have access to victims, what of women who have access to children? What about women who have access to children AND power?

We never get a glimpse of what it is in these womens learning process that makes them so sure what a rapist is, or a pedophile—what one looks like, as they are so sure they know; what special secret access beyond post-Freudian anecdotes of child abuse, and recent decades advances in examining male deviance that support what these women claim are mens desires, and mens fantasies, apart and apparently, separate from their own.

We see how hard they have worked to convince society what it is that men are capable of, and we have seen the statistics on crime mirror to some degree the reality that they proposed—but in alarmingly small numbers, and under questionable social circumstances.

We see the police agency act as exactly what the police act as anywhere: protectors of the middle to upper class, and oppressors of the poor; all without ever asking about, seeing, or questioning what it is that these women of power desire; what it is that they are capable of. We can easily infer that police ARE the other wing of that kind of power oriented feminism.

But we have not yet examined these women, and their power.

 

Rape culture is a concept that nobly, and rightfully challenges the co-option of our bodies, and the existing social order, and attempts to describe a social condition of oppression of women by the co-option of their bodies and choices, and often rightfully asserts that American society, and western society in general, is a society based on the control of womens bodies, and women’s choices in reproduction, and sexual expression.

But this one-winged philosophy denies male experience within that same rape culture, and stifles male voice that could actually enable the tilting of the world —in one great direction–, ensuring the end, not of patriarchy, but of dominance and control models of social and sexual interactions.

That is, dominance and control is what turns these women on and gets their sexual wheels turning, which is likely why they make appeals not to common men, but rather, they constantly appeal to police and state authority for “protection from rapists.” Perhaps womens sexuality is embodied as an object for those who are into voyeurism, rather than objectified as objects of ‘sexual conquest’-an actual physical action, rather than a reaction, to female exhibitionism.

That women are upset at the disjointed reality of the potential actualized and sexual male gaze, rather than the sexualizing female gaze and its voyeuristic, tacit approval of sexual displays, becomes evident whn exploring the formative years of powerful feminists.

Feminist theory stands directly in the way of ending patriarchy, basing its argument from semi-supported, a priori evidence, and studies—endless studies—of purported male sexual behaviours, rather than a posteriori evidence of its own longings, tendencies, and desires in unison or cohesive agreement with human nature, or their own.

In doing so, they have inserted themselves very much like rapists via the vehicle of police state social mechanisms, into a dialogue that is divisive, non-inclusive of reality, and sexually harmful.

Some militarists and extremists in the feminist camp have taken an extreme posture that all sex between men and women is forced or coerced sex, and that all interactions between a man and a woman are exploitative of what women essentially are.They have also suggested that all representations of women and sex that take place in such a sytem are pornographic, and that these images of women do not represent the actual sexuality of women.

They also have implied in most cases, and stated at times that the penis is a tool of oppression, a weapon of control, and also have theorized a world where women rule, and that such a world would give women access to men’s penises for the purpose of sperm production, and conceiving children.

Their views also hold that rape of women–and by extrapolation—children, is the primary aim of men in general, and the particular and specific aim of men in power—the patriarchy. They were not all wrong, and especially as concerns that eras Feudian hypotheses that held that girls engaged in fantasizing about being raped by their fathers, when in fact girls were experiencing actual sexual molestation and abuse; yet they have yet at any length explore abuse of sexual abuse of children by mothers, or particularly by their own mothers.