Posts Tagged ‘Sexuality’

What do John Wayne Gacy Jr. and Sufjan Stevens have in common?

Gacy as "Pogo The Clown"

That other John Wayne: Gacy as Pogo the Clown.mon?

No–it isn’t songwriting, or sympathetic followings, per se–it is secrets, hidden underneath their floor boards.  And their polar opposite reactions to being sensitive men or sexual men in a society that has a problem with sensitive, sexual men.

Is Sufjan Stevens gay, or just very very homo-romantic?  I don’t know–what really matters is that he, through the feat of human compassion,  brought my attention to an obscure fact about a serial killer, the effects of  labeling theory, and the self fulfilling prophecy of criminalizing male sexuality, and rendering men as demons–before they actually become demonic.

Sufjan Stevens’ Ballad of John Wayne Gacy

Another thing they have in common is that neither  men ever knew this other man, Harold Wayne Lovell,  who was long thought to be  one of Gacy’s eight unidentified victims. Lovell was recently found alive living in Florida, and his surviving family members are overjoyed at their reunion.

“Tim Lovell and Theresa Hasselberg hadn’t seen their brother, Harold Wayne Lovell, since he left their family’s Chicago home in May 1977 in search of construction work. At the time, Gacy was trolling for young men and boys in the area. He was a contractor, and he lured many of the 33 young men and boys he killed by offering them work.” More story here

Youtube is full of videos about Gacy, but here is one with footage that I actually remember from that time:

The Gacy story touched me directly when I was young, because I grew up in the windy city, not far from where he was stashing bodies like a squirrel stores nuts for the winter– young male bodies, underneath his floorboards;  and he was one of the first “boogiemen” that I was actually afraid of. The city went into ‘evil gay boogieman overdrive,’ when his victims were discovered.

But it was the song by Sufjan Stevens some decades later that made me LOOK AT Gacy differently, to actually see part of him that I was not even made aware of: Gacy himself was sentenced to ten years in prison, essentially for being a gay man, and it wasn’t until  later, after he got out, that he became a serial killer.*

Such are the effects of sexual repression and oppression of the rights of human beings to have consensual, or private  sex;  and the effects of social mechanisms that selectively enforce the way our bodies are categorized, objectified, labeled, used, and abused by society. Such are the effects of mis-directed rage.

If Gacy was wiser, maybe he would have just taken a shotgun down to the local police station and aimed for a few heads. Silent complicity is still silence when it comes to oppression.

And American prisons are rape factories, with some 216,ooo reported rapes or sexual assaults per year. American prisons are routinely cited for human rights  violations by Amnesty International.

I am not a criminologist, or anything other than an amateur profiler, yet neither do I trust the profiles in any sense other than confirmation bias, as the constructions or the constructors and their interpretations of social reality are almost always devoid of causal factors that deny us insight into the society that creates them. We give the jobs to those who uphold the norms, not to those who challenge them.

Mugshot taken of John Wayne Gacy, taken follow...

Gacy Before society applied the label of deviant, and ...

I do not condone homicide or rape, or the rape of men and boys. However, it is not a stretch that one could  imagine that Gacy’s crimes were preventable, had society not criminalized homosexuality at the time. And the deaths of 33 men and boys could have been prevented.

I remember the first footage I ever saw of the scene of the crime, and I remember thinking “that could be anywhere; I could have been under those floorboards.”

But, now, looking back, I realize that Gacy buried a piece of himself under those boards as well, because it takes quite snap of the mind and lots of rage to do something like he did. I also takes a society that criminalizes male sexual urges as well.

Oh: what did John Wayne Gacy look like in his last booking photo?  What did he look like after his wife left him, he was imprisoned, and he lost everything that he had ever worked for? What did he look like after being imprisoned for consensual sex? AFTER the label of deviant stuck?

He was smiling that last time, in his last arrest– a strange, ironic, almost relieved and painfully annoyingly smile–the smile of an ‘anti-social sociopath.’

After the label stuck: The Smiling Sociopath

Personal notes for later thought: 1) The name John Wayne carries a lot of masculine baggage 2) False expectations on men cause sexual deviance , re: the diathesis stress model 3) society has a need to create a criminal class, and then, to police that class. 4) scapegoating males begins early, and often until they become monsters 5) I am against the death penalty even more now.

Below is a short list of how normal deviance is pushed by ‘normative’ social forces into becoming abnormal deviance.

* From Wikipedia: “On December 3, 1968,[27] Gacy was convicted of sodomy and sentenced to 10 years at Anamosa State Penitentiary, located in Jones County, Iowa.[27][28] The day Gacy was sentenced, his wife petitioned for divorce[29] and requested possession of the couples’ home, property and subsequent alimony payments.[30] The Court ruled in her favor and the divorce was final in September 1969. Gacy never saw his first wife or children again”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy

When feminist  blogger Jill Filipovic opened her suitcase after the TSA had been sniffing through it, she discovered a note, which said “Get Your Freak On Girl!

They had found an item related to something that always raises a huge red flag:

“The item in question was a small, inexpensive silver bullet vibrator from the sex toy chain Babeland, chosen because Filipovic thought it “wouldn’t raise any flags at TSA.” Now “I’m grossed out,” says Filipovic, “but it’s also hilarious.” The TSA says it’s investigating the incident.”

Ahhhh….those western women and their sex robots

Note found after the TSA had sniffed through her luggage, and found her vagina massaging robot.

Holla Mom

HollaMom, from Not For Pink Hats echoes my thoughts exactly:

Holla says ” What if maybe, just maybe…  she made the whole thing up??   Of course I do not know this woman but to me it’s a brilliant plan.  Everyone hates the TSA and wouldn’t put anything past them, so she planted the note at some point.   Because there are worse things to get harassed over then a $15 dildo and judging from her website she certainly wouldn’t be embarrassed about having this kind of thing made public.  So perfect plan right?  She’s the latest TSA victim, gets to yak and talk about it all week and her only crime is what… the fact that she brought a cheap drug store toy over to Dublin, big deal.

Genius!!

Well I guess we’ll never know.  But if she did plant the whole story, it’s a good one and it’s getting huge press today, which means she’s getting huge publicity for her blog, and mission accomplished….”

Yup. And Filipovic bought that vibrator in Dublin, apparently, which has recently  gained notoriety for Rebecca Watsons elevatorgate stunt.  Bunch of scandal engineering blog-runts…

In the age of the internet, feminists have taken to orchestrated publicity stuntsthat involve their…um….hunt for a wider audience. And the credibility of anyone who calls themselves a feminist is a huge red flag against credibility.

I love language, don’t you? And I hate very few things –but one of them is the word-police, who are all hypocrites, bullies, and control freaks.

Another is cultural imperialism–in this case, white American women trying to impose their politicized view of words on non-first world peoples. To white, middle class American women, the word cunt is a bad werd–regardless of the hundreds of positive meanings it has in other cultures.

But my first fun, un-fettered, sexxy thoughts came from the dictionary! And there are people in the world who would burn them, if they had half the chance.

The classic stereotype is always some prude, begging some scunt:  “talk dirty to me,” as she moans like a cow with a prolapse. We all know her, don’t we?

Then I guess she’s not the prude we thought she was…;-)

Then, after they get their clothes back on and leave the key at the front desk, that/those prudes march all about the world regulating bad ideas, and bad words, which leads to the further regulation of speech, ideas, and essentially, communication itself–which is the root of all commerce. Hypocrites.

Then, once they get you trained to see it and say it their way–  onward to imperialist wars for capital!–but there is no reason involved in emotional responses to words, only control impulses and repressed sex drives that cause conflict, while seeking to create herd behavior around buzzwords-simple as that.

But real Women Love Cunts, and so do I.  No, wait–that came out wrong. Maybe I should say–we tolerate them? Or: sometimes people who have vaginas act like real cunts.

No…that’s not it either. Hmmm…it’s hard explaining this conundrum.

Well, Sex Negative women are  women who act like cunts anyways…er, wait a minute…Cunts are vaginas, and sometimes, they are lots of other fun useful, productive things,  too. Sex positive men and women love vaginas, even when they are called cunts, or act like cunts.

Total vaginal prolapse, post-partum, cow, side...

HUGE RED FLAG: The whole dialogue about the word cunt has prolapsed. Any woman who hates the word cunt, is a big red flag for me, and I have known a few of them first hand...

Did that clear it up?

Well, you can do the thinking your self, if you would like to, but  language is the original aphrodisiac, and any woman who despises the word CUNT is a huge red flag.

The word is so full of history that it would be a shame to lose it–and the women that can’t pull their heads out of their emergency of dialectic prolapse long enough to realize that, have no clue what it really means.(See link below to Mathew Hunt)

Dialectically, word policing  is a tool of the middle and upper classes to control and manipulate the lower classes. It is the klitorisvorhaut that covers over sensitive dialogue, and it has even less of a purpose.

If you would like to see this prolapse in action, and how this dynamic of gendered class control works, go here, here, or here , use the word in any forum, and then, go here for the only uncensored opposition conversation on the internet.

Imagine that! Women and sex-negative ( they aren’t getting any) men all rallying around the word cunt, and using it to reinforce class boundaries and gender roles! They are actually trying to sound sex positive, but they really sound ‘sex negotiable,” as in “if you use words we tell you to use, you might get some vagina in our crowd.”

So–cunt isn’t the password to the magical kyriarchal pyramid? How about the holy giver of love fluid? No? Umm…the dark tunnel of deeper and deeper knowledge?  No? The  “pink padded room of sanity for the pre-negotiated benefit of the insane penis posse”? No…?

Got it! How about “twelve year old Coochie Snorcher?(1)”  Well, that one seems to make the ‘radical feminists‘ horny.

Why? Because that is what class is composed of–kyriarchical sliding doors of entrance, or denial of entrance, into the pyramid, depending on whether or not you use the right password!

The most humorous part of it is, that they say the word cunt “belongs to women.”

Try Telling that to Mike Hunt, or his brother Mathew…

But this is from Mathew Hunts compilation and etymology of the word Cunt.

The Etymology Of Cunt By: Mathew Hunt

The etymology of ‘cunt’ is actually considerably more complex than is generally supposed. The word’s etymology is highly contentious, as Alex Games explains: “Language scholars have been speculating for years about the etymological origins of the ‘c-word'” (2006). A consensus has not yet been reached, as Ruth Wajnryb admits in A Cunt Of A Word (a chapter in Language Most Foul): “Etymologists are unlikely to come to an agreement about the origins of CUNT any time soon” (2004), and Mark Morton is even more despairing: “no-one really knows the ulterior origin of cunt” (2003).

Also, from the same etymology, which I highly recommend, are these variants on uses of the word. Enjoy some cunt today!Well, no matter which cunt YOU choose to play with today, play with them nicely, have fun, and stay away from all those sex negative cunts!

1) In the original published version of Eve Enslers Vagina Monologues, she fantasized about having sex with a 12 year old girl. She later changed that girl character to a fourteen and then a 16 year old girl.

From Wikipedia’s sex positive feminism page ( the anti-academic citation source):

“Statutory Rape Laws

Also there is debate among sex-positive feminists about whether statutory rape laws are a form of misogyny.[6] As illustrated by the controversy over “The Little Coochie Snorcher that Could” from the Vagina Monologues, some sex-positive feminists do not consider all consensual activity between young adolescents and older people as inherently harmful, and there has been debate between feminists about whether statutory rape laws are misogynist.[7]”

  • Army Service Cunts’ (‘Army Service Corps‘)
  • ‘bargain cunt’ (‘person who claims to offer a discounted price via the grey market, though is unable to do so’, a pun on Bargain Hunt)
  • ‘beat the cunt out of’ (‘beat up’, a variation of ‘beat the crap out of’)
  • ‘big cunt’ (‘large vagina’)
  • ‘bucket cunt’ (‘large vagina’)
  • ‘bunt’ (‘fat female stomach’; a combination of ‘belly’ and ‘cunt’)
  • ‘bushel cunt’/’bushel-cunted’ (‘large vagina’)
  • ‘C’ (‘cunt’)
  • ‘c and c’ (‘clips and cunts’ television programmes)
  • ‘CGI’ (‘Cunt Gap Index’, ‘measurement-scale for vagina sizes’)
  • ‘CHODA’ (‘Cunt Hair On Da Ass’)
  • ‘coming the old cunt’ (‘being unkind’)
  • ‘cooint’ (‘vagina’, Yorkshire variant of ‘cunt’)
  • ‘cow-cunt’ (‘large vagina’)
  • ‘cunker’ (‘cunt’)
  • ‘cunch’ (‘cunnilingus’, ‘combination of ‘cunt’ and lunch’)
  • ‘cunnifungus’ (‘vaginal secretion‘)
  • ‘cunnimingus’ (combination of ‘cunnilingus’ and ‘minger’)
  • ‘cunnylicious’ (combination of ‘cunnilingus’ and ‘delicious’)
  • ‘cunshine’ (‘pornographic images printed on highly glossy paper’)
  • ‘cunt!’ (exclamation)
  • ‘Cunt Act’ (‘Deserted Wives and Children’s Act’)
  • ‘cunt and a half’ (‘very idiotic’)
  • “cunt-arse” (‘idiot’; Verne Graham, 2005)
  • ‘cuntbag’ (‘idiot’)
  • ‘cunt-ball’ (‘idiot’)
  • ‘cunt-beten’ (‘impotent’)
  • ‘cuntbitten’/’cunt-bitten’ (‘syphilitic’)
  • ‘cunt book’/’cunt-book’ (‘in the bad books’/’pornography’)
  • ‘cunt bread’ (‘vaginal yeast infection’)
  • ‘cunt-breath’ (‘halitosis’)
  • ‘cunt bubble’ (‘vaginal fart‘)
  • ‘cunt buster’/’cunt-buster’ (‘erection’)
  • ‘cunt butter’ (‘vaginal fluid’)
  • ‘cunt candle’ (‘outstanding idiot’)
  • ‘cunt cap’ (‘military hat’)
  • ‘cunt carpet’ (‘pubic hair’)
  • ‘cunt-chaser’ (‘womaniser’)
  • ‘cunt-cleaner’ (‘gynaecologist’)
  • ‘cunt-collar’ (‘pussy whip’)
  • ‘cunt cock’ (‘clitoris’)
  • ‘cunt cork’ (‘tampon’)
  • ‘cunt-cuddling’ (‘masturbation’)
  • ‘cunt-curtain’ (‘pubic hair’)
  • ‘cunt dentist’ (‘gynaecologist’)
  • ‘cunt down’ (‘pubic hair’)
  • ‘Cunt Dracula’ (‘idiot’)
  • ‘cunted’ (‘drunk’/’vaginal penetration’)
  • ‘cunteen’ (‘unpleasant quantity between thirteen and nineteen’)
  • ‘cunt-eyed’ (‘narrow-eyed’)
  • ‘cunt face’/’cuntface’/’cunt-faced’ (‘ugly’)
  • ‘cunt fart’ (‘vaginal fart’)
  • ‘cunt flump’ (‘tampon’, from The Flumps)
  • ‘cunt for hire’ (‘prostitute’)
  • ‘cunt-fringe’ (‘pubic hair’)
  • “cunt-fucked” (‘vaginal sex’; Jim Goad, 1994[d])
  • ‘cunt grunt’ (‘vaginal fart’)
  • ‘cunt guff’ (‘vaginal fart’)
  • ‘cunt-hair’/’cunt hair’/’cunt’s hair’ (‘tiny amount’)
  • ‘cunt-hat’ (‘felt hat’)
  • ‘cunt-hatred’ (‘misogyny’)
  • ‘cunthead’ (‘idiot’)
  • “cunthood” (‘femininity’; Jim Goad, 1994[c])
  • ‘cunt hook’ (‘car used to attract women’)
  • ‘cunt-hook’ (‘penis’)
  • ‘cunt-hooks’ (‘fingers’, a pun on ‘cant-hook’/’person’)
  • ‘cunt-hound’ (‘sex-obsessed’)
  • ‘cunt-house’ (‘venue populated largely by women’)
  • ‘cunt hunt’ (‘on the pull’)
  • ‘cunt-hunter’ (‘womaniser’)
  • “c[u]ntie” (‘little cunt’; Robert Burns, 1786)
  • ‘cuntikin’ (‘little cunt’)
  • ‘cuntinental’ (‘patron of an outdoor British cafe’)
  • “cuntiness” (‘the state of being a cunt’; Britain’s Biggest C**ts, 2008)
  • ‘cunting’ (intensifier, a variant of ‘fucking’/’knickers’, a pun on ‘bunting’)
  • ‘cuntingency plan’ (‘alternative source of sexual gratification’, a pun on ‘contingency plan’)
  • ‘cuntino filet with white sauce’ (‘cunnilingus’)
  • ‘cuntion’ (‘gumption’)
  • ‘cuntish’ (‘stupid’)
  • ‘cuntispiece’ (‘frontispiece of a pornographic book’)
  • “cunt-ist” (‘heterosexual man’; Jeffrey Merrick and Bryant T Ragan, 1996)
  • ‘cunt-itch’ (‘sexually aroused’)
  • ‘cuntitude’ (‘bad attitude’)
  • “cunt-jugal” (a pun on ‘conjugal’; Nick Gomez, 1997)
  • ‘cunt juice’ (‘vaginal fluid’)
  • ‘cuntkin’ (‘little cunt’)
  • ‘cunker’ (‘vagina’, euphemism for ‘cunt’)
  • ‘cunt-lap’/’cuntlap’ (‘cunnilingus’/’idiot’)
  • ‘cunt-lapper’ (‘cunnilinguist’)
  • ‘cunt-lapping’ (‘cunnilingus’/’disgusting’)
  • ‘cuntlashed’ (‘very drunk’)
  • ‘cunt-leg’ (‘penis’)
  • ‘cuntlery’ (‘utensil used to dilate the vagina’)
  • ‘cuntless’ (‘without a cunt’)
  • ‘cuntlet’ (‘little cunt’, a pun on ‘cutlet’)
  • ‘cunt-lick’/’give cunt licks’ (‘cunnilingus’)
  • ‘cunt-licker’ (‘cunnilinguist’/’idiot’)
  • ‘cunt-licking’ (‘cunnilingus’/’disgusting’)
  • ‘cuntlifters’ (‘old ladies’ knickers’)
  • ‘cunt light’/’C-light’ (‘pornographic film lighting’)
  • ‘cunt-like’ (‘vaginal’)
  • ‘cunt like a Grimsby welly’ (‘large vagina’)
  • ‘cuntlines’ (‘seams between the strands of a rope’; variant of ‘contlines’)
  • ‘cunt-lips’ (‘labia’)
  • ‘cunt man’/’C man’ (‘sexual athlete’)
  • ‘cuntmeat’ (‘women’)
  • “C[u]nt-mending” (‘gynaecology’; John Wilmot, 1680)
  • ‘cunt mumps’ (‘woman’s excuse to deflect chat-up lines’)
  • ‘cunt-munchers’ (‘cunnilinguists’)
  • “cunt-mutilation” (‘vaginal mutilation’; Jim Goad, 1994[e])
  • ‘cuntock’ (‘idiot’; abbreviated to ‘ock’)
  • ‘cuntocks’ (‘labia’; abbreviated to ‘ocks’)
  • ‘cunt of all cunts’ (‘incredibly stupid person’)
  • “cunt-palaces” (‘attractive vaginas’; Raymond Stephanson, 2004)
  • ‘cunt-pensioner’ (‘pimp’; abbreviated to ‘cp’)
  • ‘cunt pie’ (‘vagina’)
  • ‘cunt plugger’/’cunt-plugger’ (penis’)
  • ‘cunt plugging’/’cunt-plugging’ (‘sexual intercouse’)
  • ‘cunt positive’ (‘liberal feminist’)
  • “cunt-pounding” (‘sexual intercourse’; Media News, 2005)
  • ‘cunt-power’ (‘female energy’)
  • ‘cuntprick’ (‘idiot’)
  • ‘cunt-rag’ (‘sanitary towel’)
  • ‘cunt-rammer’ (‘penis’, an extension of ‘rammer’)
  • ‘cunt-rats’ (‘tampons’)
  • ‘cuntrified’ (‘public houses converted into wine bars’)
  • ‘cunt ruffler’ (‘provoker of women’)
  • ‘cunt rug’ (‘pubic hair’)
  • ‘cuntryside’ (‘large vagina’)
  • ‘cunt’s blood’ (‘idiot’)
  • ‘cunt-simple’ (‘sex-obsessed’)
  • ‘cuntsman’ (‘womaniser’)
  • ‘cunt smoke’ (‘no problem’)
  • ‘cunt scratchers’ (‘hands’)
  • ‘cunt-screen’ (‘pubic hair’)
  • ‘cunt-shop’ (‘knocking shop’)
  • ‘Cunts In Velvet’ (‘City Imperial Volunteers’)
  • ‘cuntsmith’ (‘gynaecologist’)
  • ‘cunt splice’ (‘partially spliced rope’; variant of ‘cont splice’/’cut splice’)
  • ‘cunt-stabber’ (‘penis’)
  • ‘cunt-stand’ (‘sexually aroused’)
  • ‘cunt-starver’ (‘errant ex-husband’)
  • ‘cunt-sticker’ (‘penis’)
  • ‘cunt-stirrer’ (‘penis’)
  • ‘cunt-stopper’ (penis’)
  • ‘cunt-stretcher’/’cunt stretcher’ (‘penis’)
  • ‘cunt-struck’ (‘sex-obsessed’)
  • ‘cunt stubble’ (‘constable’)
  • ‘cuntsucker’/’cunt-sucker’ (‘cunnilinguist’)
  • ‘cunt-sucking’ (‘cunnilingus’)
  • ‘Cuntsville’ (‘hometown’)
  • ‘cunt swab’/’cunt-swab’ (‘knickers’)
  • ‘cunt-teaser’ (‘a man who sexually excites a woman’)
  • ‘cunt-tickler’/’cunt tickler’ (‘moustache’)
  • ‘cunt torture’ (‘sadomasochistic sex’)
  • ‘cunt trumpet’ (‘cunnilingus’)
  • ‘cunt tug’ (‘pubic wig’)
  • ‘cunt-up’/’cunt up’ (‘mistake’, variation of ‘belly up’)
  • ‘cuntuppance’ (‘punishment for male infedility’, a pun on ‘come-uppance’)
  • ‘cunt wagon’/’cunt-wagon’ (‘passion wagon’)
  • ‘cuntwank’ (‘meaningless sex’)
  • ‘cunt warren’ (‘brothel’)
  • ‘cuntweep’ (‘vaginal fluid’)
  • ‘cunt-wig’ (‘pubic hair’)
  • ‘cunty’ (‘idiot’/’worthless’/’feminine’)
  • ‘cuntyballs’ (‘idiot’)
  • ‘cunty booby’ (‘confusion’)
  • ‘cunty chops’ (‘beard’)
  • ‘cunty Italian’ (‘Italian-American woman’)
  • ‘Cunty McCuntlips’ (‘idiot’)
  • ‘decunt’ (‘withdraw the penis from the vagina’)
  • ‘dirty cunt’ (‘unclean vagina’)
  • ‘doss cunt’ (‘stupid idiot’)
  • ‘double-cunted’ (‘large vagina’)
  • ‘dumb cunt’ (‘stupid idiot’)
  • “encunten” (‘to call someone a cunt’; Britain’s Biggest C**ts, 2008)
  • ‘eyes like sheep’s cunts’ (‘hangover’)
  • ‘fish-cunt’ (‘woman’)
  • ‘flatter than a cow’s cunt’ (‘horizontal’)
  • ‘full cuntal lobotomy’ (‘male sexual arousal’, a pun on ‘full-frontal lobotomy’)
  • ‘get some cunt’ (‘male sexual gratification’)
  • ‘go cunt up’ (‘go wrong’)
  • ‘gunt’ (‘fat female stomach’; a combination of ‘gut’ and ‘cunt’)
  • ‘ICBM’ (“Inter Cuntinental Ballistic Missile”: ‘penis’; Roger Mellie, 2005)
  • ‘KFC’ (‘Knob Filled Cunt’)
  • ‘kipper’s cunt’ (‘very smelly’)
  • ‘knock the cunt out of’ (‘knock out’)
  • ‘lazy cunt’ (‘menstruating vagina’)
  • ‘LC’ (“LOW CUNT” and “LAP CUNT”; James van Cleve, 19–)
  • ‘make a coffee house of a woman’s cunt’ (‘coitus interruptus’)
  • ‘make a lobster kettle out of someone’s cunt’ (‘coitus interruptus’)
  • ‘mouth like a cow’s cunt’ (‘talkative’)
  • ‘petit-cunt’ (‘petit-bourgeois idiot’)
  • ‘pox-ridden cunt’ (‘diseased vagina’)
  • ‘pushing the cunt envelope’ (‘taking idiocy to new limits’)
  • ‘RCH’ (‘Red Cunt Hair’, ‘hair’s breadth’)
  • ‘scabby cunt’ (‘diseased vagina’)
  • ‘scunt’ (‘idiot’)
  • ‘siffed-up cunt-hole’ (‘diseased vagina’)
  • ‘silly cunt!’ (‘stupid idiot’)
  • ‘sluice-cunted’ (‘large vagina’)
  • ‘smelly cunt’ (‘malodorous vagina’)
  • ‘stick it up your cunt’ (‘get stuffed’, a variation of ‘stick it up your arse’)
  • ‘stinky cunt’ (‘malodorous vagina’)
  • ‘sweet cunt’ (‘lovely vagina’)
  • ‘talking cunt’ (‘verbal seduction’)
  • ‘that’s not cunt it’s peehole’ (‘underage girl’)
  • “three cocks to the cunt” (‘with gusto’; Profanisaurus, 2007)
  • “Treecunts” (‘tree branches resembling female genitals’, in Just Sluts And Cunts photographs; Jan Willem Verkerk, 2007)
  • “Two C’s in a K” (‘two cunts in a kitchen’: two housewives in an advertisement; Stephen King, 1981 [also “2CK”; Sam Delaney, 2007])
  • ‘WRAC’ (‘Weekly Ration of Army Cunt’

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Catharine MacKinnon

Today I declare the Save the Vagina's Before it's Too Late initiative in honor of Catharine MacKinnon, feminist legal scholar, and author of the Vagina Monolith's, and the Soccermom Diatribes. Now make sure you get home before midnight, Cindy!

Let’s get the the dull, academically fraudulent, sex negative, sexist stuff from two notoriously angry, manipulative, controlling women, out of the way right from the start.

But first! A public service message: Do you sit awake nights, worrying about hungry, sick, starving vaginas all over the world?  You CAN make a difference in the life and health of vaginas.  SAVE A VAGINA TODAY!  by donating to women’s cervical cancer research.

Now back to the porn wars: Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon got an anti-pornography statute passed  that is still lurking on the books in the City of Minneapolis:

Pornography and Civil Rights
A NEW DAY FOR WOMEN’S EQUALITY by ANDREA DWORKIN and CATHARINE A. MacKINNON
Copyright © 1988 by Catharine A. MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin
“Pornography is central in creating and maintaining the civil inequality of the sexes. Pornography is a systematic practice of exploitation and subordination based on sex which differentially harms women. . . .”  Their completely new legal approach–in which pornography is defined as sex discrimination and therefore a violation of civil rights–would allow anyone injured by pornography to fight back by filing a civil lawsuit against pornographers.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
Wheeew, smells like a cat box up there–reeks like the turds of  little captive animals that claw furniture and ask you for food all day long, and then snuggle all night. MeeeEEEow till I get what I want, claw furniture if I don’t….

So dualistic–so negative–so typically feminist, but indeed, undeniably, pornography IS differential in the treatment of the subjects involved. Civil rights? Meh.

I better go to the dictionary on that one. Not Civil rights, silly–we know how hard feminists work against those!

But Pornography–wha tis it? The free download of the Sage Dictionary , a dictionary for linguists, gives me a common working definition of pornography: Creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire.

Pornography depicting coitus, cunnilingus, felatio, sodomy, BDSM, and the many other etcetera’s of sexual action is everywhere you look–three mouse clicks or less  from every man, woman and child in the ‘civilized’ world of cyberspace.

 [warning: you are three clicks away from free, virus- free, relatively harmless adult sexual material here ]

That may or may not be a bad thing, but the dialogue about porn is important, and definitely headed in the wrong direction–because it is actually a dialogue about speech. You can decide for yourself. I will wait as you peruse the hundreds of various links–after all, their actually is something for every-BODY.

Straight, LGBT, TS, hard and softcore bodies everywhere you look–we are all different.

But the more important dialogue about pornography has yet to take place, and that dialogue has its roots in the same definition of pornography that is in common use, a dialogue that is the most important dialogue of our next decade; one that hasn’t taken place yet because it has been constrained, AND restrained.

War pornography. War pornography is how we bully young males into submission, and objectify them, via images of men as tools, objects, and perpetrators of violence. Good men, bad men: soft-core, and hard-core males. Either way, men are more disposable than used condoms, and always presented in dualistic terms.

It begins with shame. Male shame. Shaming males into submission.

Pornography, by the definition, involves ‘creative activity’; that portion of the definition is not really in dispute by anyone. Porn is a created product, and is often quite creative as well. The big bone of contention seems to be the next part “other than to stimulate sexual desire.”

What does THAT mean? We are all different–stimulation begins in the brain.

But I have a bone to pick with such a vapid generalization [Sage… dictionary, definition 1, not 2, because definition 2 at least uses the words ‘flavor’, and ‘tang’ to describe ‘vapid’? The use of the letter V anywhere can arouse me, by design of the current feminist propaganda [V-day and the Vagina Monologues are sooo in your face every year, whether I want it or not].

But ‘flavorful tang???’  I am blowing my top…Even the propagandists missed that shameful naughtiness in the word ‘vapid,’ while they were hyper-focused on ‘vaginas’ [ Sage, vagina: definition 2 a moist canal in female mammals]. Western propagandists make their money from pandering to vaginas.

Flavorful tang…I am going full bore boner!  My penis is suddenly a weapon of thought! An underwear-agent in a propaganda war!! Tang, is like ‘poontang’; and then,  by a stretch, the coochie is tangy??  I am dick-dog rape crazy, according to the feminist literature.  I gotta run out, and rape all of the holes in Coochie right now! Holes, plural, IN coochie?

 Poontang and coochie  are words that likely have Chinese or Korean origins, as their form mirrors Korean and Vietnamese language structures. But the popularity and use of these words directly mirrors American imperialism in Asia. Cu Chi, a city in Viet Nam, is most likely where we get the word coochie. Ouch–look out for the booby traps, and holes full of bamboo spikes…but I digress.

No wonder all the boys, and radical feminists, are lost on Asian porn..

I apparently can’t help myself, according to the rhetoric of the current crop of feminist propagandists. I am a natural born rapist. Engendered male, porn is only one of ‘my tools’  for oppressing ‘all’ women, and especially gender feminist, lesbian academics–both male and female– who feed off of them. These people actually, physically,  wage war on me with the rhetoric of ‘men and porn’, by making me a sexual suspect in their rhetoric, and then, an actual suspect under the law.

Then, they invest in Hillary Clinton’s war chest, so she can save America from the Libyans. Either way, it wasn’t, and it won’t be anytime soon, me raping women overseas, for male or female warlords, or anywhere else to feed American women’s children with a soldiers pay.

But full-bore boner-words, phrases, ideas, and pictures that make me horny–even if no one is around!? I might make my own money off of that–and I will fight to be able to use words, images, pictures and text to understand my world.

Me–all by myself, drowning in the Onanist impulses of symbols and language, I can conjur fantasies of sex–without those ‘real’ women like Kate and Dre!  I really don’t need pictures–they are just nice accessories to remind me exactly why I prefer my own company over the company of weirdo’s who want to interpret what I feel for me, and extrapolate what it ‘could’ mean–or try to  tell me what ‘my’ mind is thinking, before they sweep out their own heads.

Nurse Ratched: Aren’t you ashamed?
Billy: No, I’m not.
[Applause from friends]
Nurse Ratched: You know Billy, what worries me is how your mother is going to take this.
Billy: Um, um, well, y-y-y-you d-d-d-don’t have to t-t-t-tell her, Miss Ratched.
Nurse Ratched: I don’t have to tell her? Your mother and I are old friends. You know that.
Billy: P-p-p-please d-d-don’t tell my m-m-m-mother.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073486/quotes

Shame on me. More shame on me….guilt, guilt, guilded male–and then more shame on me. They did all the thinking for me, and porn is killing, and oppressing everybody, most of all, women, children,  and vaginas. Shit–what do I do now to assauge my guilt?? Do I combat the capitalists who drop depleted uranium on children? Do I just vote for Hillary in the next election, because Dick Cheney supports her?

No! I should run out and save a vagina today! Blame it on da pornz! War is all about oppressin’ da wiminz.

Dear Woman: Here’s some free or low cost sperm–hell, you can have my nuts–but please raise a cop or a soldier who will protect the vaginas, and your vagina! Here’s a pedestal–keep your vagina up there! I will even cross the street if it helps you to trust me again, and makes you feel less scared of my weiner!

There’s some stainkin’ thankin’…

Think for yourself, and everything turns out o.k. I promise; but let them inside your sexuality? Let them define you? They will wage war.  You become the deviant in their construct–because you let them inside!

And they will tell you more about themselves in one sentence about their own construct of a purely hypothetical construction of ‘you’ than you could ever learn about them by torturing them to death in a snuff porn film. Just don’t tell them that even idiots know the CIA is the only American talent agency that actually makes snuff porn.[Nick Berg: poor dead guy; and here, too.]

What is striking in every way is how narrowly focused the gatekeepers of knowlege are in attempting to limit my full-bore brain-boner: academics, militarists, feminists,  and anti-feminists have been  limiting the discussion to thoughts about ‘womens bodies’ for centuries, instead of the vagizillions of other forms of pornography that don’t seem to ruffle their feathers.

My first full-bore boy-boner was the dictionary.

We should regulate the sale of dictionaries to children–because if even words can make us horny, what is next?  ‘It’s for the children‘, they always say–then they shut them up early, and keep the kids illiterate.  Besides, they rage, one of them damned Webster’s dictionary people supported the Fugitive Slave Act a hundred and fifty years ago!(1)

What next?? The children?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, in the feminist paradigms, language is the true oppressor. It’s high time to outlaw dictionaries. And apparently, boners kill women and children, and are big enough to intrude on civil rights.Never mind the inherent contradiction when they tell you men have tiny dicks…

How easy it is  to obliterate, or ‘snuff’  from the definition of pornography the portion of the definition that talks about “creative,” and focus instead on “stimulation of sexual desire,” and in so doing, to create the appearance that everything, and every image with a woman is potentially pornographic, and thus, every image without a woman is somehow NOT pornographic, or that images that lack women are nearly snuff porn.

So what ARE those type of images, devoid of patriarchy? Oh, yeah–empty headed Fabio…or Pat Califia’s dick…

What is commonly called "girl porn",--romance novels-- aren't even close to the 'meat' of the issue of women's actual objectification of men.

What is commonly called "girl porn",--romance novels-- aren't even close to the 'meat' of the issue of women's actual objectification of men..

Just try to imagine, an image without women. Next thing you know, imagination is imagery, according to them, time to clean your mind of it’s filth–your mind, I remind you, not their projections.

These folks are counter-productive in the least, snuffing themselves out like that. Counter-productively snuffing me, too, with their preemptive, eternal rhetoric of objectification.

It leaves  the nasal impression–the stench– that images of men ‘with’ women have a lurking and deviant sexual intent; images of women with women is ‘slavery’ performed before patriarchy–despite kyriarchal advancement; images of BDSM,or leather boys and girls  in Hitler gear, schtupping each other; ‘ one  is re-enacting ones own subjugation,’  but mostly, the actual stench is the carcases of dead heterosexual men, and ‘othered’ men and women not worthy of eroticism, mere bodies, filthy, and pornographic in or of ourselves, tossed into a dumpster, or a heap of fire in yet another war zone that was created to feed hungry western capitalists, both male and female.

Men have been denied the truly erotic–they tell us that images of women and ‘others’ are objectifying and pornographic, and images of men are not. You don’t have to be gay to figure out that cuntnundrum*

But simple analysis of any and all images tell’s us with certainty–that you must ask yourself, or ask the image,  not those who tell you that the moon is made of Swiss cheese, and poke holes in you for impact. Images provoke thought, and thought can produce desire. Words do that too–ALL WORDS. Humans have evolved to communicate with each other.

Hence, communication in any form is the essence of the erotic; the seeds of desire, regardless of the method of transmittal.

But what IS that desire?  Is it exclusively physical and sexual, a thought that leads only to action related to that thought, as they try to force us to believe? Each and every word, image or filmic representation spoken or shared one person to another is a symbol, a communication of some form of desire, a piece of the bigger desire. Yet a desire to talk about the meaning of words does not equate with any action other than to talk to someone about desire, or it’s opposite.

Add images and films? They are just word enhancers.

And words that we say only to ourselves about actions, or non-actions are certainly meaningful as well; if not the singular most important thing, they are the second. Our inter-persona, intra-psychic communication doesn’t necessarily equate with a desire for actual ‘sex,’ at all, any more than a desire for ‘communication’ of our ideas, some of which are about sex, but some of which are about other things too.

Does looking at the expensive dress in the window equate with buying the dress? Sure–for the rich, the hedonistic, the bored, the selfish, or the foolish. Those who are bought, buy as well. But what if you can’t be bought?

So, if anything IS or can be pornographic, it isn’t the ‘creative’ portion of the definition. We are all producers of creative impulses, and many enjoy the intellectual processes caused by viewing  porn . But definitions of porn are in fact the relational, superimposed and interpretatational, relative, objectification of intentions  by others with whom we interact, and communication which takes place, or could take place from those objectifiers have the explicit intention of preemptively circumventing your personal interpretation of your own intentions.

It is not a concrete, monolithic absolute that porn hurts viewers at all, or even most actors involved.

Porn is fantasy communication, like thoughts one could have for a conversation with Gandhi, Dworkin, or Freud. Porn creates a psychic space that is an intellectually, or emotionally safe distance from which to have a fantasy dialogue with others–and with yourself. THAT is where you stand the largest chance to begin fulfilling the ‘desire’ that images can create–in defining for yourself what you are perceiving, and then communicating that desire–in words to others, if it all works out.

And viewing idealized body images increases personal satisfaction for some people.It’s no stretch to imagine similar things about naked bodies and sex.

Adding the gross misrepresentations and anecdotes of abuses that have taken place in some forms of sex pornography is akin to adding hot-pepper to your morning oatmeal, and telling you that’s what oatmeal is.

Viewing images of dogs can invoke feelings of affection, security, comfort, and a thus, a whole host of other feelings potentially related to sexual expression that could take place in a home  (and which I suspect can also stir up the oxytocin releasing, orgasm producing mechanism in the brain). Emotions are, at their base in the lymbic system,  related to those that produce sexual feelings; images of families, or images of children ( see dogs and families), are no stretch if one wished to conflate images and political agendas.

If we accept the paradigm that viewing pornography does NOT equate with having actual sex any more or less than images of dogs equate with family, home or security, we cannot say that images and video’s of nude people are pornographic any more than the word ‘vapid,’ snapshots of Fido, or militaristic  propaganda pictures of flags waving.

Those who are in porn enter the psychic space by our own consent–whether they are ‘victims’ or not is a separate issue entirely.

Yet if we accept the feminist and militarist, and by rote and association, the judicial definitions of pornography as a tool facilitating ‘rape, power, or sexual violence, that enslaves, or steals from women and children’ ( a common pro-war feminist trope*),  we must also then say also that sexualy stimulating pornography for them are the body counts in the news, the stories of conquest of ‘othered’ men, images of ‘othered’ men cleaning up dead male bodies,  images of men at Abu Ghraib, or images of dead babies who have been exposed to uranium, because these images stir up feelings of ‘power,’  whose only relation is to ‘desire’.

Patriarchy and modern feminism are inseparable mates in the creation of pornography.

Images of power relationships cause arousal, according to the definition, and MacKinnon- Dworkin, and all other sex negative feminists. So, the  images of disemboweled, oppressed, enslaved, or dead men, women and babies, whether written or photographed or filmed, are not merely ‘vacant’ images [vacant, ala Sage: definition 1 , cancel officially; definition 2 ‘leave behind, empty], but also images that cause dialogue;  leads to creative impulses, and hence, as per the puppy= security paradigm, can cause female arousal which can be termed sexual.

The debate has been constrained thusly: it is most always limited to discussing women’s bodies, women’s sexuality or women’s perspectives about sex; it is always spoken from one monolithic feminist to another; and it has in recent years engaged the gay community, and sex positive feminists in other dialogues about other forms and perceptions of sexual stimulation through pornography; it has informed the discussion that there are many perspectives of what is sexually stimulating.

But it is the actual communication that has provably opened the doors to sexual liberation–talking to each other makes us horny.

Yet the dialogue has never sufficiently addressed every day images of men that on the surface are not  prima facie sexually stimulating; by THEIR definition.  Yet images of men, dogs, and families have the wider effect of being ultimately, sexual in their evocation of sexual possibility, sexual power, and their portrayal of the myth of home and family, where masculinity and femininity in union, and in dialogue, ‘create’.

These types of images cause dialogue–and  oxytocin levels to rise in the brain.

The soldier in uniform; the basket ball player in sweats; the  cop beating a peace protester or a mentally ill man to death is especially dear and stimulating to militarists and “radical” feminists who openly call for the exertion of power to cause male death; and images of  men conquering men certainly causes some pornographic dialog window to pop-up for these ‘domestic’ types.

And words which women use to describe men, writing what they have written about men– entire women’s studies departments at any major university that discuss, or employ images of men;  any ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ blog which employs competitive themes,  and any discussion where power is present, is a hotbed of pornographic representations of masculinity. The spaces wherein definitions of pornography or men are debated, are urgent, hormonally charged, verbose environments full of pornographic illustrations–and thus, are also pornographic by definition.

Which is why I am NOT a feminist–nor an anti-feminist, or a militarist: because according to the truth of MacKinnon and Dworkin, “exploitation and subordination based on sex which differentially harms women, “ is what porn is.

That might be true indeed, if I were a woman.  Differentially only means different. And if I could choose, and not let them continue to choose for me, or pursue me against my will? I choose NOT to have my body photographed at Abu Ghraib; photographed while being water-boarded,  have a mugshot taken, or be photographed dead.

Differential? Of course, by definition, nude representations can be sexist–differential only means different. That certain forms of pornography consume the dialectic? Preferential in the dialogue? Definitely. Men are over-represented in most imaginings of male–represented in a pornographic manner–dead, and truly voiceless–we expect that of men.

We expect that by their definition of men, and patriarchy, without ever discussing women who are pro-war in the dialectic and in their votes, whether feminist or not is subsidiary to the fact that they conceive men for war.

But I might add, theirs is a literally vapid, vacant definition, too, because male voices are missing in that discussion–prohibited from openly declaring any ideas thatrelate to themselves as exploited persons; voices missing even in their own bodies, which are conceived as war objects, while female voices, their panderers,  and their patrons just bitch about camera angles and perspectives.

It leaves ME feeling used, and counting days till I pass on into the next life–if there is one.And there isn’t.

[ cue the oompa-doom-papa porn music]

Given the choice, I would give those murderous fuckers–those voyeuristic, predatory  bitches and bastards–all the boner shots they want of me reading my dictionary–into eternity, if photos, and pornographic representations in words can live that long.

And get ready–where are those sun-glasses? But here’s the cum-shot: You can all go fuck yourselves for awhile (but in a sex positive way, of course), until you figure out if you are able to know what porn even is: as the Felix Frankfurter once said in  Butler v. State of Michigan about obscenity, and which applies to current feminist ideation in this area”you burn down the house to roast the pig.”

Or the sows who capitalize on your ignorance–your silence– in this dialogue.That perverse, feminist, domestic-war-mongering has been conflated for decades with naked, living people and pornography, and today seeks ownership of the industry–not moral high ground, but pure profit potential.

And limiting the definition of pornographic representation to women’s bodies? Now that’s obscene, even by the early definitions of pornography.

But you aren’t. I am not.

War is.

Yet no one really see’s it, ever, much less ‘get’s that’, because of all that pussy in your face. And now, I am not talking about the raging Coochie, or the Poon Tang,  either. I am talking about you. Walking talking porn of one sex or another, even if you never lifted the cover of Playboy magazine–a magazine that CIA feminist, and publisher Gloria Steinem is attempting to own and control right now.

Now go cast some stupid vote for Them or theM, a vote that kills, maims, or chemically alters the DNA of some actual babies, and  ‘othered’ men– their fathers no matter which side you are on.

But stop worrying about internet porn. It will outlive you. Your son, if you have one,  may not.

*trope: language used in a figurative or non literal sense. In this case, a myth of culture that is espoused by militarists, feminists, and so forth, which is encouraged and enhanced by the presumption that only women and children comprise a ‘literal’ family, sans males or fathers.

*cuntnundrum: the illogical logic that is employed in feminist rhetoric. Like Christian rhetoric that says “first their was G-d,then everything eklse, so, everything =G-d,”  radical feminists posit “patriarchy, thus it’s all mens’ faults.’

1) Peoples History of the United States, Zinn, Howard. pg.177 (1995 edition, chap 9, ‘Without Submission’ )

Female judge busted for taking pee pics in men’s restroom!

Women and women’s Sexual Voyeurism are coming out of the closet–and bathroom stalls. Female judge busted for taking pee-pictures in men’s restroom!

Long after lesbians and other female sexual ‘deviants*,’ like sex positive feminists have revealed themselves as normal people who are biologically homosexual, or just intellectually kinky, it is no longer a surprise or an anomaly, but just a fact of life–hey, guess what? Women vary in their sex drives and fantasies like racing Matchbox cars, and their kinks are all over the Kinsey scale!

Now STFU!!

Or not: real equality of the sexes demands that we explore womens actual sexual deviance and ‘perversity’–by the same standards that men have been judged, and imprisoned, by for centuries.[Marquis de Sade, etc]

[If feminism has anywhere to go after the charade of ‘elevatorgate’ it is in examining women as human beings, with both human functions, and dysfunctions.]

Florida Traffic court Judge Rhonda Hollander, 47, was arrested for trying to take pictures of a man using the urinal at here courthouse.

Part of the profile of women’s deviance is that they are at least as capable as men of most of the sex acts and ‘sexually deviant behaviors’ defined by the DSM-4. But we don’t actually or ‘actively’profile, investigate, suspect, or prosecute women as such, and so we have the occasional woman getting caught by random chance doing what human beings often do: spying on others sexual and quasi sexual practices.

Female voyeurism is perhaps as old as time, and all of the stereotypes apply,yet there is a biological twist involved: women, long idealized as ‘nurturers’ and ‘concerned, maternal protectors’ are revealed at times in the modern society as mere voyeurs.

Why? Is it because a womans ‘drive’ to ‘nurture’ has long included the role of examining sexual organs for medical necessity? Is it because women have for so long been cast in the role of mothers that they cannot help themselves but desire exposure to genital functions? Is it the lack of intimacy, and a whole range of other dysfunction that makes women thus?

Or is it an innate drive or sense of ‘allo-licking’ behaviors that all female mammals share, that drives them to bathroom stalls, and their childrens bath-tubs[…] to examine genitalia and nude humans, with human body functions?

We may never know, but one thing IS certain: women’s sexual ‘deviance’ is once again being examined, and the questions above are just a starting point.

The currentr tendency is to ascribe deviant sexual behavior to male bodies–sexual deviance is constructed as the exclusive territor of men and boys, because for all of history, women’s sexuality has been repressed, or suppressed by social forces, according to the literature.

Whereas the societal expectation and indeed, encouragement of men’s sexuality has been profiled, criminalized, and penalized, women’s sexuality has been mythologized, idealized, and stereotyped into behaviors that exclude ‘perversity’. And as of this writing, most women, and especially feminists, derive direct benefits from, appreciate, and endorse that reasoning, despite claims toward equality.

In fact, it would be accurate to say that feminists as a whole not only exclude women’s actual criminal deviance as a topic of discussion, but work actively against engaging in the topic in public forums, and social discourse.

However, the future is not so bleak: many women in the social services have taken notice, and do stand up against female sexual deviance in its true, egalitarian manifestations, like rising rates of incarceration for female child sex abusers.

Here are some links to truly sex-positive feminists and resources that examine women’s sexual deviance:

http://feministing.com/2011/04/09/clpp-2011-sex-positive-feminism-101/

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/05/09/towards-my-personal-sex-positive-feminist-101/

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Sex-Positive+Feminism-a01073863023

*deviants: defined by prevailing social and psychiatric models, deviance is roughly, anyone and any behavior that is outside of ‘normal’ constructs; defined by standards that ‘we all agree’ upon, sans political affiliation, gender, sex, race, etc.

Cover of "Pornified: How Pornography Is T...

Cover via Amazon

Sex negative feminism is a fascist element that plays upon fear and preys upon weakness, conflating national interest with individual choice,  and it works against the United States Constitution.

Equally, it attempts to destroy  healthy individual sexuality or sexual choice by minimizing women’s responsibility for their own sexual choices and decisions(with appeals to fear), by shaming girls and women ( in attempts to assert ownership), and by conflating, or creating phony statistics in order to sell books and social policies.

And it does that with women and men disguised as social and moral crusaders who act in the self-appointed role as ‘everybodies mother’–emphasis on bodies[appeal to idealized images of women and mothers].

Fascism demands that individual choices are usurped for the larger ‘society.’ This form of feminism demands similar things, as well as playing upon youthful naivete, stereotyping, and appeals to ignorance disguised as concern over rights and sexism.

One good example is Pamela Paul, a sex negative feminist, and ur-fascist, would be yenta, and author of “Pornifiedwhich was named one of the best books of 2005 by The San Francisco Chronicle, according to Pauls bio.

Below is a reference for the .pdf file of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, “Why the Government Should Care about Pornography: the state interest in protecting children and families”, where Paul spoke against sexual choice, and pornography.”

She said, in part:

“While some polls show that up to half of all women go online for sexual reasons, the percentage of women who say they do are likely exaggerated by the inclusion of erotica, dating, and informational sites in the definition of “adult” Internet content, areas to which women are disproportionately drawn compared with men. Many women who are tracked through filtering sites are linked to pornography by accident, visit out of curiosity, or are tracking down their male partner’s usage.” [Pamela Paul, Testimony and transcript .pdf here. ]

And that flies in the face of reality. While writing this article I was sitting next to a group of young, college age women, who were talking about the start of a new semester, boyfriends, and dicks.

Here are the snippets of conversation that I overheard:

“There are no real men left.” “I’m not doing porn again tonight.” ” How come all the hot guys are gay?” “Every time you see some tall sexy boy he’s gay.” ” Young guys don’t know how to ask for it.” and the real kicker “I would never date a guy who wears more jewelry than me. Unless he was, like, LeBron James…”

Regarding stereotypes and ignorance, it is important to note that these were attractive (by porn standards) white females, who were of the generation where fear of rape takes a precedence over sexual liberty.

They at times directed their conversation at me with phrases like “We’re not bothering you are we?” through wafts of unknown but delicious high end fragrances, and occasional curious stares at me when they thought I wasn’t looking, and so forth.

“No, of course not” I said, and kept my arousal to myself.

And I had a secret laugh, knowing that the pendant around my neck, tucked secretly underneath my nerdy sweater, and the chain it hangs from is worth at least five times what it would take to get into the
curious and horny pants of any of them, open as they said they were, to “a good fuck, like, some one night sex” and just kept writing.

Oh, and I had another secret laugh about Kobe Bryants encounter with young horny white women too.[ Really–insert the name of your favorite sexually objectified black basketball player here]

These weren’t your average girls: they were all there because they are part of some AA or NA after-group, and likely had been the victims of sex negative feminism along the way, which led to their stereotypes, objectification, and confusions about sexuality.

They had full  possession of half the tools to activate any wonderful toy, except one: any sense of whaty men actually are, or actually want from women. And plenty of confusion about how they should proceed to get to point B with their sex drive, before the sex-negative, shaming face of ‘the mother’ pokes itself into the discussion going on in their pants.

The single-most dangerous and predatory person, entity, or organized oppressor of young women or sexuality isn’t men ‘who get it’, and also know what to do with ‘it’–but it is in fact sex-negative feminism–separatist and gender feminists ( is there really a difference? PLO/Hamas?), conservative feminists, and ecofeminists who for whatever reason, cannot help themselves from
inserting into young women the idea that sex is bad, and men are pigs.

“Get to them early” is the mantra of public school educators and feminists who work in sex education–but what kind of feminists are they?

I question the motives, and the agendas of sex negative feminists, as these same panderers usurp the idea of individual sexual accountability with lies, and half truths that are designed (as if in a laboratory) to stick themselves neatly and unnaccountably into the
meat of young female sexual desire. A sort of ideological rapist isn’t much better than a real one.
Umberto Eco‘s 14 point list of recognizing Ur-Fascism:

http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf

Clearing House for conservative and sex-negative anti-pornography links:  http://www.antipornography.org/statistics.html

Get them early links:

www.avert.org/sexeducation.htm www.mayoclinic.com/health/sexeducation/

http://educhatter.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/sex-education-in-the-early-grades-whats-the-real-purpose-of-explicit-sex-ed

Sub-committee transcript:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_senate_hearings&docid=f:25923.pdf

Beyond dildo‘s and rubber duckies: women fucking themselves–with sex robots!

Considering the level of rhetorical and  verbal violence that feminists direct at men, it is always tempting to be as crass and cruel as they are. But I won’t stoop to that–I will go one better: some women are so self involved that they want to fuck themselves, literally.

Woman has sex doll made in her own image: “I was thinking of her as this object upon which to act.” Oh, do tell me what you really think of yourself…

I love it. Now if she could only get a personalized dick made in her size, too. But we know how equity feminism has let women down in that battle! Equity Feminism gave the white middle class entire ‘other’ classes of men to have sex with–and they’re still not happy…

Blue silicone dildo

I don't care if a person is white, black, brown, red,, blue or green...they're still people...!!

The world really is hard for the middle class white American female, isn’t it?

”]Photograph by Wanda. A RealDoll with face #11

Some women HATE robots, and some think robots are a sexual threat to women who sell, and barter sex, against the interests of your independence from women.

That kind of woman benefits when male, violence oriented, female dependent robots rape and kill people, like Donald Rumsfeld, et al.

Does the fact that we barely even now have a male pill, and the other fact–which is that women–and maybe even your mom– have been vibrating their vagina’s with battery powered dildos since at least the 60’s–contravene the possibility that female looking sex robots can satisfy men more than real women, who prefer dildos, real men, or who cut deals with Donald Rumsfeld?

If anything, the ethical debate should be the price point. Women can buy a vibrator for anywhere from 10 bucks to a cool Ben Franklin. But a sex robot for men? Think ‘used car’  price range.

I am wondering: what kind of women are so desperate for penis that they need to invent ways to attract male attention to themselves? Aren’t false rape claims enough?

Are women generally cannibalistic, craving male flesh in odd ways? You can ask a scientist, here.

But at what point do we say that some women’s obsessions with controlling penises is cannibalistic, or just, um…weird, possessive,  and– controlling? Aren’t the boys that women raise together enough of a sperm supply for that kind of woman to share, so that robots should be seen as what they are, mere machines?

I bet the ones gnashing their teeth are the women who are competing with robots for sexual attention, the white middle class, and gender feminists,. who routinely try to speak for womenof color as if what affects white women affects all women.

Important feminist topics–like SEX ROBOTS

Compare this video below with Roxxy, the white woman sex robot in the picture above, and ask yourself: Isn’t a world full of Roxxy’s scary as hell, and kind of creepy compared to an Aiko?

The women who try to legislate sex must be the scared and illogical ones, the mean girls, or the real inwardly ugly girls, or the white ones who feel like their privilege is fading away, or just getting old. Or maybe they are women who are tired of selling it, and realize the market no longer demands whatever they “have to offer.”

And they are likely the same ones who pimp us young girls in fashion, and then stand back and act appalled, and claim the kid was ‘sexualized’

Modern feminists: they’re so confused…

Either way, it seems Asian men are way past us in robotics, and redefining possibilities beyond droll, sperm donating competitions for companionship with white or westernized women, and their definitions of “family” [read: woman in possession of house, car, bank account, and child; man in possession of none of his right mind, or an awareness of the exponential value of his own sperm].

But really: so-called feminists, and fauxminists defending false rape accusers and legislating or moralizing over robo-sex?? Shit, what will they say if every time I broke out my high powered electric wood sander I get a little to close to the sanding table; or whether or not my Vespa‘s muffler is too loose?–and will there soon be warning labels on vacuum cleaners too?

“USE OF THIS DEVICE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSENT, OR AGREEMENT TO BE USED FOR A SEXUAL PURPOSE. CALL 1-800-KISS-MOM for legal guidance, sexual information and resources”

I am sure that label will be immediately understood by this latest crop of young men raised by fauxminists and manginas, who willingly–at least, as willingly as young boys who were primarily raised by women can be willing– legislate their own sexual safety and sexual rights away– but it doesn’t do much for the rest of human kind.

Defending false rape accusers, or conflating robo-sex with rights is tantamount to defending rapists, or defending Donald Rumsfeld,who authorized the torture of innocent United States civilians.

In fact, defending false rape accusers is WORSE than defending rapists because criminals at least are protected by legal guarantees against slander, whereas false rape accusers–who are criminals–are defended by anonymity, the western burqa.

Because defending false rape accusers takes place outside the courts, and inside the realm of ‘public opinion,’ meaning innocent men who are accused of rape, are tried outside the legal process, while false rape accusers are protected with legal anonymity.( except here, where I shame them)

Men who are falsely accused of rape are left open to attack, because every false rape claim is the legal equivalent of ‘extra-legal’, socially approved slander, with the accused being paraded through perp-walks,and newspaper headlines, until a phony case is dismissed. A brilliant feminist strategy of destroying men, but a sad error of legal reasoning that needs redress.

And equating frisky fingers with rape is just plain old sex-negative, money, and jealousy based radical feminist ideology.

[Update: Prosecutors are dropping any and all charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn as I write this. He was accused of rape by Naffisatou Diallo, a woman who has admitted connections to laundering drug money, and falsely claiming that she was a rape victim in other countries]

But there still is NO WAY you can defend Donald Rumsfeld, because people who are above the law–where the rest of us live–are not deserving of the protections of the law.

So, if sex robots are a big issue, maybe we can invent one to soothe Donald Rumsfelds aching ass–G-d knows it needs a discussion about ethics.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below: