Rape Culture: Why Yes can mean No

[fm93]

A lot of the ideas filtered through to third wave as well. Also since first wave is no longer around as it's followers are no longer alive and it is irrelevant as it's goals has been accomplished then we are left with second and third wave. Your comment here seems to me that you don't really know a lot about second wave feminism. Look up a woman called Valerie Solanas. She wrote the SCUM manifesto which is attributed the title The Society for Cutting Up Men and an appropriate title too. This book is the bible for radical feminists everywhere.

You're doing it again. You say "radical feminism," but then conflate that with feminism in general. You realize that radical forms of Christianity exist and have existed, but you still view the religion through its most noble expression. Yet you seem to stubbornly refuse to do that with other belief systems.

Of course they claim it is humour when challenged but considering that Solanas shot two men then I think that shows she was serious. As for other quotes:

"All men are rapists and that's all they are." Marilyn French

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." Catherine MacKinnon

"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release." Germaine Greer.

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." Catherine Comin

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

You know perfectly well that if an Internet atheist posted something attacking Christians with a brief list of isolated quotes that sound odd/bad on their own but with no contextual details included, you'd be chewing that person out.

I could also cite the kill all men hashtag on twiter as well.

It's an unproductive/counterproductive hashtag, but it's obviously not a rallying cry for genocide. Besides, I always thought the point of that hashtag was something like "You'd be horrified if someone actually did condone violence and threats towards men, so why do you seemingly condone violence and threats towards women?" (i.e. Social media sites have caught some flak for not doing much in response to Internet trolls who do threaten violence towards women, and in the sport of American football, the commissioner caught a lot of heat last year for inconsistent policies in which he suspended a proven woman-beater for a few games but suspended a player who smoked marijuana for twice that many games.)

You are misunderstanding me. I do the very thing that you’re saying. It just so happens that there are so many of them they take up a very large part of the modern day movement.

Doubtful, but even if that was actually true, there remains the option of trying to encourage people to get back to the purer ideals of feminism, similar to how many pastors try to have revivals that restore the church to a more pure and noble form of Christianity.

Then you’ve not been looking hard enough. Did you not see Rogues post on Mary Koss and fake rape statistics? Did you know that domestic violence is actually split half and half between female and male victims? Do you know that impartial researchers have blamed feminist researchers for misrepresenting facts.

Then take issue with those particular so-called feminists, not with the concept itself.

You really have no idea. Then again you are not supposed to.

"God Almighty! The fellow I was discussing with posted a laughing smiley! What mind-blowing, smoking-gun proof of his position! I am thoroughly convinced and have seen the light!"--no one in the history of the world

EDIT: Ask yourself these questions.

Why do feminists state that rape statistics are 1 in 4 when is obviously false?

The claim I've most commonly seen is 1 in 5, but I'm not certain that it's "obviously false." I doubt that 1 in 5 women are raped in the sense of a man drugging her out of her mind, or physically overpowering her, gagging her, and then forcing her legs open and raping her as she attempts to unleash muffled screams. But I *can* believe that 1 in 5 women will have at least one sexual experience in which there was some uncertainty over whether she consented. Some cases may have involved a man genuinely thinking that the girl consented, and in some cases the girl may have been willing to consent but didn't technically give any explicit consent. And then there are unfortunately probably quite a few women who were genuinely raped but didn't admit to it because they were too ashamed, traumatized or scared to tell anyone.

Why do feminists state that domestic violence is male violence upon women despite the evidence showing otherwise?

The common perception is that men tend to be the ones who commit domestic abuse, in part because cases where men were the victims are underreported. But really, this is an example of why feminism is still needed--men who are domestically abused sometimes don't report it because of the social shame and stigma attached to our culture's conceptions of manhood. There still tends to be a common instinctive association of female-ness with weakness and softness, and men who are genuinely abused by women are insulting viewed in that manner. Society needs feminism to eradicate those negative stereotypes and stigmas for the sake of its men as well as its women.

[Darth Ovious]

You're doing it again. You say "radical feminism," but then conflate that with feminism in general. You realize that radical forms of Christianity exist and have existed, but you still view the religion through its most noble expression. Yet you seem to stubbornly refuse to do that with other belief systems.

It's not my problem you can't see the difference. Yes there are some crazy Christians. Heck there are even Christians who believe in YEC. However that is not harmful to our society. Someone having a view that the world is only 6,000 years old isn't going to cause hatred among people. However labelling 50% of the population as rapists, abusers and deadbeats is very harmful to society.

You know perfectly well that if an Internet atheist posted something attacking Christians with a brief list of isolated quotes that sound odd/bad on their own but with no contextual details included, you'd be chewing that person out.

OK, show me that those quotes were out of context and I'll listen.

It's an unproductive/counterproductive hashtag, but it's obviously not a rallying cry for genocide. Besides, I always thought the point of that hashtag was something like "You'd be horrified if someone actually did condone violence and threats towards men, so why do you seemingly condone violence and threats towards women?" (i.e. Social media sites have caught some flak for not doing much in response to Internet trolls who do threaten violence towards women, and in the sport of American football, the commissioner caught a lot of heat last year for inconsistent policies in which he suspended a proven woman-beater for a few games but suspended a player who smoked marijuana for twice that many games.)

So you are making excuses for them to post "kill all men" but I can't have an issue against feminists?

Doubtful, but even if that was actually true, there remains the option of trying to encourage people to get back to the purer ideals of feminism, similar to how many pastors try to have revivals that restore the church to a more pure and noble form of Christianity.

Not doubtful at all, which I have shown.

Then take issue with those particular so-called feminists, not with the concept itself.

The concept is egalitarianism and it already exists as it's own movement. You are still not getting the picture that a large number of these feminists actually believe in female superiority. I already named one feminist which I did like, which is Christina Hoff Sommers. The fact that she is VERY UNPOPULAR with other feminists speaks volumes.

"God Almighty! The fellow I was discussing with posted a laughing smiley! What mind-blowing, smoking-gun proof of his position! I am thoroughly convinced and have seen the light!"--no one in the history of the world

I thought it was funny, that's why.

The claim I've most commonly seen is 1 in 5, but I'm not certain that it's "obviously false." I doubt that 1 in 5 women are raped in the sense of a man drugging her out of her mind, or physically overpowering her, gagging her, and then forcing her legs open and raping her as she attempts to unleash muffled screams. But I *can* believe that 1 in 5 women will have at least one sexual experience in which there was some uncertainty over whether she consented. Some cases may have involved a man genuinely thinking that the girl consented, and in some cases the girl may have been willing to consent but didn't technically give any explicit consent. And then there are unfortunately probably quite a few women who were genuinely raped but didn't admit to it because they were too ashamed, traumatized or scared to tell anyone.

Despite the fact that it was explained to you how the 1 in 4 number came about you think the 1 in 5 number is valid. Oh well I guess here comes another source.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

In rural areas, the rate of rape and sexual assault was 1.9 times higher for college-age nonstudents (8.8 per 1,000) than students (4.6 per 1,000). Nonstudents in urban areas (8.7 per 1,000) also had a slightly higher rate of victimization
(1.3 times), compared to students in urban areas (6.6 per 1,000). In suburban areas, there was no significant difference in the rate of rape and sexual assault between female students (6.0 per 1,000) and nonstudents (6.3 per 1,000). Among female students, there was no significant variation in rape and sexual assault rates across urban, suburban, and rural areas. Among nonstudents, females living in suburban areas had the lowest victimization rates.

Now considering that the majority of feminists advocate this rubbish statistic then what does that tell you?

The common perception is that men tend to be the ones who commit domestic abuse, in part because cases where men were the victims are underreported. But really, this is an example of why feminism is still needed--men who are domestically abused sometimes don't report it because of the social shame and stigma attached to our culture's conceptions of manhood. There still tends to be a common instinctive association of female-ness with weakness and softness, and men who are genuinely abused by women are insulting viewed in that manner. Society needs feminism to eradicate those negative stereotypes and stigmas for the sake of its men as well as its women.

Considering that it was feminists who set-up the majority of domestic violence shelters for women but didn't set up these same domestic violence shelters for men then what makes you think that it's feminism that is going to solve this problem?

You do realise that Erin Pizzy who set-up the first domestic violence shelter for women in the UK also tried to set one up for men and when she tried she was bullied by feminists, they threatened her and even killed her dog to the point where she had to leave the country in exile? It was years before she returned.

[Darth Ovious]

Since fm93 wants me to be more pro-feminist then I will. Here is The Factual Feminist, Christina Hoff Sommers herself refuting the 1 in 5 statistic.

and the second part.

[fm93]

It's not my problem you can't see the difference. Yes there are some crazy Christians. Heck there are even Christians who believe in YEC. However that is not harmful to our society. Someone having a view that the world is only 6,000 years old isn't going to cause hatred among people. However labelling 50% of the population as rapists, abusers and deadbeats is very harmful to society.

Promoting unscientific views like YEC could be harmful to society. Preaching messages of hatred towards and about gay people could be harmful to society.

OK, show me that those quotes were out of context and I'll listen.

I was asking you to provide the context, not arguing that they definitely were out of context. I've never heard of the quotes before, which is precisely why I asked for their context.

So you are making excuses for them to post "kill all men" but I can't have an issue against feminists?

I specifically said that it's an unproductive and counterproductive hashtag, so I'm not sure how you got this idea that I'm "making excuses for them to post it." Just the opposite, in fact. And you can certainly have an issue against some people who identify as feminists; I'm just saying that I find it irrational to say you have an issue against feminism itself.

Not doubtful at all, which I have shown.

You've shown that some people who identify as feminist allegedly said bizarre things.

The concept is egalitarianism and it already exists as it's own movement.

The aim is for society to be truly egalitarian. But if society at the moment is not yet equal, if it's structured in a way that's skewed against women, then the proper solution to achieve equality is to specifically uplift women. Hence, the focus on the "fem" part of feminism.

You are still not getting the picture that a large number of these feminists actually believe in female superiority.

Other than a few context-less quotes, you have not shown this.

Despite the fact that it was explained to you how the 1 in 4 number came about you think the 1 in 5 number is valid. Oh well I guess here comes another source.

Sorry, I missed that earlier.

Now considering that the majority of feminists advocate this rubbish statistic then what does that tell you?

Assuming that it's actually the majority, then what that tells me is that we as a society need to do a better job clarifying misconceptions and preventing them from spreading.

Considering that it was feminists who set-up the majority of domestic violence shelters for women but didn't set up these same domestic violence shelters for men then what makes you think that it's feminism that is going to solve this problem?

I already explained this. There is a common perception that men aren't victims of domestic violence because of these cultural associations of maleness with strength and femaleness with weakness and vulnerability. Thus, true feminism is what's needed to eradicate these stereotypes and associations.

[fm93]

Since fm93 wants me to be more pro-feminist then I will. Here is The Factual Feminist, Christina Hoff Sommers herself refuting the 1 in 5 statistic.

and the second part.

There, see how someone can acknowledge the errors of some people affiliated with feminism without condemning feminism itself, and in fact affirming that feminism is needed?

[Darth Ovious]

Promoting unscientific views like YEC could be harmful to society. Preaching messages of hatred towards and about gay people could be harmful to society.

I was asking you to provide the context, not arguing that they definitely were out of context. I've never heard of the quotes before, which is precisely why I asked for their context.

I specifically said that it's an unproductive and counterproductive hashtag, so I'm not sure how you got this idea that I'm "making excuses for them to post it." Just the opposite, in fact. And you can certainly have an issue against some people who identify as feminists; I'm just saying that I find it irrational to say you have an issue against feminism itself.

The modern day feminism movement is based on lies, lies which they themselves created and also lies which have been refuted many times. There agenda is a very negative one towards men.

You've shown that some people who identify as feminist allegedly said bizarre things.

I'm not exactly sure how much more I need to show you. We have false statistics designed to make men look bad, all created by these whacky feminist hacks. We then have a large part of the movement believing these facts and when you show them they are wrong with facts they then get hostile towards you. My only suggestion is you talk with these feminists in order to see how bad they are. I was banned from r/feminism on reddit without even making a single post of their message board. This is because they automatically banned people who posted within another area of reddit.

The aim is for society to be truly egalitarian. But if society at the moment is not yet equal, if it's structured in a way that's skewed against women, then the proper solution to achieve equality is to specifically uplift women. Hence, the focus on the "fem" part of feminism.

Other than a few context-less quotes, you have not shown this.

I think you are ignoring everything else that was provided.

Sorry, I missed that earlier.

OK

Assuming that it's actually the majority, then what that tells me is that we as a society need to do a better job clarifying misconceptions and preventing them from spreading.

I already explained this. There is a common perception that men aren't victims of domestic violence because of these cultural associations of maleness with strength and femaleness with weakness and vulnerability. Thus, true feminism is what's needed to eradicate these stereotypes and associations.

[Darth Ovious]

There, see how someone can acknowledge the errors of some people affiliated with feminism without condemning feminism itself, and in fact affirming that feminism is needed?

I did say that she was an exception. Considering though that her book was titled "Who Stole Feminism" and she agrees that the majority of todays feminists are like what I mentioned then I'm not sure what you want me to admit here. She identifies herself as still being a feminist because she wants to claim it back but until that happens then what I said is true.

[fm93]

I disagree with the first point

It involves the promotion of anti-scientific attitudes. You don't see how that could potentially have harmful effects?

Let’s put it this way, if the vast majority of Christians were like the Westboro Baptist Church then you would have a problem against Christianity.

What I was referring to goes beyond Westboro, actually. And no--at least in the US, it's perceived that the majority of Christians do in fact act a certain negative way, but it doesn't lead me to slander Christianity as a whole.

Then what makes you think they are out of context?

I don't definitively believe they're out of context; I'm just skeptical that they're in the proper context. Some of them sound so absurd prima facie that I'm strongly inclined to believe that the quotes are misleading.

The context was simple, they don’t like men and we are talking about feminists here that admit that. However if you look at the popularity of each one then you’ll see just how popular they are. Marilyn French had a book that sold 25 million copies for instance.

But the context isn't necessarily that simple. People have been known to use provocative language to stimulate discussion on what are ultimately (obviously) innocuous ideas. Heck, the Romans used to rip Jesus' teaching about the bread being his body and the wine being his blood out of context to insist that Christians were practicing cannibalism.

And on THAT note, look at what I discovered while trying to find out who Marilyn French was and which novel of hers sold 25 million copies!

The US writer and academic Marilyn French, who has died aged 79, is best known for her debut novel, The Women's Room. It was published in 1977, when she was almost 50, and captured the mood of the time, selling more than 20m worldwide. French went on to write more novels, including The Bleeding Heart (1980), and substantial non-fiction works on patriarchy and women's history. But none of her later books enjoyed the success of The Women's Room.

The novel's best-known line - "All men are rapists, and that's all they are" - has not been an easy legacy for the next three decades of feminism. Spoken in anger by one of the book's most radical characters, a woman whose daughter has been gang-raped, it entered the popular lexicon and is often cited, wrongly, as one of the tenets of modern feminism. French's own daughter had been raped and she was an angry writer, a fact she acknowledged in an interview with the Independent two years ago, although she also insisted that she liked men. "I've always said I like men very much," she once told the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/200...marilyn-french

So apparently, it wasn't Marilyn French who said that line accusing all men of being rapists--rather, it was a fictional character from a novel she wrote. And not only is there actual evidence that she hated men, she actually specifically stated just the opposite--that she likes men very much.

This is why I asked for the context of those quotes.

The modern day feminism movement is based on lies, lies which they themselves created and also lies which have been refuted many times. There agenda is a very negative one towards men.

Careful. While the 1 in 5 statistic appears to be an inaccurate conclusion from a particular study, there's a difference between being mistaken and deliberately spreading what one knows to be lies.

I'm not exactly sure how much more I need to show you. We have false statistics designed to make men look bad, all created by these whacky feminist hacks.

You're still making what seems to me an unwarranted assumption about intent and motivation. I've seen plenty of conservative folks cite deeply flawed studies in arguments about homosexuality and how a certain percentage of Native Americans supposedly feels about a sports team's name, but I don't assume that they're wacky hacks deliberately creating and designing false statistics designed to make their ideological opponents look bad. The more logical and gracious conclusion is that some of them simply are unaware that the studies were flawed (or were just parroting claims they heard without knowing the source)--to be clear, that's not good, but it's vastly different from what you implied.

And here is the problem right here. Nothing is skewed against women. There are no laws that target women and discriminate against them. The wage gap has been debunked and has been shown to be down to women’s choices yet feminists still use the wage gap argument. It’s actually illegal both in the US and the UK to pay women less but feminists for some reason still think it exists. The difference in genders in STEM fields has been shown to be down to choices due to biological preferences. Studies have been done to show that males and females pursue different activities for fulfilment. In fact there was a recent study that showed that companies within the STEM fields actually has a 200% bias in favour of hiring women over men.

I wasn't specifically referring to wage gap or STEM representation. But since you mentioned them--I'm aware that the claim that "women only earn 70% of what men make for the same job" is probably inaccurate, but from what I've read, there apparently still is a disparity; it's just that it's not as large as is popularly claimed. But the fact that something isn't as problematic as people previously thought doesn't mean that something isn't problematic at all. As for STEM representation, I've heard that there's some biological basis, but I'm skeptical that the issue can be entirely boiled down to biology, and besides, the fact remains that a great deal of women do report experiencing discrimination in their fields and workplaces.

I think you are ignoring everything else that was provided.

I was suspending judgment because I wanted more information about the context, so I could be sure that those quotes were actually claiming what you say they were claiming. And lo and behold, the first quote I looked at already turned out to be misleading.

You are ignoring that it was feminism that created this view in the first place. They created this cultural misconception with false studies and false statistics. Your idea of “true feminism” doesn’t exist.

Feminism didn't create the view that associated maleness with strength and femaleness with weakness/vulnerability. That's an ancient view that's existed in almost every society since the beginning of our species. People took a biological truth--that men tend to be physically stronger than women--and wrongfully extended it through everything.

[Darth Ovious]

It involves the promotion of anti-scientific attitudes. You don't see how that could potentially have harmful effects?

What I was referring to goes beyond Westboro, actually. And no--at least in the US, it's perceived that the majority of Christians do in fact act a certain negative way, but it doesn't lead me to slander Christianity as a whole.

I don't definitively believe they're out of context; I'm just skeptical that they're in the proper context. Some of them sound so absurd prima facie that I'm strongly inclined to believe that the quotes are misleading.

I have no reason to doubt these quotes. I have talked to modern day feminists who believe these things. I gather they must have got these things from somewhere. Also check Agent Orange and the files he downloaded from a radical feminist website and you can see the screenshots he downloaded showing their bigotry.

But the context isn't necessarily that simple. People have been known to use provocative language to stimulate discussion on what are ultimately (obviously) innocuous ideas. Heck, the Romans used to rip Jesus' teaching about the bread being his body and the wine being his blood out of context to insist that Christians were practicing cannibalism.

And on THAT note, look at what I discovered while trying to find out who Marilyn French was and which novel of hers sold 25 million copies!

The US writer and academic Marilyn French, who has died aged 79, is best known for her debut novel, The Women's Room. It was published in 1977, when she was almost 50, and captured the mood of the time, selling more than 20m worldwide. French went on to write more novels, including The Bleeding Heart (1980), and substantial non-fiction works on patriarchy and women's history. But none of her later books enjoyed the success of The Women's Room.

The novel's best-known line - "All men are rapists, and that's all they are" - has not been an easy legacy for the next three decades of feminism. Spoken in anger by one of the book's most radical characters, a woman whose daughter has been gang-raped, it entered the popular lexicon and is often cited, wrongly, as one of the tenets of modern feminism. French's own daughter had been raped and she was an angry writer, a fact she acknowledged in an interview with the Independent two years ago, although she also insisted that she liked men. "I've always said I like men very much," she once told the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/200...marilyn-french

So apparently, it wasn't Marilyn French who said that line accusing all men of being rapists--rather, it was a fictional character from a novel she wrote. And not only is there actual evidence that she hated men, she actually specifically stated just the opposite--that she likes men very much.

This is why I asked for the context of those quotes.

Yes, this is actually the quote from one of her books. This quote actually needs a bit more explaining in order to understand it. At first you might mistake it for being innocent, except that this main character looks to actually be a reflection upon herself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Women's_Room

I take the point though. This one quote might not be as good as some of the others.

Careful. While the 1 in 5 statistic appears to be an inaccurate conclusion from a particular study, there's a difference between being mistaken and deliberately spreading what one knows to be lies.

One of the reasons I got out of the feminist movement is because of its bizarre desire to persecute men and men alone for things like domestic violence perpetrated against women.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...tivist/372742/

You're still making what seems to me an unwarranted assumption about intent and motivation. I've seen plenty of conservative folks cite deeply flawed studies in arguments about homosexuality and how a certain percentage of Native Americans supposedly feels about a sports team's name, but I don't assume that they're wacky hacks deliberately creating and designing false statistics designed to make their ideological opponents look bad. The more logical and gracious conclusion is that some of them simply are unaware that the studies were flawed (or were just parroting claims they heard without knowing the source)--to be clear, that's not good, but it's vastly different from what you implied.

Like I said above these studies were conducted by feminists in the first place. Their intent is clear when you see their methodology. Heck you were even explained that Mary Koss got 1 in 4 from both men and women from the same questions and that she took most men and moved them into a different category. When anybody challenges those statistics they then get dirty looks and thrown out. Really, you can try it yourself to find out. In fact I encourage you to find out by engaging yourself. I can only show you so much here and lets be fair I have shown you a lot.

I wasn't specifically referring to wage gap or STEM representation. But since you mentioned them--I'm aware that the claim that "women only earn 70% of what men make for the same job" is probably inaccurate, but from what I've read, there apparently still is a disparity; it's just that it's not as large as is popularly claimed. But the fact that something isn't as problematic as people previously thought doesn't mean that something isn't problematic at all. As for STEM representation, I've heard that there's some biological basis, but I'm skeptical that the issue can be entirely boiled down to biology, and besides, the fact remains that a great deal of women do report experiencing discrimination in their fields and workplaces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

I was suspending judgment because I wanted more information about the context, so I could be sure that those quotes were actually claiming what you say they were claiming. And lo and behold, the first quote I looked at already turned out to be misleading.

Well you can check the rest if you want. However if you really want to know then just go and check it out already. You can do a bit of investigating yourself you know. You might find yourself in good company since a lot of anti-feminists I conversed with were also atheists.

Feminism didn't create the view that associated maleness with strength and femaleness with weakness/vulnerability. That's an ancient view that's existed in almost every society since the beginning of our species. People took a biological truth--that men tend to be physically stronger than women--and wrongfully extended it through everything.

[Paprika]

What more do you want? Honestly please tell me.

You're operating on the assumption that if your logic and evidence are good enough, he will listen and change his views.

[Darth Ovious]

You're operating on the assumption that if your logic and evidence are good enough, he will listen and change his views.

I thought it was a fair assumption since it looked like he didn't have any stock in feminism. I think he understands that there are bad feminists but he is wanting to maintain that there are a lot of good feminists as well. I'm just wondering where he draws the line between the two.

[Sparko]

Source: link removed*

Just to recall a basic fact: Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple.

This is a developed recap from what I’ve been saying in various comments here and there in the last two years or so. as a radfem I’ve always said PIV is rape and I remember being disappointed to discover that so few radical feminists stated it clearly. How can you possibly see it otherwise? Intercourse is the very means through which men oppress us, from which we are not allowed to escape, yet some instances of or PIV and intercourse may be chosen and free? That makes no sense at all.

First, well intercourse is NEVER sex for women. Only men experience rape as sexual and define it as such.


...


As FCM pointed out some time ago, intercourse is inherently harmful to women and intentionally so, because it causes pregnancy in women. The purpose of men enforcing intercourse regularly (as in, more than once a month) onto women is because it’s the surest way to cause pregnancy and force childbearing against our will, and thereby gain control over our reproductive powers

© Copyright Original Source

Warning: Profanity in the article.

Moderated By: sparko

I removed the link until it can be resolved if the profanity should be allowed or not. In the meantime to find the article, just search for "sex is always rape" on google.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Christianbookworm]

Source:

Just to recall a basic fact: Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple.

This is a developed recap from what I’ve been saying in various comments here and there in the last two years or so. as a radfem I’ve always said PIV is rape and I remember being disappointed to discover that so few radical feminists stated it clearly. How can you possibly see it otherwise? Intercourse is the very means through which men oppress us, from which we are not allowed to escape, yet some instances of or PIV and intercourse may be chosen and free? That makes no sense at all.

First, well intercourse is NEVER sex for women. Only men experience rape as sexual and define it as such.


...


As FCM pointed out some time ago, intercourse is inherently harmful to women and intentionally so, because it causes pregnancy in women. The purpose of men enforcing intercourse regularly (as in, more than once a month) onto women is because it’s the surest way to cause pregnancy and force childbearing against our will, and thereby gain control over our reproductive powers

© Copyright Original Source

Warning: Profanity in the article.

Who comes up with that nutty stuff? I guess they think it's impossible for any lady to WANT to become a mommy?

[Darth Ovious]

Warning: Profanity in the article.

Sparko, can I ask clarification on the rules for these kinds of postings. In the May screwball threads one of my posts was moderated to take a link out that included profanity even though I displayed a warning that the link contained profanity. I will make a thread in the padded room about this so we don't get caught up in this one.

[Sparko]

Sparko, can I ask clarification on the rules for these kinds of postings. In the May screwball threads one of my posts was moderated to take a link out that included profanity even though I displayed a warning that the link contained profanity. I will make a thread in the padded room about this so we don't get caught up in this one.

I reported myself already. The profanity used seems to be used in an academic manner, discussing the use of the term, not in as a profane expletive. I will let the other mods decide and abide by their decision.