Or, what the fuck does “non patriarchal heterosexual
sex” looks like? Or: reading reformists’ take on heterosexual sex is like trying
to extract water from a rock.
To sum up:
heterosexual sex is penis-in-vagina, the conclusion to PIV is pregnancy.
Pregnancy is harmful and dangerous to women. At least 50% of pregnancies are “accidental”, meaning – due to PIV as mandatory default sex,
girls and women are impregnated just because men want to stick their dicks into
us. To try to separate PIV from pregnancy is gaslighting, as there is no way to
separate our reproductive biological functions from our reproductive organs –
shocking, I know. To attempt to do so is to otherize our biology, objectify it,
turn us into sexual toys. So, yeah, sorry piv-loving feminists: it’s inherently
problematic. For you, but definitely not for the men that fuck you.
And that is
exactly what it is – fucking. From
The Will to Change by bell hooks:
Now,
knowing what we know about how harmful PIV is to women, fucking is a pretty
accurate and honest description of what het sex is. It does hurt women and that
is the intent (we KNOW the outcome, therefore attempts to replicate the result
MUST be intentional). To otherize our biology is degrading, denigrating and dehumanizing,
and when default het sex which leads to pregnancy which is a dangerous event that leads to more than 200 thousand maternal deaths yearly…that is violence, or the threat of
violence (not to mention how pregnancy destroys girls and women’s lives, even when they don’t die from it). Fucking is exactly right. And this is one of the few times men are
honest – they tell us they are fucking us, that they want to fuck us, that sex
with them IS fucking. They’re literally telling us!
Nowhere in
this chapter called “Male Sexual Being”, does bell hooks say a single word
about what het sex does to women, how damaging it is, and what the fuck het sex
would look like without patriarchy. In true reformist form, she talks of “sexual
revolution” and “non patriarchal sex” without ever considering that men fucking
us is inherently problematic and that if in “non patriarchy”, men are still
fucking us, then we are still being oppressed, and it is no fucking freedom. As
always, reformists ignore the elephant in the room.
A “true
sexual revolution” where men still stick their dicks into us, despite the harm
that it does to us and despite the fact that PIV barely is sex for women – we feel
pleasure in our clitoris, which is outside of our vaginas, and we don’t need to
learn or conditions ourselves to feel pleasure in our clitoris, it JUST IS.
While with PIV, we have to learn and condition ourselves and it still is hardly comparable to clitoris induced pleasure. A “true sexual revolution” would not
result in piv/fucking even being a thing. It wouldn’t be a thing. Fucking was
fucking before patriarchy and it will continue to be fucking without
patriarchy.
“Patriarchal
thinking” is not what makes violation equal sex, the invasive nature of PIV is
what makes it so, along with the fact that men hardly distinguish between rape and sex. And men have never shut the fuck up about their “sexual
longing” so really, I don’t think asking men to talk even more about it, is going
to be any fucking use. Especially when reformists cherrypick what they believe
and what they don’t, when it comes to what men say (men who admit to essentialism and that sex is fucking are clearly not to be believed, see!).
And why the
hell do men need to be able to “be sexual beings in peace” when for them, sex =
sticking dicks into us? What men need is to stop being such violent, parasitic rapists, who
gives a fuck about allowing them to “be sexual beings”.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH.
I mean,
this must be a joke, surely.
Again,
knowing that a. piv/fucking is inherently what “sex” is to males and b. the
inherent harm of piv/fucking to women…how in the world can a feminist possibly
frame male sexuality as INHERENTLY POSITIVE?
In nowhere
in this chapter, does bell hooks present an alternative to het sex in
non-patriarchy, nor does she address the damage that “patriarchal sex” (or,
just plain het sex, whether under patriarchy or not) does to girls and women.
She doesn’t have an alternative, she simply believes that fucking would not a
problem if we magically don’t live under patriarchy anymore (like that’s ever going
to happen anyway!).
Default sex
as PIV is a crime that is perpetuated against the female body. There is nothing
inherently positive about it. Reformists, like males, frame PIV as default sex.
There is no
evidence to believe that male sexuality is inherently positive, when we
consider that males raped us long before “consensual sex” was even a thing. In
fact, all evidence points to the opposite – male sexuality (as in, their urge
to stick their dicks into every one of our holes) is inherently detrimental and
life-threatening to girls and women. To talk about “sexual revolution” without
addressing this is meaningless, utterly fucking meaningless. I’ll keep waiting
for an explanation of what heterosexual sex would look like, without patriarchy
and considering the inherent damage of PIV/fucking/het sex, reformists don’t
seem to provide any. Deleting “patriarchy” of the equation doesn’t fix it – and
get real, patriarchy isn’t going to disappear, talking of “non patriarchal sex”
is goddamn utopic.
