Forced Sexuality – Part II
[Continued from “Why I Don’t Believe that Heterosexuality is the Default – Part I“]
With regard to behaviour, one of the hardest-to-define words out there is ‘sex’. Nevermind that people refuse to use the word in its proper indication to refer to biological female and biological male (preferring the more loaded and completely incorrect ‘gender’ instead). Yes, as it pertains to behaviour, no one really seems able to determine what constitutes ‘sex’, and as such, it is an international obsession and one of the most destructive and distracting preoccupations on the planet.
In general, we let men define everything. Sex is what men say it is. And everything men say and do is designed to serve themselves. And naturally, as a result, women are abused and men walk the planet able to do as they please. So, with few exceptions (i.e., the gay/lesbian community), men universally define sex as dick in cunt. It is one of the most dangerous and erroneous definitions ever designed by men in the history of their putrid reign, and every ill experienced on and by this planet results from it. The enslavement of half the population is only one consequence and that is what will be considered here (although if you want to get an idea of what the male definition of sex and enforced heterosexuality has wrought, see this post). But the effects on women specifically are manifold and impossible to describe in a single post here. As a taste, we see women sexually abused while men deny that ‘sex’ occurred (remember the sexual assault of Monica Lewinsky by former President Bill Clinton, and his insistence he “never had sex with that woman”). Although specifically defined by men, there is also an ungraspable quality to sex that allows men to slither through the needlessly murky areas of sexual assault. Rape and ‘sex’ are indistinguishable and determining whether a crime occurred becomes a matter of ‘he said, she said’ (with ‘he said’ always winning the day). Further, a man can rape your mouth, and not only was it not ‘sex’ (since your cunt wasn’t involved), but it is very hard to pin a sexual assault charge on men thanks to slippery definitions. And as for lesbians, they only have ‘sex’ if it occurs between two smokin’ hot women and they do it on camera for the consumption of men. So, sex is at the same time specifically and nebulously defined, but what is key is that the definition is completely within the control of men. And women pay for it. Always.
It also follows that because men are the ones allowed to define everything, including sex, they are also allowed to define and enforce sexuality. Having mandatory sexuality – also known as hard-wired attraction or preparedness for sexual activity – serves men. As I wrote about in the last post, men have enforced attraction between males and females despite this ‘heterosexuality’ not being a natural thing. It’s not natural or a forgone conclusion because men are attracted to pretty much everything, and women – well, we’ll get to that. Men are omnisexual – they’ll fuck anything – but heterosexuality serves the very important purpose of enslaving women and providing further free services and support (besides fucking) for men. Heterosexual, male-defined sex does very little for women other than to put them in harm’s way. As I said, if a vacuum could clean the floor, make sandwiches AND give blowjobs, men would be vacuumosexual.
In short, enforced heterosexuality is unnatural and contrived in order to suppress and subordinate half the population (females) in service to the other (males). This is easy to see but difficult to accept if you are trapped on the inside.
So let’s consider homosexuality. The vast majority of people, thanks to their programming via the straight mandate, view homosexuality as unnatural. And of the others, there is a variety of view points. Some think all sexuality is wired, so some people are born hetero and some are born homo. Others believe that it is a choice. Others still might see some mix of influences and may see sexuality as fluid through the lifespan. But there is one thing that all groups have in common – they believe sexuality is natural, necessary and a human right. If you happen to be a person who isn’t interested in pursuing any sort of sexuality (i.e., ‘asexual’), you are castigated by every one of these groups. Asexuality is not allowed and is deemed unnatural.
It is my contention that sexuality is completely contrived and agenda- and entitlement-driven. I think that all defined sexualities are choices and fuelled by pressure to be sexual beings and by falsely equating or linking love and sexual activity or sex drive. Even homosexuals (fags AND lesbians) are affected by heterosexual male thinking and believe that love is dependent upon fucking. If there is no sex or if the sex dissipates in a relationship, then the relationship is in trouble. No sex = no love = no relationship. Relationships only exist if there is a defined sexuality. And it is because of this that I believe that homosexuality is also enforced (i.e., if you are not straight then you MUST be gay). If you don’t choose a sexuality, then you will never find love or be loved. Queer nonsense doesn’t solve this problem, by the way.
Attraction and Sex Drive
I can imagine that even lesbians are reading this and having knee-jerk reactions. How dare I deny their sexuality? How dare I disparage sex? How dare I suggest that they are confused about what love means or what their relationships are based on? All I can say is keep yer shorts on. Or don’t. Who cares? I’m not saying that attraction doesn’t exist. And I’m not denying the existence of sex drives. I’m just saying that they both have been misinterpreted and too much importance has been placed on them. Our entire society (no matter where you are in the world) rests precariously on the inflated importance and misinterpretation of the sex drive. It’s pretty crazy, although no more crazy than anything else males come up with and build fragile empires upon.
Like all abused drives, the sex drive has created a lot of problems in the world. Think about hunger pangs. All humans have hunger pangs when they require food. But over time, this drive has been abused and misinterpreted. Many people even think they are experiencing hunger pangs when something else is going on entirely (e.g., conditioned responses to positive and negative stress, depression, etc). I can tell you with certainty and from my own experience that I have spent most of my life eating when I’m not truly hungry, eating when I thought I was hungry but wasn’t truly, and eating things that my body does not need. And almost all people function this way and have lost the ability to understand what their body is demanding from them exactly. Few people can recognize when their body needs a pear or more water even though some signs or symptoms of deficiencies are actually quite clear. If I get frequent charlie horses, for example, I know I *probably* need to drink more water or eat a banana. You can easily train yourself to listen to your body and know what it needs to prevent illness or death. But for the most part, people put food in their faces for many other reasons than true hunger and bodily need.
The same thing goes with the sex drive – although remember, sex is not a life or death necessity like food, water and sleep are. But sex is a source of power for human males, so they have deliberately distorted what the sex drive means. And so the entire world functions on catering to what males insist they need. Marriage, female subordination in all areas of life, human trafficking, prostitution, widespread rape and its dismissal, torture, and more – all of these result from the misinterpretation of what the sex drive is.
The male sex drive is a desire for power and control and everything they do and think goes towards this purpose no matter who gets hurt (women). Men have turned their sex drives into reasons for controlling women. And because it is a ‘drive’, it is uncontrollable and ‘natural’, and therefore they don’t need to take responsibility for what it makes them do.
In women, the sex drive is not a cry for impregnation. It is an indicator that she is ovulating, but it is decidedly not a demand for dick. As has been discussed here and by others elsewhere, a woman doesn’t need a dick or intercourse to achieve pregnancy. We have the scientific means to allow two women to procreate, and if you want to risk having a male baby (biggest mistake of your life, imo), you just need to obtain male goo and stick it in or around you twat. And by the way, many women don’t have an inbuilt desire for children. It is not wired. It is socialized. The sex drive is not a wired demand for babies, and women are not wired to want children. The sex drive, rather, is more like a thermometer. If the thermometer tells you it’s hot outside, it doesn’t mean you have to go swimming. In fact, you don’t have to even learn to swim at all. What you do with the temperature reading is up to you. You can simply sit and read a book under a fan and drink a glass of cold water, if you wish.
If you pay attention to your demanding sex drive, here’s the thing. In BOTH men AND women, two minutes of simple masturbation will satisfy its demands, which tells me that the sex drive is not dependent upon male-defined heterosexual sex. It is curious, don’t you think? If one can jerk off and quell the cries of this powerful bodily demand, then there really is no need for any sort of enforced sexuality or structures such as marriage or family. (Notice that religious people of all flavours demonize masturbation because it frees women from rape and marriage and unwanted pregnancy…)
That’s not to say people should not engage in sexual activity, but it demands a recall on enforced, mandatory sexuality and a complete restructuring of society to free women from selfish male demands. If jerking off is not satisfying your sex drive, I would suspect there is something else going on and that you are looking for power and control rather than just release. This is part of the misinterpretation of the purpose and meaning of the sex drive. And in men, it is about entitlement and violence in addition to misinterpretation. Sex isn’t a human right. Neither is it necessary to anyone’s ability to stay alive. Men want you to believe it is because they all know that their is no purpose for their existence. They aren’t necessary and so the lies, the religions, the brainwashing, have been enforced to convince women that their slavery is ordained or natural, and resistance is futile.
Oh and one last thing, drives can be controlled and conditioned. You can both increase and decrease the frequency and intensity of your drives through very simple means, which I won’t get into here as it isn’t the purpose this post. Suffice it to say, we are not slaves to our drives, although we should probably pay attention to the needs of hunger, thirst and sleep – those are the only drives that serve a survival purpose. No one dies without sex, and that’s a fact.
The Homo-Hetero War
It isn’t a surprise to me that there are more ‘straight’ women than lesbians. As I said, I don’t believe that either one is wired or natural. We are brainwashed to believe we must be ‘sexual beings’ – liberal bullshit with roots in religion, of course. I do believe that lesbianism is much better for women than straight slavery, on the whole. Relationships are not easy things of course, and all relationships will encounter problems, and even lesbians have internalized the power imbalances that male-dominated society brainwashes us with. Women do abuse women. But between two women, there is no rape (remember, only men can rape women), little chance of disease, no risk of pregnancy, etc. On the whole, safer, and I’d rather women choose lesbianism over slavery to males.
Why don’t more women go this route? I’d argue that it is because of this enforced sexuality and conflation of love and sex thing. Women believe they have two options in life, for the most part. They get deep-dicked (raped) or they eat pussy. It is always about genitals no matter whether you are talking to the hets or the homos. There is no such thing as a relationship without genitals being involved.
Girls grow up with the constant message that vaginas are shameful, weird, ugly, gross, smelly, etc. No matter how you look at it, pussy is bad. They also learn that it is a commodity. Their vaginas are barely tolerable on the whole, but men, for some reason, want to put their dicks in them. Most men won’t eat pussy, but they’ll fuck it. So girls see that their horrible vaginas have some kind of hard-to-discern value, but in general, they are supposed to feel ashamed of and horrified by them.
So when it comes to sexuality, why the hell would a girl or woman want to be a lesbian as it is defined today (i.e., pussy-eating)? Since relationships are about genitals, that means that she is going to have to be in constant contact with another woman’s cunt – that hated, disgusting body part that she has been taught to view with revulsion from day one. Girls will, for the most part, when faced with these two false, but forced, options, a) choose to be raped daily by men, b) have their bodies put in danger from disease-carrying, pregnancy-inducing semen, and c) suck and gag on a male body part that is certainly no less disgusting, but infinitely more dangerous, than a female body part, and d) smell, taste and swallow one of the most disgusting substances on earth – semen. Of course, she is going to choose cock!!! Rape, disease, risk of death, constant yeast infections, urinary tract infections, body-destroying birth control pills, allergies to latex, and the constant risk of life-altering and destroying pregnancy are preferable to eating pussy. Jesus fucking christ. Does that even make sense to you???
But that is how it is. Not only are vaginas evil and horrific, but contact with vaginas is mandatory if you want to have a relationship with a woman. Forced sexuality means forced contact with genitals. If genitals and mandatory fucking and sexuality were taken out of the mix, I think we’d see a lot more lesbians. Perhaps the word (and the world for that matter) would change. As it is, I (and likely everyone else on the planet) associate lesbians with mandatory fucking/sexuality, although most people don’t consider the fucking to be ‘real sex’ since there is no dick involved (male language control at work).
However, it doesn’t have to be that way. There is nothing wrong with sex in a relationship per se, but I don’t understand how love of a woman is dependent upon loving pussy or even having sex. That is male thinking. I have heard many women say, they would have a relationship with a woman, but they can’t get past the genital contact. It is so sad to me, but it makes sense from a ‘preserving the straight mandate’ scheme. Program hatred of the vagina into all women, and loving a woman inevitably means loving a hated thing. Basic, but effective, brainwashing, in other words.
And by the way, I’m not saying vaginas are gross or wrong. I’m saying that they are given undue importance and become deal-breakers for important life choices that can make the difference between slavery and freedom/safety. I don’t believe we have to ‘love’ our genitals. That is as stupid as saying I have to love my elbow. But we do need to take away the negative associations – that too is as stupid as saying I hate my elbow. Why can’t a body part just be neutral? Well, as long as relationships are associated with genital contact, and love with sex, they won’t be neutral. For women.
The Third Option
As I said, whether hetero or homo, both groups see asexuals as threats. To straights, anyone who doesn’t follow the female slavery model is a threat. Lesbians think they are the most hated group on the planet, but that is not exactly true. They are definitely one of the most hated groups – after all, they threaten the fragile male ego and the fragile male system of female slavery by rejecting the penis. They also remind ‘straight’ women of their sad state as slaves and so incur straight female envy, jealousy, and their requisite wrath. Male power depends on women’s compliance. This is an easy, easy cause-effect reality to discern. Asexuals are much more hated than lesbians and in fact, many lesbians don’t trust asexuals. To be asexual is to reject mandatory, enforced sexuality. The straights see it as a threat to their power, and insecure lesbians see asexual women as a threat to woman-love. It’s as if to say, that rejecting the vagina is woman-hate. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is proof that even lesbianism is tainted by straight male thinking. To be asexual is to remove sex from love and relationships. I would suggest that it is a stronger and purer way to love. And of course, you can do what you wish. I mean, really, nothing is going to change in this world, so love whom and how you please. If you want to fuck, then fuck. No one can tell you what to do. I just suggest examining your relationship(s) and why you’re in them. Would they fall apart if you stopped fucking?
A Safer, Purer Woman-Love
My contrived sexuality has gone through stages in my 44 years. I think, as a teenager, things were unexamined. I mean, really, all religions (and sexuality is like a religion) depend upon ignorance and prey upon the young and the vulnerable. All ideologies target the weak, naive and desperate so as to better take hold and implant ridiculous ideas. And so most of us grow up thinking we are straight, even with evidence to the contrary.
In my early twenties, I realized that most of my dreams were about women, and in grad school I developed a crush on a very out and proud lesbian from New Zealand. My closest friend was a lesbian, my posse consisted of all the gays and lesbians in my department, and I roomed with lesbians from another department. It was the best time of my life – I felt a little freer then than I ever have felt before and since. And that time was was a bit of a revelation for me, and I remember thinking: “Don’t all women fantasize about women?” I spent years after that vacillating between lesbian and bisexual designations. So stupid, really. What I now realize is that there was something deeper going on, and I’ve since shed all pretenses that I am a ‘sexual being’. I feel I live outside sexuality now – which is no easy thing given where I have been living for the last handful of years. A considerable number of young Chinese women tell me they don’t want to get married, and I try to help the ones who admit that they think they are lesbians. Unfortunately, they live in a culture with a shortage of rapeable women and there is enormous pressure to get these girls married and knocked up.
But I digress. What was really going on on a deeper level through my adulthood was that I did love women, but it wasn’t a sexual thing, except on the surface perhaps. Yes, there was a rather strong sex drive. But underneath was this: Every once in a while, I would meet a woman I rather admired. There was a connection. I fantasized about having a close, supportive, loving bond. I didn’t know it at the time in a way I could articulate, but I have since realized that I could imagine having a close relationship with a woman – a life partnership, if you will – that had nothing to do with her vagina or mauling her tits. I imagined sharing space and support with someone I felt kinship with and that wasn’t tainted by sexual expectation. The relationship wouldn’t fall apart because someone didn’t want to have sex anymore. Some of the women I fell for were lesbians, some were straight. But the problem with all was that all were tied up in the notion that relationships were about sex. Interestingly, I briefly dated a woman at a time when I was very invested in exploring sex with women who was wise beyond her years and who had already realized this fundamental truth. She wasn’t looking for sex, but for a deeper relationship with a woman, so I lost interest quickly. It wasn’t my time, and I was slow to shed my heterosexual brainwashing. I can understand now what she probably felt at the time. Every one of my ‘girl crushes’ since that time has ended the same way. The lesbians are looking for people to fuck. And the straight women end up falling in with an abusive, parasitic male and our friendship and bond weakened and eventually failed. It has always been and continues to be devastating.
Despite what some women say, it is not possible to have a relationship with a male devoid of sex or exploitation in some form. Men are ‘loyal’ if they are getting something from you that is not necessarily to your advantage. They deplete you and they believe it is their right to do so.
I think it is possible to have a long and strong bond with a woman (without the interference of predatory males) that isn’t based on sex. An asexual woman-love, if you will. But in this sex- and money-crazed world, I think it is difficult to achieve. I am still looking. Not hopeful, but still looking.