What about Women? Forced Sexuality – Part III
This is Part III in my exploration of the human obsession known as sexuality. The other parts are:
Part I: An introduction to male omnisexuality and why heterosexuality is even a thing at all.
Part II: The sex drive and sexuality – human obsessions and two misunderstood and badly abused concepts. Also a brief consideration of homosexuality, asexuality, and forced sexuality.
Although their actual life-or-death needs are exactly the same as those for women and are exactly four in number – food, water, sleep and shelter – in their natural proclivity for violence, power and control, men have elevated ‘sex’ (defined as dick servicing) to a life-or-death need. It isn’t. No man has ever died from lack of sex.
Using standard male logic, men will try to argue that women should be made available to them, either through unpaid or unequal barter-based sex slave relationships (girlfriend, wife), or through paid rent-a-sex-slave situations (prostitution) because without it they will a) become more violent and agitated, in general, b) will lose control and rape, and c) it is magically ordained by some sky-god or by Nature. The conclusion (threat) that follows from this (non-) logic is: “let us rape you or we will rape you harder, and cause lots of other problems as well.” And a lot of women will believe this ‘men have needs’ illogic and give in to what, in a nutshell, is coercive or manipulative rape. There is all sorts of mindfuckery that accompanies the threat so as to paint rape as an expression of love and to paint women’s reluctance or denial of service as some sort of cruel punishment or selfishness or prudery. Coercive or manipulative rape, the most common and least acknowledged form of rape, will be discussed in another post.
Simplicity vs Complexity: Men and Women
Men are easy to understand. Get a handle on understanding the motivations of power, control, selfishness, violence, and high emotionality within a limited range, and you’ve pretty much got them down. Even their omnisexuality and why they choose to gravitate, for the most part, to declared heterosexuality (despite what they do behind closed doors) is very, very easy to understand.
Women, on the other hand, are much more difficult to pin down. And there are a few very good reasons for this. Part of it may be that we are more complex beings to begin with. Men often say this as a criticism, but that only speaks to their inability to understand complex systems and their failure to control us completely. Our inner lives are deep and rich. We understand things on so many more levels. We are detail-oriented as well as big picture thinkers. We think both concretely and abstractly. We are connected with nature on a fundamental level and yet our minds and spirits soar beyond all horizons. We are more in touch with our instincts, and at the same time, have the capacity to override our lizard brain gut reactions and act with logic, compassion, empathy, and compromise. Yes, we are complex beings, and in this way, are usually hard to put into the categorical boxes that men design for us.
But there is another reason women are hard to pin down. Unlike men, women are not allowed to be natural. I wrote a whole post on the interaction effects of nature and nurture and how only women are not allowed to realize their natural selves, forced instead into a male-defined, simplistic, discrete system of stereotypes and categories. Our exploitable natural qualities are reinforced and used against us, while the natural abilities and tendencies that threaten the male dominance structure are punished and suppressed. In reality, we have no idea what a natural woman is. We don’t know what female power looks like. We don’t know exactly how strong female energy burns. What we do know is that the way men force us to define ourselves is not only inadequate, but completely unnatural and self-destructive. And we do know that the natural woman has not predominated because we are not violent by nature. You can’t fight natural male violence with reason, logic and intellect despite what many feminists say.
So What About Female Sexuality?
I have a young, female friend here in China who suggested to me recently that all women are lesbians. She is 21, she has no sexual interest in men, she is not sure if she is sexually interested in women, and she is trying to figure out what she is. This is what everyone who doesn’t succumb to hetero brainwashing wrestles with. What are they? You MUST be sexually attracted to something. It is mandatory. But what if you aren’t? When I talk to my young friend, I know she is drawn to women. She feels comfortable and safe with them. She likes to experience a rich, deep perspective on the world that only women can give. She has, at an enviably early age, discovered the joys of reading women’s writing – mostly from other countries as Chinese women don’t have much of a voice in Chinese literature. Like myself and other women, she has realized that men’s writing offers little. It has no depth, no nuance, no intellect, and too much literal and figurative violence. You cannot recognize yourself in male writing if you are a woman who has escaped or started to escape your heterosexual programming.
So, is my friend a lesbian?
Unfortunately, we are forced to define ourselves through our sexuality, thanks to men and their simplistic way of thinking. It can be very confusing to those who don’t fit into boxes and those who haven’t embraced their programming completely. So using male language and self-concepts, being a lesbian primarily means you get sexually turned on by women. You can still hate women, hate yourself, support harmful gender parodies, and be completely unable to connect with women on all levels but a sexual one. You can be a complete misogynist and still be a lesbian as long as you lust after girls. And ironically, you can connect with women in many ways, but be excluded from the lesbian team if you don’t connect sexually with women. Although I don’t think men are smart enough to have engineered this sad situation, through their violent sexual machinations throughout history, this genital obsession and sex-based club formation has become the perfect way to divide women and keep men supported.
In order to really examine women’s sexuality (if it exists naturally), you have to remove the male voice from the equation entirely. Nothing a man does, says or thinks ever truly helps women understand their natural selves or their needs or desires. I have never, ever, ever met a male who doesn’t include himself, his ‘needs’ and his desires in his plans, opinions, reactions and interactions. Men cannot talk about female sexuality without thinking about themselves, even if they cloak the language in something that seems objective on the surface. Women are too quick to hand out blow jobs to male people who pay some kind of faux lip service to women’s ‘choices’ and ‘freedom’. Men are not objective. Remember, they have too much to lose from women discarding them and discovering their natural selves and their true freedom. And as predators, men are expert manipulators. So, to explore women’s natural state, you have to remove male influence, the male voice, and the male threat. It is very difficult to do. We are not taught to think about ourselves, and male people of all ages have a way of tapping into the altruistic and/or sympathetic parts of our natural selves and derailing us from taking care of ourselves.
To explore natural sexuality, you have to examine needs. What do women need? Forget those asinine women’s magazines which are basically outlets for the male voice. Women don’t need to feel sexy or beautiful. Women don’t need a closet full of clothes or the right colour lipstick. Women don’t need the ‘right man’ or flowers on her birthday or a special night to focus on her orgasms instead of sucking her master’s cock.
First, women need food, drink, sleep and shelter. Those are the basic survival needs. After that, we start talking about needs related not to survival, but quality of life. Women need love, affection, human connection, acceptance – all of those things related to human interaction and relationships. And to escape from male language control, when I say love and affection, I’m not talking about sex or orgasms. I’m talking about feeling loved and appreciated and having emotional exchange, all free from threat, duty and coercion. I suspect all men and most women don’t truly understand what this means as we have been so corrupted by male thinking on what love and relationships are.
Women also need dreams, goals, confidence, aspirations, inspiration, motivation, hope, and empowerment. Again, these are needs related to quality of life – those things that make life worth living, and that make having consciousness make sense. These are not related to the material world or to sex. And while no one dies from lack of love or lack of empowerment or dreams, they will likely live in a depressed state with plenty of physical and mental health problems. This is how most women currently live, and I’d argue that it is because of forced heterosexuality and living in the male system that relies upon it. Forcing women to submit to men deprives them of those needs that make life worth living. And all of their energies instead are poured into ensuring that men not only achieve all of these personal needs, but they also have an abundance of them to draw from any time they wish. Further, introducing a sexual element to a relationship, especially, but not only with men, redirects energy away from women having their own quality-of-life-based needs met and into ensuring the male partner is well cared for and sexually catered to.
The best friendships I’ve had with women have been those that tap into quality-of-life needs, and those friendships, if they break down, are always because of the intrusion of a demanding parasitical male. Hetero-programmed women are hard to be long-term friends with, I’ve found, for this very reason. There is always a parasite lurking, whether it be a husband, a new boyfriend, or a male child. Marriage and breeding paradigms – systems invented by men to support male supremacy – have always served to divide women, break down female friendships, and redirect female energy into male goals and success.
Friendships with men, regardless of their age, have never genuinely addressed affection needs or empowerment needs. Males in friendships have their needs addressed, as they siphon female energy. And I can’t think of a single friendship with a male that didn’t end up destroyed by sexual propositions or downright sexual harassment, sometimes after years of supposedly platonic interaction. By design, I currently have very few males in my life. One of the last remaining ones, a former student here in China, 21 years my junior whom I’ve kept around only because I have had some success mentally desexing male students and seeing them only as ‘students’, just ruined our two-year, ongoing interaction last week by announcing that he is ‘in love with me’. It was so utterly disappointing and confusing, especially because I am open about not being interested in men, and I stupidly thought I was immune from most sexual predation from men because I’m 45 and I don’t feminize. I’m not sure if there are mommy issues going on or the idea of converting the possible ‘lesbian’ was irresistible. Regardless, the teaching point here is that there is no such thing as an exception when it comes to men. They are all predators. They make everything about sex. And no woman is safe. Ever.
So back to the question: what about female sexuality? Are women sexual beings? I suspect this wouldn’t be an important question if men didn’t exist. I don’t think sex would take on even a fraction of the importance it has now if men didn’t exist. I don’t think relationships would form and break up on the basis of sexual activity and attraction if men didn’t exist. I think without men, women would take physical pleasure in each other, but it wouldn’t form the basis of relationships, and wouldn’t be the stuff of obsessions. Life would be rich, complex, layered. As it is now, everything is sex. People kill themselves and each other over it. Half the population is enslaved because of it. Without men, there would be so much less pain and destruction. With men in the picture, women are not naturally heterosexual. Nothing about heterosexuality is naturally good for women. If women were naturally straight, programming would not be needed. Violence would not be needed. There is so much effort put into turning women into men’s sex and labour slaves, it is impossible to argue that heterosexuality is natural for women. I think women are naturally drawn to women, but I would define ‘lesbian’ differently than it is currently understood in system of male dominance. There may be a sexual component, but the affinity is based on more complex things that override any kind of central sexuality.
In short, I don’t think male language and thinking are adequate for describing what women are naturally. Categorical male thinking and vocabulary – heterosexual, bisexual, queer, homosexual, asexual – may be fine for describing men (I prefer omnisexual as a more accurate description of what men are), but not for women. Ideally, women need be released from male control and male demands for sex so that they may discover what they need and to realize and embrace the quality of life no woman has yet achieved, but so very clearly deserves.
Posted on October 17, 2017, in Feminism, Language, Misogyny and tagged asexuality, homosexuality, lesbian, radical feminism, sexuality. Bookmark the permalink. Comments Off on What about Women? Forced Sexuality – Part III.