Antisexuality

[Romanophile]

I was going to make a thread questioning the necessity of sex (and I could still post my thoughts about that here if desired), but for safety I feel that I should enquire about this first. Has anybody here encountered antisexuals or antisexuality in the past ? What do you know about them ? Do any of you agree with them on any points ?

I personally would not consider myself antisexual any more, though my antisexuality was never based on reason. Yet I do feel that sex is something that our society holds too high in importance.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I'm an asexual so I'm personally antisexual too. Even just the idea of it is repulsive to me and I think that's fine as long as I'm not forcing those views on others. The only other antisexuals I have encountered have been other asexuals.

[Leftsolidarity]

I remember talking to one anti-sexual person on here before. I thought their views were complete trash.

[Art Vandelay]

While I can accept the perspectives of anti-sexuals or a-sexuals, I must say that you're missing out.

[Kindness]

While I can accept the perspectives of anti-sexuals or a-sexuals, I must say that you're missing out.

I can't speak to anti-sexuals, but asexuality is a sexual orientation, just like heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Asexuals experience no sexual attraction, so they aren't "missing out" on anything. Due to their orientation, they simply have no desire for sex.

[Art Vandelay]

I can't speak to anti-sexuals, but asexuality is a sexual orientation, just like heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Asexuals experience no sexual attraction, so they aren't "missing out" on anything. Due to their orientation, they simply have no desire for sex.

I have no doubt that me opinion is an ignorant one, I don't have much experience with a-sexuals, but does ones lack of a desire or interest in the opposite sex, make one incapable of feeling the very real sensations which come with the act?

[Let's Get Free]

anti sexuality/asexuality seems to me to be biologically impossible. But if such a thing were possible, I would really like to be one.

[Ostrinski]

I don't see how it would be possible for anyone other than asexuals to be anti-sexual unless they didn't have a libido. That doesn't mean that all asexuals are so close-minded so as not to be willing to understand other modes of sexuality, though.

I think something like this is just as ridiculous as all other positions that attempt to govern or regulate what a) people choose to do with their own body and b) activities taken part in by consenting individuals. It's condescending in that it supposes that human beings don't have the maturity or capability to make decisions of this type responsibly.

I think it is especially insulting to women and all other people that have had to struggle and fight for the right to choose what to do with their own body and make decisions regarding who they can and can't associate themselves with, among other things.

Just more conservative bombast from people who want to regulate morality.

[LOLseph Stalin]

anti sexuality/asexuality seems to me to be biologically impossible. But if such a thing were possible, I would really like to be one.

How so? Being asexual is no different from being any other orientation really. This is one of the reasons why I do think us asexuals need to formally get involved in activism. Most people don't even know we exist.

[Ostrinski]

I'm an asexual so I'm personally antisexual too. Why do you presume to speak for all asexuals? Do you have evidence that all other asexuals either buy into the outrageousness of anti-sexuality or have the tendency to?

[Art Vandelay]

That doesn't mean that all asexuals are so close-minded so as not to be willing to understand other modes of sexuality, though.

Does anyone argue such a premise? Because if they do (a) they are quite obviously bigoted, or (b) not very intelligent (kinda ties into "a").

[LOLseph Stalin]

Why do you presume to speak for all asexuals? Do you have evidence that all other asexuals either buy into the outrageousness of anti-sexuality or have the tendency to?

Where did I say all asexuals were anti-sexual? I was speaking on behalf of myself.

[Art Vandelay]

Why do you presume to speak for all asexuals? Do you have evidence that all other asexuals either buy into the outrageousness of anti-sexuality or have the tendency to?

Why do you presume she claims to speaks for "all a-sexuals" did she put forth such an argument, or are you merely misrepresenting what she said? Her comment is no different then mine stating (earlier in this thread) that a-sexuals (despite me understanding their disinterest in said activity) are missing out on the enjoyment of sex. How do we know that other non a-sexual people, don't have a negative view of sexual intercourse? I mean, in all honesty, your line of reasoning here seems (not only never ending; if we are to take it to its logical conclusion) but also faulty. As far as I'm concerned I'll take the opinion of an actual a-sexual on the matter, until other viewpoints from said group are expressed.

[Ostrinski]

Where did I say all asexuals were anti-sexual? I was speaking on behalf of myself.Well perhaps your choice of words was just poor. You posited being asexual and anti-sexual as a cause and effect relationship with your use of "so," sorry if I misrepresented your opinion.

[Ostrinski]

Why do you presume she claims to speaks for "all a-sexuals" did she put forth such an argument, or are you merely misrepresenting what she said? Her comment is no different then mine stating (earlier in this thread) that a-sexuals (despite me understanding their disinterest in said activity) are missing out on the enjoyment of sex. How do we know that other non a-sexual people, don't have a negative view of sexual intercourse? I mean, in all honesty, your line of reasoning here seems (not only never ending; if we are to take it to its logical conclusion) but also faulty. As far as I'm concerned I'll take the opinion of an actual a-sexual on the matter, until other viewpoints from said group are expressed.Relax hotshot, I think InsertNameHere can speak for herself.

[Romanophile]

At Ostrinski :

You appear to be intelligent, but you seem to have an implication that antisexuals are imposing their views on others, as if antisexuality is a politic movement, which I am perplexed by. Surely not all antisexuals desire to spread this.

At InsertNameHere :

Although I do not deny the existence of asexuality in humans, I do not think that it should be classified as an orientation, because it is an absence of such.

[Lobotomy]

While I can accept the perspectives of anti-sexuals or a-sexuals, I must say that you're missing out.

Not trying to be rude but this is kinda uncool, I mean you wouldn't tell a gay guy that he's "missing out" by not havig sex with women. You would just accept that he has a different orientation, and I think asexual people deserve the same respect. (I am assuming that you are a straight male; if my assumption is wrong then I apologize).

Anyhow, to op: what is antisexuality exactly, is it a sort of intellectual movement against sex?

[Art Vandelay]

Not trying to be rude but this is kinda uncool, I mean you wouldn't tell a gay guy that he's "missing out" by not havig sex with women. You would just accept that he has a different orientation, and I think asexual people deserve the same respect. (I am assuming that you are a straight male; if my assumption is wrong then I apologize).

Again this isn't what my opinion was supposed to mean, however I must restate that, like I said originally, my thoughts "only come from ignorance" so sorry if I offended anyone, but I was merely attempting to express my opinion.

[#FF0000]

i don't care about what other people are doing or aren't doing in the bedroom

[Comrade #138672]

I am not anti-sexuality. However, I do agree with the TS that our society holds sex too high in importance. Yes, sexuality is not unimportant, but it is overly used by the mass media to distract the working-class.

[rylasasin]

for me.... I'd have to say it depends on what exactly qualifies as "antisexual/asexual"

If you're talking about people who have no sexuality and no interest in sexuality whatsoever... no. Never have met them (even the conservative christians I met don't fall into that category. They do have interest in sexuality... with a boatload of unnecessary/counterproductive restrictions.) And i'm certainly not one myself (porn/hentai lover here.)

However, if you're just talking about IRL... then yeah I do know such a person, who is quite asexual.... though happens to be a furry porn artist/writer. :P

As for myself... yeah I'm quite asexual when it comes to IRL. No interest in forming a relationship, no interest in actually having sex myself. I just find both of those pursuits to be a complete waste of time doomed to failure anyway. However it doesn't stop me from enjoying good porn as I mentioned earlier.


I am not anti-sexuality. However, I do agree with the TS that our society holds sex too high in importance. Yes, sexuality is not unimportant, but it is overly used by the mass media to distract the working-class.

yeah I can attest to that. Mostly used too often to sell stuff we don't need. However the other thing is this whole cultural notion of "dude, you so need to get laid. Ha ha you're just a nerd that can't get laid yet hur hur." Putting the act on a pedestal as if having sex is supposed to be some grand life changing event when in reality it is at best a placebo and at worst a letdown with some pretty nasty consequences.

[RedAtheist]

I would identify as anti-sexuality, because in theory I think sex can be a good thing, but every time I encounter it, either in real life or in the media, it always seems either shallow or anti-egalitarian or both. All the focus is placed either on the physical attractiveness of the people involved (which is almost entirely a result of genetics and therefore not worth celebrating, any more than whiteness is worth celebrating) or on their mutual codependence (all that 'I can't live without you' nonsense.)

Human beings interacting as independent equals just is not seen as 'sexy' by our culture, so people looking to have sex wind up conforming to their gender roles. Alot of women are afraid of breaking with the female gender role because they are worried men will not be interested in them. Thus we cannot challenge gender stereotyping without seriously challenging our society's understanding of sex.

[Comrade #138672]

anti sexuality/asexuality seems to me to be biologically impossible. But if such a thing were possible, I would really like to be one.Because someone who is asexual, will not have sex, and, therefore, can not reproduce? If that is your position, then what about homosexuality? I am sure you do not think that is impossible. Both sexualities do not tend to reproduce. So what is up with that?

[Rurkel]

Asexuality is just not feeling any sexual attraction.
What is "anti-sexuality"? A "people should stop having sex" movement?

[zoot_allures]

If somebody doesn't experience sexual attraction, or isn't interested in having sex for whatever reasons, that's totally fine with me. Asexuality is just an orientation and we should all be accepting towards it.

However, antisexuality, as I've always understood the term, is about much more than that - and is absolutely evil in my opinion. There's a debate to be had about pornography, prostitution, sexuality in the media, and so on, but hostility towards sexuality in general is not something I have any respect for.

[#FF0000]

lmao at americans talking about living in a hella sexualized society wherein the media acts like showing boobs is an extinction level event

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Sexualisation, as the term is commonly used, is not the same as openness about human sexuality and the body; in fact, an increase in the latter might spell the end of the hilarious, over-the-top examples of the former (trying to sell coffins with tits and arse, for example).


I was going to make a thread questioning the necessity of sex (and I could still post my thoughts about that here if desired), but for safety I feel that I should enquire about this first. Has anybody here encountered antisexuals or antisexuality in the past ? What do you know about them ? Do any of you agree with them on any points ?

I personally would not consider myself antisexual any more, though my antisexuality was never based on reason. Yet I do feel that sex is something that our society holds too high in importance.

The necessity of sex for what? And for whom? I doubt many members of the site think that sex is obligatory, or that not having sex is bad. That said, this thread is the first time I have encountered someone calling themselves "antisexual" - this seems to imply that sexuality is somehow bad, or that it should be restricted in toto. Yet most people that are interested in sex in the first place probably find it an enjoyable experience - or would, for reasons that have nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with gender roles, expectations, oppression etc.

[Thug Lessons]

I can't speak to anti-sexuals, but asexuality is a sexual orientation, just like heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Asexuals experience no sexual attraction, so they aren't "missing out" on anything. Due to their orientation, they simply have no desire for sex.

I'm mega ultra skeptical of equivalences like this when being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender were identities and communities forged in the fires of brutal oppression from both government and heterosexual society in general, whereas being asexual or demisexual or autosexual or whatever else people call themselves on Tumblr literally didn't exist before Judith Butler and the internet.

[LOLseph Stalin]

yeah I can attest to that. Mostly used too often to sell stuff we don't need. However the other thing is this whole cultural notion of "dude, you so need to get laid. Ha ha you're just a nerd that can't get laid yet hur hur." Putting the act on a pedestal as if having sex is supposed to be some grand life changing event when in reality it is at best a placebo and at worst a letdown with some pretty nasty consequences.

This I definitely agree with. I notice how in many ads, particularly ones aimed at a male audience, feature scantily clad women. The capitalists are obviously exploiting sex for their own gain. I feel it's objectifying and rarely is it the other way around(ads aimed at women featuring scantily clad men) so I feel there's some sexism involved.

Also, I have personally been called a loser who can't get laid simply because I'm still a virgin. There's a serious problem when one's value is being determined by how much sex they have had. The only reason I'm a virgin really is because I genuinely have no interest in sex nor do I really get urges for it.

[Red Enemy]

A lot of folk with a white knight complex in here.

[Crux]

I have removed OT-posts from this thread. For those in any kind of doubt let me echo COTR's sentiment and say that the comments made by Ostrinski were completely unacceptable and will be an issue until resolved one way or the other.
//Mod

[Luís Henrique]

Asexuality is just not feeling any sexual attraction.
What is "anti-sexuality"? A "people should stop having sex" movement?

I don't know if there is some kind of antisexual movement (aside of the anti-sex movement in Orwell's 1984). If there is, I am obviously against such barbarity.

The etymology of the word seems obvious: anti-sexual = against sex. Who is against sex? Is there someone like that?

I have read the expression absexuality, which seems much more interesting: it describes people who derive vicarious sexual pleasure from moralising about others' sexuality. This is a quite evident reality, and it is awfully reactionary.

Luís Henrique

[MarxArchist]

I went a year in my early 30's without having sex after a bad breakup. She did some permanent long term damage. Took me about a year to shake off the trauma (extreme verbal and psychical abuse). In my early 20's I ended up in AA meetings and was told not to have sex for a year but it seemed like the entire point of that group was to meet people to have sex with. A confused bunch they were. Here in San Fransisco (over the bridge) there's SLA meetings where people go who are addicted to sex. I guess that would be akin to Micheal Fassbenders charterer in "Shame".

[MarxArchist]

There's some feminists who advocate women stop having sex with men all together (in favor of sex with women). Some non lesbian feminists advocate a celibacy period because in their view all sex under the patriarchy is coercive (which implies rape). I think the new Pope might change the Catholic Church's anti- sex views? It would certainly help stop all the molestation. I remember some straight edge kids from my youth who were anti-sex. Anti everything. Those were some of the angriest kids I knew.

[Jason]

Many Catholic priests are supposed to be a-sexual, but aren't, and the molestation cases prove it.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I remember some straight edge kids from my youth who were anti-sex. Anti everything. Those were some of the angriest kids I knew.

Ah yes, the hardline kids, crazy people.

http://i.qkme.me/35xr0g.jpg

[Luís Henrique]

Many Catholic priests are supposed to be a-sexual, but aren't, and the molestation cases prove it.

They aren't supposed to be asexual; they are supposed to refrain from acting on their sexual desires.

Luís Henrique

[rylasasin]

lmao at americans talking about living in a hella sexualized society wherein the media acts like showing boobs is an extinction level event

Just one of the many millions of contradictions of capitalism my friend. Media becoming more sexual and using softcore porn scenes for advertising while at the same time going apeshit at the slightest hint of sexuality.

Actually this is somewhat intentional as it creates a polarized and contradictory view on sex which represses sexual expression yet helps cultivate the desire so that commodities to "help" (and i use that term very loosely and sarcastically) solve this repression can be sold easier.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Many Catholic priests are supposed to be a-sexual, but aren't, and the molestation cases prove it.

No, they're supposed to be celibate. There's differences since asexuality is a sexual orientation while celibacy is not.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I can't speak to anti-sexuals, but asexuality is a sexual orientation, just like heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
No, it isn't. It's the complete lack of a sexual orientation.

[#FF0000]

There's some feminists who advocate women stop having sex with men all together (in favor of sex with women). Some non lesbian feminists advocate a celibacy period because in their view all sex under the patriarchy is coercive (which implies rape).

Who

[MarxArchist]

Who

The position comes from the theory that all sex under patriarchy is coercive (Dworkin) and women shouldn't have sex with men until such a time they find themselves in a situation where they themselves have working knowledge of feminist theory and at the same time whichever man they want to have sex with is also a feminist. It originated with lesbian separatist feminism but the practice has been watered down by various heterosexual radical feminists.

[#FF0000]

The position comes from the theory that all sex under patriarchy is coercive (Dworkin)

That isn't what Dworkin says, though.


and women shouldn't have sex with men until such a time they find themselves in a situation where they themselves have working knowledge of feminist theory and at the same time whichever man they want to have sex with is also a feminist. It originated with lesbian separatist feminism but the practice has been watered down by various heterosexual radical feminists.Like who? Do you have names? Quotes?

[MarxArchist]

That isn't what Dworkin says, though.

Like who? Do you have names? Quotes?
Yes it is what Dworkin said, that sex under patriarchy is coercive. Also, this should be common knowledge but I'll bite just this once but as soon as you imply I'm attacking feminism in general I'm walking away from this conversation. Just off the top of my head the separatists are/were people like Cell 16 and advocating celibacy as a political strategy spearheaded into radical feminism with women such as Alice Echols, just to name one. This isn't a secret ya know. There are feminists who think "the only two legitimate choices are lesbianism or celibacy". Google the quote ;)

[#FF0000]

Yes it is what Dworkin said, that sex under patriarchy is coercive.

No, again, it isn't. She never said that or implied that. She did say things like how intercourse was a synonym for aggression, occupation, etc. but it was in the context of how sex was depicted in media. You don't even need to read all of Intercourse to discover it because it's right in the Foreword at this point.


This isn't a secret ya know.

Nope. I wanted you to make it clear that you're (for whatever reason) talking about a pretty miniscule subsection of feminism. I think it's really weird you'd bring it up at all, tbh.

[MarxArchist]

No, again, it isn't. She never said that or implied that. She did say things like how intercourse was a synonym for aggression, occupation, etc. but it was in the context of how sex was depicted in media. You don't even need to read all of Intercourse to discover it because it's right in the Foreword at this point.



Nope. I wanted you to make it clear that you're (for whatever reason) talking about a pretty miniscule subsection of feminism. I think it's really weird you'd bring it up at all, tbh.
I criticize radical feminist theory at will and you know what, it doesn't make me a misogynist. Deal with it. While you're at it take that cape off superman. And yes Dworkin thought all sex under patriarchy was coercive. You have some reading to do. I'm not saying she said all heterosexual sex is rape. Obviously she thought this wasn't a universal condition and some women could enjoy sex from a basis of equality. Anyhow, I'm ending this conversation as I already know what you goal here is.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I criticize radical feminist theory at will and you know what, it doesn't make me a misogynist. Deal with it. While you're at it take that cape off superman.

Radical feminism really only becomes a problem when it's the kind that wants to essentially take rights away from men. Yes, feminists like that exist and they're just as reactionary as those men who want to keep women from having rights.

[#FF0000]

I criticize radical feminist theory at will and you know what, it doesn't make me a misogynist.

I never said that.


Deal with it. While you're at it take that cape off supermanDo you know 1) how cold it is in the fortress of solitude and 2) how warm this cape is?


And yes Dworkin thought all sex under patriarchy was coercive. You have some reading to do. I'm not saying she said all heterosexual sex is rape. lol i literally just got done reading intercourse for the first time and also I am hella struggling to think of how sex can be coercive but not rape.


Obviously she thought this wasn't a universal condition and some women could enjoy sex from a basis of equality.Yeah sorta. She maintains that it should be reciprocal and all that, but not that all sex was coercive/rape until patriarchy was done away with.

i think there is some miscommunication here?


Anyhow, I'm ending this conversation as I already know what you goal here is.just callin out bullshit dogg. your post was worded hella poorly.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Radical feminism really only becomes a problem when it's the kind that wants to essentially take rights away from men.
No, the biggest problem with radical feminism is how it often treats other women, cis or trans.

[MarxArchist]

Radical feminism really only becomes a problem when it's the kind that wants to essentially take rights away from men. Yes, feminists like that exist and they're just as reactionary as those men who want to keep women from having rights.
Pfft...men's rights. It's certianly not any man's "right" to have sex with women. Only reason I even brought this up in the first place was because I was listing people who practice celibacy not to push any mens rights bullshit (which is the direction the FOOOO poster is trying to take it because as we all know you're either "for" or "against" all feminist theory! LOL

[LOLseph Stalin]

No, the biggest problem with radical feminism is how it often treats other women, cis or trans.

How so? Please elaborate.

[#FF0000]

How so? Please elaborate.

I don't know specifics but it seems like there's a lot of radfems who hate on transwomen/people in general. I don't think it's everyone under the "radfem" banner but transphobia seems to be associated with radfem for some reason.


Pfft...men's rights. It's certianly not any man's "right" to have sex with women. Only reason I even brought this up in the first place was because I was listing people who practice celibacy not to push any mens rights bullshit (which is the direction the FOOOO poster is trying to take it because as we all know you're either "for" or "against" all feminist theory! LOL

lol of course not. i just feel like feminism is a topic that is next to impossible to discuss honestly thanks to tumblr social justice dorks, rush limbaugh dorks, reddit dorks, dorks in general. so i call out bullshit and poorly worded/weasel worded posts about feminism when i sees em.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

How so? Please elaborate.
Radical feminism has a long history of being virulently transphobic toward trans women, and when some radfems call for women to engage in lesbian relationships even if they're hetero, that to me is trying to tell a woman what she should do with her own body when it comes to sex.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Radical feminism has a long history of being virulently transphobic toward trans women, and when some radfems call for women to engage in lesbian relationships even if they're hetero, that to me is trying to tell a woman what she should do with her own body when it comes to sex.

That kind of goes back to my original point about many radical feminists hating men. Like I said, those kinds of feminists are reactionary.

[#FF0000]

That kind of goes back to my original point about many radical feminists hating men. Like I said, those kinds of feminists are reactionary.

Radical feminism is a branch of feminism tho, and not just a word for hella extreme feminists. I don't think many radical feminists hate men.

[MarxArchist]

I don't know specifics but it seems like there's a lot of radfems who hate on transwomen/people in general. I don't think it's everyone under the "radfem" banner but transphobia seems to be associated with radfem for some reason.



lol of course not. i just feel like feminism is a topic that is next to impossible to discuss honestly thanks to tumblr social justice dorks, rush limbaugh dorks, reddit dorks, dorks in general. so i call out bullshit and poorly worded/weasel worded posts about feminism when i sees em.

Poorly worded weasel words? If anything you just got educated surrounding celibacy as a political tactic and framed it as a non issue or non practice in actual feminist circles. Celibacy as a political strategy is still preached and practiced today. That's their choice, their body, their life but the theory behind the practice it is suspect in my opinion. What a lot of people don't seem to understand about the minority RadFem theory in general is it serves as a sort of vanguard mindframe which eventually leaks out into feminism as a whole in a "you're not a real feminist if you don't..... " way. The theory behind celibacy as a political tactic is just that, that all sex under patriarchy is coercive.

Anyhow it's not like certain points of view are born in a vacuum with no theoretical foundation. These are summaries of the theories put forth. When I say certian theorists sy all sex under patriarchy is coercive many time they don't just come out and say it but it's the only logical conclusion one can come to when combining many things said surrounding sex. Dworkin did in fact, in many words spanning in a lifetime of interviews and publications , put forth the theory that sex under patriarchy is coercive and so did Catherine MackiNnon but they didn't originate the idea either. Neither one said "all sex is rape" but lets just act like there views below were born in a vacuum:

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2005/05/28/sex/

http://radfeminist.tumblr.com/post/37832510348/most-heterosexual-intercourse-under-patriarchy-is-rape

[#FF0000]

Poorly worded weasel words?

Nah. Poorly worded/weasel worded. Sometimes people who are intellectually dishonest will say things that are sorta misleading, like say "some (insert group here) think this" implying that it's the line touted by the majority or a very significant minority. Sometimes people will say things that might imply that by accident. The former is weasel worded, the latter is poorly worded.


framed it as a non issue or non practice in actual feminist circles.

Nah I just wanted you to make clear who you were talking about beyond "some feminists".


Dworkin did in fact, in many words spanning in a lifetime of interviews and publications , put forth the theory that sex under patriarchy
is coercive

Still no.

[MarxArchist]

and when some radfems call for women to engage in lesbian relationships even if they're hetero, that to me is trying to tell a woman what she should do with her own body when it comes to sex.
Why would they do that? What is the theoretical foundation that drives them to say women should just have sex with women? Is it because having sex with men is......? What specifically? Oppressive. Why is it oppressive? Because we live in a patriarchal society (as if this is a universal linear oppression suffered by all women in the same manner). By default what is oppressive sex? Rape. I'd go as far as to say women shouldn't have sex with some asshole perv who is objectifying her and or abusing her, controlling her, manipulating her in any way but to formulate a theory that all sex is oppressive under "the" patriarchy is bunk and should be criticized. But hey, if a woman chooses to see all men at all times as oppressors and by default sex with them is rape that's their business. So they chose to not have sex that's their business but I'll criticize the theory behind such practice in the same way I'll criticize Stalinism and remain a communist.

Thread officially derailed?

[#FF0000]

...but to formulate a theory that all sex is oppressive under "the" patriarchy is bunk and should be criticized.

yup.

i don't think most feminists (even radfems) do that.

and andrea dworkin sure didn't

[MarxArchist]

yup.

i don't think most feminists (even radfems) do that.

and andrea dworkin sure didn't
No, she just married a gay man :)

[Jason]

I find it difficult to believe people can be asexual with all the hormones running thru the human body.

[Tenka]

I find it difficult to believe people can be asexual with all the hormones running thru the human body.

People don't all have the same levels of said hormones or respond the same to them.

The closest I come to anti-sexuality is wanting more people to masturbate instead of having sex with others they hardly know when they're horny (and, I suppose, you could count my ideal for a shift to an asexual mode of reproduction, if you want. I wouldn't call that so much "anti-sexual" as I'd call it "more-revolutionary-than-all-y'all" though). I've found wankers such as myself to be curiously stigmatised in most social circles.

[Luís Henrique]

No, the biggest problem with radical feminism is how it often treats other women, cis or trans.

I would say the biggest problem with Radical Feminism (capital initials) is how often it speaks against people who enjoy sex, be them men or women, cis or trans, kinky or vanilla, hetero or homo.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I'll criticize the theory behind such practice in the same way I'll criticize Stalinism and remain a communist.

Yeah, pretty much that.

RadFem : feminism :: Stalinism : Marxism

I don't know why people feel the need to defend such reactionaries (or such fools, who believe women are a 'class').

Luís Henrique

[Thug Lessons]

These so-called "radical leftists" have a real attitude problem. I hear self-proclaimed communists walking around saying things like "Smash capital" and "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest", and who's going to take you seriously if you say stuff like that? You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar IMO.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

These so-called "radical leftists" have a real attitude problem. I hear self-proclaimed communists walking around saying things like "Smash capital" and "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest", and who's going to take you seriously if you say stuff like that? You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar IMO.

There's some sort of irony of this coming from an MTW.

[Crux]

I was going to make a thread questioning the necessity of sex (and I could still post my thoughts about that here if desired), but for safety I feel that I should enquire about this first. Has anybody here encountered antisexuals or antisexuality in the past ? What do you know about them ? Do any of you agree with them on any points ?

I personally would not consider myself antisexual any more, though my antisexuality was never based on reason. Yet I do feel that sex is something that our society holds too high in importance.
No, I have never encountered anyone who explicitly opposes sex. To my recollection I've never encountered anyone who opposes heterosexuality (as opposed to opposing heterosexism) either. I think being able to think critically about sex and sexuality is important without falling into the pitfalls of either conservatism or liberalism that pretty much runs through most of our society.

Not having sex as a personal choice due to past experiences of abuse is not something I can judge or condemn. We all make these kind of choices at times, for instance I'm a vegetarian knowing well that my personal diet actually does fuck all to affect the meat industry, but on a personal moral (and at this point physical) level I couldn't eat meat without feeling bad about it. So from a strictly ideological point of view I could say I oppose the meat industry as such but the idea of changing your diet as a way to change that is a dead end.

Of course not having sex due to abuse is far more serious than my aversion to eating dead meat, but extrapolated as a political strategy and tactic in itself I think it's a dead end.

[human strike]

Yet I do feel that sex is something that our society holds too high in importance.

I think the opposite is true. The dominant capitalist patriarchal ideology has a strong anti-sex tendency. Capital wages a productivist war on sex, everywhere struggling to commodify and reify all sex that falls outside of social reproduction i.e. sex for pleasure. Spectacular-commodity society attacks our sexual desire, turns it into a commodity and sells it backs to us as porn and prostitution; the representation of sex. This is one of the reasons capitalist patriarchal ideology is so homophobic and anti-contraception and abortion.

"Present day civilization makes it plain that it will only permit sexual relationships on the basis of a solitary, indissoluble bond between one man and one woman, and that it does not like sexuality as a source of pleasure in its own right and is only prepared to tolerate it because there is so far no substitute for it as a means of propagating the human race." Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents

Capital aims not only to exert control over production, but over the totality of human relations. There is a sense in which sexual desire and love (of any sort), pursued for their own sake and their own ends, is inherently insurrectionary. Love and rage are not enemies, but natural companions, for love knows it has a right to exist, and will defend itself with fury.

[#FF0000]

There's some sort of irony of this coming from an MTW.

it is a joke


RadFem : feminism :: Stalinism : Marxism

lmao i really don't think that's an accurate comparison.


I don't know why people feel the need to defend such reactionaries (or such fools, who believe women are a 'class').

Because I think they make good points from time to time and I think people do more reacting than thinking when they dismiss that entire branch of thinking so quickly.

[Thug Lessons]

If radical feminists aren't like Stalin, maybe they're more like Hitler? Dracula? Kefka from Final Fantasy VI? I don't know, just spitballing here.

[MarxArchist]

If radical feminists aren't like Stalin, maybe they're more like Hitler? Dracula? Kefka from Final Fantasy VI? I don't know, just spitballing here.

I'm not saying they kill people (Stalin) it's the theory/practice dynamic but you already know this. What's much more dangerous is a hands off approach to the liberation of women but at the same time this doesn't make all feminist theory/practice anointed by the holy ghost of liberation and therefore the word of little baby jesus handed down to Moses written on large stones for all of us to follow. I think it's quite condescending to ignore bunk theory. If Marxists were running around spouting theory that was clearly something you disagree with would you pat them on the head and say "it's ok, I'm not going to criticize that theory because you live in a poor neighborhood and are oppressed more than me". Oh wait, yes, you would.

This is another aspect of certain theory that needs to be criticized. Privilege theory and the New Left in general, especially when mixed with Radical Feminism, makes for some extreemly divisive practice. You being a Maoist Third Worldist and all will not take kindly to what I just said but I'm sorry I don't subscribe to the theory that only the "most oppressed" can be the revolutionary "class". Garbage is garbage and that theory is garbage no matter what form it takes. But don't tell that to FFOOOO because it may ruin his defender complex.

[Romanophile]

At General Strike : I think that you may be misunderstanding. I believe that our culture overrates sex as being extremely significant. People make things such as non‐matrimonial sex to be far worse than they really are, or losing a virginity is some amazing or necessary achievement in life, but sex is a short‐term process normally with short‐term effects.

In addition, I think that it may possible to ‘abolish’ sex. If we determine that the primary purpose of sex is ‘reproduction,’ then surely sexual reproduction is no longer necessary, is it ? We possess the techniques to inseminate people without intercourse, and sperm can be extracted without significant friction involved beforehand. This could actually be a quicker, and arguably safer method than sexual reproduction. Perhaps it is not safer yet, but with interest and time it could be improved. Why do they not struggle to abolish sex, if I may enquire ?

[Tenka]

I think the opposite is true. The dominant capitalist patriarchal ideology has a strong anti-sex tendency. Capital wages a productivist war on sex, everywhere struggling to commodify and reify all sex that falls outside of social reproduction i.e. sex for pleasure. Spectacular-commodity society attacks our sexual desire, turns it into a commodity and sells it backs to us as porn and prostitution; the representation of sex. This is one of the reasons capitalist patriarchal ideology is so homophobic and anti-contraception and abortion.

"Present day civilization makes it plain that it will only permit sexual relationships on the basis of a solitary, indissoluble bond between one man and one woman, and that it does not like sexuality as a source of pleasure in its own right and is only prepared to tolerate it because there is so far no substitute for it as a means of propagating the human race." Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents

Capital aims not only to exert control over production, but over the totality of human relations. There is a sense in which sexual desire and love (of any sort), pursued for their own sake and their own ends, is inherently insurrectionary. Love and rage are not enemies, but natural companions, for love knows it has a right to exist, and will defend itself with fury.

The Freud quote is agreeable, and I do believe that there is in the official morality a productivist disdain for non-procreative sex. But who buys porn? Guilt-ridden married men still living in the 70s? Internet has effectively communised the bulk of porn.

[Thug Lessons]

I'm not saying they kill people (Stalin) it's the theory/practice dynamic but you already know this. What's much more dangerous is a hands off approach to the liberation of women but at the same time this doesn't make all feminist theory/practice anointed by the holy ghost of liberation and therefore the word of little baby jesus handed down to Moses written on large stones for all of us to follow. I think it's quite condescending to ignore bunk theory. If Marxists were running around spouting theory that was clearly something you disagree with would you pat them on the head and say de blah blah blah blah feminism

Who cares? None of these horrible feminists are actually here so it's basically just you railing at this strawman radical feminism that can't defend itself, justify its theory or even speak at all. And it doesn't help the situation that you're continually a hair's breadth away from ranting about "feminazis" and "the PC police", to the point of literal Stalin comparisons. That makes me distrust anything you have to say, and when it comes down to it even where you have a point I have trouble caring, because I can log out of Tumblr and never ever have to encounter one of these people for the rest of my life. It's not necessary to refute every "bunk theory" when that theory has so presence in the real world.

But, speaking of the real world, what's actually going on? Does the actually existing left have a feminism problem? I don't think that's the case, and actually, it's the exact opposite. The left has a misogyny problem. Right now, at this very instant, the SWP is undergoing a massive scandal wherein the CC set up a kangaroo court to dismiss rape allegation against one of their own and protect him not only from party censure but also the UK justice system, and it's tearing the party apart. There's almost certainly going to be a split, and a party-wide one at that, well exceeding anything they've faced before. So I want to really emphasize how what you're saying here is entirely backwards, you have it mixed up, the problem for the left isn't radical feminists, it's the systematic discrimination and violence against women that feminism is attempting to stop.

[Rafiq]

The emancipation of fucking is an absolute necessity that all genuine feminists, none the less all communists must recognize. Since the neolithic revolution, our sexual expression has been surpressed in order to integrate women with property relations, in turn transforming them into slaves. Promiscuity is not a pre requisite for being a communist but it is indeed revolutionary. However capitalism's bizarre post 68 condition today makes things more complicated. On one hand there is more promiscuity. On the other hand it is socially pre supposed that promiscuious women are of "less value", and are shunned.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Thug Lessons]

It's not actually true that people are "more promiscuous" today than they used to be. People were actually having more sex at earlier ages during the puritanical Victorian period, it's just that today sex isn't so publicly reviled.

[Willin']

Aren't antisexual some religious paranoia freaks

[LOLseph Stalin]

The emancipation of fucking is an absolute necessity that all genuine feminists, none the less all communists must recognize. Since the neolithic revolution, our sexual expression has been surpressed in order to integrate women with property relations, in turn transforming them into slaves. Promiscuity is not a pre requisite for being a communist but it is indeed revolutionary. However capitalism's bizarre post 68 condition today makes things more complicated. On one hand there is more promiscuity. On the other hand it is socially pre supposed that promiscuious women are of "less value", and are shunned.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

From my experiences it can be the opposite too. I'm a virgin and have been mocked and made fun of for it. I guess people don't realize I'm a virgin by choice since I have no sexual desire in the first place.

The traditional family structure would be broken down anyway though in a socialist society so I doubt too many people would be shunned for being "promiscuous" then.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I am not anti-sexuality. However, I do agree with the TS that our society holds sex too high in importance. Yes, sexuality is not unimportant, but it is overly used by the mass media to distract the working-class.

No it's not. We've got a great interest in sex, the media just caters to this for profit. The interest in sex comes before making a spectacle of sex.

[#FF0000]

From my experiences it can be the opposite too. I'm a virgin and have been mocked and made fun of for it. I guess people don't realize I'm a virgin by choice since I have no sexual desire in the first place.

The traditional family structure would be broken down anyway though in a socialist society so I doubt too many people would be shunned for being "promiscuous" then.

Yeah, I don't think it's news that society (particularly American society) gives women a set of conflicting expectations.

[MarxArchist]

Who cares? None of these horrible feminists are actually here so it's basically just you railing at this strawman radical feminism that can't defend itself, justify its theory or even speak at all. And it doesn't help the situation that you're continually a hair's breadth away from ranting about "feminazis" and "the PC police", to the point of literal Stalin comparisons. That makes me distrust anything you have to say, and when it comes down to it even where you have a point I have trouble caring, because I can log out of Tumblr and never ever have to encounter one of these people for the rest of my life. It's not necessary to refute every "bunk theory" when that theory has so presence in the real world.
I didn't start the conversation and I predicted it would head in this knee jerk accusatory direction, I made a statement about people who advocate celibacy in line with the topic of the thread and was asked to give examples in a manner in which I rightly assumed was going to lead to people posting such things as your post I'm quoting. I would've been fine leaving my inquiry into certain feminists who advocate celibacy with my first post. I was asked to expand on it and here we are. I've said nothing about "femnazi's or PC police. You're simply taking the discussion right where I knew it would go. It just so happens San Fransisco has a lot of radical and lesbian feminists so I encounter it a lot. Lived there for ten years. I'm not some internet tumbler poster who gains my political perspective from online posts.



But, speaking of the real world..... you have it mixed up, the problem for the left isn't radical feminists, it's the systematic discrimination and violence against women that feminism is attempting to stop.


I like how you ignore my statements concerning not throwing feminism as a whole out of the window and my statement that certian RadFem theory doesnt compare to the damage of not taking a positive stance on women's liberation. Not to mention my statement that not all of RadFem theory is bunk. I'm in the real world. This seems to be the point of contention I have with certain theory which I encounter in the real world. Don't try to frame anything I say as misogynist or in support of sexism or anti-feminist. You''ll have to put words in my mouth to do so, as you just tried with the 'Femenazi PC thing.

[rylasasin]

However capitalism's bizarre post 68 condition today makes things more complicated. On one hand there is more promiscuity.

I'd have to say that "there is more promotion of promiscuity" is actually more accurate. Though in particular among men (as I mentioned earlier with the whole "softcore pornization" of advertising, and the whole de-valuing of male virginity thing I mentioned earlier) Where as promiscuous females are still devalued.

Of course, you can't really have one without the other, so it's a very blatant double standard. Again, just one of the many millions of contradictions of capitalism.

[MarxArchist]

No, I have never encountered anyone who explicitly opposes sex.



Of course not having sex due to abuse is far more serious than my aversion to eating dead meat, but extrapolated as a political strategy and tactic in itself I think it's a dead end.
What do you think about Ireen von Wachenfeldt (over there in Sweden)? Some bizarre stuff if true. I don't live in Sweden or speak Swedish though so I can't say for sure if what I've read and seen (subtitles) is true.

[goalkeeper]

All the focus is placed either on the physical attractiveness of the people involved (which is almost entirely a result of genetics and therefore not worth celebrating, any more than whiteness is worth celebrating)

What do you "not worth celebrating"? Who's "celebrating"?

Beautiful people are beautiful; so what?

You can't compare wanting to have sex with someone who you think is beautiful or handsome or whatever to "celebrating whiteness"; social power structures have not been constructed upon or relied upon people being or not being pretty or having a chiselled jaw or not in the same way whiteness has.

This post comes of as a sort of hyper parody of a left winger.

[jackcallidus]

I am struggling to understand the rationale behind anti-sexuality. Would somebody be so kind as to educate me on the reasoning behind such a stance?

[Romanophile]

I am struggling to understand the rationale behind anti-sexuality. Would somebody be so kind as to educate me on the reasoning behind such a stance?

My interpretation of it is that sex is an addictive action that can be used to manipulate other people, that there must be a manipulator, that it encourages people to cheat or to lie, that it possesses health risks (I was physically hurt before). Sexuality can also lead to objectification ; valuing people for ‘superficial’ reasons ; sex can be exploitation. Sex may also feel unpleasant for some people to engage in. Sex also perpetuates itself.

This is just an interpretation, though I doubt that people will believe me.

[Philo]

My interpretation of it is that sex is an addictive action that can be used to manipulate other people, that there must be a manipulator

An example of the quality reasoning on the part of the anti-sexuality crowd. (my emphasis)

The entire theory comes off as "for some reason or another, I have bad feelings/bad memories about sex, and I'm going to rationalize that into a theory and/or a politics."

[Romanophile]

An example of the quality reasoning on the part of the anti-sexuality crowd. (my emphasis)
Perhaps I could have worded it as ‘there must be a dominator and the dominated,’ though I cannot tell how much difference that would make.


The entire theory comes off as "for some reason or another, I have bad feelings/bad memories about sex, and I'm going to rationalize that into a theory and/or a politics."
That looks like a premature judgement, don’t you think ?

[RedAtheist]

What do you "not worth celebrating"? Who's "celebrating"?

Beautiful people are beautiful; so what?

They are beautiful because of their genetics. They didn't do anything to earn their beauty. Their beauty didn't come from them being morally good or from them putting in any effort. Thus celebrating them and giving them privileges is really unfair. Why praise and reward someone for something they are born with?


You can't compare wanting to have sex with someone who you think is beautiful or handsome or whatever to "celebrating whiteness"; social power structures have not been constructed upon or relied upon people being or not being pretty or having a chiselled jaw or not in the same way whiteness has.

I'm not saying the favouring of attractive people is the same as racism in every way, but they are alike in that they both involve giving people unfair advantages because of how they are born.

It's true that unattractive people have never been enslaved and there are not, nor could there be, laws which discriminate against unattractive people, but there are disadvantageous to being perceived as unattractive and they don't just exist in the realm of sex. For example, unattractive women are more likely to be found guilty of minor crimes in court and less likely to be employed.


This post comes of as a sort of hyper parody of a left winger.

Last time I checked being left wing meant opposing unfairness and inequality. How is it fair that a set of people are more like to go to jail, less likely to get a job and less likely to get sex, just because of how they are born. In case you're wondering, yes, I am ugly. It's how I'm born, I can't change it and it hurts no one. Now go ahead and tell me I'm inferior. Wait, you already have.

[Rurkel]

There shall be no sex post-revolution. Our organs of Revolutionary Proletarian Terror will mercilessly strike at those who perpetuate the ideological capitalist hegemony by engaging in this bourgeios filth :mad:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

They are beautiful because of their genetics. They didn't do anything to earn their beauty. Their beauty didn't come from them being morally good or from them putting in any effort. Thus celebrating them and giving them privileges is really unfair. Why praise and reward someone for something they are born with?

I'm not saying the favouring of attractive people is the same as racism in every way, but they are alike in that they both involve giving people unfair advantages because of how they are born.

It's true that unattractive people have never been enslaved and there are not, nor could there be, laws which discriminate against unattractive people, but there are disadvantageous to being perceived as unattractive and they don't just exist in the realm of sex. For example, unattractive women are more likely to be found guilty of minor crimes in court and less likely to be employed.

Those are all good points, and discrimination against people widely perceived as unattractive should be fought. But how does that imply that sexuality as such is something negative? People that some find unattractive have sex as well. And of course people should be free to have sex with people they find attractive; what in the name of Lenin's bald spot would be the alternative?


Last time I checked being left wing meant opposing unfairness and inequality. How is it fair that a set of people are more like to go to jail, less likely to get a job and less likely to get sex, just because of how they are born. In case you're wondering, yes, I am ugly. It's how I'm born, I can't change it and it hurts no one. Now go ahead and tell me I'm inferior. Wait, you already have.

How has goalkeeper done that? And even though I agree with you that social and economic discrimination of "ugly" people (people that many would find unattractive) is something that should be fought, that such people are less likely to enter sexual relations is unfortunate, but I really don't think that it can be considered unfair - surely people have the prerogative to choose their partners?

[human strike]

At General Strike : I think that you may be misunderstanding. I believe that our culture overrates sex as being extremely significant. People make things such as non‐matrimonial sex to be far worse than they really are, or losing a virginity is some amazing or necessary achievement in life, but sex is a short‐term process normally with short‐term effects.

In addition, I think that it may possible to ‘abolish’ sex. If we determine that the primary purpose of sex is ‘reproduction,’ then surely sexual reproduction is no longer necessary, is it ? We possess the techniques to inseminate people without intercourse, and sperm can be extracted without significant friction involved beforehand. This could actually be a quicker, and arguably safer method than sexual reproduction. Perhaps it is not safer yet, but with interest and time it could be improved. Why do they not struggle to abolish sex, if I may enquire ?

And short-term effects are unimportant? All pleasure that we experience is short-term, experienced only in the present. Again, productivist ideology attacks the short-term, it attacks pleasure, by praising sacrifice and work. Fuck the long-term, fuck the future - I find satisfaction in the now.

Capitalism and all other productivist ideologies determine that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. According to their logic the abolition of sex is desirable if a practical, cost-effective way of making that happen could be worked out. It hasn't happened thus far because it isn't cost-effective and because actually people like sex. It is a struggle for ideology to convince that sex is bad when it feels good and people are having sex for pleasure. Capitalist ideology dictates that work is good, but people hate that too. It is exactly a struggle, arguably a dialectical one, and not one capital always wins. There is a communist tendency to treat sex as something that is done for self-determined reasons, including for pleasure, and it is this tendency that resists the productivist one.


The Freud quote is agreeable, and I do believe that there is in the official morality a productivist disdain for non-procreative sex. But who buys porn? Guilt-ridden married men still living in the 70s? Internet has effectively communised the bulk of porn.

You don't think porn is a commodity? For what reason do all the porn sites in the world exist?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

In addition, I think that it may possible to ‘abolish’ sex. If we determine that the primary purpose of sex is ‘reproduction,’ then surely sexual reproduction is no longer necessary, is it ? We possess the techniques to inseminate people without intercourse, and sperm can be extracted without significant friction involved beforehand. This could actually be a quicker, and arguably safer method than sexual reproduction. Perhaps it is not safer yet, but with interest and time it could be improved. Why do they not struggle to abolish sex, if I may enquire ?

...so what is your opinion about homosexuality? I mean, forgive me for being blunt, but statements like "the primary purpose of sex is reproduction" (purpose for who? the lord God?) are usually advanced either by people trying to prove that homosexuality is "immoral", or closet teleologists that confuse function with purpose.

Again, why struggle to abolish sex? Most people like sex.

[Romanophile]

...so what is your opinion about homosexuality? I mean, forgive me for being blunt, but statements like "the primary purpose of sex is reproduction" (purpose for who? the lord God?) are usually advanced either by people trying to prove that homosexuality is "immoral", or closet teleologists that confuse function with purpose.

I was speaking hypothetically. I am not trying to insist that sex is intended for reproduction, but I doubt that you will believe me any more.

I do not see how my opinion on an orientation is relevant here. I also find this question rather invasive, but if you really must know, I am not opposed to homosexuality. Homosexuals are no less capable of reproducing than heterosexuals.

And I have not studied teleology.


Again, why struggle to abolish sex? Most people like sex.

I’m not really a good person to ask, especially since my antisexuality was not based on reason. I did give my interpretation, but I would rather people not try to argue against me through that.

[Zanthorus]

They are beautiful because of their genetics. They didn't do anything to earn their beauty. Their beauty didn't come from them being morally good or from them putting in any effort. Thus celebrating them and giving them privileges is really unfair. Why praise and reward someone for something they are born with?

To begin with attractiveness isn't really as cut and dry as you're making it out to be, but you seem to be underestimating the extent to which attractive people do put effort into their appearance. A decent haircut, well fitting and fashionable clothes and good skin complexion don't come from sitting around on your ass all day, not to mention what women do in terms of makeup to enhance their appeal. There are cultural dimensions to physical appearance which you aren't taking into account.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I was speaking hypothetically. I am not trying to insist that sex is intended for reproduction, but I doubt that you will believe me any more.

I believe you, but the manner in which you have expressed yourself is somewhat confusing. You say that you do not wish to insist on sex being intended for reproduction - fair enough, but do you think that is the case?


I do not see how my opinion on an orientation is relevant here.

I was trying to explore the consequences of your statement - I am not trying to insinuate that you are a homophobe, I'm just trying to draw your attention to the manner in which homophobic conclusions could be drawn from that statement, and hopefully make you reconsider.


I also find this question rather invasive, but if you really must know, I am not opposed to homosexuality. Homosexuals are no less capable of reproducing than heterosexuals.

This is also somewhat confusing. Homosexuals do not wish to reproduce in a sexual manner. I doubt you were trying to say that homosexuality is bad, for the record, it's just that I think this is a very possible consequence of your statement about the "purpose" of sex, and that this should be at least motivation to reconsider that statement.


And I have not studied teleology.

Teleological theories abandon the materialist mode of explanation and resort to positing some sort of natural "purpose" in the real world - they have been intellectually dead for several centuries, but teleological expressions and ways of thinking still show up from time to time. Bourgeois atheist polemicists like Sam Harris, that try to pull some universal morality out of their hat, often rely on hidden teleological assumptions.


I’m not really a good person to ask, especially since my antisexuality was not based on reason. I did give my interpretation, but I would rather people not try to argue against me through that.

Alright, I respect that. And I am sorry if anything has happened to you that has made you feel revulsion toward sex, but this does not mean sexuality should be abolished. It does mean that the entire heterosexist patriarchal system that perpetuates and exacerbates sexual abuse and misery connected to what is for many people an everyday desire, should be abolished.

[Romanophile]

I believe you, but the manner in which you have expressed yourself is somewhat confusing. You say that you do not wish to insist on sex being intended for reproduction - fair enough, but do you think that is the case?
Do I think that sex is for reproduction ? Hmmm…

I think that sex was originally for production, but now, particularly for humans, I think that it is an activity for enjoyment ; most sex had today is non‐reproductive. I suspect that it was naturally selected in favour of because it was reproductive, and being enjoyable is something that secured it as a trait. The ones who never enjoyed sex did not reproduce of course.


I was trying to explore the consequences of your statement - I am not trying to insinuate that you are a homophobe, I'm just trying to draw your attention to the manner in which homophobic conclusions could be drawn from that statement, and hopefully make you reconsider.

Well, I don’t have a great deal of control over associations. I’m not sure what to say.


This is also somewhat confusing. Homosexuals do not wish to reproduce in a sexual manner.
Although it is normal to assume so, I think that that is an over‐generalisation. I think that it is possible to love one sex and be neutral towards the other, as opposed to being repulsed by the other.


I doubt you were trying to say that homosexuality is bad, for the record, it's just that I think this is a very possible consequence of your statement about the "purpose" of sex, and that this should be at least motivation to reconsider that statement.

O.K., but I don’t believe that sex in humans is solely for reproduction any more ; to me, it is for pleasure. Yes, sexual reproduction being, er, ‘inconvenient’ for homosexuals could be used to oppress them. Assuming that such people are willing to listen, I could attempt to persuade them to act rationally and accept homosexuals’ ‘inconvenience,’ but I can’t force them to be interested or listen.


Teleological theories abandon the materialist mode of explanation and resort to positing some sort of natural "purpose" in the real world - they have been intellectually dead for several centuries, but teleological expressions and ways of thinking still show up from time to time. Bourgeois atheist polemicists like Sam Harris, that try to pull some universal morality out of their hat, often rely on hidden teleological assumptions.

I am opposed to anything anti‐materialist.


Alright, I respect that. And I am sorry if anything has happened to you that has made you feel revulsion toward sex, but this does not mean sexuality should be abolished. It does mean that the entire heterosexist patriarchal system that perpetuates and exacerbates sexual abuse and misery connected to what is for many people an everyday desire, should be abolished.

I hated sex because it disgusted me, and it perhaps invoked some jealousy in me as well. I know that it sounds stupid, but I did a lot of stupid things when I was little. I feel that I have matured since then, but I still have some maturity to obtain.

[Luís Henrique]

Most people like sex.

I suppose this only shows that most people just suffer from false consciousness. But, evidently, after our Revolutionary Sexual Police kindly explains them the holy teachings of Valerie Solanas, they will realise their ideological mistake and join the Proletarian Anti-sexual Movement.

So let's be glad that in the future we are going to reproduce through artificial insemination, and there will no longer be excuses of any kind for rubbing our skins into each other's.

Yes, I am being sarcastic. And yes, I know people who hate sex hate sarcasm too. Or anything that shows our humanity for what it matters.


Shit. Sometimes I can't help being ashamed of being a leftist.:crying:

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

lmao i really don't think that's an accurate comparison.

The main difference is that Stalinists had more than half a century to demoralise Marxism by implementing their crude caricature of socialism into State policies, and RadFems never had, and quite likely will never have, the opportunity to demoralise feminism in such a way.

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

I suppose this only shows that most people just suffer from false consciousness. But, evidently, after our Revolutionary Sexual Police kindly explains them the holy teachings of Valerie Solanas, they will realise their ideological mistake and join the Proletarian Anti-sexual Movement.

So let's be glad that in the future we are going to reproduce through artificial insemination, and there will no longer be excuses of any kind for rubbing our skins into each other's.

Yes, I am being sarcastic. And yes, I know people who hate sex hate sarcasm too. Or anything that shows our humanity for what it matters.


Shit. Sometimes I can't help being ashamed of being a leftist.:crying:

Luís Henrique
Which begs the question, have you even read SCUM Manifesto?

[MarxArchist]

Which begs the question, have you even read SCUM Manifesto?
I have. She didnt like men much even if it was suppose to be satire or a comparison showing how men really think of women. Even Warhol was, to her, the symbol of patriarchy. He wasn't necessarily the typical straight tough guy male rapist who kept his wife pregnant in the kitchen. He was simply an asshole as was the case with the 'factory people'. That little sub culture suffered from 'scenesterism' to the tenth degree. She was at the receiving end of their snark and such - it wasn't any sort of patriarchal oppression which drove her to try to kill Warhol but she said her book would explain her actions so by her own admission it was meant to be taken as it was written (the book) and there are quite a few lesbian separatists who take the book quite seriously.

[#FF0000]

there are quite a few lesbian separatists who take the book quite seriously.

Yeah, the same where there's quite a few communists who take MIM quite seriously, though.

[Luís Henrique]

Yeah, the same where there's quite a few communists who take MIM quite seriously, though.

They obviously are not communists.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Which begs the question, have you even read SCUM Manifesto?

I have. It is stupid and reactionary. Or perhaps a humongous joke, a pastiche of the leftist jargon - but I doubt it.

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

I have. It is stupid and reactionary. Or perhaps a humongous joke, a pastiche of the leftist jargon - but I doubt it.

Luís Henrique
I emphatically disagree. Solanas was very intelligent, and she also faced the blunt edge of capitalism and patriarchy pretty much all through her life.
In the opening paragraphs (and seeing how you've interacted on this forum I have to say I still doubt you read much beyond that) what she is doing is using the very same language that has been used and is still used by men to describe women over the past several centuries.

[zoot_allures]

I emphatically disagree. Solanas was very intelligent, and she also faced the blunt edge of capitalism and patriarchy pretty much all through her life.
In the opening paragraphs (and seeing how you've interacted on this forum I have to say I still doubt you read much beyond that) what she is doing is using the very same language that has been used and is still used by men to describe women over the past several centuries.
I've never read it before, but I just checked out the first few paragraphs.

The male is: "a biological accident" ... "an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage" ... "completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness" ... "a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone" ... "a half-dead, unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness" and so on.

In your view that's "the very same language that has been used and is still used by men to describe women"? What men are you thinking of here?

[Crux]

I've never read it before, but I just checked out the first few paragraphs.

The male is: "a biological accident" ... "an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage" ... "completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness" ... "a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone" ... "a half-dead, unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness" and so on.

In your view that's "the very same language that has been used and is still used by men to describe women"? What men are you thinking of here?
Psychologist, scientists and psychiatrists. The male establishment in general. The idea of the woman as an incomplete male was the commonly accepted theory all through the 17 and 1800's. And certainly ideas about women's lack of rational abilities, their hysteria (derived from hystera, the greek for uterus, and once applied as an actual diagnosis to plenty of women), them being overly-emotional, child-like and materialistic still live on in various forms today, certainly even more so in 1967. Incidentally in Sweden only 2 years prior it was declared in law that raping your wife was a criminal offence, being only the second country after Denmark outside of eastern bloc to have such a law. Up until 1993 it was legal for husbands to rape their wives in North Carolina. Just saying.

[zoot_allures]

Psychologist, scientists and psychiatrists. The male establishment in general. The idea of the woman as an incomplete male was the commonly accepted theory all through the 17 and 1800's. And certainly ideas about women's lack of rational abilities, their hysteria (derived from hystera, the greek for uterus, and once applied as an actual diagnosis to plenty of women), them being overly-emotional, child-like and materialistic still live on in various forms today, certainly even more so in 1967. Incidentally in Sweden only 2 years prior it was declared in law that raping your wife was a criminal offence, being only the second country after Denmark outside of eastern bloc to have such a law.
I'm well aware of such theories and laws and so on, but I've never encountered anything nearly as hateful as the quotes I posted above (or many others that can be found in those opening paragraphs), from the past few centuries and certainly not today.

If you'd said she was engaging in hyperbole for rhetorical purposes, I wouldn't have bothered asking... but of course, that would hardly be "the very same language".

[Crux]

I'm well aware of such theories and laws and so on, but I've never encountered anything nearly as hateful as the quotes I posted above (or many others that can be found in those opening paragraphs), from the past few centuries and certainly not today.

If you'd said she was engaging in hyperbole for rhetorical purposes, I wouldn't have bothered asking... but of course, that would hardly be "the very same language".
There's perhaps some hyperbole, but if one were to look up literature from 60's I don't think it would be that hard to find similar statements, and like I said going further back it becomes even easier.
Solanas text might hold a bit more bitterness and hatred due to having been continually abused by men for much of her life. But yes, reading on there is a bit more nuance to it.

[#FF0000]

What men are you thinking of here?

For what it's worth, Freud is a tremendous example of this.

[Luís Henrique]

Solanas was very intelligent

That's a very different issue. The SCUM Manifesto is stupid; its author may well be brilliant.

Or would we say that Hitler was stupid, or conversely, that, since he was quite obviously intelligent, Mein Kampf is anything else than abissally stupid?


and she also faced the blunt edge of capitalism and patriarchy pretty much all through her life.

Billions of people do. I fail how does would save the SCUM Manifesto from being a pile of intellectual garbage.


In the opening paragraphs (and seeing how you've interacted on this forum I have to say I still doubt you read much beyond that) what she is doing is using the very same language that has been used and is still used by men to describe women over the past several centuries.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand?

If so, how is that a good thing?

If it is sarcasm, there is no hint of it. It goes on and on on such subject, without changing tone or content, it offers no valid insight on the problematic it attempts to deal with, and is pitifully mistaken in its methods, approach, conclusions, etc.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

For what it's worth, Freud is a tremendous example of this.

Sorry, but this is simply untrue. Where does Freud say anything like


"females are a biological accident"
"females are completely egocentric, trapped inside theirselves, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others"
"females ar incapable of love, friendship, affection or tenderness"
"females are completely isolated units, incapable of rapport with anyone"
"females are half-dead, unresponsive lumps, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness"?
Freud was certainly sexist, but his language and content are fundamentally different from this garbage.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I've never read it before, but I just checked out the first few paragraphs.

Try checking the last paragraphs, or any random paragraphs inbetween.

The shit doesn't change at any moment, it continues as it started, and ends as it continued.

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

So Solanas is basically Hitler? I'm sorry but I fail to see which part of your angry angry invectives are suposed to be your "argument".

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

So Solanas is basically Hitler? I'm sorry but I fail to see which part of your angry angry invectives are suposed to be your "argument".
He was saying that even if Solanas is intelligent, it doesn't mean that what she wrote has anything of value. Using your logic, any thinker's "brilliance" could be referred to as if it somehow transcended the mediocrity of his work. He wasn't comparing Solanas to Hitler in any way. Do you just like to deliberately misread people?

[#FF0000]

Sorry, but this is simply untrue.

He didn't study women in his work exactly because he thought they were incomplete men and pretty much entirely lacked a super-ego. See his paper: "The Psychical Consequences of the Anatomic Distinction Between the Sexes", which, while isn't a direct analogue to the SCUM manifesto, is hella similar in how it describes women as literal useless lumps that produce nothing and are only acted upon.


They obviously are not communists.

Says the authority on who is/isn't a communist and king of point-missing.

[Quail]

I haven't read the SCUM manifesto all the way through, but the bits that I have read strike me as though they're kind of a common anti-woman narrative only written about men instead. I don't know how Solanas intended it to be read, but my impression is that it's drawing attention to sexism by flipping it on its head.

[#FF0000]

I love the SCUM manifesto because I love seeing people get worked up and self-righteous over dumb things that haven't impacted the world or their lives in any discernible way.

[T-800]

I love the SCUM manifesto because I love seeing people get worked up and self-righteous over dumb things that haven't impacted the world or their lives in any discernible way.

What, like the Communist Manifesto?

[Luís Henrique]

So Solanas is basically Hitler?

Yes, totally, that's exactly what I wrote...:rolleyes:

No, man, she wasn't basically (or any other adverb) Hitler. She was an intelligent woman who wrote a stupid pamphlet. And Hitler was an intelligent man who wrote a stupid book.

If someone doubts that Harry Potter could have black hair and blue eyes because they have never heard of anyone who has black hair and blue eyes, I might remind them that Hitler, a historic character whose existence no one doubts, had black hair and blue eyes. It wouldn't imply that Harry Potter is a genocidal antisemite.


I'm sorry but I fail to see which part of your angry angry invectives are suposed to be your "argument".

My argument is easy to understand: the SCUM manifesto is a ridiculous diatribe against men, with no actual content besides pathological hatred against the masculine specimens of humankind, that consists next to exclusively of tirades that negate our humanity, comparing us to beasts, machines, etc. It should be easy to dispell such argument, if it isn't true, by pointing to what part of the SCUM manifesto contains something different.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

He didn't study women in his work exactly because he thought they were incomplete men and pretty much entirely lacked a super-ego.

Well, he obviously studied women in his work, as the paper you quote immediately below evidently proves. And he didn't think women "pretty much entirely lacked a super-ego"; he thought women's superego is defective compared to that of men, but very much existent.


See his paper: "The Psychical Consequences of the Anatomic Distinction Between the Sexes", which, while isn't a direct analogue to the SCUM manifesto,

Yes, it is quite prejudiced against women. No one has denied that in this thread. But the point is there isn't a direct analogy between Solanas' pamphlet and the usual male supremacist discourse.


is hella similar in how it describes women as literal useless lumps that produce nothing and are only acted upon.

There is a fundamental difference: while Freud evidently underestimates women and their mental capabilities, he does not deny them any role in society (and probably believed indeed that what he saw as their handicaps was necessary for the functioning of society), Solanas denies even a reduced, substandard humanity to men.


Says the authority on who is/isn't a communist and king of point-missing.

Well, MIMites are not communists, of course; it doesn't take a Trotskyist or left communist brain to realise that. Or, if what you mean is that some in the left believe MIM is an important target of criticism... then I fail to see why it bothers you; if the SCUM manifesto is irrelevant, criticism of it is equally irrelevant, and I don't see why you would bother to respond to it.

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

Well, he obviously studied women in his work, as the paper you quote immediately below evidently proves. And he didn't think women "pretty much entirely lacked a super-ego"; he thought women's superego is defective compared to that of men, but very much existent.

Yeah he thought their super-ego was, like, barely functioning, you're right.


Yes, it is quite prejudiced against women. No one has denied that in this thread. But the point is there isn't a direct analogy between Solanas' pamphlet and the usual male supremacist discourse.I even said myself it wasn't a direct analogue but a lot of what Freud says (in that paper in particular) is strikingly similar to the things said about men in the SCUM Manifesto.


There is a fundamental difference: while Freud evidently underestimates women and their mental capabilities, he does not deny them any role in society (and probably believed indeed that what he saw as their handicaps was necessary for the functioning of society), Solanas denies even a reduced, substandard humanity to men.
Like I said, similar but not entirely analogous, though some of Freud's remarks are extremely similar to those made in the SCUM Manifesto.


Or, if what you mean is that some in the left believe MIM is an important target of criticism... then I fail to see why it bothers youNah my point was originally that it's really, really silly to say "quite a few" feminists believe a thing when they are really a small subsection that doesn't represent feminism as a whole. I think that a lot of people, out of carelessness most often, end up inadvertently demonizing feminism in general by overstating the presence or importance of certain feminist sects or groups. Lesbian separatists and the hilarious tumblr social justice sort of feminist doesn't really exist in any real capacity "on the ground" as it were. It's as silly as when folks get worked up about tiny, insignificant groups like MIM or the New Black Panther Party.


What, like the Communist Manifesto?

I really liked this one but it's not really true as sick a burn as it is.

[Luís Henrique]

Nah my point was originally that it's really, really silly to say "quite a few" feminists believe a thing when they are really a small subsection that doesn't represent feminism as a whole. I think that a lot of people, out of carelessness most often, end up inadvertently demonizing feminism in general by overstating the presence or importance of certain feminist sects or groups. Lesbian separatists and the hilarious tumblr social justice sort of feminist doesn't really exist in any real capacity "on the ground" as it were. It's as silly as when folks get worked up about tiny, insignificant groups like MIM or the New Black Panther Party.

I don't do that; feminism is one thing, RadFem is another, completely different; if not for historical reasons, I would say they are mutually exclusive, and, indeed, an important part of my criticism of RadFem is to posit the idea that they are not actually feminist.

One of these "hilarious" persons was head of the Swedish shelter net, until she expanded on her ideas on TV and got fired. So, unhappily, they are not as irrelevant on the ground as I used to think, even if they obviously do not represent feminism as a whole.

I don't know exactly what getting worked about MIM or the NBPP means. MIM's ideology, when acting on the ground, leads to masacres of peasants, murder of union and communitary leaders, etc. I don't see why we should take them as a joke, or be lenient about their reactionarism.

(And no, I am not saying that RadFem, if acted on the ground, does lead to murders or masacres; we do not have any practical experience that would point to that conclusion. But I don't think that we should only criticise what leads to masacres or murders.)

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

I don't do that; feminism is one thing, RadFem is another, completely different; if not for historical reasons, I would say they are mutually exclusive, and, indeed, an important part of my criticism of RadFem is to posit the idea that they are not actually feminist.

Yup. That MIM comment a response to MaxArchist's comment about there being quite a few feminists who are big on the SCUM Manifesto.

But now that I look, he said lesbian separatists, so maybe I shouldn't have jumped at that like I did.


I don't know exactly what getting worked about MIM or the NBPP means. MIM's ideology, when acting on the ground, leads to masacres of peasants, murder of union and communitary leaders, etc. I don't see why we should take them as a joke, or be lenient about their reactionarism.

Sure, but I think it's more worthy of everyone's time to worry about people who are actually applying their shitty politics rather than internet warriors with shitty politics.

[T-800]

I really liked this one but it's not really true as sick a burn as it is.

One would scarcely notice just looking around.

[Luís Henrique]

Sure, but I think it's more worthy of everyone's time to worry about people who are actually applying their shitty politics rather than internet warriors with shitty politics.

Well, if Chairman Gonzalo would come here to discuss, I would give him a sound ideological, rhetoric, theoretic, and googleological beating.

But the big coward knows that, so he doesn't come here to take his deserved metaphorical spanking, so I am limited to bashing his mindless pupils.

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

One would scarcely notice just looking around.

Until they looked around a history book.

(Banned, I know, but...)

[Agnija]

I'm an asexual so I'm personally antisexual too. Even just the idea of it is repulsive to me and I think that's fine as long as I'm not forcing those views on others. The only other antisexuals I have encountered have been other asexuals.
I am asexual and antisexual. Not only asexuals can be antisexuals although the notion of asexuality is extensive and some asexuals have a weak libido even if they don't want to have sexual intercourse. Asexuality is the nature but antisexuality is the choice.

[Rottenfruit]

I was going to make a thread questioning the necessity of sex (and I could still post my thoughts about that here if desired), but for safety I feel that I should enquire about this first. Has anybody here encountered antisexuals or antisexuality in the past ? What do you know about them ? Do any of you agree with them on any points ?

I personally would not consider myself antisexual any more, though my antisexuality was never based on reason. Yet I do feel that sex is something that our society holds too high in importance.
asexual is fine but antisexuality is just stupid and reactionary

[Rottenfruit]

Yup. That MIM comment a response to MaxArchist's comment about there being quite a few feminists who are big on the SCUM Manifesto.

But now that I look, he said lesbian separatists, so maybe I shouldn't have jumped at that like I did.



Sure, but I think it's more worthy of everyone's time to worry about people who are actually applying their shitty politics rather than internet warriors with shitty politics.
Some feminists are extremely trans phobic even to the level of advocating violence and murder, they call themself "trans critical"

for example this is a radfem known for virlurant transphobic views http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cathy_Brennan

[Tenka]

Some feminists are extremely trans phobic even to the level of advocating violence and murder, they call themself "trans critical"

for example this is a radfem known for virlurant transphobic views http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cathy_Brennan

The linked personality is a classic case of conservative faux-feminism. I would not call it radical; people like Roseanne Barr, an actor turned politician, have espoused and rallied support for just such "feminism", with such "radical" aims as painting transwomen as perverted rapist men for wanting to use the segregated public bathroom that matches their identity.

[bill]

Let's not forget how much of sex is based on vanity and envy, and not authentic love for another. While I don't think it's the worst evil, it's probably not something to be celebrated either. Unless a sexual relationship leads to mutual bonds of love and kindness it doesn't seem to be a very redeeming practice. But here I am sounding like a Catholic...

[Slavic]

Let's not forget how much of sex is based on vanity and envy, and not authentic love for another. While I don't think it's the worst evil, it's probably not something to be celebrated either. Unless a sexual relationship leads to mutual bonds of love and kindness it doesn't seem to be a very redeeming practice. But here I am sounding like a Catholic...

You sound more like a Puritan then a Catholic. Sex is not just an act of love that some couples engage in, sex is a highly pleasurable act that can be performed just for the entertainment value. People can engage in sexual acts without being vane and envious. I can understand if someone is asexual then the act of sex won't seem to them as a pleasurable act.

[liberlict]

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is pretty anti-procreative, i'm not sure about anti-sex though.

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

[Slavic]

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is pretty anti-procreative, i'm not sure about anti-sex though.

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

It sounds more anti-human then anti-procreative. It looks like an organization for the most guilt ridden of environmentalists.

[liberlict]

It sounds more anti-human then anti-procreative. It looks like an organization for the most guilt ridden of environmentalists.

lol. It sounds like self hate taken to it's nth ordinal.

[Agnija]

Sex put instincts at the first place but not personality. It is the main reason of conflicts, aggression and illnesses. Men and women are not able to communicate with each other like equal persons or can't communicate at all because of sex. I can understand sex for procreation even theoretically but there are another methods. I am not religious and I don't have any celibate. There are nice site for antisexuals in Russia.

[liberlict]

Some feminists are extremely trans phobic even to the level of advocating violence and murder, they call themself "trans critical"

for example this is a radfem known for virlurant transphobic views http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cathy_Brennan

Well that was some interesting reading. Anyway, even though she's a man-hating idiot, I do understand where she's coming from re trannys. I can see how women would be uncomfortable with men sharing their restrooms. Putting on frock doesn't make you a women. Dressing up as a women would be a good MO for any pervert wanting to watch women shower. I'm surprised I never though of it (I keed I keed).

[Marshal of the People]

I find the idea of sex yucky.

[Mrcapitalist]

I was going to make a thread questioning the necessity of sex (and I could still post my thoughts about that here if desired), but for safety I feel that I should enquire about this first. Has anybody here encountered antisexuals or antisexuality in the past ? What do you know about them ? Do any of you agree with them on any points ?

I personally would not consider myself antisexual any more, though my antisexuality was never based on reason. Yet I do feel that sex is something that our society holds too high in importance.

Agreed

[Tenka]

Well that was some interesting reading. Anyway, even though she's a man-hating idiot, I do understand where she's coming from re trannys. I can see how women would be uncomfortable with men sharing their restrooms. Putting on frock doesn't make you a women. Dressing up as a women would be a good MO for any pervert wanting to watch women shower. I'm surprised I never though of it (I keed I keed).

I reported this post the day it was made but I guess it's not as trollish as I thought it was. At any rate, the bolded portion is unbelievably daft. Do I really need to explain why?

I've seen a video of a transwoman who went to use a women's restroom getting beat to a bloody pulp by two frightened cis-women there because of the popularity of nonsense like this. I'd like to see some perverted hetero man subjecting himself to the kind of abuse he promotes, but it has never happened, so...

(P.S. Why do people seem to forget that public restrooms have toilet cubicles for privacy when this issue is discussed? They seem to be blindly trying to excuse abuse...)

[Sea]

lol. It sounds like self hate taken to it's nth ordinal.I'd say the VHEMT is a really good caricature of the problems of the "human nature" argument.

[Rottenfruit]

Well that was some interesting reading. Anyway, even though she's a man-hating idiot, I do understand where she's coming from re trannys. I can see how women would be uncomfortable with men sharing their restrooms. Putting on frock doesn't make you a women. Dressing up as a women would be a good MO for any pervert wanting to watch women shower. I'm surprised I never though of it (I keed I keed).
Hating men does not beging describing the bigotry spewed by her,

Catherine "Cathy" Brennan is an attorney[2] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cathy_Brennan#cite_note-1) in the state of Maryland (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Maryland) and a prominent supporter of "trans-critical (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Transphobia)" radical feminism (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Radical_feminism). Her main accomplishment in this regard is coauthoring a letter to the United Nations (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/United_Nations), insisting that trans (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Transgender) people's gender identity should not be legally recognized and protected.[3] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cathy_Brennan#cite_note-PHB-2) She is also a frequent columnist for Baltimore OUTloud's LGBTQ blog section, which she uses to warn of the coming "lesbian (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lesbian) annihilation" at the hands of "the queers (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Queer)" and trans people.[4] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cathy_Brennan#cite_note-3) and stridently argue against legislation protecting gender identity.

there are numerous "trans critical" feminist blogs like http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/ annd many others (femonade comes to mind for extreme transphobia as well forgot to mention prentdbians another such site) so its not just a lone nut but a entire subsection of feminism, the most influence work is The Transexual empire, the making of a shemale by Janice Raymond.

[liberlict]

Hating men does not beging describing the bigotry spewed by her,

Catherine "Cathy" Brennan is an attorney[2] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cathy_Brennan#cite_note-1) in the state of Maryland (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Maryland) and a prominent supporter of "trans-critical (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Transphobia)" radical feminism (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Radical_feminism). Her main accomplishment in this regard is coauthoring a letter to the United Nations (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/United_Nations), insisting that trans (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Transgender) people's gender identity should not be legally recognized and protected.[3] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cathy_Brennan#cite_note-PHB-2) She is also a frequent columnist for Baltimore OUTloud's LGBTQ blog section, which she uses to warn of the coming "lesbian (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lesbian) annihilation" at the hands of "the queers (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Queer)" and trans people.[4] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cathy_Brennan#cite_note-3) and stridently argue against legislation protecting gender identity.

there are numerous "trans critical" feminist blogs like http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/ annd many others (femonade comes to mind for extreme transphobia as well forgot to mention prentdbians another such site) so its not just a lone nut but a entire subsection of feminism, the most influence work is The Transexual empire, the making of a shemale by Janice Raymond.

This one was my fav.

http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

It took me a while to work out what "PIV" is. Then it clicked when I was reading the comments. :crying:

[Sea]

This one was my fav.

http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

It took me a while to work out what "PIV" is. Then it clicked when I was reading the comments. :crying:And who says that this has anything to do with feminism? The same kind of people that say juche has to do with communism?

[Rottenfruit]

And who says that this has anything to do with feminism? The same kind of people that say juche has to do with communism?
Its hard to deny that transphobia is not a huge issue in feminism, some very prominant feminists and well known feminists are transphobic for example Gloria Steinem,Mary Dale,Janice Raymond and Julie Bindel,

[liberlict]

And who says that this has anything to do with feminism? The same kind of people that say juche has to do with communism?

I didn't say that it did .. did I? :confused: I don't know much about feminism and I prefer to keep it that way.

[Sea]

I didn't say that it did .. did I? :confused: I don't know much about feminism and I prefer to keep it that way.For some reason this doesn't strike me as a surprise.
Its hard to deny that transphobia is not a huge issue in feminism, some very prominant feminists and well known feminists are transphobic for example Gloria Steinem,Mary Dale,Janice Raymond and Julie Bindel,Bourgeois "feminism" perhaps, but not the feminism that is a logical consequence of the Marxist-Leninist historical outlook.

[liberlict]

For some reason this doesn't strike me as a surprise.


I didn't mean that I don't care about it, I just don't feel qualified to comment (because I'm not a women, or a transvestite, etc). I am pro feminist from what little I know, but not this 'radfem' Cathy Brennan lesbian supremacist bullshit.