Reducing it to a generational squabble is what happens when u don’t #ConsultTheLiterature. what’s happening is people are trying to reinvent radical feminism with no citations and with no engagement of the readings, because they are too scared of being socially ostracized by their leftist peers who hate it and have convinced you not to read it because they are scared it will turn you into an ungovernable female who spits in the face of how we are socialized to submit to everyone but ourselves lol. You must sit with the black sheep of ideology if you want to move forward, sift through the literature very critically, and garner the best tools to adapt and create the future you want. this is not an appeal to book worship. read it the same way leftists have allowed you to read the most difficult marxist and civil rights theorists.

i no longer think we can afford to cower away from its utility and pretend we are doing ourselves any favors, so our leftist peers will think we are well behaved. we cannot behave. we need radical feminism like workers need marxism. everyone on the political spectrum wants to enslave women and this is one of the tools that will keep you out of their chains regardless of left, right, center, up, down, diagonal. idgaf if i sound inflammatory lol. you have to become confident in your ability to read and reason because our oppression is sophisticated, it’s hard to unravel, and no one wants to contend with it.

the “sex positivity” and “sexual liberation” and “sexual freedom” ideology has always championed unrestricted sexual access to and rape of women and children. it has always maintained a strong pro-rape current, a movement that reduces women to public property, a view that venerates male orgasms over female personhood, and a celebration of sexual violence against women and children. it is an attack on feminists who have agitated for any kind of sexual ethics that sought to limit male sexual entitlement, from age of consent laws, to marital rape laws, and so on.

industrial patriarchy had to adapt to women attaining the legal, social, and political ability to deny men sexual access to them, and “sexual liberation” is that patriarchal adaptation—the abuse, violence, and degradation of women is fine if the women themselves desire it and we are discouraged from interrogating this desire and who benefits from it.

we must not think of sexual liberation or “sex positivity” as an enemy to patriarchal religion—they are simply rivals. the sexual liberationist truly hates the so-called “puritan” not for any genuine moral reason, but because the “puritan” has the potential to say no to men. nevermind the fact that the puritan movement was not anti-sex and the sex positive advocates are misusing the term. the term’s utility to the sex positive movement is that it can be used as a slur to demean women who want a type of sexual ethics that disentangles violence from sex. the patriarchal theologist hates the fact that women can say no to men. they both see women’s boundaries as a threat. they see a sexual ethics that opposes violence against women as a threat. the dressing may be different, but the skeleton is the same. they are two opposing male supremacist ideologies vying for dominance. feminists reject both.

wilhelm reich, the godfather of this ideology, experimented on and sexually abused children, pat califia supported incest, child sexual abuse, and sexually abused a woman, gayle rubin extensively supported child sexual abuse and child pornography, the latter two were responsible for the spread of BDSM and its foundational links to queer theory, sadism was named after marquis de sade, a notorious rapist who tortured his victims. i could go on forever lol. these are some of the main architects of sexual liberation. look into any of these thinkers or most male psychologists who sought to naturalize women’s sexual subordination and you will uncover biological determinism—specifically related to the notions that “sex is a need,” that men’s sexual entitlements are natural, and women’s sexual inferiority and their desire to be dominated is natural. the notion that consent means a sex act cannot be critiqued, that consent purifies a sex act, no matter how violent, lies at the foundation of a patriarchal sex culture.

this critique isn’t limited to any one sex act, either. the social context that drives and encourages women to engage in anal, blowjobs, and choking is certainly not neutral under this rotten culture and should be critiqued from a feminist perspective. but you’ll find that feminists eviscerated the “normal” heterosexual act of intercourse (PIV) and how women are treated in it with much harsher terms than any other sex act lol. don’t allow the pro-rape advocates to call you a “puritan” because you’ve taken exception to the most normative sex act. the feminist critique takes everything to task, especially intercourse.

a lot of women and girls are taking their blinders off but are not reading the extensive feminist literature on this subject. dworkin’s “intercourse” is a good starting point for a feminist critique, but you’ll also have to read stuff that will piss you off and disgust you, like some of the thinkers i listed above lol. it’s a horrible stain on human history in my humble opinion. we can only achieve a truly ethical sex culture when this tumor of an ideology is excised, in conjunction with its main political rival, patriarchal religion.

idk how formatting works on this site any more lol under the read more i have citations for my polemic if you wanna look!

✅️Vetted by @gazavetters, my number verified on the list is ( #591 )✅️

fujos should have never tried to present their hobby as “feminist” in character. this was a grave error, and i chalk a lot of this up to the explosive impact of “your fave is problematic” listicles in the 2010’s and its style of engaging with art. instead of acknowledging the limitations, messiness, and regressive aspects of things we desire and sitting with this knowledge, there is a drive to misrepresent our desires as strictly “morally good” or “progressive” with no flaws. but, we do like bad things. our desires can be messy and regressive and transgressive. we have lost the ability to sit with these realities, and doing so prevents us from doing the hard, transformative work.

i’ve written a post about this some months ago lol but fujoshis lack a lot of epistemic power due to cultivating a female-dominated hobby—the complexities are ignored in favor of simple dismissals or explanations by outsiders because their interior lives as women are disregarded. and fujos do themselves no favors by treating feminism like a grab bag of catchy phrases, urging people to take their artform seriously, and then shutting down or scrambling when people do. i’ve seen a number of journalists write about yaoi and i constantly see large gaps or blindspots about the relationship between the art and the reader and the wider community. a lot of fujos have little to no political education and the people analyzing them have little knowledge of their relationship to the dolls being played with. it’s a big mess lol.

straight feminists, at least in many social spheres in the west, have taken up a near total rejection of political power…because they can’t alienate the demographic they seek love from. they have a delusional belief that they can attain a benevolent oppressor through education and capitulation. i call this delusional, because it ignores what is socially necessary to overcome subjugation. they think men sexually subjugate women because they lack education. these women are so politically illiterate, that they don’t understand that upholding patriarchy could only be achieved through a type of education. men are politically organized. around male supremacy. men have political education around male supremacy. one cannot be dumb and uphold gender hierarchy. but it does help if their victims are politically ignorant and yap about how their need for romance prevents them from doing politics like most other oppressed groups. one can see why radical feminists criticized romance novels as patriarchal propaganda.

assata shakur famously said that nobody in history ever achieved their freedom from appealing to the moral sense of the oppressor. but straight feminists absolutely love disarming themselves in this way. this isn’t a complaint about pandering to men, or being “male centered,” or any of those playground insults. the danger in the cowardice of straight feminists is a straight up rejection of political science, an embracing of helplessness, and an allergic reaction to building political power and asserting political authority. they think gently complaining about their oppression and nicely asking for change is a workable solution, because they still want romantic love. idgaf about chastising them for pandering to men. THIS is an insult to women’s intelligence. it keeps women intellectually infantile. that’s why it’s dangerous.

you cannot nicely ask a tyrant to stop whipping you and expect them to stop out of the goodness of their hearts. yes, the tyrant was not born evil, they were socialized to maintain their position, and yes, the tyrant does have the capacity to change. having the capacity to change is different from having the will to change, though. the tyrant has a material interest in whipping you, he benefits from whipping you, he is enabled by a political regime to whip you, and it will only end if he is forced. straight feminists will cope with their refusal to confront these social conditions by mischaracterizing these truths as “victim blaming” or “bio-essentialism.” a tyrant will not care to stop whipping you if you pose no threat. these are facts of political science and political struggle. many men who are oppressed understand this. they know sooner or later they will need to mobilize around a political goal, take up their fists, or a gun, and/or strike, and exert force to free themselves or improve their conditions. kwame ture said, “if a white man wants to lynch me, that’s his problem. if he has the power to lynch me, that’s my problem.” engels wrote that the proletariat must assert their own political authority over the ruling class in order to abolish or transform their conditions. but men do not have a monopoly on logic and reason, and straight feminists need to stop propagating that myth. misogynists already do this enough, and they don’t need cheerleaders.

one of the worst trains of thought to come out of liberal politics is this stupid notion, “it is the responsibility of white people/men/[x subjugating group] to change. we, who claim to be oppressed, are not responsible for changing our conditions because the fault lies with the oppressor.” this helpless un-thought and political ignorance will keep you oppressed forever. man, woman, or otherwise. it’s a horrible mindset to have for any human who seriously thinks they are oppressed, really. many straight feminists embrace this nonsense so much because it absolves them of any responsibility to build political power to attack women’s subjugation by force, because doing so would ruin their reputation to men and they wouldn’t get romantic love as easily or whatever it is they’re saying nowadays. can you imagine if any serious political actor thought like this for too long? can you imagine if a harriet tubman or a ho chi minh said, well, the slavemasters and the war criminals need to change, and we can change them nicely and gently through education, without harming our reputation, and also our status as victims who are oppressed precludes us from using any political force or maneuvers at all ever because that would be victim blaming. can you imagine literally any male revolutionary thinker behaving this way? cmon bruh lmao.

many feminists have capitulated to male supremacist interests over time, by supporting pornography, the sex industry, the surrogacy industry, and the institution of marriage, so they can appear less threatening while asking for better treatment. male supremacists answered this cowardice with the incel movement, complaining about birth rates, attacking no fault divorce, and diminishing abortion rights. being politically weak does not touch the heart of the oppressor. being politically weak invites the oppressor to act on his material interest even more. because that is political science. feminists who operate on the avoidance of alienating men’s romantic love will keep us all politically castrated and impotent. we will be oppressed forever if we keep ignoring our own capacity and NECESSITY to assert political power and political force regardless of how the oppressor feels.

there are men out there who won’t think of straight feminists as unlovable for attacking women’s subjugation, sure, and an even smaller amount of men will act against their own material interests and reject the imposition of gender hierarchy, sure. but a feminist movement that is beholden to the desire for men’s romantic love is doomed, is unworkable, and is politically inept. honestly i think looking stupid is way worse than looking unlovable but i’m just a dyke what do i know about womanhood.

porn is hate speech. the girlies and theybies who write erotic fanfiction of children are writing hate speech. objectifying children for the purposes of sexual gratification is an act of hate against a vulnerable class—portraying them as temptresses, overly mature for their age, portraying sexual abuse of children as permissible and titillating. it is hate. this is why the so-called “proshipper” cohort grow very angry when children negatively comment on the way they are represented by adults. patriarchy socially transforms both women and children into private or public property. property cannot speak out of turn, and if they do, they must be suppressed.

i am an “oldhead” so to speak. back in the day we didn’t have such childish, sanitizing terms like “proshipper” and “anti.” these people should be called what they are—rape sympathizers. i took maybe a 12 year hiatus from being actively involved in fandomite culture. at the time, despite being totally brain broken by sex positive liberal feminism, it still felt strange to approach twenty years old, fraternizing with adults who make the underage dolls they play with do porn skits. i didn’t realize i was being groomed which is kind of the point lol. but i’ve been engaged and adjacent in these spaces since 2003.

i remember when there was no real sense of responsibility when adults engaged in this kind of art production, where cartoons made for kids and the child characters in them were acceptable sex objects. the whole “minors dni” virtue signal is a decent prerequisite and a much needed improvement, but it is no where near sufficient. this behavior is emblematic of how children are devalued and oppressed in society. i’ve been both a kid and an adult around fandomite culture. i sincerely believe these people are predators. a predator isn’t just a physical abuser. patriarchy is a predatory ideology that socially transforms people into objects, and they are enforcing this ideology by telling you that art cannot be critiqued for its patriarchal symbolism. they are telling you something so much more disgusting than “representation doesn’t matter.” to them, representation does matter…unless an orgasm is involved. representation does matter…unless you call it a kink. just another hitlerian demographic in a long line of hitlerian demographics who believe that the pursuit of an orgasm could never be questionable. that an orgasm religiously baptizes any heinous action you do to attain it. Now who are the real “puritans” here? 😜

i fully own the fact that i am a radical feminist, and i have no qualms being slurred as a frigid “anti sex” harpy by a political culture that exists to eroticize and decriminalize sexual abuse. the entire political spectrum, both the left and the right and everything between, are invested in rape culture and male supremacy. u will have to excuse me for my inflammatory post. i saw a 15 year old on twitter who was engaging in “proshipper discourse,” supporting and seeking validation from the adult predators. i saw 20 and 30 year olds following this account. That did psychic damage to lil ol me. Nothing has changed since 2003. All of you are a danger to children. This queer theory liberal feminist sex positive post structuralist idpol sophistry will not work on a brain sharpened by the woke blade of radical feminism.

As a result, this will cause a loss of income. With that, groceries, & meds, I anticipate needing about $400 in financial assistance this month. I greatly appreciate all of the help I have received, thank you sm ❤️ & please boost!

most lynchings were not even the result of a sexual assault accusation. lynchings were not a case of white people “taking the law too far,” undervaluing due process, nor were they a case borne out of a cultural disgust for rapists. the “cultural disgust for rapists” that leftists speak of doesn’t even exist—what they are seeing is a disgust for the sexual trespass of another man’s property. if a general fanaticism against rape was motivated by a genuine disgust of patriarchy, and this fanaticism actually existed, then both the left and the right wouldn’t attempt to decriminalize sexual abuse in various ways. this disgust has never existed, as rape was used as a tool to exert male power in the U.S. and beyond long before the colonization of the americas. rapists are not dehumanized under our current social order. they are coddled and rewarded, unless they violate another man’s property. it is not worth considering the humanity of the mostly women and children who are routinely victimized by this ideology. lynchings during segregation were a mechanism of antiblack terror, regulation and control—they were not motivated by a moral opposition to sexual assault, murder, robbery, etc.

white male supremacists were sexually abusing their own wives, daughters, slaves, and free black people while they were deploying criminal accusations against black americans for allegedly doing the same. the myth of the black rapist is an effective cultural weapon that is used to protect the private property claims of white male supremacists, portraying their own supremacy as so just and objective that murder and dehumanization of the out-group is permissible to protect it. white people who deploy this myth did not and do not have a moral opposition to rape, because white people utilized rape as a method of sexual discipline and control against women, children, and black people for centuries.

the white women who participated in white supremacist violence were not disrupting their position under white male supremacy—they were enshrining it, supporting the hierarchy that placed them below white men but above black americans, and gaining a relatively favorable reputation to their white male owners by engaging in antiblack racism and reproducing the hierarchy against other women. marginalized white people were free to attack the racial enemies of white people in general, but their own position in the hierarchy remained unchanged. in this framework, white men can sexually abuse anyone they please, including those in the out-group, because they are asserting their birthright by doing so. they must curb all women, everyone in the out-group, and white male sympathizers to oppressed groups from being able to threaten the hierarchy. this ideology sees sexual abuse as an adequate tool for men to use until other men are perceived to be trespassing property lines. this can even be seen today…

a significant amount of right wing white men will simultaneously complain about how marital rape laws undermine traditional families while fearmongering about out-group men sexually abusing white women. how can they seemingly view rape in both a positive and negative light at the same time, you might ask? this thinking is not paradoxical at all when you consider how patriarchal control works. it is ideologically consistent.

marital rape laws contribute to the legal subversion of the whole class of women as private property—it’s harder to claim a woman as private property if she is both socially and legally free to reject the disciplining act of heterosexual sex. an out-group man who sexually engages with a white woman is a violation of white men’s private property claims, whether she is being assaulted or not does not matter because the mere interaction itself, regardless of context, is seen as subversive to the white male supremacist.

white male supremacists are against interracial relationships, consensual or not, because they upend white men’s birthright in three ways. by taking white children out of the gene pool and undermining racial purity norms through interracial reproduction, by removing white women from the private control of white men, and by muddling the position of the out-group within the hierarchy since they are trespassing property lines. all of these positions are otherwise known as the white genocide anxiety. the white genocide anxiety is about white men losing their private property claims against man, woman, and nature itself. feminism, communism, and black liberation must be opposed, because when synthesized, they usher in a new world that denies the birthright of white male supremacy and disables them from maintaining it.

it sounds childish, banal, but the truth is that this particular flavor of prison abolitionists venerate defense attorneys as heroes because they just don’t want men to be detained for any reason. i’m gonna sound like a broken clock but we must contend with it. in the simplest terms, defense attorneys work to prevent men from being detained, and that in itself is enough to uphold them as heroes despite the corruption they share with prosecutors, cops and judges. no one, including leftists, wants male violence against women to damage a man’s reputation, and god forbid it causes the state to compromise his freedom of movement. they only support “community justice” in the form of a “accountability process” that lacks any teeth to attack rape culture, not out of a genuine interest for a better world, but because they want violence against women to be unassailable. they want rape to be decriminalized in broader strokes than even their right wing rivals.

They are not at all curious about alternative legal frameworks. They do not want to imagine another possibility if it means there will be social consequences for causing immediate sexual harm to women and children. and god forbid you suggest a physical consequence, even if it is as tame as detaining rapists. much to say about leftists who turned luigi into a messiah-like figure for his righteous liquidation of that healthcare executive without much due process, but they clutch their pearls if a woman wants to liquidate a rapist without much due process. extrajudicial murder is only permissible if men are routine victims of the target. opposing women’s subordination is too radical for the radicals. very, very curious.

Leftists are telling and showing women the kind of world they want to build every day, where women are still in chains while men are free, and they need to obfuscate their intentions as Just, so women can comply with it. they still need your help to build the next iteration of your own prison. this is where the left and right converge. hating women but still needing their labor and participation to usher in or maintain whatever flavor of male supremacy they want, whether it’s women as private property of a husband or women as public property of the masses. feminists need to agitate against this, or else we will simply be complicit in constructing another form of male supremacy that uses kinder language while everyone on the gender and sexual periphery lose social personhood.