The Repressed & Oppressive Sexuality of Modern Society

  • Posted on: 19 September 2012
  • By: worker

<table><tr><td>From <a href=" Zero</a>

I try to stay informed about modern feminist theory. And I do actually consider myself a feminist – much to the chagrin of some online acquaintances who consider themselves part of the “men's rights” movement. But I'm not big on the Angela Dworkin school of thought and I'm quite sure that most feminists don't actually believe that all men are latent rapists who should be castrated at birth. Nor do I believe that everyone in the growing “men's rights” movement is a hate-filled misogynist. Still, it is fairly clear that there are a lot of hateful people who unfortunately identify with both movements.

My goal in writing this isn't optimistic enough to believe that we can somehow repair all of the damaged people who have redirected their pain into the avenues of sexist hate and oppressive practices, but I think this is a subject worthy of attention. And, while I'll try now to offer some frank comments on a complex and difficult subject, I realize that I live in a repressed culture and probably will have some points of contention with other good-willed people who also grew up in a repressed culture. Nevertheless... I do hope that I can offer up some subtle and pertinent points which may often be overlooked in typical discussions about sexuality.

The following critique largely will center around monogamous hetero-normative relationships as they are traditionally perceived. This is not intended to deny or dismiss the existence of other types of relationships, sexual or otherwise, but is rather intended to demonstrate what is commonly presented as “normal” in modern society and how that standardized normality undermines modern society.</td><td><img title="It is repression all the way down" src=""></td></t...
<strong>The Berketex Bride</strong>

Let's consider a typical marriage in the United States. It starts when the wife typically takes her husbands last name. Maybe there is a prenuptial agreement before that (if they are wealthy). The newlyweds basically swear an oath that, for the rest of their lives, they will never have sex with other people. On a related note, children are often expected (if not demanded). Children may or may not enter the picture. If they do enter... typical Judea-Christian values are likely to be instilled within them. Even those couples who don't go to church probably buy too much into the idea that “the man of the house” should wear the proverbial pants and make the important family decisions. It's typical standard practice, generally speaking with definite exceptions, for the woman in the marriage to take care of the children, make the meals, and clean the house. This is regardless of whether or not they both have jobs where they are working 40+ hours a week. Even if they do both have jobs, the woman will often hit the glass ceiling and make less money – which often puts her in a position where she won't be able to contribute as much to the economic situation of the marriage contract. Things often become stressed for many of the above reasons. And woe if either of them should ever want someone else in their life. While not exactly common... if a woman “cheats” on her husband, then, all-too-frequently, that amounts to a death sentence – just like in any backwards 3rd world fundamentalist nation. Our society is violent enough that even men often suffer physical harm if they stray. And even if a marriage doesn't end in violence... it often ends in anger – with the children learning all to much about that subject.

What I was trying to get at here are the politics typically engaged in by a typical American couple. And this will, undoubtedly, be where I lose some people. Most couples probably aren't talking about revolution. They're talking about maintaining the status quo or making mild reforms to the system which is destroying every living thing in its path. At best... a typical couple might consider voting for the less warmongering candidate – but there are plenty who will vote for the most. They might vote for the pro-choice candidate (because he's thereby deemed a feminist), but they don't consider the drone bombings which that candidate has previously ordered and which have subsequently killed innocent women and little girls at wedding parties and funerals – some feminist indeed. On the other hand... the typical couple is almost as likely to vote for the candidate who overtly wants women oppressed and who doesn't want equal pay or adequate healthcare to be provided to women. Even if they don't vote or discuss politics, per se, almost all of the pair's actions are still actually political – from driving the kids to soccer practice in the SUV, to working in the accounting department of some bank, to going through the drive-thru at at some fast food joint.

<strong>The Branches and Roots of Repression and Oppression</strong>

At this point I hope I've started to show (or at least hinted at) how the typical sexual relationships in this society have broader implications. With the common patriarchal lineage and enforced monogamous contracts between men and women often being a part of our most intimate personal relationships... is it any wonder at all that other forms of stifling and oppressive social conditions coexist alongside this paradigm? It may or may not be a leap of causation, and common patriarchal oppression may or may not be the direct effect (or cause) of other forms of oppression – but it all clearly fits together incredibly well.

The tolerance of typical oppression, which is found in so many of our intimate relationships, breeds a tolerance for other forms of oppression. For example, eco-feminism, as the name implies, studies the link between traditionally conceived patriarchal abuses and the destruction of the environmental factors that we all require to live. Destruction of mother Earth may be the most extreme form of oppression there is.

But it doesn't stop there (or at least it doesn't start there). If someone beats the woman they share their bed with, for example, and if they beat their children born of that woman, or even if they just silently claim (and wield) some sort of authority over their family's freedom... then why would you generally expect such a person engaged in this sort of activity to be a humanitarian in other aspects of society? What, by extension, can you expect of their formal politics? War itself can be connected with this system of common oppression which is present in so many lives.

And, in the final analysis, the “men's rights” crowd should recognize that even the raping of men (at historically unprecedented levels within the United States of America [because of the incredible number of tortured prisoners]) is, actually, the result of an oppressive patriarchal system. This is undoubtedly a feminist issue. Feminists don't want their husbands, fathers or sons raped any more than they want their sisters, daughters or mothers raped.

<strong>The Most Obvious and Direct Sexual Oppression</strong>

Well... it would be difficult to have a comprehensive and meaningful article about sexual oppression without stopping to take a look at this subject. As I pointed out in the last paragraph... this is not just violence directed towards women. Historically, it's fair to say that more women have been raped than men. And an argument can be made that individual women often suffer the effects of a rape more than individual men (if only in terms of possibly of getting pregnant). But just ask the Catholic church if men and boys are ever raped. Do you think it effects men and boys minimally when they are raped?

Rape is such a huge subject, and such a terrible act, that I can hardly believe that anyone ever really tries to tackle the topic. The word itself, undoubtedly, brings a flood of negative emotions to many people. And the psychological and emotional scars associated with rape may be worse than the physical scars. Rape victims will often suffer PTSD. For both men and women there is an incredibly unfortunate stigma which goes along with being raped and many people never discuss the fact if they been victimized by such an attack.

On the other hand, because of those aforementioned facts, rapists also carry a huge stigma with themselves if their action is discovered – and quite justifiably so. I feel that when a person is proven to be a rapist then the victim and their immediate communities should have some sort of meaningful input about how the rapist is to be punished. I really don't trust the criminal justice system to bring closure for anyone in relation to this issue. I don't know if I could be any more extreme or level-headed in my aforementioned recommendation for justice.

However, along similar lines... I feel that rape accusations ought to be carefully contemplated. I've heard many accounts from many people about spurious rape accusations and I think that adds in yet another horrible aspect to whole subject. It's so emotionally charged that even the weakest of accusations can have friends and family members immediately flying off the handle in retaliation. This is a subject which I think many people would like some prominent feminists to address more thoroughly.

It doesn't help that the definition of rape seems to be so frequently twisted. For example... begging for sex seems nearly equivalent to rape itself in some circles. If a couple wakes up in the morning and the woman asks, “Hey, wanna have a quickie before work?” and her male lover then replies, “Not today,” well, then, it is tantamount to the highest level of villainy if she coaxingly says... “Pretty please, with sugar on top?” Don't get me wrong... begging for sex even a little bit is certainly very unbecoming, and it's something which should be considered in terms of whether or not someone might want to continue a particular relationship. But even ten minutes of someone begging on their hands and knees is not the same as physically assaulting someone in a sexual manner. It's really not the same thing. Even if one were to acquiesce to such begging, it's not exactly the same thing. I'm not trying to be an apologist for that activity, but I think a clear delineation needs to be made because loose definitions of rape don't really help those who are sexually assaulted.

As one last example... if two people get very drunk, and both engage in sex acts, without forcing the other at all, I don't necessarily think that the first person to claim rape after such an instance should be allowed to essentially ruin a life with such accusations. And there can be obvious incentive for such accusations. For example, imagine two flirtatious co-workers losing their inhibitions at an office party and sneaking off to have sex. If the women got pregnant, and/or if their spouses found out, well... some people will simply throw their indiscreet co-worker under the proverbial bus. I think it sucks that either of those people would have the burden of being called a rapist placed upon them. And how much worse is it if there are charges or violence subsequently brought upon that person? Of course, there may also even be political motivations or motivations of revenge and jealousy associated with unfounded rape accusations.

Moving on from a difficult subject, I'll just say that both rape and the practice of making false rape allegations are both pretty heinous offenses in their own ways. One of the ways that both of these actions affect society is by making people more repressed and more afraid to intimately connect with others by means of sex (which is a pretty basic, wonderful, and natural thing). An argument could be made that this subsequent sexual repression (in psychological terms), and the subsequent fear of even consensual sex, could actually lead to more rapes taking place – insomuch as a society with more repressed people is likely to have more oppressive sexual values which will then lead to more rapes occurring. This could be one of the worst feedback loops ever.

<strong>Is there a better way?</strong>

Rather than being afraid of sex or a healthy sexuality... how much better would it be if, instead of vigilantly upholding monogamous Judea-Christian values, we were readily able to have consensual sex with any number of partners over any course of time we saw fit? Would that really be so awful? What if those who couldn't find consensual partners (or didn't want to have sex [or children]) weren't derided because of that fact? What if the church and state didn't impose unnecessary external conditions on who we could love or how relationships with them must be structured? If two (or more) responsible adults want to have sex together, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

More to the point... rather than struggling to make ends meet in the modern rat race, what if people spent much more time having sex? I don't mean sex for the purposes of continuing the family name or passing on property – I'm talking about sex for mutual pleasure (and maybe physical fitness). What if, rather than spending so much time accumulating material goods, we instead spent more time cultivating passionate sexual relationships with the same enthusiasm? That, arguably, could undermine the entirety of Western civilization.

Modern homo sapiens are the most domesticated animal on Earth. We behave in ways of life that are not efficient and not in our individual or collective best interests. Many (if not most) work at jobs they dislike to maintain a lifestyle they don't really want. As the saying goes... “We work to drive to work to drive to work.” And how much worse would it be if you were working on the assembly line at a sweatshop or dropping deep into a mine each day?

But it hasn't been like this in all societies throughout history. The First Nations didn't have 9-5 jobs with an hour long commute both ways. And, contrary to outdated revisionist history, they did not suffer incessant hardships at all like the hardships that the westerners brought with them when they invaded. The people of the First Nations had knowledge of herbal medicines (including birth control) and they had food, family, shelter and all they needed. What they didn't have, again contrary to revisionist history, was an underlying patriarchal system of control. In fact, the women of First Nation tribes traditionally played important roles in decisions made by tribal councils. This can be seen in many tribal societies that had limited contact with Western civilization. Of course those societies changed somewhat after encountering Western civilization (especially when invaded and given smallpox), and old ways have undoubtedly been lost in many areas, but a balanced look at the anthropological evidence (which doesn't present tribal people as miserable unholy savages who needed civilization to save them from themselves) will show that they were living happy sustainable lives in relative peace. This, to me, suggests the likelihood of healthy sexuality. It is known that homosexuality was previously not a cardinal sin in many tribal societies. With means of birth control, and knowledge of their reproductive cycles, the women and men of the First Nations were free to choose their lovers without the notion of harsh consequences. This, I believe, is a definite hallmark of an ideal society – and it runs counter to almost every aspect of our modern techno-industrial society and what it produces.

Now, arguably, modern women in the West do have a great deal of sexual freedom (even if it's regularly under attack and even if they are sexualized at inappropriate times). But there are important aspects which I feel feminists need to consider in this regard. The consequences of Western consumer society reach far beyond the wealthy first world nations. If a woman in Paris or Berlin is able to freely wear stylish and provocative clothing, and if she is freely allowed to engage in any sort of sexual practices... to the extent that she supports her nation's economic system (and the luxuries she sees associated with it) she is also part of the exported exploitation of women in poor third world nations around the world.

Have no doubt that economic oppression is related to sexual oppression. Similarly, environmental degradation amounts to sexual degradation. It's safe to say that toxic waste dumps and polluted waterways are not usually aphrodisiacs. So... the relatively “free” Western woman is largely free because the nation in which she lives effectively exports the oppression for all practical purposes – via sweatshop labor, war for oil, a Western diet, et cetera. And, frankly, I don't think it's good feminist practice to support such a system.

<strong>The Big Finish</strong>

The intention of this article has not been to address each and every nuance of modern and historical sexuality. And, with the author being as repressed as he undoubtedly is (much unlike my dear readers, I'm sure), it's difficult to tackle (from a personal socio-political perspective) every subject. I tend to think that erotica and sex workers are not the bane of modern society, for example. (This isn't at all to suggest that I've appeared in many erotic films or that I've ever paid for sex.) But the larger subject at hand, the implications of the typical sexuality which underlies much of the rest of what we do in modern society, is largely taboo. We can discuss issues we see raised in Dan Savage's column, and we can even have the most uninhibited sex imaginable, but there are still underlying factors which are taboo to discuss and which are potentially stigmatizing even to mention.

Underneath it all, I feel that we need to look more closely at the root causes and consequences of sexual repression and oppression. These twin factors run rampant through the most fundamental aspects of modern society. If you want to put a stop to sexual oppression, then you must also work to end every other form of oppression – because these things work in turn to create both sexual repression and sexual oppression. Sexual liberation cannot occur on a broad scale while wars rage, while nuclear waste accumulates, and while forests are clear-cut. Sexual liberation can not occur while people are oppressed for the color of their skin or the cheap labor they can provide. Sexual liberation requires total liberation and the broader population is only sexually liberated to the extent which they are liberated in every other metric of freedom. “There can be no liberation without sexual liberation.”

<a href=" Zero</a>


Anyways, this article assumes guilt and attempts to destroy individuals for the sake of a false sense of justice. I dismiss this article and the logic it presents as another attempt by the left to define justice within capitalism and has no bearing on how anarchists should destroy capitalism. Get fucked for wasting our time. Make total destroy. Slit the throat of your enemies and bomb the bridges of discontent.

Whose guilt is being assumed? And how are they being attacked for a "false sense of justice?" Also... a suggestion about how capitalism (modern Western Society) can be undermined IS included in this article. It's not suggesting the slitting of throats to do such, but there may be better ways to bring down the system. I also suggested a means of justice outside of capitalism.

Slitting your enemy's throat... bombing bridges... There is no real anarchy besides pipe-dream anarchy, for sure.

'pipe-bomb-dream' --please

Yeah, slit the throat of your enemies and afterwards rape them while you listen to punk rock. That is anarchy. breaking stuff and smashing things. everything else is leftist reformist stuff.

Yeah, there are a lot of 20 somethings out there with nothing to lose. Welcome to life. There are also a lot of people out there who organize safe spaces, are anarcho pacifists, food not bombs a radical pride parade whatever. Youd sound like me if I believed half the shit that came out of my mouth.

Where's my maker at? Curtain call B. Lol.

I am not an anarcho-pacifist. I just thought this post by hpwombat sounded like a parody of nihilism and i wanted to improve his post. i think nihilism deserves better. Of course though i am not a nihilist. I have a lot of love to give and and am still a dreamer who want to create alternatives (no irony or sarcasm here).

Im an anarcho-pacifier, trolls open they mouths wide and I keep them quiet for a good 5 mins or so, whenever Im done really. You'll believe it when that shit comes out of your mouth. Shits real.

I'm an anarcho-deathist. A free and equal society is a society that's dead.

...For freedom!

Shut up C. :If you feel that way figure out ways to make appeals to people on ideological grounds. Try to open up channels of communication. Its hard with 20 year old idealogues. But we fuction the same as any community in that 100 people who work to build these awesome environments and whatnot get dragged down by the polarizing actions of, well in some instances the same people in some instances not. Not all of them are negative or done out of a spot of negativity. Again, if we had systems of support that proliferated both as a system and within ourselves, first of things like what happened in Cleveland might not have and secondly, you wouldn't dwell on them. And depending on where you go thats the case. On top of which even while sympathising or not (i hope they do) overall most if not everyone I know condemned blowing up a bridge with people on it. But when the full story came out thqt wasn't at all the intent. But you're just bitter and looking to snipe. But cynisism is a cancer that perpetuates itself. Nihilism is for cowards.

Now you can call curtain call ditz. תחת שלי

WTF! I know of some positive bubbly creative effervescent nihilists, fuck you and burn destroy your existent!

"But I'm not big on the Angela Dworkin school of thought and I'm quite sure that most feminists don't actually believe that all men are latent rapists who should be castrated at birth."

What do you know about Dworkin?

1) Her name is ANDREA Dworkin
2) She never argued that all men are latent rapists who should be castrated at birth

I'm not a fan of her work either but this is typical straw-man bullshit used to dismiss feminist theory for the opportunistic reason of ignoring what it actually says. I've like Nihilo-Zero's posts in the past so it's really disappointing to read this men's movement misogyny apologia.

from wikipedia on the issue of whether Dworkin argued that all sex is rape:

Citing from both pornography and literature—including The Kreutzer Sonata, Madame Bovary, and Dracula—Dworkin argued that depictions of intercourse in mainstream art and culture consistently emphasized heterosexual intercourse as the only kind of "real" sex, portrayed intercourse in violent or invasive terms, portrayed the violence or invasiveness as central to its eroticism, and often united it with male contempt for, revulsion towards, or even murder of, the "carnal" woman. She argued that this kind of depiction enforced a male-centric and coercive view of sexuality, and that, when the cultural attitudes combine with the material conditions of women's lives in a sexist society, the experience of heterosexual intercourse itself becomes a central part of men's subordination of women, experienced as a form of "occupation" that is nevertheless expected to be pleasurable for women and to define their very status as women.[57]

Such descriptions are often cited by Dworkin's critics, interpreting the book as claiming "all" heterosexual intercourse is rape, or more generally that the anatomical mechanics of sexual intercourse make it intrinsically harmful to women's equality. For instance, Cathy Young[58] says that statements such as, "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women,"[56] are reasonably summarized as "All sex is rape."

Dworkin rejected that interpretation of her argument,[59] stating in a later interview that "I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality"[60] and suggesting that the misunderstanding came about because of the very sexual ideology she was criticizing: "Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I do not think they need it."[

"Citing from both pornography and literature—including The Kreutzer Sonata, Madame Bovary, and Dracula—Dworkin argued that depictions of intercourse in mainstream art and culture consistently emphasized heterosexual intercourse as the only kind of "real" sex, portrayed intercourse in violent or invasive terms, portrayed the violence or invasiveness as central to its eroticism, and often united it with male contempt for, revulsion towards, or even murder of, the "carnal" woman. She argued that this kind of depiction enforced a male-centric and coercive view of sexuality, and that, when the cultural attitudes combine with the material conditions of women's lives in a sexist society, the experience of heterosexual intercourse itself becomes a central part of men's subordination of women, experienced as a form of "occupation" that is nevertheless expected to be pleasurable for women and to define their very status as women.[57]"

Women have been just as eager to continue these depictions, in classical literature for example the rapist was always seen as bad guy par excellence, then came da sade who would never have gotten off the ground but for his female fans, rape fetishism in the modern sense was actually ushered in by women.

Also to bring evolutionary psychological habits into the equation, our female ancestors simply we're not bonobos for whatever reason, I wish they were but they were not, whether we want to admit it or not we still have a lot of morphogenetic resonance going back to the african canopies.

My mistake on Dworkin's first name. That's embarrassing, but the sentiment stands. As for her contributions to feminist philosophy... they are controversial amongst a great number of feminists. And, actually, I wasn't saying she necessarily espoused the particular idea "that all men are latent rapists who should be castrated at birth." I was stating that I am not a fan of Dworkin school of thought AND I'm quite sure that most feminists don't actually believe that all men are latent rapists who should be castrated at birth. But these things are along the lines of her position and some other more radical so-called "feminists" (at least according to them) do put forward such extreme positions. But I'm sorry you got hung up on this particular line because I was simply trying to point out, in the introduction, that there are those who claim to be feminists that do espouse terrible ideas. I don't think it does service to anyone to deny that fact. Also... I don't think this article was at all serving as apologia for the men's movement or promoting misogyny. Perhaps you stopped reading after the first paragraph?

Sorry, but I did stop reading after the second paragraph. So, yes, you pretty much lost me right away. The first paragraph was really off-putting, the way you misrepresented Dworkin's ideas but seemingly have about as much knowledge of them as you do about her name, and then make sympathetic statements to the ridiculous and misogynist at its core "Men's Rights Movement." If your first move in arguing your ideas is to construct an imaginary extreme enemy in whose presence you appear reasonable in comparison, I'm not really interested in your arguments. Now you admit that Dworkin didn't espouse such a position, claim you weren't claiming she did, then say (again) that she did, or at least that her position was similar. If you can't be bothered to actually know about the terrible ideas of the feminists you are criticizing, perhaps you should refrain from writing an article about them. For my part, perhaps I should refrain from criticism if I don't want to read your points after such a terrible start, so sorry, but today I guess I have an itchy clicky finger.

If you make a claim to be a feminist these days, then I think it unfortunately behooves you to sometimes make a few clarifying statements. Feminists have been given a bad rap because of the awful positions put forward by some of those who claim to be feminists. I think that's a fair statement. Similarly, I think if you say you are for "men's rights" then you ought best to clarify that you are not actually some right-wing reactionary bigot.

I suppose I could have substituted Valerie Solanas with Dworkin, but the point I was trying to make would essentially remain the same. There are radical feminist schools of thought which I frankly disagree with and find repulsive.

In any case... I'm sorry you still haven't felt the urge to continue reading the article. I did my best on what was bound to be a contentious subject.

You also wrote that you are not a fan of (3-syllable first name starts with and a, ends with an a) Dworkin. Would you care to explain why? Is it a fundamental disagreement with her positions or is it more that you just dislike her style or something?

funny you should mention solanas, since that seems to be the saint of art school anti-feminist activity (if not always thought).

I agree with you more or less. I tend to like the queer feminism of a Judith Butler who is not liked too much by more essentialist feminists who uncritically worship a social construction such as "woman". A certain segment of essentialist chauvinist feminists do deserve some of the things Bob Black wrote for them:

Bob Black. "Feminism as fascism"

The only feminists I've met who aren't fascist have curly tails.

-- Bob Black (pig ffffucker and 7th daughter of the 7th sun)

Of course i am not referring to all feminism. I think feminism was something good to appear for freedom including for that of men. Today though at least in the western hemisphere and for middle class women i think feminism has more or less achieved everything it could aspire to since there are many women presidents already, they are in many cases more than half of the population in universities and colleges, in many places they also have the right to free abortion, there are a lot of women entrepreneurs and lesbian sexual and romantic relationships have been legalized as well as lesbian bars. So i could understand anarchists losing interest in feminism (rejecting liberal feminism and bourgoise feminists) unless it refers to working class women.

Nevertheless my position tends towards individualism in matters of gender and as such the individual could well decide to go beyond all categories such as "women", "men", "gay", "lesbian", etc and instead just be an individual free to live one´s particularities and personal tastes disregarding borders and labels.

we can see where you stand "they deserve it, man. sick bob black on them" cool. i'm sure judith butler would just love you (if she knew what you really thought.)

or, as oprah winfrey once said in the color purple "beat ha"

As Nietzsche once said, "Turn them upside down and all women look the same."

-- Bob Black (pig ffffucker and dental assistant)

Original anon you were talking to here. I am going to try reading the article again when I feel less cranky. But I stand by what I said about the opening and why it is was so off-putting. I am willing to accept that I was hasty to condemn your piece without trying to understand it in total, especially since, as I said, I have appreciated your writings in the past.

I don't particularly like the essentialism or anti-porn stance of Dworkin's work. But I don't like people brandishing her name to dispell the second wave in its entirety because I find they often don't understand her ideas. I don't consider myself an expert on her ideas but I know enough to know that she is often misrepresented. I also think her counter-critique of the stance sex positive feminists took against her--that their stance can easily become a naive at best or manipulative at worst ignorance of the coercive conditions in which sexual 'freedom' is itself already confined--is an interesting one that deserves more consideration.

Oh, I'm an anarchist, but I'm not a follower of Jean Zerzan who believes that all humans should be exterminated (then raped).

Anarchists have been given a bad rap because of the awful postions put forward by some claiming to be anarchists, I think that's a fair statement. Thus it unfortunately behooves me to make that clarifying statement.

Now I hope you will continue to read my perfectly reasonable arguments, now that I've made it clear that I'm not like those OTHER genocidal anarchists, who may or may not exist, but I've got to make sure you know I'm not one of them.

(okay, maybe Zerzan didn't say the rape part. In fact, maybe he didn't say any of it, I'm not really sure, it's controversial, you know? But that's not my point here, some people BELIEVE he said it and believe it represents anarchism, so I feel it important to repeat it on the internet to make sure more people hear it, while telling everyone that I'm actually one of the GOOD anarchists, not like those terrible anarchists you think exist, who aren't really legitimate anarchists at all (if they exist, which I'm not sure about, but I'm going to keep mentioning them anyway because it's important you think about them), they're a cancer in our movement you might even say.)

Look, there are so-called anarchists who regularly put forward positions that are not very anarchistic. And if you feel the need to differentiate yourself from them and clarify in what ways you feel that you are actually an anarchist... fine. Similarly, there are feminists who put forward horrible positions and so I see nothing wrong with giving a few words to differentiate yourself from them in an article about sexual politics. I don't feel that I spent too much time differentiating in my article and felt it was necessary in consideration of the fact that I was putting this article forward to a broad and potentially hostile audience. Sorry if you or anyone else got hung up on this point, but it was hardly central to my position and don't really feel it's my problem. If you want to use that point to attack me and then slander Zerzan, that's your prerogative. But again... it's not really my issue.

i could be wrong, but i think you missed the point

Or... perhaps the criticism I was responding to went over your head?

Who gives a shit

You could have gone outside today but instead, you're here.

ableist!!! maybe they can't go outside cuz they're an albino or something.

Matty O'Dea with the quote of the day...
"Fuck those tea party fuckers, stab them in their buttcheeks !"

"Give those Republicans cancer !"
- Matty O'Dea

Are you posting this here because you think it's a bad thing that Matty thinks the Lt. Gov of Wisconsin should die of colon cancer?

PS where do all these trolls from Madison and the greater Wisconsin area come from? The "scene" in Wisconsin is fucking pathetic (especially liberal Madison).

Also by Ex Nihilio " Then, when I was released from my time at the lunatic asylum, Adbusters was kind enough to print my brief note describing that experience and the event which led to me being admitted there (an act of public self-immolation, at the mall, on the day after Thanksgiving). "

*Nihilio Zero

It's always nice to know that someone follows my blog! I am truly humbled. Anyway... what you're mentioning here is explained in further detail in an article which can be found here:

Forsaken By Adbusters (My response to that magazine's recent call for submissions.)

Thanks again for reading! Don't forget to G+, thumbs up, and like!

I know who you are, you fucking coward. You have done nothing but stock shelves with books. You are fucking pathetic.

In many ways the Dworkin people and the "men's rights" people are the same people. Figure it out.

Relationships outshine gender classification and the liberal fetishing of rights which is the foundation to feminist politics. Just stop thinking in terms of sexual power and the idea will just evaporate like all the ruffled feathers and facial scratches dude.

I read the zine by Bob Black on feminism and facsism, got any more on the subject? I read one on anarchist library called "post feminism" I don't remember the name fully, it was written by a female.

As Stirner once said, "Turn them inside out and all women look the same."

-- Bob Black (pig ffffucker and crash test dummy)

no, Stirner didn't.

He did, however, die all alone in the cold.

Western discourse [such as this one on sex] tends to be scientific-analytic. This involves breaking things down into ‘parts’ and studying system behaviour as if it were possible to vary just one of the variables, like the size of a man’s cock or the size of a woman’s tits.

It is questionable whether such uni-dimensional discourse has that much meaning in it. Of course, it is possible for a woman to trade out 'her' man on the basis of the size of his cock and it is possible for a man to trade out 'his' woman on the size of her tits. This is very much like scientific experiment, and perhaps that’s why there is discourse about it; i.e. in science we want to know how each independent variable changes the overall system response. For such an experiment to work, the system must have a linear response which means that if we change one variable, all of the others must continue to behave the same. This is called ‘ceteris paribus’ and it is rarely the case because the ‘cocktail effect’ is the over-riding effect. That is, the ‘cocktail effect’ is where the relations amongst the various components have more of an influence on the overall system response than the sum of the components.

If some combination of male, female, trans, ... taken two or more at a time trade out their partner/s for others with a bigger or smaller or better this or that etc. etc., the cocktail effect inevitably comes into play. ceteris paribus is not possible. the cocktail effect rules. the fantasized projection over what will happen to the overall system response [experience] if this parameter or that is changed will definitely prompt experimentation with different variables, but the overall system response will be topsided by the cocktail effect.

in electrical systems, the system response can change radically if one pushes a larger voltage through the conductors or installs a larger capacitor etc. it is difficult to calculate in advance what actually will happen under ‘load conditions’. one must drive a spike into the system and record its ‘impulse response’.

people like to talk about the social dynamic through the portal of sex. it is stimulating to even talk about it and one can really get caught up in it so that it seems, at those times, to be an ideal portal for understanding the social dynamic.

people do all kinds of things while in a state of sexual ecstasy that they would not like to see captured in photos on facebook. as with drugs, this sort of power over behaviour does not persist outside of the limited duration of that state. more than this, other relational influences which are over-powered while in the sexually excited state are normally dominant.

therefore, the following proposition is suspect;

“There can be no liberation without sexual liberation.”

e.g. other relations could be ‘suboptimized’ in the liberating of sexual relations.

this is an interesting philosophic topic and always has been, but the odds seem to be in favour of the proposition that sexuality is too narrow a portal to try to understand ourselves and our social relations through; e.g.

“Jung often turned the tables on Freud by arguing that Freud's views on sexuality were as unprovable as his own on parapsychology in any strictly scientific sense, especially the positivistic one. ... Mach himself once remarked acerbically on Freud and his school of psychoanalysis, "These people try to use the vagina as if it were a telescope so that they can see the world through it. But that is not its natural function—it is too narrow for that."

“The debate between Jung and Freud on parapsychology and sexuality continued for several years. Jung strongly believed that the human psyche was much too complex to be understood merely in terms of the libido. ... Jung was convinced that Freud's focus on sex limited his intellectual horizons. As far as Jung was concerned, Freud employed literal interpretations and so, for instance, "could not grasp the spiritual significance of incest as a symbol." For Jung sex played no more than a role in the psyche. He was more interested in its "spiritual aspect and its numinous meaning." Freud claimed that he was so far above sexual inclinations himself that he could judge a patient's sexual disorders objectively. Jung, however, had begun to suspect that Freud was involved in an ongoing affair with his sister-in-law and even claimed that she had confessed it to him.”

America is oversexed.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.