Blog Archives
L is for Love
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
It’s a thin line between love and hate…
from the 1971 song of the same name by The Persuaders
Now, it’s a funny thing. This song was written by a couple of dudes and one of their complicit females warning other dudes that women can be crazy bitches. The gist is that women are happy to be used by men because that’s what women were designed for – but only up to a certain unknown point. And if you manage to reach your woman’s limit, watch out! She might maim or even kill you! This is a tired variation on the ‘hell hath no fury as a woman scorned’ theme. And most men and many women believe this stereotype to be true. But the reality is that women seldom, if ever, take revenge upon men, even if revenge is the least that men deserve after committing relationship atrocities. If women take any action in an abusive relationship, it is most often just fleeing – with a suitcase, if she’s lucky. See the craziest thing that women actually do is not taking revenge upon men, but bothering to get involved with them at all.
The song title, in actuality, is a much more appropriate description of the male approach to relationships with women, but with one major difference. Males don’t need to be abused or even have any kind of real excuse to snap and get violent. So often their love is violence of one sort or another. All women know this on some level as we are all told as girls that boys show us that they like us by antagonizing us or hitting us. But there is this expectation that they will somehow grow out of it – maybe after death – and besides there is a good one out there somewhere, right? So, women end up accepting that male love can look a lot like hate, and an expression of male love can turn into an expression of hate as if at the flip of a switch. Male emotionality is shallow, but intense and volatile. Let’s just say that male love is to human emotion as azidoazide azide is to chemistry. Personally, I think that ‘crazy bitch’ is a much more apt description of a man. And PMS actually stands for Permanent Man Syndrome. You see, Man, not Woman, is the wildly unpredictable, violently hormonal, nutjob breeding machine. And it isn’t monthly and temporary, but constant and forever. And in my tradition of mutating scrote-quotes, I say “Hell hath no fury as a man in love.”
Anyhow, despite the beginnings of this post, my purpose here is not to scratch the surface of heterosexual dynamics to reveal in shock and horror the countless examples of how men express their love for women. I have a whole Love=Hate series for what men do inside and outside relationships with women. And to be honest, straight woman problems are not only completely preventable, but their repetitiveness is boring as is women’s insistence on going back for more and more. I’m sick of hearing about them, and likely, some of you are as well. I think it’s very easy to become psychologically addicted to suffering – living it, complaining about it, reading about it, and ultimately doing nothing about it because pain has become your constant companion and what would you ever do without it? But that is a different, although related, topic, which I won’t get into today.
What I want to talk about is why humanity seems to be obsessed with love and pretending it is something other than it really is. It is treated as though it is the reason for our existence, and it seems to be much more of a distraction than even happiness or scheming to get rich. Why do I say this? Well, look at what passes for entertainment in the human world. There are more novels, songs, poems, fairy tales, artwork, and films about love than about any other topic. And of course, the bulk of this entertainment is created by males. But while it is superficially aimed at women and girls, everything is ultimately designed to serve males. I remember back when I was a teenager when it struck me for the first time as I was watching television that I was not actually the intended audience, and the messaging was not intended to lift me up as a female. I gradually came to realize that all creative material was that way – mostly designed by men for the male gaze and the male brain, but also designed to distract and brainwash women consuming the content. None of this entertainment, including television, is supposed to be analyzed from a female, let alone feminist, perspective. Even analysis of literature and poetry seldom gets feminist critique, and in this way, deeply misogynistic work, even if it is pretending to be empowering to women, can still get two thumbs up and win literary awards. Love ends up being defined by men, but obsessed over by women, even though men and women experience love fundamentally differently. I find that so many of our vaunted love stories would be more aptly categorized as ‘hate stories’. Yet women embrace them, and men profit from them.
Despite love being the central theme in entertainment, and thus making us believe that love is the most important thing in life, you need only to look at works of non-fiction to see what men really believe in. I’m going to borrow from the American experience to illustrate this, because as leaders of the so-called Free World who fought so hard for their liberation, what they say matters and often guides fledgling democracies. And besides, after dictatorships, no country does sloganeering and propaganda like the US.
If you go back to American beginnings, men define what is important in their Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. This is the foundational American slogan, and men still quote it today when outlining their rights as men and as Americans. Note that there is no love there. It’s not important. The inclusion of ‘the pursuit of hapiness’ was actually a replacement for the right to own ‘property’, which Jefferson did out of respect for black Americans (although remember that men could still legally own women), and is thought to have little meaning other than a subjective one. Male happiness could include drinking whiskey with abandon in a saloon, raping a prostitute and then going home and raping his wife, or killing animals for sport. And all of these could technically fit the definition of male love as well, I suppose, as vice, violence, glee and love seem to get twisted in the male mind. Women weren’t included in these important life elements – property, by definition, has no life, no freedom, and may not define their own happiness – but we know that males have always defined female love as sacrifice, devotion, loyalty, service, and suffering in silence. These are the themes of love stories, the propaganda men design to define female existence.
I leave you with this question and my opinion. If women, and I mean female separatists, of course, were ever to write their own declaration of independence, would they include ‘love’ in the list of rights? I think not, and I’ll tell you why. Under patriarchy, love is a tool of manipulation designed to keep women in line, distracted, focused on fantasy and hoping, and constantly feeling off-balance and insecure. Only patriarchal women cling to the pursuit of love and obsess over it, puzzling over the fact that expressions of male and female love look very different. Outside of patriarchy, I think love would be an outcome of female freedom, not a pursuit. Without men in the picture, love would not need to be listed in the rights and demands of women because it would just exist outside of context and wouldn’t be a bargaining chip used in power plays. I think relationships would look very different, as would artistic expression. And it certainly wouldn’t have any connection with violence.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
H is for Hate
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Holy hell, time flies when you’re not having fun! I swear, I didn’t mean for nearly 2 months to go by before writing another post. I had a topic chosen and everything. Really! But I find time is moving strangely during this neverending pandemic. Likely, many of you are discovering strange feelings and experiences are entering your small viral bubble world, and you probably feel you don’t have much control over…, well, much at all. You are not alone, even if you feel you are.
But while later than planned, I am here now with the next post in the Alphabet Series.
H is for Hate
I was going to choose helplessness at first, and it is probably a good post topic for another time, but I was inspired by a post I read back at the end of March, written by a more mainstream, academic type of ‘feminist’ on the topic of whether hate crimes and hate speech apply to women as a class, and who decided by the end of her post that while women experience sex-based issues (she seemed almost loathe to call what women experience ‘hate’), the legal system is not the way to deal with it. The legal system works for all the other hates, but it would just create more problems for women (or more likely, she meant for men) than it could even begin to solve. And we can figure out why this might be true – a) crimes and ‘lesser’ harms done to women are constant, committed by most (if not all) males, and against most (if not all) females. I mean, seriously, every single male would go to jail for some period of time in his life if we actually had justice for women and girls. And let’s face it, there would be a shit ton of brainwashed fembots out there protesting holding men accountable for their crimes against women… But it tickles me to imagine males actually justifiably (i.e., being held accountable) living with a fraction of the fear that females unfairly (i.e., simply being born female) live with. And secondly, b) most women ‘consent’ to fucked up, convoluted and demeaning relationships with males. It is impossible to police woman-hate when women seem, on the surface, to say yes to so much of what is done to them.
Now, did this mainstreamer suggest what might work? No, of course not! She works for a university and is a white woman (a dangerous status today), so taking anything other than a milquetoast stance on women’s issues isn’t possible in this age of group-selective Western censorship. There was the obligatory hint that education might be the way to go… And I think it was at this point that I realized that my topic was going to be Hate, specifically woman-hate. You just CANNOT educate males out of raping, out of their innate violent natures, out of doing everything possible to make sure that females lose in every aspect of life and in every corner of the world. Myself, I am a nature-AND-nurture theorist when it comes to human problems, and I believe that to choose either one alone to explain our human world is just plain silly, and even ignorant. But, I regularly read different kinds of self-proclaimed ‘feminists’ who do take these irrational essentialist stances for several reasons, only one of which seems to be that I end up with plenty of stuff to write about. And if you’re wondering about the woman in question, I won’t name her as she is fairly typical of most liberal-leaning feminists out there, although more educated and articulate than the average one, and besides, I don’t believe in publicly shitting on women unless they are doing something really evil and need to be taken down. And even then, I am decidedly not an activist, but rather a writer and navel-gazer and educator. I write to add a perspective, rather than to try, futilely, to change the world.
But back to hell. I mean Hate. There was a nice assortment of h-words I could have chosen for this post. Like I said, helplessness was a tempting choice and you may see it in the future. As well, H is for honesty, hope, hetero/homosexuality, housewifery (definitely want to write about that sometime), homelessness, his/herstory, harmony (key concepts in places like China, but also with the Cult of Positivity crowd — “Why can’t we all just get along, waaaah…?!!?”), and harm. And there are tons more.
Now, if you’ve read further on this blog, you’ll possibly be aware that I already have an ongoing series called Love = Hate. Hate, in general, is a massive topic. It is the prime current (coupled with greed) that runs through and guides the course of all male-dominated societies (basically, every society on earth since the beginning of time), but that is often called love, justice, fear, retribution, morality, the natural order – everything but hate. But as this is a woman-centric blog, my focus is on woman-hate or misogyny. So I’ll stick this post in there in addition to here in the Alphabet Series.
My plan here is to address a couple of the thoughts I came across in the article on hate, or rather non-hate, where it concerns women. And I’ll try to reach a conclusion or at least a suggestion, where the other author couldn’t bother.
Domestic Violence Ruins Progress on Woman-Hate Issues
I’m going to re-word this as I certainly don’t think women deserve violence from males. Ever. But I do take issue with female’s willing ignorance when it comes to putting trust in males. We are swimming in evidence that males hurt females constantly, and that proximity to males vastly increases the probability that a woman or girl will be raped, physically assaulted, sexually assaulted, and/or killed. We know that at least 25% of hetero-partnered women experience severe physical violence at the hands of their loving male partner. But despite knowing this, mothers still groom their daughters for heterosexuality and for relationships where although they will probably live an economically better life and be vastly more protected from other males than women who don’t partner with men, they will have to endure some form of misogyny, including manipulative and consensual rape, in exchange. This is the heterosexual contract, and we all know this in our lizard brains, even if we refuse to acknowledge or accept it. In the situation where domestic violence happens and a woman manages to escape it, many will still jump back in the dating pool with this delusion that there is a ‘good one’ out there waiting for her. It is pure insanity, especially in places where women can freely choose to support themselves financially instead of being forced to exchange rape for a home and food. But it is a psychologically complex issue. And even in more progressive places, it hasn’t been all that long for women to have had this choice. Change in thinking takes time especially when traditional thinking and behaviour are always more rewarded.
So, if you boil it down to a single basic truth, heterosexuality is the problem. Go with males, and you are asking for trouble, and will ensure that the system never changes for ALL women and girls. So I’ll reword my header of his section to “heterosexuality ruins progress on woman-hate issues”. Until women reject heterosexual relationships with males, progress on addressing actual hate crimes against women, which I would argue MUST, for the time being, exclude crimes committed within a consensual relationship, will go nowhere. The fact that women consent to male abuse (and this is learned at an early age due to grooming for abuse by mothers, fathers, entertainment, schools, social institutions, etc) is the number one roadblock in sussing out what is going on in any reported hate crime against a female. If you look at all other groups who experience hate crimes, not a one of them is groomed from birth to consent to abuse from or seek abusive sexual relationships with members of oppressive groups. It is because of this that I believe that heterosexuality is morally wrong, irrational from a female perspective, unnecessary for human existence and the continuance of the species, anti-progress, intellectually, for the human species, and inherently violent and destructive to over half the population of the world. And of course, as I’ve said many times before, no one is born heterosexual, so this is a circumstance that absolutely doesn’t need to exist. If we stopped forcing girls into heterosexuality, male violence wouldn’t be the guiding force of human existence. But of course, preventing this is another matter altogether and adult females would fight tooth and nail against stopping the harm of their daughters, likely on the basis that isn’t fair to deny pussy to males.
Woman-Hate Isn’t Really ‘Hate’
One point the author danced around is the idea that all of the currently protected groups under hate crime legislation experience real hate whereas women experience, not hate, but the effects of male entitlement. The reasoning is this. The motivation for persecuting racial or religious groups (and even gays/lesbians) is to eradicate them, whereas males see a use for females, so don’t want them dead, but rather, subservient. So, I call bullshit here. In the history of the world, more women have died at the hands of males than specific racial or religious groups have at the hands of their oppressors. Currently, more women and girls die each week because of men and because they are female, than all persecuted groups combined in any given week. The woman writing is British, so if you look at how many non-whites are killed by whites due to racism in the UK every week, I think there is no comparison with femicide. And I think we’d find the same situation if comparing the prevalence of other lesser hate crimes, such as harassment. There have been what I’ll call ‘episodes’ or blips on the long timeline of human existence, where one group has tried to eradicate another group. There is nothing close to the comparitively short Nazi eugenics program for Jews today – in fact, they are generally, a very wealthy and powerful group now, and frequently show themselves to be effective oppressors of other groups, including women and children. My other favourite go-to oppressed group, American blacks were never targets for eradication. They were seen as a resource to be used and abused – kind of like how men have used women in the past and still do today. So the definition of hate as the desire to obliterate in total doesn’t work. Not all accepted hate targets are targets for elimination, and on the flip side, many males actually do want women to die.
I’d also argue, as I have in several past posts, that most, if not all, oppressions stem from woman hate, the reasoning being that males covet the vaginas and uteri of the females of their tribe, and any group (racial, ethnic or religious) that threatens these possessions and the bloodlines of their group are attacked. So males don’t want males from other groups raping or stealing their women and knocking them up, so they do what they can to take away the power of those ‘others’. So all racism is based in misogyny. Pretty simple to understand. With gays and lesbians, it is still woman-hate that fuels homophobia. Men are supposed to rape and possess women (instead of being penetrated like a woman), so gay dudes are a problem. Women are supposed to be raped and possessed by males, so lesbians are a problem as they are way too goddamned free and how dare they reject those who are superior to them? So how can groups that are persecuted on the basis of woman hate experience legitimate hate, while women are not truly hated?
Solutions?
Now, I agree with the author when she says that the legal system does not solve societal problems. The legal system was designed by men, for men. I think it can help racial groups and any group with males in it. And given what has happened, legally, to validate the trans, we know that male trannies are still male, no matter what the hell they’re wearing or what is going on in their Y-chromosome-filled brains. And it is for this reason that the law will not end problems specific to women. Women are not men, so the system doesn’t work for them. Males cannot conceive of being held universally accountable for their actions, even though they may throw a paltry few under the bus to keep up the appearance of ‘justice’.
But if you don’t advocate for the legal rights for women, and your only suggestion is education, which hasn’t produced any results in the millennia that women have been pleading with, and reasoning with, and educating males not to hurt them, then what hope is there?
Well, personally, I don’t think anything is going to change for women until they reject heterosexuality en masse, and that is NEVER going to happen. So my solutions are based on pure fantasy, meaning that they will never happen in the West or any place that pays lip service to human rights. Males would never allow women to take their power away, and there are too many handmaidens working against female liberation, human rights and dignity already to ever achieve a critical female opposition to changing the legal or social systems.
I don’t believe in system change, as I said, so any solution I would ever come up with would be grass roots or individually- or small-underground-group-run. I do, personally, like the idea of vigilantes working on behalf of wronged women. In Canada, our native people’s have some legal traditions for dealing with conflict in their communities, so why can’t women go further and develop their own justice system to deal with sex-based crimes? In my opinion, if a system doesn’t work for women, then they are justified in taking matters into their own hands. Males have done this many times in the past. Why can’t women? It can be organized, or it can operate more on a vigilante or extra-system level.
The Gulabi Gang founded by Sampat Pal in India is one of my favourite women’s vigilante groups. It started out very grassroots and individual – an single woman’s natural and justified response to a situation involving an abusive husband, and it has grown into a network of over 400,000 women. Women supporting women, armed with sticks and chasing down and beating the shit out of rapists. Not only would that never be allowed in the West, but I can’t even imagine Western women getting their thinking past the utter unfairness to men of giving them a taste of their own medicine. As an update, sadly, I found out that some of the Gang took issue with Sampat Pal over how she was running things, and turned on her, beating her with the very sticks meant for men, and she eventually got kicked out of her own organization. I think back to what I said in my last G post about women needing a few generations to heal before they could ever create their own high-functioning, woman-centric society.
Oh, and one last note, as no doubt someone is wondering why I haven’t talked about ‘misandry’, which is the current whiny accusation of Western males in response to feminism. Misandry – unjustified and pathological hatred of men – isn’t a thing. Males are oppressors and hate women reflexively for no rational reason. When women hate males, it is in response to the oppression and violence done by said males. It is therefore justified, not illogical or pathological or bigotry. This purported prejudice against males that is gaining traction in both testerical incel and liberal circles as something that must be addressed because of the increasing number of ‘poor suffering males’ doesn’t exist. The lies men tell are flimsy, but widely believed, and I’ll address this in my L is for Lies post. We all seem to like to believe males’ crocodile tears. But never fear, males are still on top, doing whatever the fuck they want, and they laugh, if they even notice at all, as women and girls suffer.
Again, this is part of the Alphabet Series as well as the Love = Hate Series
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
F is for Friendship
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Well eff me, it’s another post in the Alphabet Series. So many great f-words to choose from – some are obvious picks, some, not so much. You mighta thought I’d have gone for the word ‘feminism’, and trust me, I am going to do a post on the various feminisms and ‘pills’ that are confusing the hell out of everyone – but not at this time. I do have an ongoing series exploring my Birth as a Feminist, if you’re interested in development and evolution in the ways of what men and their lib-fems call ‘man-hating’.
F is also for ‘fuck’ and all its various offshoots – another obvious target and subject of some debate regarding usage in feminist circles, and I’m not talking about that today either. Same with F is for Freedom! which I will address in another post as it is something I want to explore in depth – it is just one of those words that means something different to each person around the world, and is the subject of an annoying lie and source of propaganda churned out by Western countries in order to finger-wag at countries outwardly proud of their racism, sexism and dictatorships. As well, F is for the fight-flight-freeze-fawn set of reactions to threats; fantasy (check out my ongoing Year of the Fantasy series); feminine vs feminizing (an upcoming post); forgiveness (part of the Enabler toolbox and also addressed in a 2015 post here); and family (a fragile, but crucial, cornerstone of patriarchy and female oppression and isolation. Family will come up a little bit today as it is hard to talk about the actual topic without addressing family.
So, we’re going for something different, and on the surface, seemingly juvenile – well, it is, in the sense that it starts in childhood and shapes the trajectory of adult lives. But in reality, this topic is an extremely serious issue for women and girls, and one that is seldom talked about for a few very obvious reasons that I’ll get into.
F is for Friendship.
As ‘friend’ is one of those words that can be a bit of a catch-all in that it can mean everything and nothing at the same time, I’m going to attempt to define it first, with the aid of some categories that describe different functions of friendship. I’ll mention a few differences in how males and females see friendship. And then I’ll get into why friendship is the most important kind of relationship for women, despite not being treated as such, and why it just isn’t possible for women to achieve authentic friendship as long as male dominance and compulsory heterosexuality (they are inseparable, actually) go unquestioned. Finally, I’ll fantasize a little about what female friendship could be.
What is a Friend?
The concept of friendship has been around and written about for millennia, and I won’t delve into the history here because it is vast and has been written about extensively by researchers of human evolution, sociology, philosophy, psychology, and cross-cultural studies. In addition, I’m a little more concerned with the here and now as well as the meaning and mechanics of friendship for women, specifically. A lot of the writings focus on men and how fucking awesome they are (or how deprived they are, the poor dears), and often, tsk-tsky articles are written about female pettiness and bitchiness towards one another without examining why or how that may have come about.
So I’ll start with a simple definition and jump off from there. Briefly, friendship is supposed to be a bond of mutual affection or genial affiliation between two people on equal footing that exists separately from sexual or familial ties. Friends are supposed to enhance your life and provide benefits that you don’t typically expect to get from lovers or family. And it is in engaging in friendship that you are supposed to have the most choice in members and freedom to be oneself – compared to family and other forced or ‘necessary’ ties, that is.
For many people, even today, friends have ended up being neighbours and classmates and (for men for all of history; women only recently) colleagues at work, simply because they were convenient, necessary for survival, and may have had something in common, even if it was only living on the same street. However, as life has become more global, with more migration and travel, and of course with the onset of the digital age, many things have changed, including the possibilities for and definitions of friendship. Traditional childhood friends still exist, especially if one is a person who stays in the town they grew up in, but many people now have ‘friends’ who are random digital strangers who have connected with them through Facebook and who ‘like’ their cat videos. There may, in fact, be no conversation, ever, and they will never meet in person, but they are called ‘friends’, nonetheless. Another modern development in friendship has come with the breakdown of the traditional family and with the gradual disconnect of parents from the lives and health of their children. Increasingly independent of their family, friendship has, for some people, become more important than family relationships, so much so that people may choose to spend holidays with friends rather than family.
There has been some hysteria over the last decade or two about a ‘loneliness epidemic’. Some of you may have seen one of those freaky documentaries about the Japanese and their widespread self-isolation and lack of social connections. You’re left with the impression that Japan is a country full of rape-cartoon-loving, capsule-apartment-dwelling people who pay strangers to eat meals with them because they have no friends. And then you’re wondering whether it’s going to spread around the world because porn is taking over, and more and more of our lives are lived online (especially in light of this never-ending pandemic bullshit). Never fear. First, documentaries, while I love them dearly, aren’t about normal people. How boring would that be, right? The Japanese are a social lot, well-travelled, and rather adventurous. Every country’s got their incels and their extreme social anxiety sufferers, though. Some live in basements, and others live in teeny-tiny apartments, depending on the culture and space available. If you look at the research (here’s an example), there is no actual evidence of widespread loneliness when you compare generations now, or the same age groups across time. One study, in fact, found that today’s teens report less loneliness than those in the past. That’s not to say that the quality of human connection hasn’t changed over time, but people are not really any more or less lonely than they used to be. They do have other issues that arise from an increase in social media involvement, however. I suspect the hysteria over loneliness is just propaganda designed to a) shit on ‘rich’ countries, b) encourage traditional values and heterosexuality by falsely equating being alone with loneliness, and c) to try to prove that the digital world leads to fewer real friends. Let’s just say that this is a massive and complicated issue.
Types of Friendship
I’m a psych person by training, so I sighed and settled in with familiar discomfort in my search for how the ‘experts’ define types of friendship. Everyone needs to put their own stamp on things, so there is a ton of stuff all basically saying the same thing in different ways. I combed and combined what I found into roughly four accepted categories.
- Friendships of Utility: which exist between you and someone who is useful to you in some way
- Friendships of Pleasure: which are maintained between you and those whose company you enjoy
- Friendships of the Good: which are based on mutual respect and admiration
- Friendships of the Right: which are bonds based on shared values, morals, or ethics.
Now, that is what I saw, but I take issue with the first category. Friendships of utility are relationships, but I am loathe to call them ‘friendship’. There is no affection or geniality there, which is basic to the definition of friendship. I strongly suspect that this category was posited by males, because this is generally how all males see people and things. “How can I use that thing/person?” “How is that thing/person beneficial to me?” And if it has no use, it doesn’t exist. If it does exist on their radar, males usually want it destroyed. Basic male psychology. Follow that easy rule, and you will have a much, much simpler life with much, much less agony. Now, males also make use of category two, and if there is pleasure, there is always utility. This describes the whole ‘friends with benefits’ scheme that males cooked up and sold to women as modern female liberation. No commitment or investment from men, but they can use and take pleasure from women. Why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free, right?
Friendships of utility are also the most common connections that straight and breeder women have with other women. Once a woman is committed to a male and especially after she has popped out a kid, she only sees other women in terms of how they can help her or fit into her busy and crucial-to-society lifestyle. Even though she chose her situation, she still feels burdened and believes it is other women’s duty to pitch in for free or get together to listen to her endless complaints about her choice for a shot at a privileged life, especially if these ‘friends’ are less burdened and less ‘woman’ in her mind (e.g., lesbians, singles, and the child-free). It is extremely difficult to maintain friendships with women once they go off with a male and go into breeder-mode.
The third category of friendship doesn’t exist for men in relation to women. No male admires or respects women regardless of the line he uses publicly to appear like a Nice GuyTM. Don’t listen to the words, observe his actions, especially the ones that he assumes aren’t being watched. Likewise with the fourth category, which is a common ploy used by men to get women sexually, and which is extremely common in activist and religious groups. Nothing gets an activist female doing free labour or spreading her legs like believing a male shares her world-saving agenda.
Also note that most women are incapable of seeing their ‘friendships’ with men clearly and accurately. The male will have a friendship of utility with a woman, while she is feeling respect and admiration for and possibly shared values with him. And she usually assumes it is mutual. It is not. Even with a friends-with-benefits situation, women will generally assume there is some kind of mutual respect going on, while it is actually completely one-directional from her to him. It is pure delusion, and eventually, the willingly ignorant woman encounters evidence to show her the truth. But she seldom accepts what is going on, choosing instead to remain used and often abused. Or she’ll assume it’s a one-off and move on to the next Machiavellian mister, who will respect her for sure, she assumes wrongly.
Hetero Pair-Bonding and Friendship?
How often have you heard a straight woman say “my husband/boyfriend is my best friend”, and did you manage not to laugh? This is a very, very recent development in hetero relationships. I strongly suspect that is is part of the velvet backlash against feminism and female economic freedom. For many years, ‘protection’, ‘romance’ and ‘love’ were the hooks/promises/lies used to keep women marrying men, but most recently, friendship has been sold to women as a great reason to keep spreading their legs and diverting their newfound financial resources (still much less than men’s, but still enough to live on) into male consumption rather than actual female freedom. Of course, men make better friends for women than other women! How could you believe otherwise? Today’s male is emotional and sensitive and a great listener. Males and females are EQUAL now (a requirement for friendship). He does half, nay! more than half, of the household chores. He wishes he could be the one to become pregnant and put his career on hold and cut ties with his friends and lower his IQ by engaging in baby-talk most of his waking hours for numerous years. Now that is friendship! I’ve never personally met one of these awesome friend-men, but hey… But, of course, it is friends with benefits. So you still have to let him fuck you, and you have to do it. No male is going to stay with you if you say, “Hey friend, let’s stop having sex, ‘kay?”
So, it’s not really a friendship. Males and females, despite liberal protest, are NOT equal. It’s still a sex slavery relationship, but this time, you’re choosing to be a subordinate instead of having no options except public prostitution, nunnery or suicide like throughout almost all of women’s history. And by the way, best friends are usually good for sharing secrets. For hetero women, that means having someone to bitch to about what your owner does to them that annoys or even hurts them, or how marriage isn’t what they expected it to be, or jeez, he really changed after getting hitched… Are these chicks seriously telling their hubbies that they’re sad they get one orgasm for every 50 that he gets and that porn makes them feel sub-human? I wonder to myself, in the absence of an actual friend to talk to, whether these women just live in more denial than a 1950’s housewife… As a long-time student of psychological warfare, I truly admire the husband-best-friend campaign as a smashing psychological success in maintaining female slavery despite the cage door having been sitting wide open for several decades now. Well done!
Same-Sex Friendships
It is really hard to find modern research on friendship that doesn’t address sex, sexuality, romance, or dating. The more ‘free’ societies and people supposedly get (meaning distance from religion & magical thinking and the embracing of science, human rights, social justice, etc.), the more that fucking, sexuality, identity, and the objectification and abuse of women (and the justification of it!!!) seems to be a part of absolutely every aspect of daily life. Men have always polluted society with their sexual deviancy throughout time, but we are living in a time where it is in your face 24/7 and has been normalized. And friendship has not gone unaffected by this. In traditional societies and in the traditional past of Western societies, female intimacy was common and relatively unstigmatized. But today, in ‘free’ societies, women are afraid of friendly intimacy with other women for fear of appearing to be lesbian – the absolute worst thing you can be labelled as a woman anywhere in the world (possibly worse than being called a prostitute).
In traditional China, where I spent many years, it is very common for women to walk around holding hands. And it is not strange for same-sex (both male-only and female-only) friends to be very physical with one another. I remember tutoring a small group of 14-year-old boys at their home one time, and one of the boys was giving his friend a calf massage. Hilariously, I was relating this information to a ‘trans man’ – aka a woman – I was forced to live with last year, and her comment was “that’s weird”. Yeah, women holding hands is weird, but a woman taking hormones and pretending she is a male isn’t weird at all… fucking idiot. Traditional societies are homophobic as hell, but physical intimacy that doen’t involve genitals is not necessarily seen as sexual in same-sex situations. Likewise in the past in Western cultures, adult female friends could share a bed and cuddle one another and it wasn’t polluted with sexual accusations.
I suspect the stigma against non-sexual, friendly, female intimacy is part of the move to keep women serving men and having it ‘make sense’ as I mentioned above. Women today are supposed to focus on finding a single male friend who will eventually become a best friend and then a husband and sperm-donor. Becoming too close, especially affection-wise, with female friends is a strong indicator of lesbian tendencies, which is only cool if you still fuck men the majority of the time and bring the friends home for your male partner to take advantage of.
Let’s explore same-sex friendships more.
Male-Male Friendships
Male friendships have been celebrated and described in literature for millennia and in film since its beginnings. These bonds are rich and layered and they form a very important psychological part of male identity. Men are able to bond over so many things, and seem to be able to forgive one another anything (especially if they can bond over blaming a woman for whatever is wrong). Although I’ve never seen this myself – ever – it seems to be a commonly held belief that males can solve a disagreement by punching each other out and then moving on. I don’t know if that is true. Like I said, I’ve never once seen evidence of this. Males generally don’t compete with one another over that much, and when something goes wrong, there is always a convenient female to gang up on and blame.
But boys and men have always been allowed to have rich lives of freedom compared to females. Able to go anywhere they please with few threats to their safety. They are also given a lot of freedom and forgiveness as children, so they learn that to take and demand are their rights. They aren’t forced to deal with limited freedoms and resources, and are not forced to compete to survive or get attention, so friendship between males is, on average, much easier than that between females.
Female-Female Friendships
One of the most disappointing and angst-producing things in my life is my lack of quality female friendships. Coming from an abusive home with a domineering and severely mentally fucked up mother, and then eventually going no-contact with the entire narcissist-enabling family horde in very early adulthood, I’ve always taken friendship more seriously than most. But from an early age, it was hard to relate to other girls and to deal with the constant, bizarre betrayals. I am neither overly masculine nor feminine in behaviour or appearance, so I didn’t automatically fit in to either the male or female camp and my friends fit two categories. Misfits or outcasts of both sexes. And abusive girls. Both probably stemmed from child abuse patterns I was living. I had a damaged identity, so I couldn’t find a community, and in addition, was a ready-made target for domineering females resembling my mother, until I figured out what was going on and learned to avoid these kinds of people. Once I got to grad school and had a gay community, which, in the 1990’s was blessedly before the trans popped into existence and destroyed everything lesbian, I was in heaven as no one was really what they were supposed to be and revelled in it. But childhood and the teen years were pure hell. I was always a bit of a community surfer – and have remained that way as I fit in less and less, especially in an increasingly lesbian- and reality- and woman-hating world.
With age, experience, and growing feminist awareness, female friendship got even harder. I lost friends to marriage and children and traditional, small, stay-in-place lives. I moved around the world, lived a simple, low-income and portable life, and realized how easy it was and still is for males in my situation to make same-sex friends in any culture. It’s much harder for women no matter where they are in the world. While I can meet child-free women my age in Western countries (although most of them are still hetero, male apologists/enablers, and liberal morons), in a traditional culture, it is next to impossible to create bonds with women who are all married by 25. Even if they are working outside the home, these jobs and potential friendships take second place to family duties. Friendships, if they have any, tend to be long-time ones and they certainly aren’t looking for new ones.
If you are a non-traditional woman and not a man-chaser, finding even partially like-minded women in the meat world is really, really difficult. I’ve learned to let go of any and all expectations of substantive friendship, and I focus on compartmentalized, shared interests. And I don’t seek to push the acquaintance beyond that interest. Female friendships just feel so fragile to me. And there are many reasons for this.
As I alluded to above, most females are forced into sensitivity mode from birth. We’re criticized, micromanaged, punished, and forced into adopting submissive and apologetic behaviours in order to get along in this world. It doesn’t work for all females; some just have the right combination of attributes to withstand brainwashing, and they end up stronger and freer as a result. But if you’ve ended up molded because of this brainwashing, you learn very quickly to be on guard. You’re never really safe. Criticism is a comment on your whole person, your value, your identity. The effects of this are even more pronounced if you have experienced narcissistic abuse as a child. So to be blunt and frank in a friendship is a risky business. You have been taught to accept male aggression and not to stand up to it, but at the same time, you expect other females to be like you. You have been groomed to keep the peace, and to withdraw if there is a hint of war. So what does that mean when you have a relationship between two sensitive people (i.e., two average females?) who are afraid of rocking the boat? You have a very fragile friendship. Misunderstanding is rife.
Add to that the competition for scarce resources and attention that males don’t experience, and you have a recipe for constant war between women over very little. It comes across as petty and bitchy, but it is the natural outcome of repeated punishment and grooming that all girls go through. Males just don’t experience the punishment and deprivation as a class that females do, so they don’t turn out the same way, and they certainly aren’t capable of understanding this kind of psychological slavery.
What ends up happening as girls get older is that there is always the natural draw to other females, but because of the hetero brainwashing, women and girls become ‘placeholders’ instead of real friends. ‘Friends’ are there until they are not needed (meaning a male comes along who needs servicing). It’s like putting the salt and pepper shakers away after eating a meal. You take them out when you need them, then you put them away and forget about them. And in the case of women, friends are there for emotional support, especially after the male master enacts his privilege upon his servant. Women also provide free labour, financial support, entertainment, a safe haven, and the like to their female friends. And when the male snaps his fingers, the friends are put away. Forgotten until needed again.
Of the women who are born with the types of attributes that lead to resistance to brainwashing, and are fortunate enough not to be abused as children, things can go a few ways. Some become very devoted to women, especially if lesbian. If they are lucky, they can find a community, and friendships become more like those men experience, although much richer and more valuable. Frequently, though, many girls who are considered tomboyish as children get turned off by the nonsense that girls get herded into. They may tend to say things like “most of my friends are male” or even “I’m not like other girls”. This is a red flag for me. These are deeply misogynistic women. I mean, I get it. They didn’t fit in with the average female trained idiot and were probably frequently treated like shit by girls as a result. Why would you beg to be let into a club you don’t fit in with or are abused by for petty things? Males treat females like shit in different ways, but it is easier to navigate, and if you are a tomboyish female, the boys will treat you differently. Not equally, but they may not treat you blatantly like a cunt on legs like they do to more naturally feminine girls. The incorrect assumption these girls make is that males respect them as they do other males. Wrong. You may not end up getting raped like a feminine girl (or you might; you just don’t know what males will do), but you will never be one of the boys.
What Could Female Friendship Look Like?
It IS possible for women to have high-quality, lasting, satisfying friendships. I believe it. Truly. Is it going to be common any time soon? Hell no. You need a certain set of conditions in order to allow women to have the qualities necessary to make friendship work. I’m mostly working on fantasy here, but I will say that I have one friend who is as close to ideal as is possible. I’ll describe what we have, and then I’ll talk about necessary conditions.
My closest friend is more than 20 years younger than me. We are from two very different cultures. We don’t agree on everything, and we each have life experience the other can’t relate to. We have had a couple of big arguments, and have recovered pretty easily. We have travelled together. We have helped each other out of a few pickles. She feels like what a sister should be like, but is nothing like what I had with the disaster of a sister I grew up with. We have bonded over a few things: we both have horrific, NPD mothers and suffer similar shit as a result. We both enjoy reading and philosophy and travel and independence. We love animals and don’t want children. Neither of us is interested in men. We can talk about any topic and dig into it, argue about it, theorize, argue some more, and then come to some sort of conclusion (unless it is paused for continuation another day). We comfort each other and offer both serious and funny and sweet support. She is the best hugger I know, despite not coming from a hugging culture. And as of going on two years now, we live more than 10,000 km apart, which kills my soul and hurts my heart. Often. Luckily, we chat online a few times a week. Except for the geographical distance, this is what female friendship should be. It has nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with intimacy on multiple levels.
So what conditions do women need to foster this kind of incredible friendship? No heterosexuality, no demanding males in the picture. Preferably no kids, although I’ll say no boy-children for sure. Compassion. Empathy. A firm grip on reality. No enabling behaviour – you should be able to be supporting and critical (meaning, able to point out stuff without being an asshole). Acceptance. You don’t have to agree on everything, and you should know and accept their imperfections. And BOTH people have to be this way. Equality is the key to friendship. Otherwise, you end up in some co-dependent shitfest.
Finally, and ideally, a female friendship is a combination of categories 2, 3 and 4 that I talked about above. Pleasure in another’s company, respect and admiration, and shared values. Utility is for tools, not friendship, and the only human tools are male 😉
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
A Reminder That There Isn’t a Difference Between Sex and Sexual Violence
Just in case you still refuse to believe that when it comes to men’s minds, there is no difference between sex and violence, I present the top 3 results when I plugged “battered women” into my search engine of choice this morning. Note that as search engines have become more politcally and economically powerful, our top search results are always targeted advertisements instead of what we are really looking for. And sometimes what women are really looking for is help in life or death situations…
I can’t make this shit up. I was confused at first, and then I realized how perfect it was. I had looked up the exact term: “battered women” and first in the search is an ad for a heterosexual dating site geared towards getting women to be more proactive about finding a rapist. Whoops, I mean boyfriend/husband. I couldn’t have created a more perfect example of how men think.
A male reader (or a cocksucking woman) might see these results a different way as this example is so blatantly male stereotypey to be suspect. Is it possible a woman like me managed to subvert the male logic algorithms for the entire search engine and show women what heterosexual dating really means??? No. Fuck no. Women like me wouldn’t be that cruel and sardonic to an actual battered woman looking for help online. We are fine with criticizing women who choose to fuck men (including bisexuals) and who call it feminism or ‘natural’ or ‘freedom’, but we would never make a nasty joke targeting a woman actively looking for help after being raped and/or having her head bashed in by a male who luvs her.
For all y’all who love the idea of targeted marketing, this is a sweet little example of what it can do for you. Male brainpower at work!!! I love the internet!!1!
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
Forced Sexuality – Part II
[Continued from “Why I Don’t Believe that Heterosexuality is the Default – Part I“]
With regard to behaviour, one of the hardest-to-define words out there is ‘sex’. Nevermind that people refuse to use the word in its proper indication to refer to biological female and biological male (preferring the more loaded and completely incorrect ‘gender’ instead). Yes, as it pertains to behaviour, no one really seems able to determine what constitutes ‘sex’, and as such, it is an international obsession and one of the most destructive and distracting preoccupations on the planet.
In general, we let men define everything. Sex is what men say it is. And everything men say and do is designed to serve themselves. And naturally, as a result, women are abused and men walk the planet able to do as they please. So, with few exceptions (i.e., the gay/lesbian community), men universally define sex as dick in cunt. It is one of the most dangerous and erroneous definitions ever designed by men in the history of their putrid reign, and every ill experienced on and by this planet results from it. The enslavement of half the population is only one consequence and that is what will be considered here (although if you want to get an idea of what the male definition of sex and enforced heterosexuality has wrought, see this post). But the effects on women specifically are manifold and impossible to describe in a single post here. As a taste, we see women sexually abused while men deny that ‘sex’ occurred (remember the sexual assault of Monica Lewinsky by former President Bill Clinton, and his insistence he “never had sex with that woman”). Although specifically defined by men, there is also an ungraspable quality to sex that allows men to slither through the needlessly murky areas of sexual assault. Rape and ‘sex’ are indistinguishable and determining whether a crime occurred becomes a matter of ‘he said, she said’ (with ‘he said’ always winning the day). Further, a man can rape your mouth, and not only was it not ‘sex’ (since your cunt wasn’t involved), but it is very hard to pin a sexual assault charge on men thanks to slippery definitions. And as for lesbians, they only have ‘sex’ if it occurs between two smokin’ hot women and they do it on camera for the consumption of men. So, sex is at the same time specifically and nebulously defined, but what is key is that the definition is completely within the control of men. And women pay for it. Always.
It also follows that because men are the ones allowed to define everything, including sex, they are also allowed to define and enforce sexuality. Having mandatory sexuality – also known as hard-wired attraction or preparedness for sexual activity – serves men. As I wrote about in the last post, men have enforced attraction between males and females despite this ‘heterosexuality’ not being a natural thing. It’s not natural or a forgone conclusion because men are attracted to pretty much everything, and women – well, we’ll get to that. Men are omnisexual – they’ll fuck anything – but heterosexuality serves the very important purpose of enslaving women and providing further free services and support (besides fucking) for men. Heterosexual, male-defined sex does very little for women other than to put them in harm’s way. As I said, if a vacuum could clean the floor, make sandwiches AND give blowjobs, men would be vacuumosexual.
In short, enforced heterosexuality is unnatural and contrived in order to suppress and subordinate half the population (females) in service to the other (males). This is easy to see but difficult to accept if you are trapped on the inside.
Homosexuality
So let’s consider homosexuality. The vast majority of people, thanks to their programming via the straight mandate, view homosexuality as unnatural. And of the others, there is a variety of view points. Some think all sexuality is wired, so some people are born hetero and some are born homo. Others believe that it is a choice. Others still might see some mix of influences and may see sexuality as fluid through the lifespan. But there is one thing that all groups have in common – they believe sexuality is natural, necessary and a human right. If you happen to be a person who isn’t interested in pursuing any sort of sexuality (i.e., ‘asexual’), you are castigated by every one of these groups. Asexuality is not allowed and is deemed unnatural.
It is my contention that sexuality is completely contrived and agenda- and entitlement-driven. I think that all defined sexualities are choices and fuelled by pressure to be sexual beings and by falsely equating or linking love and sexual activity or sex drive. Even homosexuals (fags AND lesbians) are affected by heterosexual male thinking and believe that love is dependent upon fucking. If there is no sex or if the sex dissipates in a relationship, then the relationship is in trouble. No sex = no love = no relationship. Relationships only exist if there is a defined sexuality. And it is because of this that I believe that homosexuality is also enforced (i.e., if you are not straight then you MUST be gay). If you don’t choose a sexuality, then you will never find love or be loved. Queer nonsense doesn’t solve this problem, by the way.
Attraction and Sex Drive
I can imagine that even lesbians are reading this and having knee-jerk reactions. How dare I deny their sexuality? How dare I disparage sex? How dare I suggest that they are confused about what love means or what their relationships are based on? All I can say is keep yer shorts on. Or don’t. Who cares? I’m not saying that attraction doesn’t exist. And I’m not denying the existence of sex drives. I’m just saying that they both have been misinterpreted and too much importance has been placed on them. Our entire society (no matter where you are in the world) rests precariously on the inflated importance and misinterpretation of the sex drive. It’s pretty crazy, although no more crazy than anything else males come up with and build fragile empires upon.
Like all abused drives, the sex drive has created a lot of problems in the world. Think about hunger pangs. All humans have hunger pangs when they require food. But over time, this drive has been abused and misinterpreted. Many people even think they are experiencing hunger pangs when something else is going on entirely (e.g., conditioned responses to positive and negative stress, depression, etc). I can tell you with certainty and from my own experience that I have spent most of my life eating when I’m not truly hungry, eating when I thought I was hungry but wasn’t truly, and eating things that my body does not need. And almost all people function this way and have lost the ability to understand what their body is demanding from them exactly. Few people can recognize when their body needs a pear or more water even though some signs or symptoms of deficiencies are actually quite clear. If I get frequent charlie horses, for example, I know I *probably* need to drink more water or eat a banana. You can easily train yourself to listen to your body and know what it needs to prevent illness or death. But for the most part, people put food in their faces for many other reasons than true hunger and bodily need.
The same thing goes with the sex drive – although remember, sex is not a life or death necessity like food, water and sleep are. But sex is a source of power for human males, so they have deliberately distorted what the sex drive means. And so the entire world functions on catering to what males insist they need. Marriage, female subordination in all areas of life, human trafficking, prostitution, widespread rape and its dismissal, torture, and more – all of these result from the misinterpretation of what the sex drive is.
The male sex drive is a desire for power and control and everything they do and think goes towards this purpose no matter who gets hurt (women). Men have turned their sex drives into reasons for controlling women. And because it is a ‘drive’, it is uncontrollable and ‘natural’, and therefore they don’t need to take responsibility for what it makes them do.
In women, the sex drive is not a cry for impregnation. It is an indicator that she is ovulating, but it is decidedly not a demand for dick. As has been discussed here and by others elsewhere, a woman doesn’t need a dick or intercourse to achieve pregnancy. We have the scientific means to allow two women to procreate, and if you want to risk having a male baby (biggest mistake of your life, imo), you just need to obtain male goo and stick it in or around you twat. And by the way, many women don’t have an inbuilt desire for children. It is not wired. It is socialized. The sex drive is not a wired demand for babies, and women are not wired to want children. The sex drive, rather, is more like a thermometer. If the thermometer tells you it’s hot outside, it doesn’t mean you have to go swimming. In fact, you don’t have to even learn to swim at all. What you do with the temperature reading is up to you. You can simply sit and read a book under a fan and drink a glass of cold water, if you wish.
If you pay attention to your demanding sex drive, here’s the thing. In BOTH men AND women, two minutes of simple masturbation will satisfy its demands, which tells me that the sex drive is not dependent upon male-defined heterosexual sex. It is curious, don’t you think? If one can jerk off and quell the cries of this powerful bodily demand, then there really is no need for any sort of enforced sexuality or structures such as marriage or family. (Notice that religious people of all flavours demonize masturbation because it frees women from rape and marriage and unwanted pregnancy…)
That’s not to say people should not engage in sexual activity, but it demands a recall on enforced, mandatory sexuality and a complete restructuring of society to free women from selfish male demands. If jerking off is not satisfying your sex drive, I would suspect there is something else going on and that you are looking for power and control rather than just release. This is part of the misinterpretation of the purpose and meaning of the sex drive. And in men, it is about entitlement and violence in addition to misinterpretation. Sex isn’t a human right. Neither is it necessary to anyone’s ability to stay alive. Men want you to believe it is because they all know that their is no purpose for their existence. They aren’t necessary and so the lies, the religions, the brainwashing, have been enforced to convince women that their slavery is ordained or natural, and resistance is futile.
Oh and one last thing, drives can be controlled and conditioned. You can both increase and decrease the frequency and intensity of your drives through very simple means, which I won’t get into here as it isn’t the purpose this post. Suffice it to say, we are not slaves to our drives, although we should probably pay attention to the needs of hunger, thirst and sleep – those are the only drives that serve a survival purpose. No one dies without sex, and that’s a fact.
The Homo-Hetero War
It isn’t a surprise to me that there are more ‘straight’ women than lesbians. As I said, I don’t believe that either one is wired or natural. We are brainwashed to believe we must be ‘sexual beings’ – liberal bullshit with roots in religion, of course. I do believe that lesbianism is much better for women than straight slavery, on the whole. Relationships are not easy things of course, and all relationships will encounter problems, and even lesbians have internalized the power imbalances that male-dominated society brainwashes us with. Women do abuse women. But between two women, there is no rape (remember, only men can rape women), little chance of disease, no risk of pregnancy, etc. On the whole, safer, and I’d rather women choose lesbianism over slavery to males.
Why don’t more women go this route? I’d argue that it is because of this enforced sexuality and conflation of love and sex thing. Women believe they have two options in life, for the most part. They get deep-dicked (raped) or they eat pussy. It is always about genitals no matter whether you are talking to the hets or the homos. There is no such thing as a relationship without genitals being involved.
Girls grow up with the constant message that vaginas are shameful, weird, ugly, gross, smelly, etc. No matter how you look at it, pussy is bad. They also learn that it is a commodity. Their vaginas are barely tolerable on the whole, but men, for some reason, want to put their dicks in them. Most men won’t eat pussy, but they’ll fuck it. So girls see that their horrible vaginas have some kind of hard-to-discern value, but in general, they are supposed to feel ashamed of and horrified by them.
So when it comes to sexuality, why the hell would a girl or woman want to be a lesbian as it is defined today (i.e., pussy-eating)? Since relationships are about genitals, that means that she is going to have to be in constant contact with another woman’s cunt – that hated, disgusting body part that she has been taught to view with revulsion from day one. Girls will, for the most part, when faced with these two false, but forced, options, a) choose to be raped daily by men, b) have their bodies put in danger from disease-carrying, pregnancy-inducing semen, and c) suck and gag on a male body part that is certainly no less disgusting, but infinitely more dangerous, than a female body part, and d) smell, taste and swallow one of the most disgusting substances on earth – semen. Of course, she is going to choose cock!!! Rape, disease, risk of death, constant yeast infections, urinary tract infections, body-destroying birth control pills, allergies to latex, and the constant risk of life-altering and destroying pregnancy are preferable to eating pussy. Jesus fucking christ. Does that even make sense to you???
But that is how it is. Not only are vaginas evil and horrific, but contact with vaginas is mandatory if you want to have a relationship with a woman. Forced sexuality means forced contact with genitals. If genitals and mandatory fucking and sexuality were taken out of the mix, I think we’d see a lot more lesbians. Perhaps the word (and the world for that matter) would change. As it is, I (and likely everyone else on the planet) associate lesbians with mandatory fucking/sexuality, although most people don’t consider the fucking to be ‘real sex’ since there is no dick involved (male language control at work).
However, it doesn’t have to be that way. There is nothing wrong with sex in a relationship per se, but I don’t understand how love of a woman is dependent upon loving pussy or even having sex. That is male thinking. I have heard many women say, they would have a relationship with a woman, but they can’t get past the genital contact. It is so sad to me, but it makes sense from a ‘preserving the straight mandate’ scheme. Program hatred of the vagina into all women, and loving a woman inevitably means loving a hated thing. Basic, but effective, brainwashing, in other words.
And by the way, I’m not saying vaginas are gross or wrong. I’m saying that they are given undue importance and become deal-breakers for important life choices that can make the difference between slavery and freedom/safety. I don’t believe we have to ‘love’ our genitals. That is as stupid as saying I have to love my elbow. But we do need to take away the negative associations – that too is as stupid as saying I hate my elbow. Why can’t a body part just be neutral? Well, as long as relationships are associated with genital contact, and love with sex, they won’t be neutral. For women.
The Third Option
As I said, whether hetero or homo, both groups see asexuals as threats. To straights, anyone who doesn’t follow the female slavery model is a threat. Lesbians think they are the most hated group on the planet, but that is not exactly true. They are definitely one of the most hated groups – after all, they threaten the fragile male ego and the fragile male system of female slavery by rejecting the penis. They also remind ‘straight’ women of their sad state as slaves and so incur straight female envy, jealousy, and their requisite wrath. Male power depends on women’s compliance. This is an easy, easy cause-effect reality to discern. Asexuals are much more hated than lesbians and in fact, many lesbians don’t trust asexuals. To be asexual is to reject mandatory, enforced sexuality. The straights see it as a threat to their power, and insecure lesbians see asexual women as a threat to woman-love. It’s as if to say, that rejecting the vagina is woman-hate. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is proof that even lesbianism is tainted by straight male thinking. To be asexual is to remove sex from love and relationships. I would suggest that it is a stronger and purer way to love. And of course, you can do what you wish. I mean, really, nothing is going to change in this world, so love whom and how you please. If you want to fuck, then fuck. No one can tell you what to do. I just suggest examining your relationship(s) and why you’re in them. Would they fall apart if you stopped fucking?
A Safer, Purer Woman-Love
My contrived sexuality has gone through stages in my 44 years. I think, as a teenager, things were unexamined. I mean, really, all religions (and sexuality is like a religion) depend upon ignorance and prey upon the young and the vulnerable. All ideologies target the weak, naive and desperate so as to better take hold and implant ridiculous ideas. And so most of us grow up thinking we are straight, even with evidence to the contrary.
In my early twenties, I realized that most of my dreams were about women, and in grad school I developed a crush on a very out and proud lesbian from New Zealand. My closest friend was a lesbian, my posse consisted of all the gays and lesbians in my department, and I roomed with lesbians from another department. It was the best time of my life – I felt a little freer then than I ever have felt before and since. And that time was was a bit of a revelation for me, and I remember thinking: “Don’t all women fantasize about women?” I spent years after that vacillating between lesbian and bisexual designations. So stupid, really. What I now realize is that there was something deeper going on, and I’ve since shed all pretenses that I am a ‘sexual being’. I feel I live outside sexuality now – which is no easy thing given where I have been living for the last handful of years. A considerable number of young Chinese women tell me they don’t want to get married, and I try to help the ones who admit that they think they are lesbians. Unfortunately, they live in a culture with a shortage of rapeable women and there is enormous pressure to get these girls married and knocked up.
But I digress. What was really going on on a deeper level through my adulthood was that I did love women, but it wasn’t a sexual thing, except on the surface perhaps. Yes, there was a rather strong sex drive. But underneath was this: Every once in a while, I would meet a woman I rather admired. There was a connection. I fantasized about having a close, supportive, loving bond. I didn’t know it at the time in a way I could articulate, but I have since realized that I could imagine having a close relationship with a woman – a life partnership, if you will – that had nothing to do with her vagina or mauling her tits. I imagined sharing space and support with someone I felt kinship with and that wasn’t tainted by sexual expectation. The relationship wouldn’t fall apart because someone didn’t want to have sex anymore. Some of the women I fell for were lesbians, some were straight. But the problem with all was that all were tied up in the notion that relationships were about sex. Interestingly, I briefly dated a woman at a time when I was very invested in exploring sex with women who was wise beyond her years and who had already realized this fundamental truth. She wasn’t looking for sex, but for a deeper relationship with a woman, so I lost interest quickly. It wasn’t my time, and I was slow to shed my heterosexual brainwashing. I can understand now what she probably felt at the time. Every one of my ‘girl crushes’ since that time has ended the same way. The lesbians are looking for people to fuck. And the straight women end up falling in with an abusive, parasitic male and our friendship and bond weakened and eventually failed. It has always been and continues to be devastating.
Conclusion
Despite what some women say, it is not possible to have a relationship with a male devoid of sex or exploitation in some form. Men are ‘loyal’ if they are getting something from you that is not necessarily to your advantage. They deplete you and they believe it is their right to do so.
I think it is possible to have a long and strong bond with a woman (without the interference of predatory males) that isn’t based on sex. An asexual woman-love, if you will. But in this sex- and money-crazed world, I think it is difficult to achieve. I am still looking. Not hopeful, but still looking.
Part III of this discussion on sexuality: What about Women? Forced Sexuality – Part III
Part IV, better late than never: Enter the Bisexual
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
Why I Don’t Believe that Heterosexuality is the Default – Part I
Live in denial if you dare – dog knows it’s easier that way, sweetums – but there is a fundamental truth that any ER room doc/nurse, paramedic, coroner, veterinarian, sports team compadre, prostitute or porn producer can agree on.
Men will fuck pretty much anything and can get off on pretty much anything.
We believe that men are ‘designed’ or ‘wired’ to seek out poontang – that men are heterosexual beings. And men have designed a whole system of lies and propaganda that props up this nonsense and keeps everyone (most importantly, women) buying into it. But, I actually don’t believe that men are fundamentally sexually wired to respond to women (or that women are wired to respond to men). You see, men are sexually ‘wired’ to respond to pretty much anything and everything. They can get hard over anything. Anything can get them off. Females, males, babies/children, animals, soft food, holes in walls, tubes – really, any animate or inanimate object that looks like it can accommodate or can be made to accommodate a dick, is sexual fodder for the human male. Men are omnisexual, rather than heterosexual. The privileged position that all men hold allows them to define sexuality and to act on whatever impulses pop into their brains or pants. They choose to call their omnisexuality ‘heterosexuality’, however. And this heterosexuality myth serves two very important purposes. Service and control.
It is not even the fact that women are the creators and stewards of human life that drives the ‘straight mandate’. You don’t need a whole system of heterosexuality- hell, you don’t even need a single dick to enter a single vagina EVER – to keep the human race going, so that is not the purpose of the lie. No, here it is. First, women are the only objects that can also be forced (often for free and in exchange for empty promises) to perform other duties in addition to serving as cum-receptacles. If any other fuckable object could service a cock as well as provide food, cleaning services, emotional support, ideas and labour to steal, and an undeserved, 24/7 round of applause, then we would not have heterosexuality. We’d have ‘vacuumsexuality’ or ‘felinosexuality’ or ‘beerbottlosexuality’. In other words, if a vacuum cleaner could provide the free services that women can and do (e.g., suck dick AND provide dinner and regular coddling for hurt male fee-fees), women would be free from it all and could actually do things with their lives away from the shaming and violence that are mandatory parts of heterosexuality for women. And second, heterosexuality serves to keep the violent male agenda in place. When women have the male agenda imposed on them, they have no time or energy to develop and live out their own agendas. And male and female agendas are fundamentally different. Women tend to be focused on peace, compromise, equality and creation. Males tend to be focused on violence, hierarchy, power, and destruction. If men could make do with vacuum cleaners and leave women alone, the world would change fundamentally to reflect female freedom. If you don’t have mandatory heterosexuality, women are free of male control and life proceeds very, very, very differently.
In short, if not for the hetero service perks and the high obtained from control of and power over women, I think men wouldn’t bother with women at all. And most women, if given the truth from birth – instead of the lie of heterosexuality – would see competition with a cat anus or a sock as demeaning and derailing of their true purpose (which has never been ‘to serve men’).
I’ve put together a small collage of some of the more common things that men put their dicks in other than women and children (or for the fags, men and children). In reality, almost anything could be included. Men spend a lot of time thinking about how to get off. To women, unless you’ve been poisoned by years of male thinking through abuse or other close proximity, looking at an object doesn’t immediately conjure thoughts of masturbation. We are usually too busy trying to solve real problems – almost 100% of which come to us from men. But, male imagination knows no bounds when it comes to getting themselves serviced, so anything – seriously, ANYTHING – can become a masturbatory device aside from pussy. If only men could turn their imaginations to helping the world instead of themselves and their weiners…
If you’re looking at these items in confusion, you’re likely female. Even with my scarily vivid imagination, it was hard for me to imagine how to get off using this stuff.
I don’t have a big problem with dudes fucking inanimate objects as long as it doesn’t take up health services if they end up hurting themselves. They probably don’t go far enough, to be honest. If more of them died while doing dangerous shit, that would probably be a good thing for the entire world. Anyhow, the thing I’m most concerned with is a) enforced heterosexuality and b) letting people (especially males) obsessed with getting off at all cost be in charge of important things. I think men can do just fine with their objects (and other men! I’m fully in support of dude-on-dude action), and should leave women alone. Women can run things, and men can spend all their time out of our sight getting off with every household item they can find. Men don’t need us to get off. And we certainly don’t need them for anything. Not for anything at all.
Part II and Part III of this discussion on sexuality. Welcome 2021 and an added Part IV on bisexuality.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
More of a Law than a Trope
There is something that happens on feminist blogs, and it is such a common and reliable phenomenon, that it is more of a law than a figurative device. It happens even if it is moderated and you can’t see it as a reader. It is a phenomenon in the tradition of Godwin’s Law (the longer an online discussion becomes, the more likely a hyperbolic reference to Nazis is), but whereas Godwin’s Law can be seen operating in any discussion of any topic, this other pertains to feminist discussions or discussions where women are defending tiny patches of territory known as ‘women’s rights’. The reference that becomes likely falls into the category of “not all men…” Further, the likelihood of this reference occurring is less related to the length of the discussion, but to the strength of the ideology being expressed or the steadfastness of those expressing the dissenting opinion.
More specifically and succinctly, the purer or stronger the feminist ideology being expressed in a blog post or online discussion, the more likely it is that someone (male or female) will show up to:
- defend the ‘good’ men who somehow don’t benefit from or perpetuate Patriarchy, or
- put himself up as an example of how unlike other men he is, or
- give an example of a special, non-rapist, laundry-doing Nigel, or
- wax on poetically about how beautiful penises and male anatomy are, or
- serve up a graphic story of a sex act with a man which somehow disproves the existence of female slavery or systemic victimhood of women at the hands and dicks of men.
Although the Not-All-Men Law is common on heterosexual feminist blogs when the slightest criticisms of men may happen, it is especially true on male-critical blogs heavily populated by and possibly even run by lesbians. What typically happens is this: the topic of the post will generate some normal feminist commentary – what men and cock-identified women will call ‘male bashing’, but which is actually a statement or statements of reality/truth/facts – and as things heat up, you will inevitably get a defensive straight woman (followed immediately by a supportive pile-on of other, lurking, defensive straight women and occasionally and strangely, non-feminist lesbians) proudly announcing that she thinks “penises are beautiful things, imho”. There may be variations on that (sucking cock is awesome/cock-centred activities are feminist acts, men are just as victimized by Patriarchy as women, etc). The declaration will be seconded, thirded, etc., men might join in, and there may ensue more and more detailed, graphic descriptions of various heterosexual, dick-centric bedroom activities – unless it is shut down immediately by a lesbian moderator interested in preventing graphic derails of the original feminist topic of the post, or in preserving a hard-to-maintain woman-focus and/or lesbian interests.
I’ve seen it time and again, and this kind of stuff serves to dilute feminism, silence radicals and separatists, and divide feminists. Some women believe that you can’t put women first and willingly serve Dick/dick at the same time, so to see declarations of penis-love on a feminist blog is anti-feminist. Men don’t need defending. They run the world and every system (politics, economics, law, medicine, psychotherapy) within it. A better thing to do for those women compelled to defend men is to ask why the need to defend those who have all the power?
Oh, and by the way, with regard to Godwin’s Law and the whole braindead Nazi reference thing, there is something that he left out (he is a man, after all). It is an absolute given that if you are a feminist who dares to speak, you WILL be called a Nazi, and often a ‘feminazi’. There is no escaping that and it has nothing to do with length of discussion.
Woman speaking = Nazi takeover.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
Story Ending Never 
You must be logged in to post a comment.