Blog Archives
R is for Rape – Part V – Fat Girl
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Police officer to his colleagues: “She says he didn’t rape her.”
Anaïs: “Don’t believe me if you don’t want to.”The last lines of the film ‘Fat Girl’ by Catherine Breillat, 2001. An interesting twist on what women and girls have always experienced when they report a rape.
Since I was old enough to be out and about on my own, I’ve always gravitated towards art house and repertory cinemas – quirky and sometimes grubby little movie theatres with mismatched and uncomfortable seats, cheap tickets, low-cost nibbles or even the possibility to bring in your own snacks. They usually have a single screen, maybe two if they are a little posher, and they show classic films, less new or less popular films, foreign films, cult films and sometimes just weird-ass stuff chosen based on the whim of the cinema’s manager. This is my kind of place. I hate blockbuster venues and multiplexes and happily ever after films starring the same overpaid, plastic bimbos and himbos. And I almost always go to these rep cinemas by myself, and I usually sit in the back row with my smuggled-in munchies and relative anonymity. I’m not sure how I got into these kinds of places or how I found the one and only in my hometown tucked away on a side-street near the university, but I suppose it was inevitable given my father’s devil-may-care, close-your-eyes-and-pick approach to choosing films that I mentioned in a past post. Nevertheless, I remember, with fondness, my favourite little cinemas from various places I’ve lived, and during periods of my life involving intense workloads and insane schedules, these solitary outings even became a highly enjoyable escape ritual.
I remember an early educational experience in cinema when I was 19 that gave me food for thought at the time. After writing the third ‘R is for Rape’ post, I recalled a film I had watched in a repertory cinema back in 2001, and decided to rewatch it to see if what I recalled actually tied into this post’s topic. Several times, I’ve returned to books and films I consumed in my youth, frequently to find that my recollections were coloured by inexperience or naiveté. It’s not really a surprise, and this is an interesting and separate topic that I want to write more about as it is extremely relevant to the female experience of sexuality and relationships. Suffice it to say that after watching the film in question, I decided that despite my more mature, analytical, and critical eye, I still agreed with the core of my 19-year-old assessment of the content.
This film in question was the 2001 French film: À ma sœur! which was strangely named Fat Girl for American audiences, despite the fact that the title could easily have been translated to To My Sister! and still would have made sense. But sociopolitical agendas were likely at work in this rebranding and refocusing, and thus the point of the film was likely at least partially lost to most American viewers.
The film was written and directed by Frenchwoman, Catherine Breillat, known for her controversial works on sibling rivalry and female coming-of-age stories, with a heavy focus on the politics of sex and sexuality for girls. For some, especially liberal feminist types, this might automatically indicate that she is feminist – having a female protagonist, especially one exploring her sexuality, means the content is feminist, right? Well, not really. There is nothing positive or liberating about her girls’ stories – they’re just depressing and extremely limited in their truth. And while I prefer truth to lies, I find it sad that all of girls’ and women’s truths are such downers. There isn’t the rich range of character-building experiences that boys have available to them when they are approaching adulthood. So while Breillat is a truth-teller of sorts, I personally find her very male-identified as well, and indeed, she has indicated in interviews that she was heavily influenced in her youth by writers Georges Bataille and the Marquis de Sade, both of whom saw sex and violence as inseparable and wrote extensively on the pleasure taken in violating and destroying women. I’ve read many of de Sade’s works, and I felt, like I do after encountering so many of men’s creative endeavours, that they have waaay too much time on their hands. But at the same time, I think these are some of the most honest men on the planet, and they depict male sexuality accurately. Males do have a death drive and cannot separate sex and violence, and you mess with them at your peril. Unfortunately, in order for women to get any attention in the arts and literature world, they need to espouse the male point-of-view, even if they think they are liberating themselves or putting themselves on equal footing with men. The problem is that, like I’ve maintained throughout this mini-series, females don’t have the upper hand in heterosexual sex or any dealings with males for that matter. In the violence that is heterosexual sex, females have so much more to lose, and I don’t think girls can achieve anything positive from exploring sexuality through dealings with males. And this truth makes for very limited and disheartening female stories – perhaps why we have so few of them and so many princess fairy tales. Boring as shit.
À ma sœur! or Fat Girl is about 15-year-old Elena and her 12-year-old sister, Anaïs. Both are suffering various delusions resulting from living in a patriarchal society and a dysfunctional family, and are well-prepared for the ravages of heterosexual life. They both have worrisome obsessions with losing their so-called virginity. The older one, classically pretty, is looking for a love and respect that doesn’t exist, and the younger, overweight and a little strange, wants to get the whole virginity thing out of the way as she mistakenly believes that experienced women have more value. Anaïs spends time talking to herself and her imagined future lover and spying, with much derision, on her sister during her sexual pursuits. Elena ends up with an Italian man who employs every consensual rape tactic in the book to get what he wants, and Anaïs ends up forcibly raped by a stranger, which she twists to fit her fantasy of giving it up to a man who means nothing – sort of a fucked up consensual raping. So, ultimately, both girls get what they want, but don’t make out well. Sort of anti-princess fairy tales – or, more basically, versions of reality that most girls end up with.
Now, at 19, despite plenty of exposure to the nastiness that the male-dominated world had to offer, I was still very inexperienced and completely untrained in critical thinking. Thus, at that time, I could easily sit through offensive content without experiencing the knee-jerk moral outrage of, say, a biologically mature, but intellectually immature religious person, but I wasn’t well equipped to dissect it and offer a deep analysis. Rewatching this film at 52 was interesting. First, I found it extremely cringe-worthy and difficult to sit through, partly because I have lost patience with and tolerance of heterosexual female problems, which I now consider to be almost completely avoidable, but are endlessly talked about as if they are not, and partly because Breillat’s depiction of what girls go through in negotiating with straight males is so completely spot on. Second, I realized that I’ve been thinking about the issue of consensual rape for over 30 years, although I didn’t have a name for it until recently.
There was apparently a feminist uproar after the film came out. I don’t recall all the details, but I was a budding feminist and didn’t feel the same way as they did. Likely, some women got mad that it was the fat girl who needed to be forcibly raped in order to achieve something sexually, and that she accepted that. Perhaps some were opposed to the graphic depictions of sex with a minor, although neither actress was an actual minor. Whatever the opposition, I find that the vast majority of self-proclaimed feminists do not like the unveiling of truths. While Breillat is decidedly not a feminist, she baldly showed us the truth about how girls are formed into what male-dominated society wants them to be. I think many feminists want to think that males and females are equal, and not all men are rapists, and that heterosexuality can be healthy and good for women. But that is just not how things work. It never has worked that way, and it never will. So you either have to go along to get along, or you create a different path for yourself and model it in a way to offer better options for girls of the future. And by different path, I mean separatism and forging better relationships with women and girls. We no longer have to accept violence to survive.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
P is for Pedo
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Whoa, oh, oh, young girl
So hard to choose just one… lyrics from one of many classic pedo-fantasy songs. This one, Young Girl, is by Gary Puckett. A common element to all pedo songs is that some to all of the responsibility for the rape fantasies is placed on the child herself for being a deliberately tantalizing slut… And notice that there isn’t a celebrated playlist of female pedo songs, despite female pedophilia being a ‘thing’.
Get out of my mind
My love for you is way out of line
Better run, girl
You’re much too young, girl
Back in 2017, the beginnings of a wave rippled on the surface of the internet. From the depths, had come wild claims of political and criminal wrong-doings. It quickly became a movement, with a rapidly growing body of wild suppositions and predictions, and garnering wackadoo men from across the US and even abroad. And once claims of there being an elite international cabal of pedophiles was put out there, women started joining. A lot of women will get caught up in completely batshit crazy male-driven movements because of a superficially altruistic message or mission and/or because they have been scared out of their wits – in this case, protecting children from sex predators. Men tend to be more motivated to join groups in order to gain power and wealth, for the opportunity to mete out extra-system violence and revenge for imagined transgressions, and/or to get recognition or gratitude.
So anyhow, this was QAnon, and as quickly as it was built up, it has since lost much of its steam. Personally, I think it wasn’t a genuine conspiracy theory, but rather what inevitably happens when you have the perfect storm of capitalism, the internet, testosterone, and religion. The best conspiracy theories – or, rather, the most worthwhile to consider, if you’re interested in such things – have actual plausibility that can be fact-checked, and QAnon really had little going for it other than a call to violence appealing to political extremists.
Now the pedophilia focus of the group was strange. It may just have been a ploy to get women involved, because really, you can’t take any men seriously when they start accusing other men of sex-related perversions and crimes. Pot meet kettle, etc. etc. Pedophilia is an everyman phenomenon, not the domain of the rich and famous. It has nothing to do with wealth or education or race or culture, and it has been going on since human time began. And it is perpetrated most often, not by faceless strangers waiting for kids in a swimming pool change room, but by the men and boys a child knows: family members, teachers, community religious leaders, and family friends. This is the same mistake that everyone makes about rapists of adult women: they are more likely to be a friend, family member, co-worker or other male you are familiar with than a complete stranger. But believing in the evil stranger props up the myth that good men exist, that women and girls should trust and get involved with at least some men and boys, and that one’s own male family members are innocent by association with you instead of enabled and given sexual carte blanche by you and other females.
So I want to get into a couple of things here. I’ve touched on related issues in other posts in the past (see the links in the post throughout). First, I’ll get into male chronophilia, and pedophilia specifically. I’ll briefly talk about women who molest children. Then, I’ll talk about how women aid and abet male pedos through self-feminization as well as the grooming of their daughters for heterosexuality. And although these seem like opposite-purpose behaviours, they actually work together unintentionally.
Chronophilia
This was a term used by creepy Kiwi sexologist, John Money, to refer to male sexual preference for and fixation on specific age groups. Philia is Greek in origin, meaning a friendly affection type of love, and sometimes, it is just that. Think of the word Anglophile, for example, which refers to someone who really likes the UK and everything British. But not all philias are safe and innocent, and those involving what men’s minds and dicks get up to are anything but. Personally, I think male sexuality, regardless of how socially acceptable or undisordered it is, is the root of all of women’s and girls’ problems. I see the penis as a weapon of mass destruction with the capability of killing and causing great suffering. And you can disagree all you want, but you can’t argue with the statistics on rape and its myriad physical and psychological damage, unwanted pregnancy and its various outcomes, venereal diseases, PTSD, and a whole host of other problems resulting from females having to deal with males’ dicks.
There is some debate about whether all males are chronophiles. Personally, I don’t think this is that important, but if you’ve read my sexuality series, you’ll already know that I consider males to be omnisexual. In other words, all males have at least a tickle of attraction to all sorts of stuff, including children. What they choose to act on and what they choose to suppress and even repress depends on a whole host of factors. There are males who’ll do anyone or anything, anytime, anywhere regardless of age, species, or animate status without a distinct preference. And there are other males who exhibit a socially acceptable range of age attraction, and others still, who have a very narrow range of targets whether socially acceptable or not. The problem is that many males are attracted to age groups that are under 18 while they themselves are adults. While all male-female relationships are inherently power imbalanced, and are thus not truly consensual, it is much worse when there are age differences and one of the parties has an underdeveloped brain and body. Men don’t seem to see a problem with attraction to teenaged girls, otherwise known as ephebophilia, and have built an entire rape-based industry called pornography and prostitution to legitimize this belief. I have a problem with it, of course, as I think intercourse causes physical and psychological damage to females regardless of age, but especially when young. And then we enter the realms of hebephilia and pedophilia – attraction to early teens and pre-pubescent children, respectively. Hebephilia was acceptable for most of human history, and still is in some cultures, the reasoning being that if a girl is menstruating, then she’s fair game for ownership and raping. These days, you still see online discussions among men about whether it’s ‘okay’ to be attracted to a 14-year-old girl. I don’t personally understand adult attraction to teenagers and children. It is really hard for me to get into the headspace of a male that sees this as desirable. But if you understand that everything that men do is about power and control, then you can see why dominating the helpless might be desirable. And with that, I’ll get into the next topic.
What’s a Pedophile, Anyway?
Now, I learned a few things here as I was digging into the boner-brain connection. The most interesting, but perhaps unsurprising, thing to me was that only about half of males who sexually molest children can be diagnosed as pedophiles. Pedophilia, unlike most of the other chronophilias, is a clinical diagnosis of a sexual preference disorder. In other words, being attracted to children is kind of a problem. Yet 50% of child molesters aren’t sexually attracted to children. At first, I reread this finding and thought, WTF??? But then I remembered that the penis is a weapon and that, for men, sexual activity is inseparable from acts of violence, hate and degradation, and a means of exerting power and control, and on some level, ALL males know this. I don’t think that any sexual act that a male carries out with unequal parties – meaning women and children – is devoid of power and control and hate and degradation, even if he dresses it up as love. So after that initial WTF? moment, it made sense. Males assault children to get off and feel power even if they are not attracted to them, just as men sometimes rape adult women they aren’t attracted to, but to get off on punishing them for being female and a threat to their ego in some way.
Researchers tell us that about 5% of the male population are pedophiles, but these data are based on surveys, so I would have to assume that the figure is higher as some men aren’t going to admit what they like if it is criminal. Likewise with rape. Survey-based studies of college age males indicate that a quarter of men would rape a woman if they knew they weren’t going to get caught. That number is likely much higher because a lot of men aren’t going to admit to something criminal in nature. The message here is that it is impossible to know how disgusting and dangerous men truly are because we rely upon incarceration data and self-report data. And only a minority of sex offenders are actually caught and convicted. I remember visiting a friend in L.A. once time, and for kicks, I decided to look up the neighbourhood on the sex offender registry to see how many rapists and pedos lived around me. It was shocking how many red dots appeared on the streets around where I was staying, and then I realized that those dots were only the convicted and released men. Remember only about 5% of male rapists are ever convicted. Anyhow, liberal men have criticized society for pedo-hysteria, and have even created entertainment – the British animated series, Monkey Dust, is an example – that pokes fun at those who worry about what men do to those with much smaller voices. While I don’t believe in persecuting people without cause, I think women and children should ideally have the option of living apart from males.
Of the men who molest children – girls and boys – over 80% of them live heterosexual lives. Some LGB researchers argue that you can’t really identify sexual orientation in pedophiles, but I don’t agree 100%. Girls are much, much more likely to be sexually abused than males, and that difference would not exist if pedophiles did not have an orientation. It may not be an entirely sexual orientation – sex and harm go hand in hand for males – but it is certainly an orientation that involves hurting girls. Twenty percent of girls are molested, compared to 5 percent of boys. I think it’s probably higher in females as girls are groomed from birth to accept sexual attention from males, so they are less likely to see what is happening to them as a crime and to report it.
While homosexual men are not the group to worry most about, there have been a few gay male pro-pedophilia groups, such as NAMBLA in North America and the Krumme13 (or the Crooked 13) in Germany that have advocated for adult-child sexual relationships, decriminalizing child porn, and the like. They are not embraced by the gay and lesbian community, but have perhaps made an impression on simple-thinking right-wingers who may possibly be more likely to be pedophiles than the people they demonize 😉
There has been some effort by left-wingers in recent times to increase the publicity of and search for female child molesters. They are really hard to get a grasp on though for a few reasons. They are far, far less common than male sex offenders, the entire world protects mothers from being seen as perverts and abusers, and child victims are less likely to report sexual abuse from their mothers and female caregivers. So, sample sizes are generally small, and typology models are still under development, but from the data available, two primary types of adult women sexually abuse pre-pubescent children: the male-coerced type, where women assist a male partner in the sexual assault, and the intergenerational predisposed type, where women abuse their own children or children close to them. And these women appear to be almost universally heterosexual mothers or care-givers, although they sexually abuse females more than males. The behaviour seems to be less sexually motivated, and more a reenactment of sexual and physical abuse they themselves suffered as children. Interestingly, female sex abusers tend to be more physically brutal with female victims in addition to the molestation, and serious injuries are much more likely with girls and with youngers victims than with boys or pubescent and teenaged victims. Although, researchers seem confused about why this might be, I have a strong suspicion that this is a direct expression of the internalized misogyny that all women grow up with, and women trapped in unwanted caregiving roles with girl children are possibly tapping into repressed rage from their own childhood abuse. It seems logical that female abusers would see a young girl as a proxy for the hated self, and punish the girl accordingly.
Admittedly, much more investigation is needed to understand the prevalence of and motivation for female sex abusers and the damage they do to girls. Generally speaking, I think mothers are far too protected as it is, and I am no fan of seeing breeding as a human right. I think being born to a sane and loving person is the human right we need to be more concerned with. If you are a severely damaged person, you have no business being around children, let alone creating your own punching bags and fuck toys. I still remember back to my time in China, and I saw plenty of public child abuse, but it was only ever mothers slapping, punching, kicking, and using make-shift weapons on their small girl children. It was shocking, and I was the only one who seemed to notice. Never once did I see anyone — mother or father – hit a boy. Of course, I saw plenty of adult males physically abusing adult females in public. But not children. We see from crime data that males are much more likely to abuse and sexually abuse children, especially girls, but perhaps they save it for the privacy of the home since they are seldom out and about with children on their own, unlike women. And although fathers aren’t as protected as mothers from suspicion of abuse, society generally accepts male violence as the way things are. If we put a few token male rapists in jail, we can all feel like we’re addressing the problem, even though we’re not. But maternal child abuse, including molestation, needs to be addressed in a more serious way.
Aiders and Abettors
I wanted to briefly address a more common female contribution to pedophilia and that is feminization, the pursuit of youth, and the grooming of daughters. I talked about much of this in my 2017 post Thanks for Supporting Pedophilia. My theory is that instead of aging naturally and normally, adult women engage in a whole host of practices – aka practising femininity – designed to chase youth and cater to male pedophilic, hebephilic and ephebophilic proclivities. Women remove their body hair, try to stay thin and unmuscular, dye their hair, coat their faces in make-up to look younger, and dumb down the tone and content of their speech in an effort to look more childlike and to keep men’s attention. And increasingly, mothers groom their daughters for male attention by allowing them to dress age-inappropriately and femininely, to wear make-up, and they tend to punish assertive and aggressive behaviour. Consequently the lines between adult and child are increasingly blurred, and all of it is for male attention. Without males, females have no need to engage in any of this feminizing and infantilizing behaviour.
I’m going to conclude with the following. If I had a daughter, and I feel thankful every day that I don’t have children, here is my list of threats to her safety in descending order:
- Straight and bisexual men – despite entertainment propaganda that they are the only protectors of the weak that we can rely on, they are actually the greatest threat to women and girls, and you engage with them at your own and your daughters’ risk.
- All teenaged boys – in some ways, they are worse than adult men simply because they are more likely to target children than adult women for victimization. But their worlds are smaller and their access to people is more limited and they may be marginally more monitored than adults. It’s a fine line, though.
- All boy children – many are sadistic with impulse control problems, but are uber-protected by boy-moms because of their supposed innocence. You’d be surprised how often little boys commit sex crimes though.
- Straight and bisexual women – while they are much less likely to commit sex crimes than men, as I mentioned, straight women who sex offend tend to be much more physically brutal with girls in addition to molesting them. In addition, straight women are male pedophile enablers, especially if they are boy-moms or women in committed relationships with men. Straight women will sometimes participate in molestation with their partner, but most often will just cover up or pretend the crimes aren’t happening. In some cases, women will trade their daughters’ bodies for a place to live despite there being lots of help for single mothers in Western countries.
- Gay men – they are not so much a sexual risk to girls, but gay men are misogynists too. I’ll bet they’re probably less dangerous to girls than, say, boy-moms.
- Lesbian and separatist women – the only risk they pose is any internalized misogyny they have from growing up and living in a toxic anti-woman world. But by and large, they are the safest people for girls to be around.
So, like the right-wingers of QAnon and various religious groups around the world, do we need to lose our shit in the quest to root out pedophilia in all tribes but our own? No. The sexualization and abuse of children, especially girls, is part of a much larger problem called male domination. And separatism is a more logical place to put your energy and a better investment for your daughters.
This post is part of the Alphabet Series.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
B is for Bisexual
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Didn’t think the alphabet would make it past ‘A’ (see A is for Antagonism here)? Not to worry, B is here, baby. I had a bit of a hard time choosing the b-word, and I ended up choosing and then rejecting a few possibilities, which is probably why the post took a little longer to get out than I had planned. There are so many good b-words to choose from, and no doubt, they’ll end up being the topics of other posts. For example, b is for bitch (the obvious choice, but I’ve written about this slur before here and here, for example), backlash, butch, breeder, brutality, BDSM, brainwashing (don’t worry, I’ve got a series on this delectable topic coming), bullshit, blow job, bias, and more.
But today, B is for Bisexual.
To be honest, I am not sure why I haven’t written about this before. I did a little triptych on sexuality in the past, and I really should have discussed bisexuality within its confines, rather than just acknowledging it as one of the boxes men put women in when rating our level of humanity and dictating options for our identities. Perhaps the goddess of writing intervened and knew I’d need a topic for my alphabet series. Who the hell knows. Point is, I’m doing it now, so buckle up. But if you want to pause and gear up with some light reading from the sexuality writings, and to get the gist of my perspective, the relevant posts are as follows:
Part I: An introduction to male omnisexuality and why heterosexuality is even a thing at all.
Part II: The sex drive and sexuality – human obsessions and two misunderstood and badly abused concepts. Also a brief consideration of homosexuality, asexuality, and forced sexuality.
Part III: Women and forced sexuality. A discussion of female needs, the fact that nobody acknowledges them and why that is the reason we don’t understand the first thing about female sexuality still to this day.
If you don’t feel like veering off at this point, then I’ll just summarize my foundational thinking as follows:
For women, sexuality as we know it now and have known it throughout time and place, is completely constructed. Constructed by men, and embraced by women through their programming. Constructed female sexuality has mostly been categorical, meaning that women are put into boxes according to what men want to do to us and what they want us to do. Men have constructed ‘rational’ / ‘scientific’ and religious explanations for the boxes they put us in to prevent us from figuring out what we actually are naturally, and to inspire us to hate the few women who reject categorization. In reality, our sexuality, if we have any (the true question), should be based on our own self-defined needs, rather than our anatomy or what men need and want. No woman has ever been able to do this outside the influence of male dominance, so my argument is that we haven’t a clue what natural female sexuality looks like at all. Even lesbians are strongly influenced by hetero programming, and I believe they don’t behave completely naturally either. I’ve discussed what natural means in another post, and my opinion is that if you have to construct an entire, rather brutal system geared towards keeping women in line and servicing men ‘happily’, then heterosexuality in women isn’t natural at all. Nature happens without force, intimidation, or indoctrination. Honestly and truly. So men construct our reality and they construct a system of lies and half-truths to support female hetersexuality as being natural. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary, however, which I’m not going to discuss in this post. I will say I’ve been reading some of the scientific literature that clearly demonstrates that despite how women define themselves, the vast majority have sexual reactions to females (google it yourself). There is plenty of work to be done there – I still think you can program sexual reactions to anything (basic learning theory in action), which is constantly evidenced in the development of weird sexual fetishes, and I’d argue that women are trained from birth to react sexually to males and violence. The sexual reactions to women that scientists see are likely a mix of natural proclivity and the result of a constant bombardment of female sexualization coupled with the modern day rewarding of female compliance with male sexual fantasies.
But let’s get to bisexuality***. If you try to look up this term/category, most human rightsy sexuality web sites will try to turn it into some long, drawn out definition, almost as if trying to set these folks up for some uber-victim status with a little mystery and sexay-ness thrown in for good measure. “Look at us. We are so hard to define. We break all the sexual molds. No one understands us and we suffer from so much prejudice and bigotry. The alphabet soup acronym should START with B, although in public, we’ll say T is most important… Whine, whine, blah, blah, blah, I want to look at tits while I suck this dick, goober goober.” And it’s usually women who are the whiniest about this oppressed bi status, and there is a good and legitimate basis for that (not the whining, but the sex bias), which I’ll get into later. But bisexual people are a perfect example supporting the theory I have that the loudest victims and victim-groups tend to be non-victims or comparative non-victims with a lot of power (economic, legal, etc.) and free time. Other examples of loud non-victims also include male trannies, rich white males, rich black males, males in general, the religious right in any country, etc., etc.
***[And note that I am writing this from the perspective of a woman who for most of her early adult life used the category ‘bisexual’ privately, and sometimes publicly, until I accepted the fact that I’m not sexually attracted to men. I’ve never been ‘heterosexual’, so I can’t understand what that is like. If I am forced to ‘identify’, I use the terms ‘lesbian’ or ‘gay’. I have found that many people, even those who define sexuality very simply in terms of sexual attraction, still can’t resist injecting their definition with political and social implications. I think you can’t get away from that in this world, and as a result, no definition can adequately describe what women likely are born to be, naturally.]
For an easy definition of bisexuality, just think ‘bi’ = two and sex = attraction to. Many seem to include actual sexual engagement in this definition, probably because it is so much easier to offer up as proof of a sexuality. Attraction is hard to measure unless you hook someone up to a machine. So according to today’s definition, bisexuals basically are interested in and get it on with both males and females. There is some talk of ‘pansexuality’, but this is a bullshit made-up liberal term based on the idea that there are more than two sexes – WHICH THERE ARE NOT.
Male Bisexuals
A quick word about bisexual men. Nothing about this surprises me. As I said above, I believe males are born omnisexual, which simply means that men get turned on by and will penetrate anything and everything unless something or someone stops them. The only reason most males (publicly) gravitate towards heterosexual designations is because of 1) woman-hate; 2) innate power and control issues; and 3) servitude/extra perks. First, the idea of ‘taking it’ like a woman (aka being penetrated) is an insult because men hate women, so being gay or bi means you are like a woman and that is unacceptable in all cultures because women are garbage. I’ve unfortunately spent a lot of time with men from different cultures, and I can tell you that even the most adamant of straight males from both liberal and very conservative places are curious about and even obsessed with anal sex, although most will insist that their own buttholes are off limits. I suspect that to most men, for a woman, a hole is a hole is a hole, so a female’s anus and vagina are just things to be filled by men. So they can see see themselves as heterosexual while still engaging in what is seen by the world as a ‘gay’ act.
The second part – power and control – is more complicated. Men like easy victims who won’t fight back or rat them out. Inanimate objects are ideal for male masturbation, but men don’t get the satisfaction of controlling or overpowering say, a sock or a hole in the wall or their kid’s stuffed toys. Animals give the sense of overpowering and control that men like, but they can fight back and hurt their rapist, and as well, men don’t get any servitude from them other than say, a dog fetching slippers. Children, like animals, are easy targets, can give the satisfaction of control and power over them, and while they usually won’t bite or fight like an animal, there is the possibility they might report the assault to a grown-up. And no servitude perks. But women? They make the perfect masturbatory devices for men: raping them allows men to enact their hatred of them upon their bodies and minds; they are controllable and over-powerable physically and mentally; they seldom report rape (and are not believed if they do report); and they are easily programmed from birth to accept slavery as desirable and the way things are supposed to be.
The third element of heterosexual gravitation in men is that women will also provide cleaning services, baby factory services, emotional services, intellectual services and more – all making men’s lives easier and ensuring the greatest possible chance of male success in the world. So while men will screw all of the above in private, there is the most to be gained from publicly proclaiming hetero status. Bisexual men are slightly braver in that they are willing to admit they do men too, but they also get the status that owning a woman allows in all societies. But generally, it isn’t men who whine about bisexual prejudice as men never suffer as much as women, regardless of the bias involved.
Female Bisexuals
I’m going to come out and say this as bluntly as possible, and it will be offensive to some and that is more than perfectly fine. There is no such thing as a truly bisexual woman. Omnisexual men, yes – I’ve explained this already. But I don’t believe women are naturally wired to want men. I believe female heterosexuality is nearly 100% constructed / programmed / conditioned (pick your term). So bisexuality doesn’t make sense either, especially given that pretty much all bisexual women mostly latch on to men (I remember some feminist I read quoted a study that the typical bi-female sexual stable constists primarily of men. And I believe that that is standard hetero brainwashing kicking in rather than anything natural, as materially, there is so much more to gain from being male property than to have an equal relationship with a woman.) I also think there are a few kinds of bisexual women, and I’ll discuss two primary categories.
- Brainwashed women whose hetero programming didn’t work perfectly
So as was mentioned, most bisexual women have more male partners than female ones, and usually end up having a primary or significant-other relationship with a man. Women are usually ‘side dishes’ that don’t provided the economic, legal, and social perks that relationships with men do, but that provide emotional and sexual satisfaction that is missing from the typical hetero relationship. Bisexual women are, somewhat understandably in our rape culture, generally massive cowards who will hide behind hetero life when it suits them (e.g., to avoid sexual or physical danger, to get jobs, to have a higher standard of living, to appear ‘normal’ in social situations, etc.) and trot it out when they want to look cool or liberal or advanced or open-minded or ‘above’ heteronormativity (even though they are still exceptionally heternormative themselves, ironically). Or just to temporarily satisfy their natural attraction to women.
2. Brainwashed women who use other women to pick up men and get hetero cookies
Bisexual men don’t make out with each other to pick up women, but ‘bisexual’ women often try to pick up men this way. Do you not find this curious? If you are a hetero or bi woman reading this, do a little self-examination at this point. Do you regularly watch gay male porn? Do you regularly masturbate while imagining dudes fucking each other? Do you get off on the idea of inserting yourself into a gay male sex scenario and announcing that your pussy is there and things can actually get started now? If you say yes, you are a liar and are likely being contrary on purpose. Women – hetero, bi or lesbian – do not cream their shorts at the idea of infiltrating a cock party. And gay men aren’t sitting around wishing for some pussy to spice up their sex lives. So why do so many bisexual women feel the need to put on a show for men?
Well, first there is no bisexuality going on there. These are thoroughly programmed hetero women who are just trying to please men in the only way they know how. I wonder to myself whether these women actually enjoy what is going on. I really think that most women don’t fully experience what they are doing or analyze what’s going on. I think most women’s brains are trained to see themselves through men’s eyes.
Oh, in case you are wondering, when I called myself bisexual back in my early ears, I fell into category 1. However, I know I was less successfully brainwashed than the average woman, as I woke up relatively easily, I think, and realized that I hated men on a fundamental and very natural or primal level. The in-depth self examination I had to do in order to deprogram myself was painful and is ongoing. It’s interesting to realize that all my childhood crushes and attraction (I hesitate to say sexual) experiences were with other girls. I see the time I spent dating both males and females as an experimental phase, much like I’ve experimented with drugs, and eaten things like calf’s brains and dog, but of course, much more complex and psychologically fucked up. After I started training myself to live in my own body and mind and to experience things from my own perspective, it was overwhelming to realize that I saw myself, went through experiences, and even had dreams through male eyes. Being back in your body and mind is a really disarming thing at first. It affects everything you do, but you realize that hetero sex, (aka intercourse, aka rape) is a horrible thing to endure, absolutely pointless from a woman’s point of view, and more than that – extremely dangerous to your body and mind. You look back on what you did in the past, even in the name of experimentation, and it is hard to understand how you participated, if you can call it that. I think you have to dissociate as well as outsource your validation needs in order to allow males to use your body and to keep going back for more. This is a longer discussion, but the point I’m trying to make here is that bisexuality is just another male construction, or possibly even a female construction, that allows one to follow one’s natural tendencies a little while still remaining acceptable to patriarchal society.
A Few Major Bisexual Complaints
Bisexuals have a LOT of complaints. I’ve read a lot of bi commentary, and I don’t understand most of these complaints, even having spent many years as a bisexual. I’ll address a few here.
1) We don’t fit in anywhere. Heteros hate us and gays/lesbians reject us.
Any prejudice you experience is because of woman hate. The heteros hate you because you are not upholding patriarchy – you males are not raping women enough, and you women are not being raped enough. Gays and lesbians might reject you because of your hetero privilege, which you still have because most of the time you are being hetero. Lesbians especially, who live at the bottom of the human shit heap, are not interested in having male diseases passed to them by careless bisexual women, nor are they interested in investing in someone who will fuck them and then prance off when she has a chance at an economically attractive and socially acceptable hetero lifestyle opportunity if (when) it comes along (especially if said bi wants to breed). It is not possible for a powerless and ubiquitously hated group (lesbians) to have any kind of power over you or dictate your freedom in the world. It amazes me how many self-indulgent articles there are on bisexuals blaming lesbians for everything wrong in their lives. You may experience bias rooted in woman-hate, but you also perpetuate it. Self-examination needed.
2) People tell us we don’t exist.
Remind you of anything? The trans pull the same shit. Nobody is denying your existence. You are human, you exist, and you can believe whatever the hell you want. I am likely one of very few people who will say that I don’t believe that bisexuality is a thing. Males yes (although, like I said, I call it omnisexuality). Women aren’t wired to put their bodies at risk or enslave themselves. Sorry.
Do you deserve more attention in the LG-alphabet group? If so, why? You have the best of both worlds, really. You get to CHOOSE what and who you do. Gays and lesbians who are committed to a publicly displayed sexuality are so much worse off than you and are more based in reality (and less whiny) than the bisexual community. While gays and lesbians might be able to pass in hetero society based on appearance, they certainly can’t pass socially unless they show up solo to events or never, ever speak about their personal lives. So, in my opinion, I wouldn’t include you in the gay-lesbian activist groups, just as I would exclude the trannies and the queer, Hitler-youth brigade and any other post-modernist bullshit “I’m different! Look at me!’ groups. Make your own fucking group. And stop trying to force lesbians to accept you. Nobody should be forced to fuck you. That is called rape. (Hint, this applies to trannies too, who keep trying to force lesbians to be with them.) No one owes you a fuck in order to validate your claims of specialness or outsiderness.
3) People assume we are pedophiles
This one is legit, but like with the most valid complaints, the reason they happen is because of woman-hate and the anti-gay sentiments that exist everywhere. You aren’t assumed to be a pedophile because you are bisexual. So-called straight men, who comprise the vast majority of pedophiles in the world, are never assumed to be so. Gay men are. Lesbians get this too, to a certain extent. In reality, there are very few true female pedophiles. The same 1-2 weird incarcerated female high school teachers with teen boy student lover docu-dramas, coupled with tons of television sitcom episodes focusing on this topic are covered to death to promote the idea that women are equally likely to be pedophiles as men. Not even close to being true. This is a whole nuther topic. But suffice it to say that if you are lesbian or a female bisexual, you may experience fear on the part of women with children. Not so much by men – men will sexualize you for THEIR sexual purposes rather than assume you are going to attack children. Myself, I experienced this with my sister when I confided in her that I was bisexual in my mid-20’s. She had a 4-year-old daughter at the time, and after my quiet announcement, she never let me be in a room alone with my neice ever again. I’ll repeat that it was not the bisexuality that was the problem in my sister’s mind, but the lesbian part of it which was the motivator for the irrational and hateful reaction.
Conclusion here. Bisexuals can be very touchy and defensive. And loud, if they are ‘out’. Like the trans. Much more so than you ever experience with gays and lesbians. While the latter tend to be much more secure in their sexuality once they’ve chosen to come out, bisexuals’ reactivity is more likely to be a product of a constructed victimhood, hard-to-pin-down identity, and comparative privilege (I hate that word, but I don’t have a better one right now) over actual victimized groups. Their predation within oppressed groups (i.e., trying to force lesbians to want them sexually) likely creates a little cognitive dissonance concerning whether they are more victim or predator or both.
Anyhow, like with the whole silly, but scary, trannie movement, I wish this one didn’t take up so much retail space…
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
What about Women? Forced Sexuality – Part III
This is Part III in my exploration of the human obsession known as sexuality. The other parts are:
Part I: An introduction to male omnisexuality and why heterosexuality is even a thing at all.
Part II: The sex drive and sexuality – human obsessions and two misunderstood and badly abused concepts. Also a brief consideration of homosexuality, asexuality, and forced sexuality.
Part IV: Added a few years later: let’s talk about the second loudest (trans win for loudest… and craziest) self-proclaimed victim group forcing their way into the LG-alphabet soup. Bisexuals! Real or constructed?
Although their actual life-or-death needs are exactly the same as those for women and are exactly four in number – food, water, sleep and shelter – in their natural proclivity for violence, power and control, men have elevated ‘sex’ (defined as dick servicing) to a life-or-death need. It isn’t. No man has ever died from lack of sex.
Using standard male logic, men will try to argue that women should be made available to them, either through unpaid or unequal barter-based sex slave relationships (girlfriend, wife), or through paid rent-a-sex-slave situations (prostitution) because without it they will a) become more violent and agitated, in general, b) will lose control and rape, and c) it is magically ordained by some sky-god or by Nature. The conclusion (threat) that follows from this (non-) logic is: “let us rape you or we will rape you harder, and cause lots of other problems as well.” And a lot of women will believe this ‘men have needs’ illogic and give in to what, in a nutshell, is coercive or manipulative rape. There is all sorts of mindfuckery that accompanies the threat so as to paint rape as an expression of love and to paint women’s reluctance or denial of service as some sort of cruel punishment or selfishness or prudery. Coercive or manipulative rape, the most common and least acknowledged form of rape, will be discussed in another post.
Simplicity vs Complexity: Men and Women
Men are easy to understand. Get a handle on understanding the motivations of power, control, selfishness, violence, and high emotionality within a limited range, and you’ve pretty much got them down. Even their omnisexuality and why they choose to gravitate, for the most part, to declared heterosexuality (despite what they do behind closed doors) is very, very easy to understand.
Women, on the other hand, are much more difficult to pin down. And there are a few very good reasons for this. Part of it may be that we are more complex beings to begin with. Men often say this as a criticism, but that only speaks to their inability to understand complex systems and their failure to control us completely. Our inner lives are deep and rich. We understand things on so many more levels. We are detail-oriented as well as big picture thinkers. We think both concretely and abstractly. We are connected with nature on a fundamental level and yet our minds and spirits soar beyond all horizons. We are more in touch with our instincts, and at the same time, have the capacity to override our lizard brain gut reactions and act with logic, compassion, empathy, and compromise. Yes, we are complex beings, and in this way, are usually hard to put into the categorical boxes that men design for us.
But there is another reason women are hard to pin down. Unlike men, women are not allowed to be natural. I wrote a whole post on the interaction effects of nature and nurture and how only women are not allowed to realize their natural selves, forced instead into a male-defined, simplistic, discrete system of stereotypes and categories. Our exploitable natural qualities are reinforced and used against us, while the natural abilities and tendencies that threaten the male dominance structure are punished and suppressed. In reality, we have no idea what a natural woman is. We don’t know what female power looks like. We don’t know exactly how strong female energy burns. What we do know is that the way men force us to define ourselves is not only inadequate, but completely unnatural and self-destructive. And we do know that the natural woman has not predominated because we are not violent by nature. You can’t fight natural male violence with reason, logic and intellect despite what many feminists say.
So What About Female Sexuality?
I have a young, female friend here in China who suggested to me recently that all women are lesbians. She is 21, she has no sexual interest in men, she is not sure if she is sexually interested in women, and she is trying to figure out what she is. This is what everyone who doesn’t succumb to hetero brainwashing wrestles with. What are they? You MUST be sexually attracted to something. It is mandatory. But what if you aren’t? When I talk to my young friend, I know she is drawn to women. She feels comfortable and safe with them. She likes to experience a rich, deep perspective on the world that only women can give. She has, at an enviably early age, discovered the joys of reading women’s writing – mostly from other countries as Chinese women don’t have much of a voice in Chinese literature. Like myself and other women, she has realized that men’s writing offers little. It has no depth, no nuance, no intellect, and too much literal and figurative violence. You cannot recognize yourself in male writing if you are a woman who has escaped or started to escape your heterosexual programming.
So, is my friend a lesbian?
Unfortunately, we are forced to define ourselves through our sexuality, thanks to men and their simplistic way of thinking. It can be very confusing to those who don’t fit into boxes and those who haven’t embraced their programming completely. So using male language and self-concepts, being a lesbian primarily means you get sexually turned on by women. You can still hate women, hate yourself, support harmful gender parodies, and be completely unable to connect with women on all levels but a sexual one. You can be a complete misogynist and still be a lesbian as long as you lust after girls. And ironically, you can connect with women in many ways, but be excluded from the lesbian team if you don’t connect sexually with women. Although I don’t think men are smart enough to have engineered this sad situation, through their violent sexual machinations throughout history, this genital obsession and sex-based club formation has become the perfect way to divide women and keep men supported.
In order to really examine women’s sexuality (if it exists naturally), you have to remove the male voice from the equation entirely. Nothing a man does, says or thinks ever truly helps women understand their natural selves or their needs or desires. I have never, ever, ever met a male who doesn’t include himself, his ‘needs’ and his desires in his plans, opinions, reactions and interactions. Men cannot talk about female sexuality without thinking about themselves, even if they cloak the language in something that seems objective on the surface. Women are too quick to hand out blow jobs to male people who pay some kind of faux lip service to women’s ‘choices’ and ‘freedom’. Men are not objective. Remember, they have too much to lose from women discarding them and discovering their natural selves and their true freedom. And as predators, men are expert manipulators. So, to explore women’s natural state, you have to remove male influence, the male voice, and the male threat. It is very difficult to do. We are not taught to think about ourselves, and male people of all ages have a way of tapping into the altruistic and/or sympathetic parts of our natural selves and derailing us from taking care of ourselves.
To explore natural sexuality, you have to examine needs. What do women need? Forget those asinine women’s magazines which are basically outlets for the male voice. Women don’t need to feel sexy or beautiful. Women don’t need a closet full of clothes or the right colour lipstick. Women don’t need the ‘right man’ or flowers on her birthday or a special night to focus on her orgasms instead of sucking her master’s cock.
First, women need food, drink, sleep and shelter. Those are the basic survival needs. After that, we start talking about needs related not to survival, but quality of life. Women need love, affection, human connection, acceptance – all of those things related to human interaction and relationships. And to escape from male language control, when I say love and affection, I’m not talking about sex or orgasms. I’m talking about feeling loved and appreciated and having emotional exchange, all free from threat, duty and coercion. I suspect all men and most women don’t truly understand what this means as we have been so corrupted by male thinking on what love and relationships are.
Women also need dreams, goals, confidence, aspirations, inspiration, motivation, hope, and empowerment. Again, these are needs related to quality of life – those things that make life worth living, and that make having consciousness make sense. These are not related to the material world or to sex. And while no one dies from lack of love or lack of empowerment or dreams, they will likely live in a depressed state with plenty of physical and mental health problems. This is how most women currently live, and I’d argue that it is because of forced heterosexuality and living in the male system that relies upon it. Forcing women to submit to men deprives them of those needs that make life worth living. And all of their energies instead are poured into ensuring that men not only achieve all of these personal needs, but they also have an abundance of them to draw from any time they wish. Further, introducing a sexual element to a relationship, especially, but not only with men, redirects energy away from women having their own quality-of-life-based needs met and into ensuring the male partner is well cared for and sexually catered to.
The best friendships I’ve had with women have been those that tap into quality-of-life needs, and those friendships, if they break down, are always because of the intrusion of a demanding parasitical male. Hetero-programmed women are hard to be long-term friends with, I’ve found, for this very reason. There is always a parasite lurking, whether it be a husband, a new boyfriend, or a male child. Marriage and breeding paradigms – systems invented by men to support male supremacy – have always served to divide women, break down female friendships, and redirect female energy into male goals and success.
Friendships with men, regardless of their age, have never genuinely addressed affection needs or empowerment needs. Males in friendships have their needs addressed, as they siphon female energy. And I can’t think of a single friendship with a male that didn’t end up destroyed by sexual propositions or downright sexual harassment, sometimes after years of supposedly platonic interaction. By design, I currently have very few males in my life. One of the last remaining ones, a former student here in China, 21 years my junior whom I’ve kept around only because I have had some success mentally desexing male students and seeing them only as ‘students’, just ruined our two-year, ongoing interaction last week by announcing that he is ‘in love with me’. It was so utterly disappointing and confusing, especially because I am open about not being interested in men, and I stupidly thought I was immune from most sexual predation from men because I’m 45 and I don’t feminize. I’m not sure if there are mommy issues going on or the idea of converting the possible ‘lesbian’ was irresistible. Regardless, the teaching point here is that there is no such thing as an exception when it comes to men. They are all predators. They make everything about sex. And no woman is safe. Ever.
Oh and in case you are snarking, “What about gay males? They are basically women…” Don’t worry, they are all male, and thus, they are predators and consumers of women, too. I personally had a gay male friend in college who eventually told me in all seriousness that he would try to go straight to be with me. Weird, and believe it or not, I didn’t take him up on the offer… Nevertheless, while that may not be a normal scenario for all fags, they still do their best to steal female emotional energy, treat us as verbal punching bags (aside from blacks, fags are some of the worst hate-speakers towards women), use our bodies (to determine gayness or as rented baby factories), and to fight their human rights battles (think the AIDS epidemic), while not returning the favour, especially for lesbians. So fuck them, but not literally 😉
So back to the question: what about female sexuality? Are women sexual beings? I suspect this wouldn’t be an important question if men didn’t exist. I don’t think sex would take on even a fraction of the importance it has now if men didn’t exist. I don’t think relationships would form and break up on the basis of sexual activity and attraction if men didn’t exist. I think without men, women would take physical pleasure in each other, but it wouldn’t form the basis of relationships, and wouldn’t be the stuff of obsessions. Life would be rich, complex, layered. As it is now, everything is sex. People kill themselves and each other over it. Half the population is enslaved because of it. Without men, there would be so much less pain and destruction. With men in the picture, women are not naturally heterosexual. Nothing about heterosexuality is naturally good for women; it is destructive. If women were naturally straight, programming would not be needed. Violence would not be needed. There is so much effort (violence, threats, propaganda) put into turning women into men’s willing sex and labour slaves, it is impossible to argue that heterosexuality is natural for women. I think women are naturally drawn to women, but I would define ‘lesbian’ differently than it is currently understood in system of male dominance. There may be a sexual component, but the affinity is based on more complex things that override any kind of central sexuality.
In short, I don’t think male language and thinking are adequate for describing what women are naturally. Categorical male thinking and vocabulary – heterosexual, bisexual, queer, homosexual, asexual – may be fine for describing men (I prefer omnisexual as a more accurate description of what men are), but not for women. Ideally, women need be released from male control and male demands for sex so that they may discover what they need and to realize and embrace the quality of life no woman has yet achieved, but so very clearly deserves.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
Story Ending Never 
You must be logged in to post a comment.