ensler of 'vagina monologues' said that vagina mutilation practiced by muslims and the cosmetics industry in the west are both examples of subjugation of women. she went so far as to say they are equal in evil, a rather crazy notion but whaddya expect from a leftwing jewess?
but, what's funny about that assertion is that, in some ways, both vaginal mutilation and anti-cosmetics agenda have more in common than in difference. both are puritanical, trying to deny women of their sexual expression. when a woman puts on makeup, she wants to look good, improve her looks, and so on. when a woman wants to keep her clitoris, she wants to feel the pleasure of sex.
the problem that both muslims and feminists have with sex is that it bypasses ideology or faith.
to many women in the west, their looks may matter more than their ideology.
to many women in north africa, their sexual pleasure may matter more than islamic purity.
in both cases, we have women who want to express their desirability and desire and want to enjoy it.
in contrast, feminists say that women who use make-up and try to look good or sexy are worthless bimbo slut skank slaves. and muslims say that women who enjoy orgasm are filthy animal bitch whores. feminists say 'get rid of the make up' and muslims say 'get rid of the clitoris'.
to be sure, feminists would argue that they have nothing against women having pleasure thru orgasm--albeit they ideologically prefer lesbian sex or masturbation than sex with men(though to be sure, interracial sex is one area where male-female sex may be redeemded ideologically, as it strikes a blow against 'white racism'). feminists may argue that they are for women's power and pleasure.
but, this is where they are misguided. a woman's pleasure may sometimes depend on 'surrendering' to her man in the sexual ritual. i mean what is sex but a man fuc*ng a woman? and a woman wants to be fuc*ed, she wants to feel the power of the man. isn't this why white women are going more with black men? they want to feel dominated, overpowered. this is the nature of sex. so, the idea of empowerment thru sex peddled by feminism can only be lesbian sex, but even here, the butch girls have dominance over submissive dykes--so, how fair is that?
also, sex isn't only about the moment of orgasm. there is a whole process that leads to sexual pleasure. there is courtship, social play, seductive rituals, and so on. two people don't just meet and say, 'i'm horny and you're horny, so let's conjoin our genitals and have an orgasm together'. instead, there is a complex ritual where the man and woman want to attract one another. and if make-up helps, then it helps. and if a leather jacket makes a guy look more macho, then leather jacket does the trick. now, a guy may prefer a plainly dressed pretty woman with no make up than a well dressed ugly women with lots of make up, but most women have something to gain by using some makeup--and men know this, and women know that men that know this. a merely appealing woman can be made to look very attractive thru the use of right make up. if her pleasure is dependent on winning the attention of some hot stud, then she should use whatever means that make her look good. and looking good, being desired, and attracting men to one's looks are surely part of the pleasure. when a woman has sex, she's not only interested in her orgasm but in the fact that some cool guy really likes her and is attracted to her.
feminists may think they are not puritanical cuz they pro-orgasm, but they only regard orgasm ideologically. they think, 'it makes me feel good, so it's a political weapon for women power'. but, orgasm has meaning only when it's arrived at with someone you are attracted to and who is attracted to you. anyone can get an orgasm with a vibrator or by wrapping his dong inside raw liver as with the hero of 'portnoy's complaint'(a kind of a 'penis monologue'. what's with all these demented jews and their genitalia?).
a big fat ugly jewish woman can masturbate and have an orgasm; she can also talk about her pussy on stage for hr or two. and she can feel 'liberated' and 'empowered'.
but, for most sane women, they wanna arrive at orgasm with dignity and beauty. they wanna look good and they want to be with someone who looks good. and together, they wanna fall in love or in mutual attraction/admiration. and when the mood is right, they wanna enjoy one another. this is what makes orgasm meaningful. indeed, even when a fat jewish hag mastrubates, surely she imagines something romantic. she imagines a stud doing it to her--unless she's a lesbian, but even then, i'm sure she imagines a pretty lesbian and not an ugly lesbian. no fat ugly person masturbates to orgasm by thinking of a fat ugly person masturbating. so, orgasm cannot be separated from sexual attractiveness--and all the rituals associated with it; orgasm doesn't exist in some ideological vacuum.
so, in this sense, radical feminists have more in common with muslims than they think. radical feminists and radical muslims are sexual puritans. muslim men want to enjoy sex but they can't allow muslim women enjoy sex; even as he feels happy orgasm, she must remain pure and demure; if she can't have an orgasm, she serves the man but remains clean.
according to feminism, a woman may enjoy sex but only in the name of 'femininst empowerment'; orgasm must be for HER benefit and power, not for the man.
according to islam, orgasm is only for the man. in feminism, it is only for female power.
the problem with feminism is that it doesn't understand that true orgasm only has meaning when it is shared with a man. and in order to win a man of her choice, she has to be attractive and so must make herself look attractive. also, an honest woman understands that woman's pleasure in sex isn't so much about her empowerment as her surrender to the stud. blame nature if you must, but 99.9% of women--excluding butch dykes-- come to orgasm when they feel the masterful power of the man. and this isn't patriarchy but studarchy.
indeed, patriarchy, its extreme form, can be just as puritanical as feminism. indeed, extreme islam is extreme patriarchy.
as a strict social order, patriarchy is fearful of natural impules, and there is some validity to this fear. pure animalism or studarchy will only bring ruin to the social order. we need rules, mores, and such.
but, the thing is, there is a middle way between animalism and repressivism. it is what we call the social ritual of courtship, using stuff like makeup and clothing to look good, and saying lovey dovey things, and taking girl out to dinner and movie, and falling in love and having a relationship and then finally fuc*ing. this is neither animalist nor puritanical. it is human and it is sane. and it's about the essence of sex: pleasure shared by man and woman.
in contrast, feminism is orgasm hogged by the woman for ideological purity, and islam is orgasm hogged by the man for spiritual purity. both are so stupid. and it may explain why so many women are so mum about the evils of islam.
puritanism meets puritanism. it takes one to know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment