Anti-PIV: Abstinence, radical feminist style

contra<em>le</em>sexismIt is fascinating when radical feminists go so far with their narrative that they come all the way back around to what are essentially conservative positions on human sexuality. It is hilarious that they do not even realize how comparable their views are to puritanical religious views on sex and the nature of women. In the case of the radfem narrative on PIV (Penis-in-Vagina) sex they have come back around to a position that has roots in the worst of all evils from their point of view: Patriarchy and the accompanying notion that women are the property first of their fathers and then of their husbands. To the extent that their argument deviates from this it assumes that traditionally male gender roles are inherently superior, that motherhood is oppressive, and that most women are so stupid they have been tricked into wanting male companionship, sex and children.

The conservative position on abstinence mostly takes form today in the push for “abstinence-only until marriage” sex education in government schools and the phenomenon of virginity pledges taken by religious teenagers both male and female. But the notion of chastity and the expectation of premarital abstinence has deep cultural and religious roots. In a bygone era it was expected that a woman would be a virgin on her wedding day when her father would give her away to her new husband. This tradition was the result of various religious notions of chastity and female virtue as well as practical concerns about property, child-rearing, inheritance, family bonds, political alliances and so forth.

Tied into this tradition was the societal assumption that females are valuable to society because they are female. Interestingly this assumption leads to what would seem to be some very pro-female and even proto-feminist notions. Female bodies tend to be physically weaker and require protection because they are the carriers of the next generation. Therefore violence against women is not only wrong, it is more wrong than violence against men. A man wants his wife to be a virgin when he marries her because female sexuality is valuable and precious, not cheap and tawdry. Thus a father seeks to protect his daughter from unsavory men and preserve her for a worthy suitor. Perhaps these ideas have been so marginalized since the death of God that radfems have forgotten they ever existed in the first place, and are thus not aware of the hilarious irony of their sexual puritanism. Mainstream liberalism has discarded these notions altogether.

The expectation of premarital virginity has been thrown out the window by postmodernism, gender egalitarianism and more mainstream versions of women’s “lib” that claim these social expectations and values are limiting to female agency. More mainstream liberal views on “abstinence-only until  marriage” sex education claim it is not only ineffective, but that it is inherently oppressive to girls who are taught to feel that their “natural urges” are bad and dirty. The assumptions here are that teenage girls “naturally” want to have sexual intercourse, that sexual promiscuity is a good way for women to express their agency and that double standards based on gender are inherently bad. The “natural” sexual desire of women should not be interfered with by applying negative stereotypes or social shaming to those that have sex too young or with multiple partners. If everyone is equal then men and women cannot have different sexuality, different gender roles and different social expectations. Interestingly this progressive, egalitarian “liberation” of women always seems to entail assigning presumably superior masculine behaviors and roles to women.


Conservatives have been fighting a losing battle against such notions for a while now. Their cries that notions of gender equality lead to the degradation of motherhood, the cheapening of sexuality, harm to women, the breakup of the family, high rates of abortion and general social confusion and alienation are ignored, ridiculed or attacked in the mainstream. Interestingly the radfems and the far right are on almost the same page with these issues, and for seemingly similar reasons. The radfem narrative on PIV sex incorporates many of these conservative arguments but removes the values of religion, tradition, family and social stability, thus reaching the same ultimate conclusion as all postmodern liberalism: dildos.

The mainstream liberal notion that women “naturally” desire to have sexual intercourse, even from a very young age, conflicts with conservative notions of female innocence and virtue. The radfems too have nothing but contempt for this idea, and even mix opposition to birth control into the argument:

Under patriarchy, penis-in-vagina sex (PIV) or “intercourse” comprises the totality or majority of heterosexuality, including women’s sexuality, despite women having reported for centuries that intercourse is not their preferred sex act…

…Intercourse being central, necessary or even included in female sexual pleasure is ahistorical, acontextual, and dependent on consumerist “first world” conveniences and harm-reduction strategies such as hormonal and other birth control devices and products which are dangerous themselves, and less than 100% effective.

As far as the idea that women’s bodies are not equal, but more fragile than men’s:

intercourse can literally kill you, if you are a woman. (sorry! really, i am). it causes pregnancy, which is a medical event that can last for years (including lactation, and assuming that there were no long-term complications, which there often are). PIV is the one and only cause of obstetric fistula,gestational diabetespreeclampsia, miscarriage and abortion, and is causative of the illnesses and deaths of hundreds of thousands of women annually…

Radfems agree with conservatives that sexual double standards are indeed appropriate:

the problem with identifying sex-based “double standards” however is that there are actual, meaningful sex-based differences between women and men — the “assuming we are all the same” part poses a problem for radical feminists, who understand that men do not equal women and women do not equal men. for us, once we have identified the relevant issues as being reproductively-based, or having literally to do with “sex” (either biological sex or sexual intercourse, which implicates biological sex-based difference) an analysis based on the sexual double standard is a nonstarter. radical feminists can and must do better, and our analyses do in fact shed meaningful light on issues affecting women as a sexual class…

On the issue of “slut shaming” radfems and conservatives agree that sluts are engaging in stupid and harmful behavior. The radfem narrative even goes so far as to claim that men generally have superior judgment than women:

what is really going on here, when women who fuck men “consensually” are regarded as “more promiscuous, less intelligent, less mentally healthy, less competent, and more risky” than are the men they are fucking?

— men tend to view women who “have sex” in a negative light because no sane, healthy, competent etc. person would voluntarily engage in it, considering the risks. get it?

you see, there is not a man in the entire world, if the risks of intercourse applied to men, who would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER choose to engage in it for pleasures sake. never, ever, ever, ever, ever would a man voluntarily place himself in harms way like that, and that includes the most submissive, masochistic and self-hating man. NO man would EVER do this. so if the question is, “why do men treat women who voluntarily engage in intercourse as if those women are retarded, damaged, or crazy?” the answer, i’m sorry to say, is “because that’s what they think you are.”

Despite some of these insights that mainstream feminism could never bring itself to admit because of the monomaniacal focus on gender egalitarianism, the radical feminist narrative still ends up with dildos as the answer:

But when you point out to these people that there obviously are other kinds of sex than PIV, they will tell you that those other kinds of sex are “not really sex.”

This leads to 1984-level redefinition of terms: anal sex is not really sex, oral sex is not really sex, mutual masturbation is not really sex, other uses of genitals that lead to orgasm are not really sex, and so on.

Ultimately the argument resolves to inserting a dildo into an anus being a revolutionary act:

would men be lining up to enjoy sex with women, if it didn’t involve sticking their dicks into us? would their cultural fucking pasttime be picking up women in bars, so that they could pleasure us with dildos? or better yet, for illustrative purposes, non-phallic-looking external vibrators? would they make video games and movies and advertisements extolling it? no. they wouldnt.

and their interest in only a certain type of porn tells us all we need to know. most men would not obsessively use porn that only included women and ugly, external vibrators, and no dicks anywhere. they wouldnt spend a single evening alone watching us massaging other men with essential oils. or, you know, watching us penetrating them with stuff. but giving men anal is a legitimate sex act too, and one that many if not most het men enjoy, not unimportantly. they fucking like taking it in the ass! yes, they do!

Unsurprisingly the radical feminist answer to legitimate concerns about female health and the risks women face from of sexual promiscuity, pregnancy and birth control will never be traditional marriage, chastity or religion. Radical feminists cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that traditional society already had an effective way of dealing with these issues. They would rather throw out reproductive sex, family and the human species altogether. Patriarchy and traditional religious values would protect women’s bodies and virtue, not abuse or cheapen their sexuality. Traditional society places value on women for their social role as mothers, something only women can be. But it has been decided a priori by radical and liberal feminists alike that this is cannot be countenanced. So, as usual, postmodernism and feminism leave us with nothing but dildos.

Author image
Hey bro, that's racist.