You want radfem? I'll show you radfem.
When gender wars and woo wars collide.
Disclaimer -- NO, I DO NOT agree with the author. Her views are not my views.
During many of the gender wars there was some debate over what constituted radical feminism. The author I am about to cite describes herself as a radfem and her readers accept the term as well.
I know many of our feminists here would describe themselves as radfems but I think this writer leaps parsecs beyond their description.
Note -- PIV = penis in vagina
...
What (liberal) men want us to believe is that the options in violence are split between:
#1- to choose not enter in the situation, because you don’t fancy it, you’re not that kind of girl.
#2- to choose to stay in the situation because you want more of it.
Both of which have the effect of erasing the reality of violence, since violence only commands submission or requires escape, without which violence doesn’t exist.
Back to the topic of sexual pleasure in intercourse that so many women claim to have and which is often the only reason that keeps us into it. As radfems, we always say that whether or not we take pleasure in intercourse, it’s irrelevant to the point that PIV is inherently harmful: but that’s partly incorrect, because the pleasure is part of the intended harm too. Here’s why:
#1. The pleasure we experience during intercourse isn’t natural, but groomed. Men teach us how to instantaneously associate the fear, pain and/or invasion of the penetration to clitoral stimulation, so we dissociate from it – cut it off – and think it’s pleasurable. Clitoral stimulation may function in the exact same way as dissociation in a situation of sexual violence because it sends dissociative drugs to the brain. Dissociation is a drug, so this reaction to PIV may become an addiction, a rush we crave for like cocaine.
#2. This groomed chemical response to intercourse is harmful because it deliberately diminishes our capacity to identify rape/PIV as violence and get away from it. It confuses us into thinking we wanted it and enjoyed it. In BDSM for instance, it is very common for men to ask women to rub their clitoris during the acts. They know it will confuse their victim, letting her believe she likes being raped and humiliated and that she is a slut after all, exactly what he told her. It will make her feel more ashamed. It’s intentional. The best way for a man to obtain long term sexual subordination from a woman is for him to get her to believe she likes it and wants it, as he would do for pimping, marriage and any form of sexual slavery. It reduces his efforts in having to control her while maximising his use of her.
#3. So this so-called sexual arousal isn’t about pleasure at all and was never intended to be: it’s about power-over and domination, it’s a way for men to obtain obedience.
...
She later goes on to complain that birth control and the sexual revolution were liberal men duping women into giving them more, free sex.
Later in responder to a sympathetic reader she comments --
Men organise our unsafety as girls so they can then capitalise on our need for it by pretending to save us in order to trap us into their heterocage more easily
http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/intercourse-and-manufactured-female-pleasure-politics-of-love-part-iii/
In another thread she laments other women betraying her --
Note. I’m writing on colonisation because I’ve been thinking a lot about relationships with non radfem (though already into feminism) women lately and how difficult these relationships are. This is a really important question to me because talking to women about feminism (spinning) and creating bonds with women in order to decolonise collectively from men is really what’s most important and what I believe feminism and liberation is based on. But sometimes I just get so much shit, and it never stops being painful and exhausting. I make friends with women, I introduce them to feminism, I’m full of hope that finally there will be women with whom to discuss and further radical feminism, just BE with them and not in dissonance as it usually is with colonised women, but at some point they end up betraying me, hurting me, they stop and stagnate in the middle of their tracks, may revert even, turn against me, because i’m too far ahead and they can’t go there yet, because they’re not ready to meet certain feminist standards, they have a boyfriend who keeps undoing what she just learned, they’re still not feminist enough to value our friendship and the feminist space we’re giving each other, they have no idea how rare and precious it is, or may still prefer male company. It hurts every time the same.
...
http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/24/on-colonisation-by-men-friendships-with-type-2-colonised-women-and-how-we-understand-it-as-radfems/
I'm sorry but I see that as a decidedly unhealthy psychology. It speaks to me of a mind that needs others to submit to its designs and cannot contend with the idea that other people are just that -- other people. As Nietzsche predicted, she has become the very monster she has been fighting.
Now, with this on display, perhaps a bit more care could be taken in bandying about the term "radfem." I won't presume to tell anyone how to describe their self image but there are those who call themselves radfems and then there's this.
And for those that would use radfem as a pejorative to disqualify someone in a debate: You might want to re-think that application of the term because the feminists here don't strike me as being able to even approach what we've seen here.
= new reply since forum marked as read
TYY
That is some warped, twisted ....something.
This is as funny as the fundies trying to talk about how women who like sex are possessed by Satan, or something like that. I lost it at her attempts to explain basic biology. I can't decide if this is serious or not.
"Fear, pain, and invasion?" Wut? 
Sad thing is, I've seen sex negativity pushed on DU before. 
The one you posted is completely batshit though.
IMO, Sheila Jeffreys has very conservative authoritarian absolutist views and seems to have extreme difficulty considering the possibility that human beings other than herself may genuinely experience existence differently than she does, and that other human being's experience of existence may be just as real and valid as hers.
From my POV, the narrow conservative authoritarian ideas expressed by Sheila Jeffreys and others who share her worldview can give feminists an undeserved bad reputation, and feminists and feminism should not be judged by authoritarian extremists like Sheila Jeffreys.
Despite apparently being lesbian, her POV regarding transgender persons is similar to that of RW religious extremists' views toward the entire LGBT community:
She apparently does not believe that transgenders can be born transgender, just like RW religious extremists do not believe that lesbians can be born lesbian.
And just like the RW religious haters will complain that anyone calling them on their hate toward LGBT is a bigot, Sheila Jeffreys complains that calling her a bigot for her hatred of transgenders makes them bigots.
Bigotry and hate. Same shit, different victim, different day.
