"rape and PIV* are almost the same thing", Part II. Welcome to Bizarro World.
http://radfemimages.wordpress.com/the-gears/#PIV*PIV means "penis-in-vagina", you know, that unnatural sex act that no one ever did before the Space Patriarchy™ took over.
I think this deliberate muddying of what should be clear concepts like consent is atrocious.
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. To call intercourse “sex” or conflate it with women’s or even men’s sexual pleasure is not merely misguided, but rather, a deliberate and effective means of normalizing female submission and suffering and increasing men’s individual and collective power. Because PIV and its attendant harms affect all women, across time and place, and is central to our suffering and our political and interpersonal standing, and because men’s political and interpersonal standing increase as ours decrease, intercourse should rightly be seen as the foundation of patriarchy itself.
Regardless of the wishful-thinking of — and deliberate obfuscation by — some liberals and feminists, intercourse continues to be very much a political act and a political institution that is supportive of male power
(emphasis added)
= new reply since forum marked as read
It's a label that is self-applied, so again, how can in be a slur or an insult or a misrepresentation?
http://radicalhub.com/
Oh, this one?
http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/radfem-2012-first-speakers-announced/
That's right, again, keynote speaker Gail Dines.
Who, it would seem, doesn't shy away from the "radfem" label.
biology, may well trump anything ever said by Michele Bachmann, Allen West, or even a "greatest hits of Freeperville" compilation.
That is the method of reproduction that mammalian species evolved. As such, nothing could be more normal or natural. I am tempted to e-mail Richard Dawkins and set him after these brutally imbecilic wastes of oxygen and skin.
70+ million years or so of mammalian evolution would seem to be an iron-clad, open-and-shut case, but not for the crazies. Facts and science mean nothing to them. May as well try to teach my cat how to play my bass as argue logically with the lunatic radfems. 
with "under patriarchy" (which basically means, "on planet Earth"
but yes, they believe consensual heterosexual penetrative sex is impossible.
In fact, that's one of the core pillars of the philosophy.
make the craziest fringe of the religulously insane look one or two clicks less loony. Quite an accomplishment, but not exactly one to be proud of.
I had to leave in early January or I would have been tombstoned. The gun trolls and the Sisters of Purity/Dolores Umbridge Totalitarian Word Police got to me big time. I had to spend a while at Equestria Daily, where there are some arguments over esoterica you wouldn't believe, but where no crusades on behalf of purges. After my cat passed I came back to the Lounge and have now decided to re-engage with DU. I cannot express my joy that Skinner terminated the cesspit of Meta. Celestia be praised.
And here's a happy pony:
And, you're probably calmer than me!
?w=500&h=400
Now, that said, I do not condone using any of this as a strawman to beat anyone over the head with. I'm not saying you advocate such an approach yourself, just that that is one possible misuse (IMHO) of the OP.
But mostly I just scoff at all this nuttiness. Certainly it has no tangible impact on my life, so why should I worry about it?
be giving the evil eye would you?
With the The One Eyed Trouser Snake?
Also:
http://reason.com/archives/2005/04/19/womans-hating
Dworkin's defenders insist that she has been unfairly maligned as equating all heterosexual sex with rape when she merely assailed male sexual dominance. Yet in her 1987 book, Intercourse, Dworkin argued that penetration itself is a form of "occupation" and "violation of female boundaries," however enthusiastically enjoyed by "the occupied person." She wrote that "intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior" and is "the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women." "All sex is rape" is fairly accurate shorthand for these ravings.
While allowing that intercourse could survive under gender equality, Dworkin was skeptical ("intercourse itself may be immune to reform"
. In the 1976 book Our Blood, she proclaimed, in language too blunt to be reproduced here, that the feminist transformation of sexuality requires male impotency—though how she would achieve this goal remains unclear.
http://reason.com/blog/2005/04/17/the-dworkin-whitewash
If you really want to defend Andrea Dworkin's words, knock yourself out. However, despite backpedaling in later years, she was certainly not what you would call a promoter of anything resembling rational ideas pertaining to human sexuality.
I've already said pretty much everything I'm going to say on it, and it seems pretty apparent to me that anyone who pays enough attention can figure out that there was something profoundly wrong with Ms. Dworkin's worldview.
It's especially funny with some of the 'harumph harumph don't malign Andrea' people popping out of the woodwork in that thread, because I'm fairly certain many of them have never read a single damn word the woman wrote... They're just so certain there was nothing 'extreme' about her expressed views, right? 
She's just being bad-mouthed by the nasty acronym people, you know...
I'd like to see an explanation of the inherent sensibility and rationality of some of those quotes, like the "limp penis" quote, but I won't hold my breath. (Also, if it was in one of her books, you can't really say she never said it, can you? 
)
so she may as well have never put the original thought to paper.
