The Most Infuriating Thing About Personal Growth Is That Even If Someone Else Did Have The Answer You

Why, yes, feminism does have to support all women, even the ones you don't like, that's kind of the whole point.

That doesn't mean you *agree* with everything any woman does. It doesn't mean you give any woman anything she asks for. It doesn't mean you excuse everything every woman does.

What it does mean is that no woman is responsible what men do, no matter how ill-thought her choices, and she is still entitled to the benefits of feminism.

This is exactly what I mean.

There isn't an either/or choice that has to be made here. It is entirely possible to criticise that socialisation, explain the risks and strongly encourage women not to partner with men, as well as be there for them if they make that choice anyway, because we're supposed to be feminists and support all women, even if the choices that they make are anti-feminist.

Pretending that me basically saying "let's actually be feminists and remember just how strong a drug female socialisation is, so maybe don't be misogynistic and victim-blame women that get abused" is the same as "never speak against that harmful socialisation" is just ridiculous.

It's reasonable to feel frustrated sometimes when it comes to women still partnering with men, but the rush there is to attack them and blame them for patriarchy grinding them down enough to partner with men despite knowing feminist theory personally sickens me.

And I don't want to hear any version of "but you shouldn't be criticising women when men do..." because if feminists don't keep our house in order and can't even show the basics of compassion over that, the cornerstone of what patriarchy wants, then we may as well roll over and show men the white flag. There's no hope for women if feminists can't even be kind and offer grace to other women.

I love how the concept of female socialisation and patriarchy completely disappears out of the window for some feminists as soon as straight (and some bisexual) women cave into getting into relationships with men.

I'm sorry, but I genuinely can't read this. I have absolutely no idea what you're attempting to say, so I'll explain my point of view and reasoning a little more clearly.

If asexuality is a sexuality, it would be short and sweet to understand. Sexuality is very simple that way. There don't need to be other caveats. Lesbians are women who are only attracted to other women. Straight people are only attracted to the opposite sex. Bisexuals can be attracted to either sex. Therefore, as a valid sexuality, asexuals would be unable to be attracted to either sex.

If asexuality is nothing but a spectrum of "utterly sex repulsed" to "fine with sex with someone I love," then that isn't a sexuality, that's personal preference over physical intimacy and intercourse, and to compare it to the oppression of marginalised sexualities is entirely wrong.

The reason that I bring up misogyny around asexuality is there are a lot of women who feel so pressured to be sexual that they think that having the label of "asexual" will protect them and separate them from others who they believe are much more content with a ton of sex. That they're conflicted about some same-sex attraction, and hide behind asexuality. That they were abused and use asexuality to protect themselves. Romance has been destroyed by the normalisation of hookup culture to the point that there are women who believe that wanting to wait and form a connection with someone else before any intimacy is asexuality and therefore pathological, which is down to misogyny and pornification of the world around us.

I think that the comparison to aspec and nonbinary is accurate, because there is no such thing as being "biromantic heterosexual." As a bisexual, it's incredibly offensive. It's either a bisexual who's so in pain over their sexuality that they've been made to feel that they have to bury it under a different label, or a straight person who thinks that caring deeply for someone of the same sex entitles them to our space.

You cannot have your cake and eat it with wishy-washy, meaningless words.

For the record, trans people are not inherently "queer." They're men and women. I still hear "queer" being used as a slur, and will never accept it.

As a feminist, I believe that women should have the right to be able to say that they never want sex again. If a relationship is fulfilling without sex, amazing. I am personally uninterested in sex right now, if that helps. I'm also uninterested in hearing about how much or how little sex anyone else is having - aside from criticising kink and prostitution etc.

I will always support someone who says that they are asexual, as in, "I do not feel attraction to either women or men, that is how I was made," but I can't take any other kind of "asexuality" seriously. It doesn't make sense at all.

If it really is just a bunch of people claiming to be oppressed and navel-gazing over nothing more than how much or how little sexual intimacy they have in their relationships, then they need to grow up and find a hobby. I remember seeing a billion different versions of "demisexual demigirl" back in the day, and I don't know how it isn't just nonbinary but make it sexuality flavoured.

I really dislike radfems hating on asexuals. Not desiring sex is deviant from what is expected of society, whether among the right or the left (yes, even among radfems and it's quite obvious). There's a level of sex negativity that is encouraged in these spaces (don't have sex with men), but people taking it further upsets you (because you're a woman with the same desire for sex as the men you dislike). I will always support asexuality and acespec identities. If you want sex positivity in any form and don't want those "annoying asexuals" to bother you, just go outside. Stop acting like your stance on sex is not a mainstream opinion

POV You wanted to read more about endometriosis :

I hate it for all the women with endo so much.

All the articles are different. The oldest is 2013-2014, the freshest is December 2024.

"But some women fantasise about sexy priests!"

Those women imagine attractive men wearing ordinary priest clothes. There isn't some obvious and acceptable g-string with a priest's collar around it swapped in. The fantasised priests are just... attractive, romanticised priests.

The whole point of nuns being sexualised, as far as I understand it, is the transgressing of boundaries (as above), the male obsession with owning and touching and fucking an underlined-capitalised-bolded virgin, and/or their need to fantasise that those pious nuns will take one look at that one specific man and suddenly turn into a nymphomaniac for him.

Maybe the message was "Ha, I'm not straight like religion tells me I should be! This is me being sexy and breaking free!" but it just underlines what men want anyway and upholds that the likes of nuns are some minor, sexy taboo for men.

Nothing is or can be subverted when it's sexualised, because the only message that men understand is I can jerk off to this.

Re: Chappell Roan’s nun stuff and the sexualization of nuns

I do not think a religion itself is owed any kindness or respect. I don’t think the misogynistic practices of these religions are sacred or deserve to be treated as though they’re immune from criticism and mockery.

However, I also do understand that nuns and similar religious roles are held by women who don the outfit and play the role because they have a commitment to their religion that includes sexual purity (whether brainwashed or not… though probably brainwashed a bit). I think the sexual mockery of a woman or a group of women who indicate their desire to not be seen sexually is weird. I believe even religious women are owed respect for their sexual boundaries. And the main fetish surrounding sexualizing nuns is that it is a clear violation of sexual boundaries and consent. That is the part that needs to be understood. The sexualization of nuns is because it is enticing to cross the set sexual boundaries of a woman. And the woman being religious can either add to the fetish (in the eyes of men) or it can be a defense against criticism, i.e. “I thought we hated Christianity but nuns are somehow off-limits?” (‘Religion-critical’ leftists).

I just don’t agree with the premise. I truly do think it’d be a whole different scenario if it were a religious role being sexualized that wasn’t about sexual purity. If that makes sense. Like the issue with the nun sexualization is that the whole fetish surrounding sexy nuns is that it is sexualizing a woman who doesn’t want to be sexualized. If it wasn’t a nun, but it was a random female celebrity who was being highly sexualized after she made it clear she didn’t want to be sexualized, I’d say the same thing.

Does this make sense? I’m at urgent care rn and im struggling to focus

god I fear your opinion on bisexual lesbioromantics lmao. like- i call myself bi lesbian because I have sex with men and women but i've only ever felt romantically towards women and like I feel like whatever you're opinion is on that is probably interesting enough to be studied in a lab

i think people who call themselves bi lesbians should kill themselves

"is xyz rape, is abc rape" is just the wrong way to approach discussing rape as a feminist. what you're doing when you're concerned about absolute parameters is centering what we should consider allowable by men. why center that. it's not that "everything" is rape, it's that you need to completely shift your paradigm. you need to consider what it means for women to move in a world where their sexual violation is essentially a given and up for negotiation. what does discussing rape actually look like when completely, one hundred percent centering the experiencing and feelings of violated women and completely disregarding what would be helpful for men to think is "only so bad."