Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Once In A Great While

...I encounter an article that truly baffles me -- not in the sense that it defies my ability to comprehend it, but rather in the sense that I cannot imagine what scheme of government or ethics would permit its author to wander about without a minder. And thus it is today, as I was catching up with a few blog-favorites.

Via Ace of Spades, which points to My Pet Jawa, comes a rant that must be read to be believed:

Just to recall a basic fact: Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple.

For those of you unacquainted with the latest in "radfem" acronyms, "PIV" is short for penis in vagina.

With many other logical atrocities and cries for psychiatric help, I'd exhort you to read the whole thing, if only for the novelty of the experience. But that first sentence is all you need to know what's coming...or maybe not:

If we compare this to even the crappiest online definition of violence: “behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something”. Bingo. It fits: Pregnancy = may hurt, damage or kill. Intercourse = a man using his physical force to penetrate a woman. Intention / purpose of the act of intercourse = to cause pregnancy. PIV is therefore intentional harm / violence. Intentional sexual harm of a man against a woman through penile penetration = RAPE.

I'd say the author is uninterested in having children, wouldn't you? That's probably just as well. Also, the author's site doesn't offer us a photo of her. At a guess, that's also probably just as well.

I'd thought that sort of misandry and hatred-of-the-natural-self had been completely leached out of feminism some time ago. Apparently I lead a sheltered life.

Just a little something to help you finish waking up.


A Reader said...

Usually, I follow your exhortations to RTWT, but this time, I shan't. I have seen as much as I need to see, I think.

I will, however, offer a few comments. Firstly, as Karl Denninger is ever so fond of pointing out, the difference between rape and sex is consent.

Secondly, the syllogism should sue her for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Thirdly, anyone who has been the victim of an actual rape would probably find this whole analysis offensive. There is so much difference between giving control of one's body to another by choice and having control snatched away by violence or deceit that comparing the two is truly the act of a diseased mind. I am trying to imagine what an actual rape victim would react. I arrive at either stunned silence or explosions of outrage and colorful language.

Anonymous said...

I'm 67. I was raped when I was 15. I went on to have a wonderful marriage and three beautiful children. The violation was serious, obviously, but allowing it to destroy your entire life is a choice... one I didn't make.

This babbling idiot has every right to speak and choose for herself, and I'm terribly sorry for her utter misery... but that's the limit of my compassion.

I'd love to get her into a group session with women who have been raped and let them all educate her as to the actual difference.