#heterosex

[shadycomputerpolice]

I am anti piv s*x because it is an inherently unequal act that puts women at a disadvantage because we are at risk of pregnancy, stds (the person being penetrated has the higher risk of infection), and rape.

But the idea that women should get men's di*ks hard especially through fellatio so that the men can penetrate them is the most upside down shit ever. Men should be doing their best to make women lubricated enough for piv.

You are trying to penetrate me but I have to get you hard and make myself lubricated enough for that, that is so fucking dumb. Patriarchy is so fucking illogical if you really think about it.

For the "some women enjoy piv" response. I should hope so, if you are agreeing to that particular sexual act, I hope you are enjoying it. However, even if you enjoy piv, I still think men should be getting themselves hard and making sure women are lubricated enough for the act. The person with the most to lose should do the least. That will make the act less unequal (note there is no way to remove the inequality from piv, the only thing that can be achieved is reducing the degree of inequality).

Women's individual enjoyment of piv doesn't reduce the material inequality of piv sex. Orgasms do not eliminate the risk of pregnancy, stds and other piv related risks. As seen with the abortion bans in the USA, women are still the ones bearing the physical risk and responsibility for pregnancy prevention.

[david-goldrock]

Since this is tumblr, I just wanna check

Please reblog to enlarge the sample size

[yuri-for-businesswomen]

another crazy thing about having been a prostitute is to realise how little difference there has been in how many of my male sexual partners have treated me and how sex buyers treated me, especially since i was an escort where often you get paid to simulate dates. i even had sex buyers beg to see me again meanwhile men in real life often ghost or keep me at armlength especially when there are no romantic feelings involved.

this is why i dont want to have sex without feelings and care for each other anymore - it almost feels like im prostituted all over again, bad in a different way because i actually like the men i sleep with and want them to like and appreciate me too and consider my desires (dont get me wrong obviously prostitution is always worse than sleeping with men im actually attracted to and want to have sex with but it hurts in a different way to realise that ive often also been just a means to get off to them).

like for example, since sex buyers often pay for time instead of sex act (or both combined), they want to get the most out of their money and do the most to you in the set time - but as a prostitute you want to get it over with as soon as possible and it feels like torture. meanwhile so many heterosexual men who dont pay for sex try to reach orgasm as soon as possible and then its over, lmao. like the direct comparison between having been prostituted and having voluntary sex with men will make you feel absolutely crazy but it also made me realise why i thought i didnt even like sex for so long. because i was always treated like an object, not a person. men will do the bare minimum to keep you around for sex if they dont see you as wife material (and then they also do just little more than the bare minimum up until they reached their goal of marriage then usually start neglecting their wives as we know).

which brings home the point that we need a cultural and legal shift. as long as men treat sex as masturbation with another person, and women as objects or tools, there will always be demand for prostitution, and there will always be (privileged) women deluded into thinking „might as well get paid for it“ or even „at least now im being appreciated“, paradoxically. thats how bad heterosexual men treat women in bed.

this also emphasises that yes, #allmen, because even the men who dont buy sex contribute to the system of sexual exploitation with their behaviour. the reason ive heard men say most often why they dont buy sex is not care for women, but pride. they can convince women to get them off so why pay for it? same with porn, they dont stop watching because they care about women, but because their dick stopped working. and then of course you have a lot of sex buyers who dont even want to do the bare minimum mentioned above so they buy sex to go immediately to using a womans body with no „hassle“. the state of heterosex is fucking dire because i know im by far not the only one experiencing this.

and even before prostitution i could feel it but not really put my finger on it, now with this horrible experience and a radical aligned feminist view on things i realise and its really dark. and dont even try talking to men about their inadequacies in bed because they will act like youre the problem and an annoying nag for voicing desires.

[scretladyspider]

Let’s talk about what demisexuality is not.

First off: what is demisexuality? We have to establish what it is to talk about what it isn’t.

‘demisexuality’ describes not experiencing sexual attraction until a close bond is formed. This doesn’t mean demis are attracted to everyone we bond with, and we can have differing desires towards sex. Demisexuals may or may not be demiromantic — they’re not one and the same.

While demisexuals can also be demiromantic, this isn’t true as a rule. Just like being asexual doesn’t necessarily mean you’re aromantic. It’s possible to be both, nothing wrong with that — but they’re not inherently synonymous.

*For some people who are aroace, include demi aroaces, their sexual and romantic orientations are deeply intertwined and there isn’t a big difference between the two. Other people use the split attraction model, which recognizes a difference in sexual and romantic orientations.

Many people think that “everyone is demisexual” because they read the definition and say “oh, that’s just being normal”. They’re confusing not experiencing sexual at ALL with waiting until a relationship is serious to have sex.

Demisexuality is a sexual orientation. The thing people confuse it with is a decision regarding sexual behavior that can be made regardless of orientation— the decision to wait to have sex until you’re emotionally close. That decision can be made by anyone, demisexual or not.

Often people read the definition and say “I’m demisexual, I wait to have sex until it’s not just sex. I want emotional fulfillment too.” When it’s explained that demisexuals rarely have sexual attraction and only under certain conditions does it occur, one of two things happens:

they misunderstand and assume that demisexuals are also experiencing sexual attraction without the bond and just not acting on it, or

they begin to understand that there’s a difference between sexual attraction and action.

More often than not it’s the former.

It’s interesting that this misunderstanding happens when demisexuality is described because allosexuals (people who aren’t ace) abstain from sex all the time but still feel sexual attraction. There’s this underlying assumption that everyone experiences sexual attraction.

But… just imagine that feeling of not being attracted and expand it. It’s doubtful that you experience sexual attraction to every person you see is physically attractive. Just expand that and there you go. Or imagine it like not seeing a particular color until you suddenly can.

Demisexuals aren’t all cisgender and heteroromantic. But there’s nothing wrong with demis who are! If ace isn’t enough for you to respect someone is LGBTQIA+, you don’t understand or accept asexuality or the orientations under its spectrum.

Demisexuality is NOT “just being a woman”. Demisexuality also isn’t “the patriarchy convinced young girls not having casual sex was a sexuality”.

There’s so much wrong with both of these, and they tie together, so I put them together here. Not only does this thinking see cis women and feminine people as being inherently “more” asexual, it robs allos and aces alike of bodily autonomy towards sex and sexuality. It bleeds out from conservative Christianity — it’s the same ideas that lead us to abstinence only sex “education” and that women must be sexually available at all times or their husband will cheat to “get his needs met”. Saying that cis women & feminine people are just all demisexual or ace removes the bodily autonomy of those who want sex and those who don’t by assigning a culturally acceptable narrative as more important than lived experience. But sexuality isn’t limited by cisheterosexism.

The truth is there are still a lot of people learning they’re under the asexual umbrella as educators and advocacy groups get education out there, and even in queer spaces asexuality isn’t always accepted, let alone its spectrum. A lot of people don’t even know it’s an option!

In addition, and partially because of, tropes like this, asexuality and everything under it are considered more “feminine”. Sex is seen as a symbol of status and depending on your gender and presentation, that status gets lowered or raised depending on the number of partners had.

Cis men and masculine aces exist, and also have to contend with cultural pressures to “perform” sexually, whether they want to or not. Erasing these experiences doesn’t help further acceptance towards asexuality or just sexuality in general.

And! Cis women and feminine people can have and enjoy casual sex! Others don’t but still experience sexual attraction regularly. Being allosexual isn’t limited to the masculine. Libido can also exist without sexual attraction. Human sexuality is just not as narrow as you think.

That’s where I’ll leave this one. Remember, it’s okay to be demisexual. It’s not okay to dunk on a group of people you didn’t bother to try to understand. Keep an open mind. There’s room at the table for learning, not bigotry.

[unforgivablengk]

I say this as a 35 year old trans queer who has been out since I was like 12. I'm desperate for y'all not to take us backwards. liberation, not assimilation.

[crplpunkklavier]

i'm in love with every trans person i read about for my thesis

(Galupo, M. P., Henise, S. B., & Davis, K. S. (2014). Transgender microaggressions in the context of friendship: Patterns of experience across friends’ sexual orientation and gender identity. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(4), 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000075)

[dykeulous]

the genitalia itself is not socially constructed, the forced traits are. the characteristics that fill the pink & the blue box are, and we must destroy those boxes, and create one simple box; one with no specific characteristics, one that clearly states: I Am Human.

sex (for a lack of a better term, i’m not referring to intercourse here) holds a lot of patriarchal significance, that is because of sex categorization, not because of sex itself. once we abolish gender, the alienation of workers will be less prevailing, as well, because gender will no longer be established to further the alienation of female & male proletarians.

how will this affect sexuality? in a post-gender society, orientational labels would cease existing. they are only useful & important under a patriarchal society. in a post-gender society, all sexualities & relationships would be deemed equal & would have the same value. it would just be people having romantic and sexual relationships with other people. heteronormativity would no longer be infecting society as a whole, thus no one would ever have to disclose their orientational label to anybody– because labels would no longer be useful, nor would they be important.

(i’m saying all this as someone who’s biggest part of identity is being lesbian)

[bimboficationblues]

so bewildering to me that so many straight people seemingly are not aware that if PIV is not working for whatever reason you can just do something else

[lyledebeast]

It's incredible to me how often people's idea of "the female gaze" on Tumblr boils down to "I'm a woman, and when this man takes his shirt off its hot to me, so therefore it only exists on film for people like me."

It's especially egregious when people do this with characters like Lestat in AMC's Interview with the Vampire, who is not only himself bisexual but in a relationship with a man, who is usually the person he is undressed for!

Part of the problem is that people are talking about the cinematic gaze without any clear sense of what that actually means. It's never just about the sexuality of the character onscreen or of individual people who are looking at them. Laura Mulvey used "the male gaze" to describe how the framing of women's bodies in cinema mirrors the way women's bodies are framed in culture (i.e. as passive objects for male consumption.) Her essay "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" is 49 years old now, so the idea of the gaze has undergone much evolution, but there is no need to insist that female gaze be both reductive and heterosexist.

[queering-ecology]

TOWARD A QUEER ECOFEMINISM-summary

This is (the start of) a summary of the main ideas and relevant information put forth by Greta Gaard in her article, Toward a Queer Ecofeminism.

--

Progressives have long lamented the disunity of the ‘left’ in the USA and the future of progressive political organizing likely depends on our ability to have a main base of articulation. Ecofeminism understands that many systems of oppression are mutually reinforcing—ergo the liberation of women requires the liberation of nature and vice versa.

 “Love of nature is a process of becoming aware of and unlearning ideologies of racism, sexism, heterosexism and ableism so that we may cease to reduce our idea of nature to a dark, heterosexual, ‘beautiful’ mother” (115).

According to Gaard, to be truly inclusive, ecofeminism must consider findings of queer theory and vice versa.

--

*Cover image: Still from “Prelude: Serotiny” of the Metamorphosis series of the Institute of Queer Ecology.

[oddwomen]

TIME (July 10, 1989)

[shadycomputerpolice]

Physical Attraction Matters

Women only wanting to date men they are physically attracted to should not even be a debate. The pushback women get for this is vitriolic one would think they are committing human rights violations (then again, most men think getting laid is a human right so I guess to them women are indeed violating their human rights). As with all things, men have women doing their dirty work for them so even other women demonise women for this.

Most people are like" You are shallow for wanting to be sexually attracted to the person you will be sexually involved with.' While the woke/healed ones virtue be like, "His character and how he treats you are more important."

Just because character is important doesn't mean physical attraction doesn't matter. The Venn Diagram for women's dating pool would be the intersection of actual good character and physical attractive to the woman.

I also think when people hear women say "I want a man I am physically attracted to" they hear "I want a GQ Model". And some women want a GQ Model (there is nothing wrong with that btw) but physical/sexual attraction is very personal. What one woman genuinely finds attractive, another does not.

Attraction is not just based on looks as a person's personality can make them more or less attractive to an individual. Attraction is based on a several factors some of which I have attempted to list below.

Facial Beauty/ Handsomeness

Body Shape and Proportions

Personal Hygiene & Grooming

Voice (David Beckham' s voice is a huge turn off for me even though he is somewhat handsome and has a nice body)

Fashion style

Intellect (I put intellect here because it is not related to character AND I am sure many of us have experienced liking a guy until you find out he is dumb).

Hobbies

Sense of Humor

Etc (this is not an exhaustive list).

Women's standards of physical attraction will vary from individual to individual and also with time (what one person finds attractive might change over their lifetime).

However, the bottom line is women should be romantically involved with men they find physically attractive per time. Yes I meant per time. I believe it is totally reasonable and sensible to end a relationship because you are no longer physically attracted to the person. Anybody who says otherwise wants to women to tolerate sex with men they aren't attracted to (aka lie back and think of xyz) which means they hate women.

FYI: I don't have a problem with men ending relationships because the physical attraction is gone if the breakup is respectful and kind.

What I have a problem with is how they do it. They often cheat and are so disrespectful and mean to the women they are breaking up with. Relationships don't have to last forever and people should focus on having happy and healthy relationships instead of long ones.

[centrumlumina]

Okay, the thing about F1nn5ter has helped crystallise something I've been thinking about a lot lately: we need better words for the way society labels people without their consent.

I know most people on Tumblr Dot Com are on board the intersectional feminism train, people can self-identify however they want, etc., but this stuff is baked in deep. I'm talking about gaydar, about "I can tell a trans woman by looking", about "but you don't look disabled." It runs even deeper - I'm betting everyone reading this has recently assumed someone's gender or race without explicitly asking them how they identified. And I'm not saying that's bad necessarily; I don't know if society would function if we couldn't use any non-verbal indicators of identity.

But the idea that appearance alone is enough to know someone's identity can be a dangerous one, primarily because of how people react when they are told they are wrong. There are a number of situations I've seen where people are so confident in their assessment of other people's appearance that they will become belligerent or aggressive when corrected, even if the correction is coming from the person whose identity is in question.

I'm sure there are terms which already exist for this - I'm no expert on the topic - but I'm surprised I don't already know what to call it. This is such a common issue that you'd think it would be more widely discussed. Instead the closest I can think of is "passing", which isn't quite right - it puts all the focus on the person being judged and how they present themselves, while I'm much more interested in talking about the person doing the judging.

So my proposed term, at least for now, is "presumption of identity." F1nn5ter experienced a presumption of female identity, despite the fact that he identifies as a man. Certain fictional characters are assigned a presumption of white identity, in spite of their actors being mixed race.

Anyway, let me know what you think.

[cloud-based-and-rainpilled]

Not to be too controversial but… idk. Sometimes heterosexual sex be hittin’

[endlessburningdarkness]

the reason why when lou binghe does physically force himself on shen yuan (kissing him forcefully) (not stopping during their wedding) it's written off as passionate is because shen yuan is the bottom and people think that a top/masculine character is entitled to do those things out of "passion" and the bottom must want it bc they pretty much see the bottom as the woman in the relationship.

this is also why they write it off as un negotiated kink or whatever as if an un negotiated kink isn't automatically abusive. the whole point of kink is that it is negotiated beforehand. if there's no negotiation, it's not kink. and before you say porn logic, isn't the story meant to be a satire of porn logic danmei novels? what was the point of the maigu ridge scene if it goes back to porn logic in the next chapter?

additionally shen yuan insists on bottoming because he also thinks he has to be the woman in the relationship. shen yuan's internalized prejudices go unquestioned by the fandom who wholeheartedly justify his unhealthy thinking and behaviour as a porn logic kink because that's what gets them off. that's fine if you could admit that's what you like, but why pretend it's healthy wholesome romance within the story?

i guaranfuckingtee if shen yuan was a woman you would clearly see it as abusive, but along with the extensive heterosexism, because shen yuan is a man (and bc he's a stand in for the reader), there's a complete denial that he could possibly be in an abusive relationship. because most people want to keep pretending men never get abused.

[knittinglizards]

big fan of airing order putting these right next to each other. i think that sad little drone is in itself a tragic romance more compelling than a lot of the plots intended to be read as such in this series