What does it mean to be female in philosophical terms? French feminism as having developed in the feminist intellectual traditions of Simone de Beauvoir and Jacques Derrida has sought to understand this in terms of DIFFÉRANCE. In the United States is Judith Butler famous for commencing the deconstruction of the SIGNIFIÉR of FEMALE BODIES but what about the SIGNIFIANT and how ought it be SIGNIFIED? How can we reconceptualize the semiotics of gender beyond ridiculously androcentric distinctions? What is the meaning of gender anyway? What is gendered desire anyway and how is it different from other forms of carnal desire and how is carnal desire different from other desire? Why are these questions not specific to female desire?
Female heterotypical genders are typically conceptualized in terms of relative difference as compared with male heterotypical genders. But why is male heterotypical gender THE NORMATIVE BASIS of every investigation, including documenting statistical difference in gender outcomes of various kinds? Why should a severely structurally oppressive behavioral structure be considered as a norm for anything other than of course pointing out that it is precisely a severely oppressive social norm? This of course is not to imply that such critical investigations are illegitimate or unnecessary but rather that other, indeed non-carno-phallogocentric investigations are certainly needed as well.
What is the female body? A female body is one that is phantasmatically conceptualized as outside of the imaginary realm of male bodies just as a colored body is phantasmatically conceptualized as beyond the imaginary realm of white bodies. This is in strictly philosophical terms A PERFORMATIVE SPEECH ACT OF OTHERING, i.e. semiotically excluding fellow persons on the basis of irrelevant perceived/actual “difference”. WHITE/BLACK AND MAN/WOMAN ARE SOCIAL CATEGORIES of questionable validity since membership is involuntary and structurally enforced and so how can one even speak of membership considering that the enforced “membership” is a semiotic act of APARTHEID?
THESE TWO DICHOTOMOUS DISTINCTIONS HAVE MOSTLY MEDICAL, GENETIC AND REPRODUCTIVE RELEVANCY BUT OTHERWISE CERTAINLY DO NOT HAVE MUCH RELEVANCE AT ALL.
This brings us to the question of female desire. How is female desire different from male desire or rather ought this be phrased in completely different terms as strictly relevant to the subject matter? Female heteronormative desire is socially constructed outside of the realm of the PHALLUS, i.e. it is socially constructed as DESIRE FOR PHALLUS rather than DESIRE OF THE PHALLUS. That of course is the HETEROCULTURAL social construction but as LUCE IRIGARAY famously points out do females have sexual organs all over their bodies and as this is surely a MOST INTERESTING STATEMENT needs it be asked whether and why this is so?
THIS BRINGS US TO THE QUESTION OF THE PHALLUS ITSELF, NAMELY PHALLOCENTRISM, PHALLOGOCENTRISM AND CARN0-PHALLOGOCENTRISM. WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PHALLUS AND THE ANDROGENIC BODY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF DESIRE FOR PHALLUS? PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC SEXOLOGICAL SCUMBAGS WILL HAVE US BELIEVE THAT FEMALES DESIRE ANDROGENIC BODIES, BUT DO THEY REALLY?
The PHALLUS is a wonderful joystick of tremendous erogeneity while gynogenic desire is more diffuse and anatomically decentralized. While androgenic genitala och gynogenic genitalia constitute A SPECTRUM OF VARIATION IN RELATIVE DEGREE with intersexed persons in the very middle of that spectrum are gynogenic genitalia och androgenic genitala nevertheless rather different, namely the erogeneity is similar but DIFFERENTLY ANATOMICALLY DISTRIBUTED. E.g is the gynogenic CLITORIS, i.e. the gynogenic ANATOMICAL EQUIVALENT of the PHALLUS academically conceived of as “below the skin” with the size of a fist of a girl as only the CLITORIS GLANS (in popular parlance described as “the clit”) is socially constructed as being on the surface of the body despite the fact that the CLITORIS becomes HIGHLY VISIBLE WHEN SWELLING below the skin, i.e. when gynogenic persons experience erection.
THE FACT IS THAT MOST FEMALES ARE DISGUSTED BY MOST MALES. What does this mean? THERE IS CERTAINLY DESIRE FOR THE WONDERFUL LOVESTICK OF THE PHALLUS EVEN AMONG MOST LESBIANS BUT THE REALITY IS THAT MOST BORN ANDROGENIC PERSONS DEVELOPED INTO EVILIZED MONSTERS.
THIS OPENS THE QUESTIONS OF OBJECTIFICATION. DO FEMALES OBJECTIFY MALES WHEN DESIRING THE PHALLUS AND NOT THE OWNER OF THE PHALLUS? GAY MALES NO DOUBT DESIRE HETEROCULTURAL PHALLUSES NO LESS THAN DO HETEROCULTURAL FEMALES BUT AS HETEROCULTURAL FEMALES DO THEY FIND IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH the HETEROCULTURAL SCUMBAGS WHOM MOST ANDROGENIC PERSONS DEVELOP INTO. HETEROCULTURAL FEMALES ESSENTIALLY DESIRE PSYCHOLOGICALLY GAY MEN WITH PREFERENCE FOR FEMALES AND FIND IT SO IMMENSELY FRUSTRATING THAT MOST ANDROGENIC PERSONS AS TYPICALLY RAISED BY FELLOW GYNOGENIC PERSONS DEVELOPED INTO REAL LIFE MONSTERS. WHILE GYNOGENIC HETEROCULTURAL SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION OF TRANSGENDER FEMALES IS NO DOUBT VERY MUCH SOCIAL REALITY DO FEMALES TEND TO SIMPLY NOT APPRECIATE THE SCUMBAG MISFITS BEHIND MOST PHALLUSES. THIS IS CLEARLY NOT OBJECTIFICATION.
Most heterocultural females are simply unaware that what they desire are actually non-heterocultural males IN HETEROCULTURE BEING THE COERCIVELY ENFORCED CULTURE OF SCUMBAG PHALLIC MISFITS. This of course is not to deny the existence of female patriarchal scumbags as well but there is an important distinction here. WHILE MOST BUT FAR FROM ALL ANDROGENIC PERSONS DEVELOP INTO SCUMBAGS DO MOST GYNOGENIC PERSONS CERTAINLY NOT DEVELOP INTO SCUMBAGS. THE REASON IS THE FAR GREATER FREQUENCY OF PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS AMONG MALES WHICH MEANT FAR GREATER ZOOLOGICAL VULNERABLE IN TERMS OF WHAT IN VATICAN PARLANCE IS REFERRED TO AS THE DEMONOLOGICAL SPECTRUM.
How then is desire for phallus different from SCUMBAG desire of the phallus? PHALLIC SCUMBAGS DESIRE DO NOT GENUINELY DESIRE GYNOGENIC PERSONHOOD OR EVEN THE GENITAL REGION ITSELF CONSIDERING AS IT IS VIRTUALLY UNIVERSAL AMONG PHALLIC SCUMBAGS TO DEROGATIVELY REFER TO FEMALE PERSONS AS “CUNTS” AND THE LIKE. WHAT IS TYPICALLY DESIRED IS RATHER THE VACUUM BETWEEN LABIA, THEN WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? THIS IS THE SEMIOTIC REDUCTION OF FEMALE PERSONHOOD TO NOTHINGNESS, I.E. IN OTHER WORDS THE PERFORMATIVE SPEECH ACT OF MISOGYNY. NUMBERS ONE AND ZERO ARE GENITAL SYMBOLS OF PHALLUS AND VAGINA RESPECTIVELY WHERE FEMALES ARE CONCEPTUALIZED AS LITERALLY NOTHING. THIS IS THE NATURE OF PHALLIC SCUMBAGS WHO CONCEIVE OF FEMALES AS VACUOUS VESSELS OF NOTHING OF SIGNIFICANCE AS PHALLIC SCUMBAGS ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN THE VACUUM BUT NOT IN THE PERSON AROUND THE DESIRED VACUUM. THIS IS THE DESPICABLE MISOGYNISTIC NATURE OF LOWLY PATRIARCHAL PHALLIC SCUMBAGS.
Patriarchal phallic scumbags CERTAINLY DO tend to believe that primping belongs exclusively to the semiotic realm of the feminine. WE NEED HENCE ASK WHY THIS IS SO. FURTHERMORE, WHY DO HETEROCULTURAL FEMALES PRIMP? IN ADDITION TO 1) WISHING TO RECOGNIZE ONESELF IN THE MIRROR, 2) GAINING SOCIAL STATURE IN THE FEMALE SOCIAL PECKING ORDER AND 3) WISHING TO BE CONTACTED BY MEN IN PUBLIC SPACE IS THERE A FOURTH MOTIVE, NAMELY 4) WISHING TO BECOME APPRECIATED FOR FULL PERSONHOOD OF BODY AND COGNITION RATHER THAN BEING REDUCED TO EMPTY SPACE, I.E. THE VACUOUS DIFFÉRANCE BETWEEN THE LABIA. THIS IS NOT DESIRE FOR BECOMING HATERAPED BUT RATHER THE VERY OPPOSITE, NAMELY SACRED DESIRE FOR LOVE. MISOGYNISTIC REDUCTION OF FEMALE PERSONHOOD TO A VACUOUS SPACE FOR SELFISH PHALLIC GRATIFICATION IS PRECISELY NOTHING BUT SEMIOTIC HATERAPE.