Hips don’t lie – Physignomy of Coitus

The question of sexualities of sex workers is meticulously avoided in public discourse about sex workers and prostitutes. How does the respective sexualities of sex workers themselves impact sex work and prostitution?

31195210965_2e65b190e8_k (2)
Most troops in the Women’s Protection Units (YPJ) are formerly enslaved sex workers who were rescued in daring YPJ commando operations on behalf of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria (DFNS), the first feminist state in world history.

Respectfully dedicated to Josefina

Patriarchal/matriarchal discourse reduces sex workers to mere victims although they are of course they are to varying degrees, yet they are full persons with agency in being much more than victims. Advocacy for enfranchisement of sex workers in contrast tends to desexualize the matter of sex workers as simply yet another profession with legitimate workplace concerns.

To be sure is sex work not the only profession where sexuality plays an important role, yet sex work is the only profession which is precisely about sexuality and so why is the question of sexualities of sex workers themselves systematically erased from public discourse about sex work?

The typical perception among persons whom themselves do not hire sex workers is that of non-aroused females having sex with aroused men. While this is undoubtedly common is the reverse also true, namely female derivation of pleasure from structural oppression. While radical feminist discourse will typically point out that many heterocultural male customers derive pleasure from sexist structural oppression is this no less true for heterocultural females themselves as heteroculture is simply eroticization of patriarchal structural oppression and hence the need to end heteroculture itself by means of new designing and socially implementing new feminist subcultures of desire.

Feminist discourse tends to stereotype human females as victims of male structural oppression which we of course no doubt are, yet victimology tends to discursively erase the respective personhoods of the respective individual victims themselves.

We need however consider that sex work is far from limited to commercial sex work as sex work permeates heteroculture generally. This involves a range of issues which therefore need be addressed in some detail.

Heteroculture is about patriarchal society discursively luring females into “accepting” unethical sexual exploitation by males. How is this so? There are really no options available beyond existing sexual subcultures for females seeking alternatives to heterocultural structural sexual oppression.

The problem however is that the monosexual matrix as an extension of heteroculture to varying degrees permeates existing sexual subcultures as well, most of which to varying degrees semiotically and behaviorally simply reproduce the monosexual oppression in heteroculture.

Why is it that sex workers do not only suffer social oppression in daily life but also hegemonically so in patriarchal and matriarchal discourse as condescendingly, but not actually representing represent the best interests of sex workers?

At the heart of this is sexual repression, namely structurally denying the fact that almost no person is psychologically monosexual in the sense that we desire many others even while in a monosexual relationship. Yet both heteroculture and LGBTQI imitations thereof are based on the monosexual matrix which in turn is based on systemic hypocrisy.

Monosexuality in both heteroculture and LGBTQI culture involves two fundamental assumptions of systemic hypocrisy, namely that relationships are psychologically exclusive and that we do not desire persons outside of an existing relationship.

The existence of sex work disrupts the pervasive hypocrisy of monosexuality and so many persons experience a psychological need to express denial so as to disguise their own forbidden desires. This is similar to the individual psychological need to deny pervasive same-sex desire within human society and similarly the individual psychological need to deny pervasive intergenerational desire within human society.

This operates by means of performative projections as reproducing physionomistic categories as involving “othering” of fellow persons. How does this operate? A physionomistic category is invented and reproduced by notions of imaginary sameness i.e. one or more random perceived “similarity” between persons as socially constructed as categorical. Internally is this performed by means of psychological reproduction of identity while externally is this performed by means of performative projections as externalizing outwardly/inwardly denied aspects of oneself. Otherness is interpersonal and intrapersonal rather than collective as we become indoctrinated to believe by mythologies of physionomistic and other identity politics.

All this leads us back to the question of sexualities of sex workers, an issue which is systematically discursively effectively repressed by both anti-prostitution feminist discourse and pro sex work feminist discourse in that the two competing feminist paradigms of discourse systematically ignore individual sexualities of sex workers themselves as operating while at work in the street and in the bed.

That in turn leads us to the question of the structurally secretive nature of female sexualities. This of course is not to deny the existence of male and non-binary, and transmale sex workers but as the vast majority of sex workers are females (whether cisfemales or transfemales) is it essential to open up the question of of the secretive nature of female sexualities.

Male sexualities and female sexualities are structurally socially constructed as asymmetric, meaning that the gendered asymmetry is eroticized. Eroticization of asymmetric social roles is rather common in sexual subcultures as well, i.e. among purported but not actual “minorities” of desire as the there is no majority of desire since interpersonal desire is so extremely individualized indeed. Taxonomic schemes of sexuality are essentially bankrupt although it is possible to psychometrically measure varying individual tendencies of desire in statistic terms.

Prosecuted rapists will typically claim that “she wanted it” and while nominally preposterous needs it be understood that even haterape can cause sexual arousal in the victim and often does as typically strongly contributing to a female rape victim’s sense of shame after the rape.

The same is true for a prostitute, namely one to variable degree involuntary sex worker. She may be forced to have sex with a customer whom she does not want due to the need to buy diapers for her children or because she fears becoming beaten up by her pimp, yet once the sexual act has commenced may she even so experience sexual arousal and that very cognitive dissonance of experiencing pleasure from abuse is a very common one in prostitutes.

Yet the same is true in reproductive prostitution in marriage where the female will typically spread her legs despite not genuinely wanting due to intense fear that she and her child will become abandoned by the male. A girlfriend in love may similarly agree to become drawn into sex work by a boyfriend with whom she is in love and whom she does not realize is simply a cynical pimp as interested in economically exploiting and enslaving her by varying means. Fear of becoming lone is a very strong fear which leads females to effectively prostitute themselves in varying social contexts. Fear of varying kinds is a very strong factor as many females will spread their legs out of fear of otherwise becoming violently raped and may even simultaneously even fantasize about that actually happening.

Rape fantasy is one of the most common female sexual fantasies and is far more common among females than among males where it is much less common. This leads us to the question of the patriarchal construction of consent as consent is based on a social contract which females who are not prostitutes invariably negate. It is thus under this implicit collective sexual contract up to the male to determine whether it is permissible to violate her “no”, i.e. whether she actually “wants it” or not.

It is therefore essential to deconstruct the unfounded dichotomy between female monosexal hypocrisy and the slut. Nearly all humans of all genders are sluts at heart and so need we all embrace our inner slut.

Therere is thus the notion that a patriarchal/matriarchal social contract mediates “consent” rather than actually producing performative, yet not necessarily actual “consent”. At least nominal non-consent is thus a simple device of oppressive patriarchy/matriarchy as based on systemic sexual repression where females are so sexually repressed by patriarchy that they are not even able to say yes when wet. Of course, consent needs not be verbal but the typical inability of females to produce a “yes” in encounters with new males is nevertheless highly problematic and symptomatic of a deeper malaise in patriarchy, indeed patriarchy is very rotten indeed!

The underlying problem here is that consensual sex tends to be boring and unsatisfying to females while to varying degrees non-consensual sex may be highly extremely arousing indeed. We need thus investigate why this is so? This leads us to the question as to why females in heteroculture typically find it much easier to provide sex for money rather than simply providing verbal consent out of her own desire as manifested in wet panties?

The answer is that patriarchal sexualities are socially constructed as structurally unsatisfactory and even more so to females than to males. This of course is an outcome of patriarchy epistemologically and teleologically privileging male desire over female desire but this answer also needs be understood in terms of what this actually means.

Asking for verbal consent is an intrinsically heterocultural cis-male question which essentially means “would you agree to myself eventually penetrating your vagina” which seems a somewhat strange question to ask, much like a man asking for the hand of a virgin. We can thus see that the question of asking for verbal consent is an intrinsically cismale patriarchal one. While this is also an important legal concern is the real question why the man is not able to read her body in order so as determine whether she wants to get intimate, meaning the rapist question as to whether she “wants it”. The xenorapist has made up his mind in terms of hermeneutic physiognomy and he actually asked the right question but came up with wrong answer to his own patriarchal male question.

The epistemology of xenorape is thus one of asking “the right question” so to speak but coming up with the wrong answer. It is understandable however that males are afraid of acting on “the right question” due to the risk of misinterpreting her anatomical expression. For she may desire yet still not want. Namely she may desire yet fear and so how can the male non-rapist know whether she “wants it” or not if she is in a state of psychological paralysis of confusing cognitive dissonance where she may typically physically “want it” as evidenced by her wet panties yet may still not be psychologically ready for that level.

Of course the answer to this question is profoundly individual and physiognomy may not offer the male a legally safe path in this respect. Yet the problem is that heterocultural females desire rape-like behaviors on the part of males and much more so than males usually desire to perform such behaviors.

Heterocultural female sexuality is thus typically a conundrum of being torn between fear of rape and desire of rape-like behavior on the part of males and hence the rapist question of epistemology as to whether she “wanted it” or not.

It is clear that heteroculture is simply eroticization of rape culture and prostitution culture of patriarchy. Since a female will invariably say no to a newly encountered male even despite her desperately desiring coitus on the spot so to speak does that usually not mean that she actually “wants” to actually perform coitus on that particular spot, such as in a supermarket and she may often desire something else than coitus due to the decentered desire of her body.

What is fundamentally wrong here is the rapist social contract which requires the male to ask a question of rapist epistemology. First if he is even the slightest unsure should he desist, yet she typically wants him to be brave if she wants him inside her because she desires his courage to enter her body and so she wishes for him to enter the surface of her body before him entering her within her, i.e. if she even at that point desires becoming entered within. She may desire it yet not actually “want it” and so what is fundamentally wrong here is the patriarchal sexual contract as based on a male question which is redundant because if he reaches the point where she full of lust so to speak spread “her legs to him” will there be no need for a patriarchal question and hence the need for a feminist sexual contract in human society.

The question of consent as regards social behaviors as centered around social and/or sexual expectation of coitus needs hence be recast beyond the matrix of patriarchy itself.

We need therefore recognize that heteroculture is simply fraudulent eroticization of patriarchy and so the real the question is what comes in its stead and importantly how?

A feminist sexual contract as part of intimacy-embracing feminist etiquette may even need to do away with the phallocentric term “sexuality” itself in coming with new, diverse and inclusive terminologies as not carno-phallogocentrically centered of structurally patriarchal expectation of coitus.

What does this mean then? It means that not only need we devise a tremendous diversity of feminist subcultures of interpersonal intimacy but we need furthermore design a new sexual contract in society as based on intimacy-embracing feminist etiquette.

The conundrum of a prostitute as becoming sexually aroused by initially becoming sexually exploited due to her providing verbal consent out of fears of some kind whether fear of hunger, fear of violence, fear of loneliness, fear of not being desired etc. and subsequently coming to “want it” by means of intense involuntary arousal after the initially psychologically involuntary, yet verbally nominally “voluntary” act of “consent” illustrates that almost only sex workers and prostitutes are able to provide verbal (i.e. patriarchal phonocentric) consent to unknown males.

By embracing prostitutes rather than exploiting them need we first of all perform armed feminist liberation in strict compliance with law in order so as to liberate enslaved prostitutes everywhere whether in nominally reproductive prostitution or in nominally reproductive prostitution.

By thinking of prostitutes as actually reflective of social norms of patriarchal heteroculture rather than an aberration from it may we thus commence rethinking the very semiotic negotiation of provision of consent.

The patriarchal question as to whether she “wants it” simply insufficient. He should first consider that if wishes interpersonal intimacy with her should he first turn her on and subsequently ensure that she becomes sexually aroused. Yet, may a feminist ask, is it truly his task to make sure that she becomes sexual aroused? It actually is not intrinsically speaking his task yet if he wishes to become intimate with her needs he first turn her on and subsequently sexually arouse her.

We need thus design non-phonocentric conventions for provision of non-verbal consent and we need all become trained in strictly scientific hermeneutics of feminist physiognomy. The current patriarchal sexual contract is based on asking the wrong question without there being an accurate test for determining the answer in physiognomy and so he too is typically paralysed by being stuck in the cognitive dissonance between fear and desire. Her potential rejection of him no is deeply frightening because it psychologically implies her rejecting the gendered asymmetry in his very unique personhood. It is understandable that this is frightening to him just as the fear of a male seeking sexual intimately not genuinely, truly and fully approving of her and thus posing a potential physical threat of potentially violent rape is no less frightening to her. She may desires loverape but she fears the potential violence of haterape although she may at some level of consciousness at some level of arousal desire that as well.

What we have here is not merely eroticization of patriarchy but furthermore a state of structural cognitive dissonance as producing structural confusion for participants of all genders in heteroculture.

The conundrum for males is that patriarchal/matriarchal contract requests that he out of courtesy requests an affirmative reply to the wrong question when he should rather ask himself what he himself can do to gradually, increasingly arouse her to the point beyond reasonable doubt?

The current sexual contract in public space means that he will almost only receive a yes from an unknown female if she is a prostitute whose fear compels her to say yes rather than as females in most such situations in public space saying no out of fear and entirely irrespective of her actually desiring or not or perhaps something in between.

What the female in public space desires is accurate hermeneutics of physiognomy whereby he accurately “read her hips” so to speak. What does this mean? It means that sexual arousal will typically impact her body posture from the hips and throughout her body. Why is this so? Because about 90% of her clitoris is below her skin with only the clitoris glans being visible and the clitoris neurologically extends far into her hips. This means that gynogenic sexual arousal whether consciously or subconsciously so to varying degrees affect much of her hips and her hips impact her entire entire body posture if standing.

Reading the physiognomy of natively genogenic female arousal hence requires reading her body posture as opposed to demanding that she answers a ridiculous question which anyway will become redundant once the situation has become sufficiently psychologically advanced. She knows that and wishes specific kinds of physical touching of the surface of her body. She wishes symbolic coitus of heterocultural kissing as proof of him actually genuinely approving her full personhood by means of sharing salivae. Of course it may simply be rather unreasonable of her in expecting him to fully approve of her full personhood prior to actually getting to know her and hence the precautionary structurally hypocritical practice of heterocultural so called dating in patriarchy.

Is it difficult to read the physical impact on body posture that sexual arousal has on clitoris nerve threads as reaching down into the hips? It is not difficult at all and requires only brief training in the hermeneutics of feminist physiognomy. If her hips say yes is it also his purpose to touch the surface of her body in ways which serve to even further arouse her to the point where her hips become impacted by the general humidity of her zone of special intimacy and thus her hips also becoming “wet”.

This is the essential insight which any human person of any gender as interested in seducing cis-females need to learn in a socially intelligent applied manner indeed.

JIN JIYAN AZADΠis Kurdish and means FEMALE, LIFE and FREEDOM and is an unofficial slogan of the increasingly successful armed feminist social revolution of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria (DFNS), the first feminist state in world history.