Politics of Casual Sex

Why is it so difficult for females to consent to participation in casual sex? What is the core problem? Is the problem primarily psychology, gender, sexuality or security? What could be done politically to address the profound fears of females to consent to casual sex? Why do most females predominantly fantasize about non-consensual sex rather than consensual sex? What is the purpose and telos of casual sex and does it have a teleology? May casual sex become investigated epistemologically? These are essential questions to pose, ponder and respond to in some detail.

young-woman-1745173_1920

First are females not socially permitted by patriarchy to perform pickup and if they do are they accused of “prostitution” and coerced into providing sexual favors to the police as ostensible “whores”. Second, do females live in fully justified pervasive fear of rape, abduction, prostitution, incarceration, molestation, harassment, stigmatization, physical abuse and general misogynistic mistreatment. Gynogenic persons are on average of lesser physical stature than androgenic persons and so are fearful of mistreatment once their clothes are off due what could be described as an experience of “physical inferiority”. The pervasive fear is obviously unfortunately fully and completely justified.

Another question that we need to address is the issue as to why it is easier to consent to sexual intercourse if there is also simultaneously monetary reimbursement? The reason is that it is easier to make the four cognitive centers within the human brain to agree if there is a coherent and intelligible psychological incentive structure. The question is therefore as to what other incentive structures could provide the same function? One interesting example is the infamous case of the so called “candyman” who provide sweets to children with the intention of incentivizing them into having sex with the candyman. It is also easier to consent to sexual intercourse if one is already willing yet not sexually aroused as typically much of the brain shuts off once having reached a state of sexual arousal. It is therefore easier to consent if one is merely turned on and not fully sexually aroused.

This is brings us to the question of female primping culture, how does it operate and what does it philosophically mean “to be sexy yet not too sexy?” Considering that females are in constant risk of misogynistic mistreatment almost everywhere with males acting as if they own social space is the act of primping a careful political balancing act. On the one hand does heteroculture accord certain privileges of performativity to females, namely the agency of semiotically triggering sexual arousal in males, on the other hand is this privilege heavily circumvented in such ways so that patriarchy will not lose control over social space of humanity.

How does this operate? Females are certainly expected to semiotically share pleasure without “overdoing it”. This is heavily semiotically circumscribed to highly varying degrees in different human societies. In some cultures is this delimitation very extremely restrictive in for e.g. demanding that female semiotic sharing of pleasure takes place solely within the home and thus demanding full public veiling of females. In Western societies is this largely based on the ambiguous non-written rule of “sexy but not too sexy”.

The question of course is why this is so? What could conceivably be interpreted as culturally wrong in Western societies with semiotically sharing pleasure in public space as long as one fully conforms with every provision of legislation?

This bring us to the question of FEMEN, a NOPD-commanded international feminist intelligence agency within the the TEVEL international organization of intelligence cooperation and whose name was conceived of as a pun on the word “semen” in the sense of politically compelling androgenic persons to lose control over their own production of semen in public. Police officers certainly do not intervene against androgenic persons for not disguising their nipples in public space, yet gynogenic persons who do not disguise their nipples in public space are subjected to comprehensive police intelligence persecution and within minutes dragged away by police officers so as to prevent the ostensibly “dangerous” act of gynogenic persons not disguising their nipples.

What then is semiotically the difference between androgenic nipples and gynogenic nipples? Why are gynogenic nipples invested with such transformative powers as to be considered to constitute an existential threat against ethnopatriarchy itself? On the face of it are nipples of gynogenic persons and androcentric persons remarkably similar and exposure of other parts of torso and breasts of gynogenic persons is generally accepted as long as nipples remained veiled. Make no mistake, this is compulsory veiling by any other name.

This brings us to the question of the transformative power of a) nipples and of b) semiotically “female” bodies generally. Ethnopatriarchy exercises control over female bodies in two main ways. 1) First controlling female sexual agency in private space and 2) second controlling female sexual agency in public space. This of course is based on the nefarious public/private dichotomy in the sense that ethnopatriarchy extrajudicially acts to delimit perfectly legal female agency in rather different ways in private space and in public space as if somehow mystically these were to discrete legal spaces, indeed completely different spaces of jurisprudence. Of course, complying with law is one thing as complying with law may be legitimate in the sense that it is possible to instead endeavor to change the law but when organized ethnopatriarchy acts extrajudicially beyond the realm of law in order to perpetuate its own nefarious control over female bodies is that quite another matter.

This is however not limited to nipples. A female may refrain from veiling other parts of her breasts as this is accepted as “legitimately sexy” by ethnopatriarchy. Not veiling her nipples is however arbitrarily judged “too sexy” by ethnocratic patriarchy so as to ensure that androgenic persons do not lose control over their own production of semen and thus by extension CONTROL OVER REPRODUCTION ITSELF. This applies to clothing, hairstyles, makeup, eyelash extensions etc. whereby females are supposed to cause turn-on in men BUT NOT cause sexual arousal.

This brings us to the question of transgender females in public space. Primping transgender females suffer dual discrimination in the sense as nominally being treated as if they were males by ethnopatriarchy yet also becoming subjected to the “sexy but not too sexy” extrajudicial “rule”. In fact is ethnopatriarchy very far more intolerant of transgender females semiotically sharing pleasure in public space than with cisgender females semiotically sharing pleasure in public space. Cisgender females are tolerated in Western public space to the degree that they submit themselves to the “sexy yet not too sexy” extrajudicial “rule”, yet transgender females are not tolerated in public space at all when semiotically visibly transgender and thus suffer comprehensive police intelligence persecution. The question of course is why this is so?

Let us first delimit ourselves to the Western cultural context before investigating the wider ethnopatriarchal context. There is the Western notion of exclusive carnal desire whereby general sexual orientation are misconceived of as taxonomically exclusive which is a logical impossibility considering that bodies are parts of spectrums. Just as there are persons who are intermediate on the physionomistic spectrum of “black and white” are there also persons who are intermediate on the physionomistic spectrum of “female and male”.

Rosa Parks was very highly visibly intermediate on the spectrum of color and so was her act of refusing to give up her bus seat to a White man and the subsequent arrest by the KKK police more subversively transformative than if she had been more pigmented. Transgender females are generally accepted in public space by ethnopatriachy provided that they look as what is known as PASSABLE. If Rosa Parks had applied some facial cream and perhaps other cosmetics as well to “look white”, i.e. sufficiently PASSABLY WHITE is it extremely unlikely that she would had been asked to give up her bus seat and she would certainly not have suffered arrest by the KKK police.

This brings us to the conception of semiotic difference as between transgender females and cisgender females. What is the difference and why are cisgender females permitted to be “sexy yet not too sexy” while transgender females are not permitted to be sexy at all? First of all does this relate to the notion that it is only females who should engage in primping, namely the semiotic act of sharing pleasure in public space. Second is this considered more threatening as transgender females causing turn-on in cismales is considered a threat in and of itself. This is conceived of as a dual threat. 1) This is deemed a threat to the semiotic hegemony of phantasmatically “exclusive heterosexuality” in the sense that heterocismales becoming involuntarily turned on by primping transfemales performatively exposes the fundamentally unfounded nature of this very fiction indeed. 2) This is deemed a further threat in the sense of the ambiguous nature of transgender female primping expression which could be described as being PERCEIVED of as “doubly homosexual”. What does this mean? It means that transgender female primping is ambiguous in the sense that its hermeneutic physiognomy is bizarrely conceived of as simultaneously both gay and lesbian (SIC!).

Western ethnopatriarchy thus “permits” cisfemales to semiotically trigger turn-on in cismales but not to cause sexual arousal. Western ethnopatriarchy in contrast does not “permit” transfemales to even trigger turn-on in cismales. Transfemales are thus EXTRAJUDICIALLY REQUIRED BY ETHNOPATRIARCHY to semiotically fully veil their female psychological gender by means of so called passability.

Why is this so? Because this threatens a triple breakdown of the physionomistic reign of cultural terror. First do primping, visibly transgender females expose the very unfounded nature of the male/female dichotomy which is rather a spectrum of relative degree in so many respects. Second do primping, visibly transgender females expose the unfounded nature of the hetero/homo dichotomy. Third do primping, visibly transgender primping females expose the unfounded nature of the gay/lesbian dichotomy itself.

LGBTQI culture is increasingly leaving the notion of exclusive desire behind in that it is common for lesbian couples to invite a gay man for a threesome at the home of the lesbian couple and it is similarly common for a gay male couple to invite a lesbian woman for a threesome at the home of the gay male couple. LOVERAPE is furthermore pervasive among gay males and this exposes the unfounded nature of the consensual/nonconsensual dichotomy. How is is the QUESTION OF LOVERAPE relevant here? Because females who are perceived of as “too sexy” in causing sexual arousal in cismales are implicitly SEMIOTICALLy LOVERAPING CISMALES IN PUBLIC SPACE. This is transphobically considered even more threatening by ethnopatriarchy if the implicitly perceived SEMIOTIC LOVERAPE is performed by a transfemale than by a cisfemale.

This brings us to the question of HATERAPE and how it is semiotically different from LOVERAPE. Heterocultural male sexual fantasies are typically socially hardcore and sexually softcore in the sense as having hardcore social behavior with females yet being softcore, YES VERY DULL in bed. Heterocultural female sexual fantasies are typically socially softcore and sexually hardcore yet females not permitted by ethnopatriarchy to be sexually hardcore and are thus yes required to be passive and yes dull in bed in behaving like a prostitute who out of contingency permits herself to be constantly hateraped by customers who desire her as a vehicle for coitus yet despise her very personhood.

The primping cisfemale who is extrajudicially judged to be “too sexy” by ethnopatriarchy thus violates the ethnopatriarchal command of female sexual passivity. How is this so? A primping cisfemale who is conceived of as “too sexy” in causing sexual arousal deploys personal agency as a sexual subject while a female who limits herself to causing turn-on is conceived of as a mere object of desire. Why is this so? Because turn-on causes pleasure while unreciprocated love causes pain.

This requires a certain amount of elaboration. Most Western human persons have experienced the pain of unreciprocated pathological infatuation and so have have obviously many non-Western human persons as well although this varies by cultural context. The cismale who experiences sexual arousal at the sight of a primping female in public space experiences the same mixture of pain, helplessness and pleasure that is experienced as part of unreciprocated pathological infatuation.

What then is the nature of pathological infatuation? Pathological infatuation is the practice of falling in love with semiotic markers as expressing personhood rather than FULLY APPRECIATING, LOVING AND ADORING FULL PERSONHOOD itself. The pain is hence derived from the pathological nature of of those emotions in thus performing FAULTY INTROJECTION known as OBJECTIFICATATION. Why is this also experienced by the cismale who undergoes female SEMIOTIC LOVERAPE in public space? Because nobody taught him court etiquette and gender science and so he does not know how to appropriately and socially effectively approach the primping female for whom becoming approached by males is actually one of the main (albeit not the sole) purpose of primping.

Primping transfemales are considered even more “dangerous” as their performance of PUBLIC SEMIOTIC LOVERAPE is deemed “phallic” in nature despite ethnopatriarchy not necessarily being aware of the nature of the genitals of the transfemale which of course may even be intersexed. Becoming publicly SEMIOTICALLY LOVERAPED by a CISFEMALE is considered BAD ENOUGH by ethnopatriarchy but becoming publicly semotically LOVERAPED by a TRANSFEMALE is considered even worse in the sense that that it threatens complete breakdown of nefarious heteroculture.

This brings us to the question of rape generally. Male heterocultural gendersexuality is BASED ON SEMIOTIC HATERAPE AND PHYSICAL HATERAPE ALIKE. Female heterocultual gendersexuality is BASED ON SEMIOTIC LOVERAPE ONLY. Lesbian gendersexuality IS BASED ON SEMIOTIC LOVERAPE ONLY. Gay male gendersexuality is based on BOTH SEMIOTIC LOVERAPE AND PHYSICAL LOVERAPE.

SEMIOTIC LOVERAPING in public space although perfectly legal in nearly all jurisdictions worldwide however threatens the cismale rape monopoly as pervasively based upon PHYSICAL HATERAPE and SEMIOTIC HATERAPE ALIKE. Primping females thus threaten the heterocultural reign of social terror over public space by means of female performance of SEMIOTIC LOVERAPE in public space.

SEMIOTIC LOVERAPE is thus a perfectly and meticulously legal feminist revolutionary act which if performed on a sufficiently grand scale worldwide will COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY terminate the reign of terror of nefarious heteroculture.

This brings us to the question as to the social function of primping females in public space beyond act as objects of desire. The police systematically sexually exploits, rapes and prostitutes primping females who reappropriate, indeed INDEED REDEEM PUBLIC SPACE from the HATERAPE MONOPOLY of SEXUALLY PATHOLOGICAL ETHNOPATRIARCHY. The patriarchal practice of prostitution (i.e. to varying degrees involuntary sex work) is one of the NEFARIOUS PRACTICES by which NEFARIOUS ETHNOPATRIARCHY perpetuates itself in exercising totalitarian control over female bodies.

This works by suppressing female sexual agency so that females are relegated to the status of mere objects of desire in being required to only trigger turn-on in public space and lying impassive in bed so as not offend the male next to her and his HATERAPE MONOPOLY OF EXPRESSION OF DESIRE. She is not even allowed to express arousal as that typically triggers turnoff in him. Why is this so? Because he is not actually a gynophile but rather a DESPICABLY LOWLY SCUMBAG as merely interested in participation in the performative act of coitus and is ready to non-commercially prostitute himself by means of having sex with female INDIVIDUALS whom he does not even like as persons.

This brings us to the question of the experience of sexual arousal of primping females. Do they experience sexual arousal by walking around heavily primped in public space? Yes they typically very much do so although subsequently experiencing SHAME on account of their wet panties. This is of course one reason why many primping females avoid wearing panties while walking around the city primped and sexually aroused and not wearing panties is furthermore consciously or implicitly experienced as performing a secret act of GENDERSEXUAL REBELLION, a reappropriation of female sexual agency indeed.

The basic problem however is not in the consciousness of females but rather in heterocultural men who need to be trained to become lesbians. Men need become abolished in a social sense and gestation of androgynic embryos need become increasingly severely limited indeed. Everyone needs to learn primping and what is known as masculinity is simply for the most part sheer lowliness. Transmales are by the way seldom masculine in that negative sense. Rather needs gender expression become idiosyncratically individualized. THAT IS THE MEANING OF THE END OF MAN

The Intelligence Entrapment Methods documentation project.

Entrapment_logo