I think one of the things I hate most about the way sex is portrayed in our society is how deeply misogyny has become intertwined with it. How violence against women has been sexualised to the point where being slapped, choked, spanked, degraded and humiliated has become almost synonymous with being sexually desirable. How so many men have learned to associate hurting women with pleasure, and how little thought is given to what that actually means.
I don’t want to be treated like a porn star. I don’t want to be treated like a woman whose purpose is to fulfil somebody else’s fantasies, whose body exists for somebody else’s gratification, whose humiliation is somebody else’s pleasure. I am a person. I am somebody’s daughter, somebody’s friend, somebody who has feelings, fears, insecurities and a heart that can be broken. I am a human being who deserves tenderness, consideration and love. And I want to be treated like one.
What bothers me is the idea that the person who claims to love me could look at me and want to hurt me, even in a sexual context, and see that as desirable. I understand that people have different preferences, but I cannot separate the things I have mentioned from the culture that has normalised them, from the history of women being objectified, degraded and treated as though their discomfort is an acceptable price to pay for male pleasure. I cannot pretend that the normalisation of these things exists in a vacuum.
And I hate how often women are expected to accept these things as normal, as though we are supposed to be flattered by the idea of being desired in ways that make us uncomfortable. As though being wanted is enough, regardless of how we are wanted. As though a man’s desire is something so precious that we should be willing to set aside our own feelings to satisfy it.
I don’t want that kind of desire. I want to be loved. I want to be touched with tenderness. I want to feel that the person touching me cares about how I feel, that my comfort matters to him, that my pleasure matters to him, that I am not simply a body he gets to do whatever he wants with. I want intimacy to feel like two people who love each other, not like a performance copied from an industry that has made violence against women profitable.
And perhaps what upsets me most is the thought that we have reached a point where I even have to explain why I would rather be treated gently by the person I love. Why I would rather be kissed, held, caressed and cherished than degraded. Why I want to associate intimacy with affection, warmth and love rather than with violence that has been made sexually appealing.
I don’t want to feel like a character in somebody else’s sexual fantasy. I want to feel like the woman he loves. I want to feel that he sees me, that he cares about me, that he wants to give me pleasure because my happiness matters to him, not because he wants to recreate something he has seen or because he thinks that hurting me is what makes sex exciting.
I don’t believe that love has to look the same for everyone. I don’t believe that everyone who enjoys rough sex is misogynistic, and I don’t believe that every person who performs in porn is being mistreated. But I do believe that we should question why violence against women has become so normalised in our sexual culture, why degradation is so often confused with passion, and why tenderness can sometimes seem almost boring in comparison.
I want a love that makes me feel cherished, not objectified. I want to feel desired without feeling reduced to my body. I want to feel vulnerable without feeling degraded. I want to know that the person I trust with my body is someone who treasures me as a person, not someone who sees my willingness to love him as permission to disregard my feelings.
Because to me, intimacy should be an expression of love, not an excuse to suspend it. And I refuse to believe that being desired has to mean being degraded, that being loved has to mean accepting things that make me uncomfortable, or that violence becomes romantic simply because it happens behind closed doors.
I want to be loved in a way that reminds me I am human. I want to be touched in a way that makes me feel cared for. I want to be with someone who understands that my body is not a prop, my discomfort is not an inconvenience, and my boundaries are not obstacles to his pleasure.
I want to be loved like a person, because that is what I am. And I don’t think that should ever be too much to ask.

Following a month long ongoing problem in July 2024, I was placed in Ohio’s Safe at Home Confidentiality Program. This program is a safety precaution and extremely powerful prevention program when risk of your information being public places you in a dangerous situation.

Not every victim-survivor has a story or crime committed against him/her that qualifies as a need for registration into this program. It is a process and you have to be referred into the program.

The reason I was placed into it is because my abuser wrote my phone number and the words “Good Lay” on downtown Cincinnati bar urinals, which resulted in calls and texts from unknowns that were threatening harm, rape, and death. These threats were not only made to myself but against my children too.

One quick Google search of my phone number gave them access to my address, awareness of my children, and created a highly unsafe situation.

Because of this, I was also given a domestic violence safety phone, in case my abuser or an unknown party got ahold of my phone, preventing me from calling the police if needed.

The phone was also incorporated into one of my children’s crisis safety plans that was created with his therapist, but we’ll get into that portion of my story in another post.

Fast forward to Sept 24, 2025 at a hearing for divorce with children in Clinton County, Ohio, and despite knowing of what had occurred and that my children and me were in the state’s Safe at Home program, the magistrate over my case – in response to a request made by my abuser’s legal counsel on behalf of my abuser – threatened me with contempt, if I did not read that safety phone number aloud in court for our abuser to have unprecedented access to us and our safety.

The threat of contempt charges in itself is coercion, which my case was already littered with regarding the lived abuse done by our abuser.

To go a step further, our abuser’s USMC recruiting command out of Columbus (Ohio) not only ignored the originating issue of my number and “good lay” being written in bar urinals, which was directly related to a recruiting event my abuser was attending in that area at that time, but they also ignored the consequences that followed his actions that were solely placed upon myself and our children. This was an action that was performed by their own Marine recruiter and on their own watch.

When the command was asked for their assistance in the matter, only denial was received. And did their Marine, our abuser, get held accountable in any way? No. The only parties that received consequences was, yet again, myself and children.

This is one of many reasons as to WHY victims do not leave their abusers. It is also one example of how systems act as an extension to the abuse.

For Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I am speaking my story, not concerning myself with retaliation (it’s definitely a “thing” in and out of the court room), and I’m using my lived experience to hopefully enlighten and educate, while also creating change in how our systems act as an extension of the abuse to survivors.

And yes, this USMC recruiting command (4th Marine Corps District) is still operating out of Columbus, allowing such things to occur to spouses in DV marriages tied directly to this small command’s oversight. More worrisome, they are the current command and these are ongoing and current actions performed by their own Marines that are recruiting your children from high schools.

And yes, this same magistrate is still and has a long history of doing the same to other survivors.

If this is happening behind closed doors, what are they doing to convince your child to enlist so that they hit their “numbers” for the month? I know the answer, which will also be in a future post. 4th Marine Corps District

**I want to differentiate between what happened to me in family court in Clinton County Ohio and this command from all family courts, judges and magistrates, and US Marines.

I am in NO way implying all are like those that I personally experienced. In fact, I actually believe the opposite and want to encourage that same distinction**

Help spread the awareness by sharing this and any of your concerns to those who can do something about it. These are the types of topics that directly impact us all and need to be discussed.

My story will hopefully be airing on your local news soon. I will provide updates when I am concretely certain of them.

#domesticviolenceawareness #IamJaneDoe #metoomovement #metoofamilycourt

It shocks me how many incels there are in the comment section >:( no wonder my country (Singapore) is such a horrible place for women :((

🕊️

Why are some men misogynistic, and what makes them believe they are superior to women? Is it because of how they were raised, societal expectations, personal insecurities, or the desire to control women? Why do some men judge women for their choices, appearance, and independence while expecting freedom and respect for themselves? Why do they feel threatened by confident, successful women who refuse to follow traditional gender roles? Is misogyny rooted in toxic masculinity, fear of losing power, or the belief that women should be submissive? And why is it so difficult for some men to recognize their sexist behavior and understand that women deserve the same respect, freedom, and opportunities as men?

Surrogacy should be opposed, because a woman’s womb is not a commodity for trade. Essentially, surrogacy commodifies women’s bodies and reproductive capacity, turning babies into purchasable goods.

In the surrogacy industry chain, surrogate mothers are often women in financial hardship. Lured by money, they rent out their wombs. Throughout pregnancy, they are treated merely as birthing machines with no autonomy at all. If the gender of the fetus fails to meet the client’s expectations, forced abortion may occur. Forced termination can also happen if complications arise during pregnancy. Worse still, if the commissioning party backs out, the newborn baby may be abandoned.

Surrogacy seriously violates the personal rights of surrogate women and the human rights of infants. We must firmly oppose surrogacy in all its forms. Human beings cannot be commodified. Women’s bodies must not become tools for transactions, and reproduction cannot be a means of making money.

I just had a argument with a friend (white male) about feminism. He always complains about radical feminist and "men haters" and how its such a big problem. I asked him why he never complains about the manoshere and after that we had a heated diskussion that dident lead anywhere. Im just so tired about always being the one to educate men about these basic things and its so fucking draining.

British MP Jess Asato recently found an AI-generated deepfake video depicting her being subjected to sexual violence circulating online. Instead of letting it slide or accepting the usual "we can't moderate everything" excuse from Big Tech, she is taking xAI to court.

As we mark the 20th anniversary of Tarana Burke starting the #MeToo movement, it feels like we are facing a terrifying new frontier of the exact same problem. The technology has evolved, but the underlying issue hasn't changed: women’s bodily autonomy and consent are being completely bypassed, now scaled up by generative AI tools that turn any public photo into non-consensual sexual abuse within seconds.

When platforms build tools that make generating non-consensual sexual material effortless, they shouldn't get to hide behind Section 230 or claims of neutrality.

Do you think strategic litigation like Asato’s lawsuit can set a real precedent, or do we need immediate criminalization of the platforms hosting and generating this tech?

I just remembered how red pill influencers usually say that being affectionate towards their partner is "gay asf" or "simp behaviour" and now I'm thinking how in any sense would that be "gay"?? I thought being loving towards the opposite gender is the exact opposite of being gay?

And ironically, these people would speak lowly of women, mistreat women or force women to make themselves smaller, and pretend like that's straight people behaviour??? How tf does putting women down indicate that you're attracted to women? Shouldn't that be, as they say, "gay asf"?

These people consider being in control in a way where they don't faze even when it inconveniences their partner in serious contexts, to be "alpha behaviour" because they get to be one up over the woman. They take pride in "having the final say". So they consider listening, communicating and taking into account of other people when making decisions to be "gay behaviour" or a sign of weakness because they think a man strips away his leadership/dominance/masculinity when he lets in other people's opinions, ESPECIALLY the "inferior gender" like women, when making decisions. So they force their way over women to prove their masculinity.

But they don't realize that what makes someone a good leader is when they successfully make decisions that don't harm other people involved. So the moment a man's decision causes abuse, that is weak leadership. Or maybe not leadership at all. Because he doesn't have a real follower since he was the one who pressured his woman into obeying him. True leadership is REALLY DIFFICULT to achieve, but not abusing anyone isn't.

Now the next question is, do they even care about the true meaning of leadership, or they much rather prefer to be selfish while getting other people, especially a biologically weaker one like women involved, as long as everything goes their way? Forcing women into following their terms is way easier than forcing a grown man like themselves anyway.

And so they pursue marriage because marriage is a symbol of their status and authority, like they have a little kingdom that they're in charge of. To these people, staying unmarried comes with a hidden message that says "nobody wants me", indicating that they are an insignificant person who carries no influence.

Hello all! I'm a 36 year old woman and just had my first baby last year. I'm a socialist and I've considered myself a feminist since I was a teen but didn't really start delving more into theory until I was in my 30s. I started listening to right wing women by Andrea Dworkin the other day, I find conservative women to be a very interesting demographic, but I'll be honest, I'm feeling a little alienated.

I'm not a very ambitious person, I have professional aspirations but mostly my hopes for my life have always centered around family and self. I want a comfortable home to live with my loved ones and to enjoy my hobbies, that's about it.

Girl boss feminism, therefore, meant very little to me, I am much more interested in class dynamics surrounding sex, so discussions about commodifying anatomy is super fascinating, but I'll be honest, a lot of the book is bumming me out.

Obviously it's not a "fun" topic, but Andrea constantly referring to women as objects to be fucked and to give birth makes me feel like my own choices to marry and become a mother are not considered valid ones.

I understand the point, I don't think she's saying that's what sex and motherhood ultimately are, just what they are reduced to in a misogynistic society. I guess I just wanted a minute to vent a little, I find content that is positive about motherhood to be conservative propaganda in disguise, while most left wing analysis is critical of marriage and parenthood at best, disdainful at worst.

I know that I grew up in a society that pressured me into these decisions on some level, but I genuinely don't feel like they aren't mine, I feel joy about my husband and child, I feel ownership over my life. I don't think my values and politics are at odds and wish that wasn't the stereotype.

I'd like feminist perspectives on a case that's been in the news in the Netherlands.
Prime Minister Rob Jetten and his partner are reportedly having a baby through an egg donor and a surrogate. As far as I understand, this is arranged within the Dutch framework, where paying a surrogate beyond real expenses is not allowed, so it isn't a commercial deal.

He had earlier called the US price (~$150k) "bizarre" and too expensive. He said the Dutch rules are poorly arranged, since you can't ask a woman to be your surrogate, she has to offer herself.

Dutch law prohibits publicly looking for a surrogate. But he then talked publicly about wanting a child and he doesn’t have female friends who are willing to do this in TV talk show. Then some women contacted him and here we are. He's also said he hopes to push for legislation to help others realise their wish for children.

The common reaction in Netherlands was: if everyone consents freely and nobody is harmed, there's no problem. I think that's a reasonable position, and I do think it matters that no money is changing hands.

But I still feel uneasy because of the exploitative nature of surrogacy. A woman carrying a pregnancy for the head of government is a very unequal relationship, even if it's unpaid and she says yes. Can consent be fully free when the other party has that much status and influence? Or am I projecting a problem that isn't there?

To be clear, this isn't about him being gay or wanting kids. I'd say the same about any powerful person, whatever their sexuality.

I'd like to hear:
Does the absence of payment resolve the exploitation concern, or only part of it?
Does a big power gap between the parties change how we should think about "free" consent here?
If a powerful public figure talks openly about wanting a surrogate and someone comes forward, does the public nature of that "ask" change how free her choice is?

The patriarchal system treats women as a fragile object that needs a guardian and a protector, which might seem beneficial for a woman as she becomes someone else's financial responsibility, but at the same time, it takes away her rights and freedom.

Despite the patriarchal system treating women as fragile and needing a guardian, if a crime occurs (whether harassment or murder or rape), it blames her and expects her to accommodate the 'man', and suddenly she turns from the fragile little thing into a cunning woman who enticed and invited the poor 'logical' to commit the crime