A remarkable uproar has been inspired by a radical feminist’s opposition to heterosexual intercourse, which she terms “PIV” (penis in vagina) and denounces as always rape:
First, well intercourse is NEVER sex for women. Only men experience rape as sexual and define it as such. Sex for men is the unilateral penetration of their penis into a woman (or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice) whether she thinks she wants it or not — which is the definition of rape: that he will to do it anyway and that he uses her and treats her as a receptacle, in all circumstances — it makes no difference to him experiencing it as sexual. That is, at the very least, men use women as useful objects and instruments for penetration, and women are dehumanised by this act. It is an act of violence.
As FCM pointed out some time ago, intercourse is inherently harmful to women and intentionally so, because it causes pregnancy in women. . . .
Men, by whom we are possessed, colonised and held captive, are the sole agents and organisers of PIV. Men dominate us precisely so we can’t opt out of sexual abuse by them; intercourse is the very means through which men subordinate us, the very purpose of their domination, to control human reproduction.
McCain has much more on the woman who penned these ramblings. It seems she had some bad relationships and she has learned to hate all men, and to hate normal sexual behavior. I can understand allowing pain to change your mindset, and I can understand how emotional pain can make you reluctant to trust, or open up, but that is not what this woman has done. She has gone off the deep end and is sinking fast into a pit of self-pity and hatred. That is, of course, assuming her tales of “rape” are even true. We all know those on the Far Left see nothing wrong with wholesale lying, and fabricating outrages. They really fancy their role as victims. But, either way, she is crazy. And, she is not alone as Stacy McCain documents
this is what our oppression consists of and what it is. men get to name it (sex, fucking, knocked up, mother, father) men get to execute it (intercourse, impregnation) and men get to enforce it (rape, heteronormativity, marriage, and legal remedies and lack thereof for sexual and reproductive offenses). note that i am considering rape to be the violent enforcement by men of womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders.
Well, OK, then. Notice the sequence “rape, heteronormativity, marriage” that radical feminism views as equally forms of oppression, assigning women to a “sex role as fuckholes and breeders.” This particular blog, by the way, has an entire category about “PIV” (penis-in-vagina) which is what “heteronormativity” is all about, eh?
By the time a feminist reaches the radical point at which normal sexual intercourse is regarded as inherently oppressive, she has already marched a good distance down the Crazyville Road. Sane, normal people become the Enemy and, in order to maintain her delusions, the feminist seeks out the company of her fellow radicals, who share and confirm these extreme beliefs. The maladjusted thereby exile themselves to a sort of voluntary asylum, where they only encounter lunatics like themselves.
The saddest part of this, to me anyway, is how the Left always gravitates towards this type of insanity. It is that negativity and need to be a victim that seems to dominate so much of leftist thinking. Whether it is race, gender, sexuality, the environment, guns, whatever, those on the Left always sell out to craziness.
Oh no! That rascally South Carolina Governor, Nikki Haley, who dares to be a Conservative even though she is both a woman and a minority got a VERY politically incorrect Christmas gift. What will Liberals on Twitter do? Embrace Haley, and actually be tolerant? Or launch violent, hateful tweets at the governor?
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley received a brand new Beretta PX4 Storm pistol for Christmas. While she was extremely happy with the gift, liberals predictably responded with hateful messages, including wishes she would kill herself with it, Twitchyreported Friday.
“Our family had a wonderful Christmas together! I must have been good Santa gave me a Beretta PX4 Storm,” shetweeted.
“Please God, use it on yourself. Like before New Years,” one person said in response.
“I hope you don’t accidentally shoot someone in your family with it. Actually, I don’t really care either way,” another person said.
Yet another person falsely claimed Haley was somehow promoting murder by posting a picture of the pistol.
“I know where she should stick it,” one person exclaimed.
Some refused to understand why Haley would want or need a gun.
“No clue as to why our governor needs a handgun,” tweeted “Katie Thompson.”
Setting aside for a moment the fact that the Constitution allows for the private ownership of guns, Haley was the target of a parent volunteer who was arrested earlier in December for threatening to kill the Republican governor.
Simply put, they are trying to make you afraid of guns. Saying gun violence over and over and over puts the notion into people’s heads that ALL violence is committed by bad guys with guns. In truth gun control laws are not, and never have been successful in curbing violence. In fact, the gun “control” movement is about control, of you. In fact, Liberals pushing for gun control also lie when they spout their “gun deaths” propaganda. In those numbers, they include criminals killed by police officers, concealed license holders, and by Americans who kill home invaders in self-defense.
If you are an advocate for gun control ask yourself why you should believe people who must lie, and lie deliberately to further their cause. Also look at what banning guns does to violent crime rates vs allowing people to own and in many states carry guns Gun control proponents love to point to the UK and say “see, their gun violence rate is so low. We should follow their example”. Yet, the truth is that disarming the people does not lower violent crime rates. Do not believe the lies folks.
Yes, I have been absent the last two days. No, I was not abducted by a gang of hot women, although I could go for that. I have had some family business to tend to, and deal with the past couple of days, but, hopefully that is behind me now, so here I am raring to give Liberals all the heck I can. Given that Liberals hate guns, I figured I would pose a question that will bug Liberals and, at the same time, possibly give me an answer to a burning question.
That question is what will my next gun be? I do not own a 9mm at the moment, I own a .357 Sig (Smith and Wesson) a sub compact .40 S&W (Taurus) and two .45’s a Colt 1911, and my newest gun, a Sig P250 compact. So, I am looking for a 9mm with a “high capacity magazine”, a meaningless term the Left throws around to scare ignorant people. Of course, the Left has deemed that we only need seven bullets, no more, and anything with a bigger magazine is therefore an evil “high capacity magazine”. Of course, in a few years, they will decide that seven bullets is too many, and they will seek to redefine their own definition of “high capacity magazine”, that is how the Left operates. But, I have narrowed my choices down to four options.
A Taurus PT 24/7 G2 9mm with a 3.5 inch barrel, and a 17 round mag, the gun also comes with a 13 round mag.
This is the least expensive of my choices, which is a plus, and I really like the two Taurus guns I own. It feels great in my hand, and I like the looks of it, the weak point is the sights, it does not have a 3 dot sight, which I really prefer.
Next is a Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm with a 4.25 inch barrel, 3 dot sights, and three 17-round mags. I like the feel of the gun, the sights are very good, but it might be a hair big for carry.
Then there is the one I am leaning towards right now. The Springfield XDM 9mm, with a 3.8 inch barrel, and two mags, a 19 round, and a 13 round. Love the feel of this gun, love the look, love the sights.
Then there is the Sig P250 9mm, with a 15-round magazine. I have written about how much I love my .45 P250, so I know the feel, and accuracy will be second to none. The only drawback? It only comes with one magazine, and Sig mags are not cheap.
Then there is this one, which is out of my price range. A Sig Sauer P226 tactical operations, complete with 4 20-round mags. It is only about 1,300 bucks though. I could get a P226 MK25, which is the sidearm SEALs carry for about $1,150, but, I just cannot afford right now, but one day I will splurge and get possibly the best handgun ever made
So, any thoughts? Anyone own any of these? Anyone have some advice?
I overslept this morning, but woke up in time to get to the range by 11:30. I usually prefer arriving early, they open at 11:00. I just like it better when I am the only one shooting or one of just a few. There was only two other guys there, so I had the place nearly to myself. This was my third trip since buying my new Sig P250 c .45 and I focused mostly on quicker firing today. Getting the gun up, sighted, and firing on target was my aim, and I was interested in how a less deliberate pace would affect my accuracy. I shot at various ranges 7-11 yards, and increased my rate of fire as I went, with my last two magazines used up as quickly as I could pull the trigger. The results?
100 rounds fired, with 98 shots in the 8,9,10 circles, both of those in the 7 circle happened while shooting my first magazine. Of the 98 in the 8-10 circles, 75 were in the 9-10. So, my accuracy was actually a bit above usual. After sweeping up, I cannot believe everyone does NOT sweep up their brass, I went into the shop and purchased a new gun case, and a box of Federal Personal Defense bullets, and chatted with the owner a bit, as usual. Today I told him about a co-worker who I had heard bashing gun owners because “they never trained, or became effective with our guns”. I was amused last week when this same fellow asked me what I did on days off. When I told him Friday’s generally mean a trip to the range, he looked put off, asking me what I got out of shooting. I told him that I do enjoy shooting, but that a large part of visiting the range is to become as proficient with my guns as possible, just in case. This made him look even more put off.
Funny how Liberals think isn’t it? First they rail about how gun owners ought to practice but then criticize us when we DO invest time and effort into training.
Anyway, after that I went home, cleaned my gun, the take down on a Sig is super simple, and so is reassembling it, so cleaning is pretty easy. Those folks at Sig really do make great guns, which brings me back to my original point, which is sometimes you DO get what you pay for. My Taurus PT 140 .40 S&W is a fine gun, I have put well over 2,000 rounds through it with no problems, but after just 300 rounds with my Sig, I am already far more accurate and consistent with it. Yes, the Sig is more money than a Taurus, and I have one of the least expensive Sig Sauers, but the Sig is a superior gun, better sights, better ergonomics, super simple maintenance. I would never tell anyone what type of gun to buy, but, I will remind y’all that I have named Sig Sauer the OFFICIAL gun maker of this blog, so………….