BBC debated men's and women's intelligence. The result was a firework of hypocrisy and PC.
Klevius has said it before and says it again: All women are biologically gay - except much less biologically interested in sexual acts than gay men. Just ask you lesbian neighbor.
Klevius simplified sex tutorial for the female BBC presenter and the guests she had invited - which didn't include Klevius. If Klevius had participated everything else in the progran would have appeared complete non sense because they represented: a) "women are less intelligent than men", i.e. the popular religious sexist stance that men should possess women because women are stupid and vulnerable. According to an islamic Hadith, Mohammed said women are the stupidiest.
However, consider Klevius analysis about mixing wrong categories with wrong comparisons - and the racist/sexist meaninglessness of talking about "average":
1 Klevius knows it's hard, but really try to get this into your head. There's only one thing that distinguishes women from men, and that is reproductive (albeit commonly used for non-reproductive purposes) heterosexual attraction (HSA). All other distinctions are either cultural or not comparable (e.g. giving birth etc.). The mistake you may do, and many others do, is to slip in man-woman comparisons where they don't belong in a particular analytic set. Yes, of course this definition (just like the "average" one) excludes most women and men most of the time. In fact, it excludes sex all together most of the time. So why talk about 2-seater sports cars and MPVs when in traffic they are just cars following exactly the same traffic rules - other than if you want to show off your bias for either?
2 Asking whether women are dumber than men is stereotyping physical features used to produce a class of people called women and then compare a statistical mean to a similar class of men. Consider the same with "white", "Chinese", "black" etc.
When Klevius meets a "woman", a "Chinese", a "white" or a "black" individual - how could he possibly use "average" on random people? Moreover, why would he even consider it when 1) he knows nothing about the individual and 2) Klevius negative Human Rights ideology makes everyone equal (compare traffic - i.e. moving and responsible objects ).
Still puzzled?
Ok, consider this: Why would a man prefer a woman for anal sex? Or Virginia Woolf's question: Why are men som so much more interested in women? Or why are naked women so closely attached to heterosexual male eroticism? Or how could you even be here without heterosexual attraction in males? Men can't be raped. Pole dance, striptease, ass-shows, etc. etc.
HSA isn't a sexual act per se, only a biological teaser to rather have intercourse with someone reproductive. However, this HSA doesn't go away or is limited to reproduction.
So we men have to deal with it by understanding it and respecting women as we want to be respected ourselves. And the 1960s was a much bigger turning point in this respect than most sociologists have understood, because for the first time "average" women were allowed to show off their HSA. And voila, men (most of them) didn't start mass raping women on the streets, beaches etc. The men of the 60s returned to the hunter-gatherer socity wrapped in modern tech and "demand for resources". However, ideologies which even hint at the possibilty that rape under certain conditions are ok, as islam does, have no place under true Human Rights.
So obviously, islam is also wrong when it sharia limits women's freedom with "modesty" etc. veiling. However, England's possibly most divisive (e.g. that she calls other muslims 'idiots'), bigoted and hypocritical female muslim politician Sayeeda Warsi says: "The veil was used in pre-islamic days by well-to-do women who went to the market and didn't want to hang out with the plebs." Klevius then wonders where all the veiled women who call themselves "muslims" come from? Are they no real muslim women? Apart, of course, from the fact that no "muslim woman" can ever be equally much muslim as someone possessing a Penis, because she is forever more or less segregated with "duties" and "obligations" because of her Vagina.
That about men and "muslim"* women.
* Based on islamic sharia teachings, and compared to Human Rights, women "belonging" to muslim men aren't really full muslims. Just compare OIC's sharia declaration which on precicely this point completely differs from the (negative, i.e. basic) rights in the anti-fascist 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration. Klevius suggests Sayeeda Warsi should take a look. As should asexuals or partly asexuals who don't want to be bothered with HSA or sexuality.
So what about women in general? HSA can be either neglected, rejected, or utilized, the latter being the most problematic due to borderline issues with other relations.
In short, Klevius (1979, 1981, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2004 and 2003- on the web) has always in summary meant that:
From a relatively egalitarian hunter-gatherer society (compare Richard Lee, Patricia Draper, Marshal Sahlin, Diane Gelburd, etc. works froom the 1960s and 70s - discussed in Klevius 1992), expanded demand for resources (see Klevius book Demand for Resources, 1992), i.e. investment in domestication, caused what Klevius calls practical or 'classic sex segregation', later on strengtened with cultural/religious sex segregation (Klevius 1979, 1981, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2004 and 2003- on the web). However, today there is no need for neither anymore thanks to Human Rights, yet sex segregation continues and even becomes stronger e.g. via medieval religious orthodoxy like sharia islam, as well as via deliberately sex segregational feminisms which exclude any role of women in women's suppression.
As a female "asset" HSA may be confusing for both women and men. From making "the oldest profession" possible, to using it as an attractor for "the right man" (while blaming the "wrong man's gaze" as 'unwanted').
So Klevius suggestion is, and has always been, to treat anyone as a respected individual on an equality basis, in line with basic Human ("traffic") Rights. Everything else qualifies as racism and sexism - possibly even fascism.
And every Atheist can easily agree with Klevius on this point. However, true sharia muslims can't. And by pointing to this simple fact you are immediately named a disgusting "islamophobe". Why?
Klevius question to men: Do you possess a Penis like this? Klevius doesn't.
From Klevius "web museum" that hasn't been touched upon for over a decade:
Klevius de-sex segregated sex lesson for beginners:
Sex segregated heterosexual sex
The weird world of cultural sex
In a scientific show on Swedish radio a female "sexpert" addressed the use of
sex toys for females ("rabbitde"). Before we continue please note that stupid Freud proposed "a normal penis several times" for hysteric women (see From Freud to bin Laden and Klevius revealing psychosocial timeline & Freud’s slips). From this it has continued a perverted entanglement on ideas of biology and sex segregation that, as a result, makes many people seriously believe that meeting in a simultaneous heterosexual orgasm is the fulfilment of the relation. But in fact apart that it’s extremely rare, unless purportedly and under big efforts, it’s really the opposite to relation, i.e. this very strive is truly rigid sex segregation. And even worse, this functions as a barrier for true human relations.
How could ejaculation be 'premature'* (before penetration?!) and why do women ought to reach orgasm** - and with men?
The simple answer is that our fixation and perverted focusing on sex has as its basic pillar the cultural belief in sex segregation (see Klevius definition of feminism) which then determines us to more of the same while producing a fictive and non-relational meeting sanctuary through physical sex that doesn’t even (in most cases?) reach the standard of autoeroticism.
The female "sexpert" in the radio show told the listeners that as a single she used the toy (the "pepper can"*** in Klevius termninology) but that now she possesses the best possible, "wounderful natural staff". When asked which one was better she admitted (while giggling and hesitating like an especially unsure teen) that no natural surrogate could outperform the artificial one. This statement really hits the core of the sex segregation/heterosexual attraction analysis in KLEVUX
What if all this sex focusing is the real opposite of its label? Namely sex oppression made possible by sex segregation and the blurring effects of heterosexual attraction (HSA) and the joy humans might share with eachother, not because of but despite sexism!
Progressing from here needs the rethinking and reformulation of conventional concepts of sex and sexuality. By applying HSA as a tendency/potential, apart from or combined with (but not being) physical sexual activity, and then placing it in a cultural pattern of sex segregation reveals a completely different and new picture - one that surprisingly turns out to be as old as mankind. Some of the questions that should be part of such an analysis include: What's physical and what's cultural in my evaluation of sex? Is my partner a sex toy - and is s/he aware of it? What role does HSA play and could it be beneficial for both without sex segregation? Am I raped? Am I raping somebody? Am I raping myself?
No comments:
Post a Comment