Ball of yarn

Both Sonia Johnson and Solanas addressed the whole concept of female sexuality being manufactured. It affirms what I’ve thought about as well. It’s an amalgamation of various normal female wants/needs really:




Female and mother/child bonding through touch, which gets projected onto males and called ‘heterosexuality’

Orgasmic or just spasmic release of our cyclical reproductive hormones via clits

Human beauty and human interest (not in the male gaze sense)

In some there is a desire for motherhood (not in the patriarchal slavery sense) or a substitute, like having a pet. I certainly felt the parental hormonal kick when I got a puppy.

I believe that for women there is really no separation between sexual and non-sexual touch for instance, and between our bodies and psyches and connections with people. We’re a big entangled ball of sexuality, sensuality and mental +physical bonding all connected holistically. It’s men who drew the line in the sand and defined certain touch and bonding as sexual and therefore colonising (cause it’s the only way they see it), and other as not. You can tell that the lines are artificial cause their exact placement varies across cultures. This is after they broke us down into pieces for millions of years by shaking that ball of yarn loose and cutting it into pieces, so that every enlightened female human has to go through the process of putting herself together again like Humpty Dumpty.
I’m also a bit like Solanas in that I view orgasmic/spasmic release itself to be really mechanical and unworthy of being elevated into this Big Thing. Men do this because they are so freaking dead inside and it’s the only way they get a glimpse of life. I just see it as hunger and sleep – you satisfy those needs so you can get on with your day. It only seems big until you release the pressure valve. I used to masturbate simply to put myself to sleep as a teen, when I really had no sexual desire at all, and as a kid to relieve anxiety. I get a bigger kick out of a head massage ( and this is coming from someone who used to consider myself really sexual)…until I deconstructed it. For all I know, dancing in the rain naked without the treat of male violence or shame and caressing women whenever I felt like it could get me an even bigger kick.

Take Karezza for instance: men define it as a form of boring sex. To a woman it’s just sensual pleasure and bonding with anyone, and is the most natural thing in the world. There’s no sexual orientation for Karezza-drawn or penis-avoidants, is there? Because men did not draw those lines. Yet they drew one for TIMs trying to bully women into being their sex toilets. There are transbians, but no Karezzbians or ‘turned on by castration’ women.

We all try to fit ourselves to those male lines: lesbian, spinster, asexual, bi, ‘straight’, even the nonsensical ones like ‘queer’. I’ve talked about how there’s no anatomical difference between gay and ‘straight’ womyn. There’s also none in the genuine needs & wants across any female group. We all want to be free from dick invasion, be at one with our bodies and each other holistically, and reproduce only as we deem fit. There’s a certain point in radical thought -development where none of those divisions make sense anymore because they are nothing but mens’ policing tools.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s