Femanon writes about rape fantasies

When I read comments, I make a good faith effort to understand what the person is trying to say, and put it in the appropriate context. You saw me do this earlier when I discussed Karl Marx's infamous expression, "religion is the opium of the masses." It is worth noting that my desire to understand the radical feminists is sincere. The above comment was taken from Femanon's blog. Herein, she plainly states that women do not have much say in what they enjoy sexually because women have been permanently shaped by their first sexual images. She claims sexuality is formed from one's first sexual images, which for most women will be pornography, sex in movies or rape.



I hope I am not alone in saying that her views about human nature and sexual development are, shall we say, really skewed. The entire premise is based on the idea that women are drones, indoctrinated by society to enjoy one thing or another. To claim that a person's entire sexuality is formed from first sexual images is a baseless claim. If she is going to make these claims, she should be linking accurate evidence, double blind studies published in peer reviewed journals.

Stephen Pinker was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for his book, The Blank Slate. Negating Femanon's claims is simple in the sense that, her claims are so outrageous any reasonable person would not believe them. Rather than relying on the 'reasonable person' argument, I will be citing Stephen Pinker as an authority.What makes Pinker an authority (and not a nineteen year old girl ), is the fact that he is an experimental psychologist, cognitive scientists, linguist, Harvard professor. He is best known for work in evolutionary psychology and computational theory of mind. In a nutshell - Pinker is an exceptional intellectual. He is brilliant.

KEY TERMS

Tabula Rasa: is Latin for blank slate, or more accurately 'scraped tablet'. Tabula rasa is theory that individuals are born without built-in mental content, they are blank slates, and all of their knowledge of the world comes from experience, perception, and what Femanon is referring to as 'first sexual images.'

Evolutionary Psychological Mechanisms: Pinker proves that human behavior is shaped by evolutionary psychological adaptations, and not entirely from experience, perception or social constructions. Evolutionary psychology identifies evolved emotional and cognitive adaptations that show us human psychological nature. It has come to emphasize cognitive adaptation to new environments, gene selection, and modularity. It describes mental processes as computational operations. This simply means, it explains the nuts and bolts of things that happen in the body, like seeing a spider or seeing a loved one in pain.

LET US CONTINUE

There are several problems with her argument. First, she is playing a one-size-fits all game. I have seen this before in her writings. She has an 'all'or 'nothing'way of viewing women and men. Stephen Pinker argues that human nature and all of its emotional, moral, and political flavors has absolutely no innate traits. The differences between people are mostly biological. Femenon takes the opposite approach, holding that women are entirely formed by how they are socialized and biology has little to do with it. From Pinkers arguments, Femanon is completely wrong. Women are not born blank slates, female sexuality is not constructed in its entirety on some images they are exposed to when they are young. Sexuality is not formed entirely by first sexual knowledge. Human beings are far more complex and dynamic than that.

Here we come down to that same old question: nurture or nature? I have to wonder why the question is not framed differently. Can't it be nurture and nature, a little of one and more of the other? Across cultures and centuries, we know that there are some commonalities in human behavior, in this sense, human sexuality. The only culture that I found to be very unique in their sexual behavior, gender identity, and mating rituals is French Polynesia.

While in Mexico I read the book Why Gender Matters, by Leonard Sax PhD and MD. His book lays out exactly how boys and girls are different from each other, and how they develop differently from each other. Anytime someone wants to say that some of the differences between the genders are only social, and not biological, there is a huge backlash especially from the feminist community. I was told that the biological differences were so minimal that they could not affect a persons behavior.

I seriously doubt a woman's first sexual images are from pornography, rape and sex movies. The way girls learn about sex is the same way most children learn about it: from their friends, their parents, and their sex ed teachers. It is not like children just pop in a porno and start watching Rocco Sifreddi doing anal on three barely legal females from Romania. These kids are learning that it takes a man and a woman to make a baby when they are six or seven years old. As they get older, they learn about holding hands, kissing, and canoodling.

Seriously, how irresponsible does she think these parents are? She really believes that most girls learn about sex from porn, rated R-movies and rape?

Usually when dealing with young people, I am very lenient and forgiving. If she was a thirty-something woman writing this material, I would be a lot harder on her. Femanon appears to be going through the post-adolescent idealistic phase. She knows enough about the world to function, but she is not as intelligent as she thinks she is.