Grooming

Grooming. No, not the sort whereby you spending hours primping and preening. The type of grooming that paedophiles do to children in order to sexually abuse them. There is also another type of sexual grooming, primarily done to female children, that gets overlooked.

I used to call it heterosexual brainwashing. And yes it is that too. But it has more in common with paedophillia grooming, except that it is almost an open secret, parts of it anyway.

And since I had named it grooming, I feel inside me so much anger and rage, the same level of anger and rage that a victim feels when they realise the extent of their abuse. Because those of us who were groomed to be ‘heterosexual females’, and were not, or were not for the most part, were groomed for (lifetime) sexual use and abuse by males.

Whilst there is the pressure on male children to be heterosexual and to reject homosexuality, the pressure and brainwashing is not as intense as it is directed at female children. Plus, their heterosexual grooming puts them into the abuser class, not the abused class, and that is the main distinction. Generally, gay males realise they are gay earlier than females, possibly also due to many females being trapped into heterosexual relationships because of children. Males also are encouraged to think for themselves more.

Convincing females, from such an early age, that they are heterosexual and want lots of baybees is a form of child abuse. It is grooming them to be willing participants into sexual servitude (mandatory PIV within marriage), to keep them trapped within that system by convincing them they all want baybees. It takes years, sometimes decades, to get out of that trap.

You have to ask yourself, if heterosexuality and heterosexual pair bonding was so ‘natural’, why the 24-7 propaganda? And why is it directed primarily at the female children? If it were indeed so bloody natural, then girls would grow up and do it of their own accord, no prompting necessary.

It is no coincidence that in this post-2nd wave era of ‘choosy choices’ more women are resisting marriage and baybees, and the heterosexual propaganda machine has gone into hyperdrive. There are far more ‘pink coded’ toys, products, clothes than when I was a kid/teen. Back in the Pink Box you go laydees! Be girly, attract a manz!

Societal composition would look vastly different if girls were left to make up their own minds on the subject, instead of being groomed since toddlers. There would be more lesbians for a start. Most women would probably not live with male partners at all, but instead live alone or with groups of other women, with or without children. More women would avoid motherhood.

The deal for males is clear. Patriarchy rewards their heterosexuality with a live-in maid, freebie prostitute, caretaker for his children if he wants children, and a second income in many cases. That is the reward, his reward. The cost comes from our bodies, our labours, our sexual servitude, our lives.

ETA: A post from 2010 by Carolyn Gage on lesbianism and heterosexuality.

ETA: A fantastic related post by zeph The Sex Class

20 thoughts on “Grooming

  1. maggiel101

    It also costs us dearly in ecomonic terms. Even if women choose to remain childless because once they get past 30 and are still ‘single’ there is a perception within the workplace – yes, perception – that they will have children and so their prosperity is negatively impacted upon. Cause women can’t resist the ‘biological’ urge to have children.

    Like

    Reply
  2. FAB Libber

    I should have added that with this post, I was not trying to take away from CSA, but to connect a strong parallel to it. Both things result in the sexual use of females.
    A bit like mandatory PIV has more in common with rape than it does “sex”.

    Like

    Reply
  3. ball buster

    “You have to ask yourself, if heterosexuality and heterosexual pair bonding was so ‘natural’, why the 24-7 propaganda? And why is it directed primarily at the female children? If it were indeed so bloody natural, then girls would grow up and do it of their own accord, no prompting necessary.”

    WIN! Thankyouverymuch. For all the apologetics about “inborn gender” none of the asshats spouting off about it can account for the social impact of cultural conditioning, can they?

    Like

    Reply
    1. FAB Libber

      Religion used to be the main one, but media and entertainment took over – with great gusto – where religion left off. And both sources of propaganda had one rule for males, one rule for females, with regards to sex.

      Like the terribly magical and mystical effect of marriage. If a female has sex outside of marriage, she is deemed a slut, fallen woman, bad. If that same female ‘saved herself’ for marriage, and submitted to sex anytime husband dude wanted to stick his dick into her, that is virtuous and good. Exact same thing, but with a party, white dress and bit of paper. What a stupid pile of crock. I feel me a post coming on…

      Getting back to topic (if I must!) the huge point is really how much of the focus and effort is in convincing females to het couple-up. That would indicate that, if left to their own devices, the majority would not couple-up. So the propaganda is mainly directed at females (just slightly suspicious eh?). I think the hump-to-get-pregnant urge is there (particularly teens/twenties), as designed by nature, but definitely not the desire to shack up with the sperm-donor (who is usually an unshaven slob, and big baby himself). The entire pair bonding stuff is unnatural, particularly for life in most cases. Whilst it is difficult to look after a kid or kids by yourself, this society does not encourage any other real option but hook up with a slobby XY to do it. Better options would be communal all-female living arrangements whereby they share child caring and external work between them.

      When you paint a picture like that, it is clear that males are fairly redundant. And they know it. Nor, as sperm donors, are as many needed for the job.

      So ‘heterosexuality’ as a lifestyle, is forced upon females so they ‘willingly’ comply. Anyone with commonsense will tell you that if you brainwash or groom someone for life with regards to particular beliefs, that ‘choice’ is not a free, individual one.

      Like

      Reply
  4. Linda Radfem

    Great post, FAB. And this comment in particular speaks to me:

    I think the hump-to-get-pregnant urge is there (particularly teens/twenties), as designed by nature, but definitely not the desire to shack up with the sperm-donor (who is usually an unshaven slob, and big baby himself). The entire pair bonding stuff is unnatural, particularly for life in most cases. Whilst it is difficult to look after a kid or kids by yourself, this society does not encourage any other real option but hook up with a slobby XY to do it. Better options would be communal all-female living arrangements whereby they share child caring and external work between them.

    I’ve written a lot on this topic myself, and I agree, most women would not want to live with men if the economy were structured in a way that we could live without them and avoid poverty.

    Like

    Reply
  5. FAB Libber

    Considering that they all know that mandatory PIV is part of the deal, it is rather soul destroying in the end.

    A woman-only commune to raise kids would be a good environment, particularly as women are then together and can actually FREELY share information between them, without a Nigel butting in. I am thinking too of the girls growing up, and they would be aware of the pitfalls of pregnancy or childrearing. A more honest set up. Too many women are duped into “baybee, how cute, how wunderful” so it is a bit of a shocker at the wiff of those stinky nappies etc.

    I made the decision not to have kids, because I had educated myself on all the downside (as well as upside) and did not fancy being tied to a Nigel for 20 years or forever. Baybees and children are hard work, made so even harder by the nuclear family set up whereby the mother has to carry almost all of the burden with little outside help (from relatives etc).

    Like

    Reply
  6. Pingback: Lambs to the slaughter | twanzphobic since forever

  7. Mary Sunshine

    The women-only commune is ok as long as all the kids are female (I know from experience). With even *one* male child, it’s disastrous. Let the pricks raise the pricks.

    Like

    Reply
  8. FAB Libber

    Yes, I have heard of problems even in women’s refuges with male children assaulting the female children.
    It was quite a divisive issue back in the day of the 2nd wave communes, so I am told.

    Like

    Reply
  9. Pingback: Colonisation | twanzphobic since forever

  10. Pingback: Honky-tonk: Women’s reality | paleotrees

  11. Pingback: Medical woman torture | twanzphobic since forever

  12. Pingback: The sexualisation of young girls | twanzphobic since forever

  13. Pingback: Projection … and reversals | twanzphobic since forever

  14. Pingback: Let’s make her hawt, and lose the plot! | twanzphobic since forever

  15. Pingback: Hen-pecked | twanzphobic since forever

  16. Pingback: Is it because I was born-male that I can say this crap and not get fired? | twanzphobic since forever

Leave a rilly rilly twanzphobic reply, go on, dares ya!

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s