Home » Uncategorized » Woman as ball-breaker

Woman as ball-breaker

This topic created by men has been parroted enough by other women that I just need to debunk it.

A cock-tease, apparently, refuses sex or to do “what her body promised him,” unlike prostituted women who give men what they want in return for payment. She seems to seduce, but does not allow men to act on it. Did you have a dance with a man at the club or accept his drinks? You owe him sex. Did you hug or kiss him and he got a boner? You better put out. Did he give you a ride home and you have no way to pay him back? Blow-job, stat! 

The opposite of both the cock-tease and prostituted woman (who are seen as seductive or hypersexualized) is a ball-breaker or ball-buster, ascribed to radical feminists. Of course it too relates to men’s genitals, the “family jewels.” One word similar to the cocktease is man-eater; it sometimes has the same definition, but can also mean a woman who manipulates men into falling in love and then breaking their heart (the friendzone!), or exploiting them for money (like a gold-digger). Interestingly, ball-breaker means a demanding woman who gives men a hard time and destroys their confidence, thereby “emasculating” them. Such a woman has “man issues” and is perpetually unhappy that she is not a man, or so the story goes. The literal meaning is hitting a man in the balls when you’re mad, but you would hardly know the difference by how angry men get when they encounter such a woman, because:

– Radical feminists do have “man issues.” It’s called THE PATRIARCHY. Mostly it has to do with masculinity, but since it’s assigned to the male sex and many think it’s “real manhood” and their identity, under patriarchy they are practically one and the same. Most men are misogynists.

However, this is also used as a lesbophobic insult because lesbians exclusively love other women and don’t want to take dick. By definition, a lesbian is a female homosexual, and by her sexual orientation she is gender non-conforming. The assumption here is that you can only “love” a class of people, or at least an individual, by fucking them*. Rape as a weapon of war, anyone? The treatment of prostituted women by johns? If we say such things are examples of “love” we are conceding to abusive relationships. So too is saying that women “provoke” men into sexual harassment, anger and raping or otherwise abusing them, also conceding to abusive relationships. Guess what? Women aren’t obliged to love their abusers. Some victims still have feelings for their abusers, but that’s a source of guilt and confusion; it’s not convincing.

What’s not being addressed is the abuse of Power in an already-unequal relationship. If women are being abused just for being female, then they clearly don’t have power. And if they did have power, they’d be able to change men, just like how women in abusive relationships believe they can change their partners with love, patience, and understanding (and I know, because I’ve been there). But this is a pipe-dream, because not only is it impossible, but women aren’t obligated to save them by any means, giving sex or not, or love abusers no matter what. All we can do, I think, is socialize male children to better forms of behavior and deter abusive adult males with negative consequences and keep them from doing more harm.

And save men from what? From themselves and their violence? It’s a disgusting implication that if women don’t engage in sexual relationships with men, it’s their fault for whatever negative consequences result. They need to save themselves. The way I see it, men are either with us or against us; there is no middle ground.

– Radical feminists aren’t unhappy that they’re not men, since that would imply they want to simply switch places with the oppressor class. This has sort of happened with liberal funfeminists, because they throw other women under the bus so they can personally get ahead, and believe they share power with males; in actuality, they are being duped. The truth is, males (and I mean everyone born male who inevitably grew up socialized as male, complete with male privilege)  are considered the default human, as having full personhood and rights. Radical feminists don’t want to be men, they want to be recognized as fucking human beings, not walking body-parts, holes, or “uterus-bearers.” Contrast this with trans women, who want to be recognized as women (and when those that pass do, they realize there is no such thing as “female privilege”).

Yes, some lesbians and other women end up transitioning or otherwise live their lives in the male gender-role because “passing” as male gives them privilege. The Albanian sworn virgins are one such example of this. I do not begrudge a woman who tries to better her position in life by doing so, but I am sad when females feel they need to mutilate their bodies in the attempt to erase their womanhood.

I also don’t begrudge women who barter their sex because most of the time it is really all that they have to barter with. But I want a better world for women so that they don’t have to resort to doing so.

– Radical feminists aren’t submissive because they refuse to stroke men’s egos and dicks, so yeah, this is destructive to a typical male’s self-confidence, which tends to be fragile and power-mongering. Powerful people are loud, they take up space. Female bosses are often called ball-breakers for this reason; assertiveness is prized in men, but disparaged in women as “bossy” or “bitches,” who are also accused of “sleeping their way to the top.”

– Any woman who makes demands on men can be said to be a ball-breaker, such as demanding emotional and sexual accountability. Suddenly, women are the ones who are dominant control-freaks and tyrants and abusive, just for desiring basic human decency and reciprocity. Conversely, men who fulfill these demands are “pussy-whipped.”

I would love to know: just what exactly counts as seductive, anyway, to be called a cock-tease? When you get right down to it, seduction the way males think of it is so arbitrary. A woman wearing revealing clothing is “seductive.” Hell, even a teenaged girl who is attractive can be said to be “seductive,” because she appears/talks/acts so mature. Barf.

Which brings me to my next point: any female that conforms to the gender role of femininity can be said to be seductive, because femininity signifies submission to males, a sort of Stockholm Syndrome in exchange for benefits or what one feminist calls “male privilege by-proxy,” hence why gender-conforming women have privilege over women who are not gender-conforming. From the time we are born we are conditioned into it; from the time we could walk we learn how to sway our hips, talk softly, and apologize for our opinions (by imitation). And in some jobs we don’t have a choice to not wear high heels and/or makeup.

The common allusion in all the woman-as-seductress tropes is to the Victorian era where women played “hard to get” and men believe they still do to this day. Well, back then as a woman you couldn’t just give in because your reputation was at stake. More likely, women were taking their time to think because they depended more on men and didn’t want to end up with the wrong kind. I see nothing that’s wrong with that.

In addition to this, Christian marriage advice for women at the time stated that women shouldn’t make any noise or any indication she enjoyed sex, and to engage only for procreation purposes. Women were told to show disgust so men wouldn’t be encouraged, and to get the act over and done with as quickly as possible:

  • The patriarchal idea that it is the duty of wives to submit to their husbands sexually, because sexual gratification is his right, led to the accompanying consequence that women often felt brutalized by their husbands and quickly grew to despise sex. Private letters, not meant for publication, received by the leaders of the sexually radical Free Love movement, give ample expression to the pain, bitterness and emotional distance felt by many women, from all social classes (Battan 168, 175).

A related theme found in much of the literature of that era was that sex was a necessary evil, to be endured for the continuation of the human race. Marriage manuals prescribed intercourse once a month; more often brought harmful effects. Sylvester Graham, in his Lecture to Young Men on Chastity, warned strongly against intercourse more than once a week: “you cannot habitually exceed the number of weeks in the year, without in some degree impairing your constitutional powers, shortening your lives, and increasing your liability to disease and suffering; if indeed you do not thereby actually induce disease of the worst and most painful kind. . . .” (Queen et al 235).

Here is a slightly more progressive version.

Also, nonconsensual consent is a theme in Christian Domestic Discipline marriages as well as the rape fantasies in BDSM. All of these things contributed to men’s belief that when a woman says “no” she really means “yes,” which implies the following: women are liars; it’s impossible to rape them, since they always want PIV, and men (patronizingly) know what’s best for them or they know them better than they know themselves (creepily like fathers!) And the belief that sex is a man’s “right” is just as prevalent in the men that use prostituted women, known as johns, demonstrating their desire for anonymity in male violence.

There is no way that a woman’s body “promises” anything. The very belief implies that our bodies have a mind of their own and betray us, that we don’t inhabit them, and that they are free for the taking by men. Plus it is men who are deciding that the woman’s body is “promising” them sex. It’s a guilt-trip tactic. It is also a projection: because men believe they are uncontrollable animals who just have to have sex with any woman who gives him a boner, they put the blame on women instead. Liberal men aren’t as progressive as they think they are, because they put women on a pedestal (the easier to tip her over) and when she falls – by failing in the impossible standards, or defiance (a “bad girl” – fatherly implications again!) – she is analogous to the Christian “fallen woman,” better known as a “whore” or “slut.” Except instead of falling out of God’s grace, the fallen woman for liberals has fallen out of men’s favor, by no longer currying favor.

In fact, the patriarchy is full of similar projections onto women. We know them as “myths.” They are not true but they are not false, either, just because people act based on their beliefs and treat others accordingly; hence, they acquire the status of myths which have a powerful subconscious hold in our collective minds. We live in myths, they serve as metaphors for the human experience. But because myths don’t require emotional intelligence, much less critical thinking, they are easy to adopt by anyone, even the most intellectually intelligent people. The purpose of myths in popular belief was probably started by political propagandists in order to keep the people asleep, such as the hero myths or “what doesn’t kill me, makes me stronger“; by reinforcing myths with powerful speech (or speech done by those in power), the oppressed get dissuaded from fighting back.

“The defining characteristic of a myth is not whether or not it is true, it is what function it serves in our collective psyche and our society.” (Duckrabbits) That function, I think, is to promote cultural norms (as in, what constitutes normal behavior) and gender narratives, hence why there are so many female monster myths: Crone-hag witch, succubus, harpy, fury, siren, Medusa, Lilith. The Jungian feminine shadow. The neglect of the topic of the Amazons and on tv, a lack of independent, gender non-conforming female protagonists and heroes. “Monstrosity is hard to define except in relation to a peer group.  Nazis are monsters in relation to others bent on world domination.  Sea serpents are monsters in relation to other ocean creatures that politely offer themselves up for a fish fry.  Miley Cyrus is monstrous in relation to other teenage girls (but only marginally so).  We classify organisms as monsters when they step outside the margin of what we consider reasonable behavior for their particular category of critter. ” (EsoterX)

In real life, women get demonized for conforming as vain, cockteases, man-eaters, airheaded, flakey, superficial even as they gain some benefits and protection by allying with the oppressor class. But they’re demonized even more for their defiance in not laying down like doormats or being infantilized and just taking it: as bitch, whore, slut, slag, uptight, humorless, sleaze, harpy, nag, gold-digger, frigid, hysterical, prude, crazy, overemotional, obsessed, liar, man-hater, ugly,  masculine or manly, unfuckable. As ball-breaker, who males see as attempting to usurp their power. If only they knew she was reclaiming her own.

This is precisely why the writing and speech by women is so important. Calling women “cocktease” denies the oppression of females by males, and the sexual harassment of females by males. Demonizing women is meant to make them feel less-than, as subhuman. Women are not sex, they are not sexuality incarnate by virtue of being female, and they don’t owe men sex just for existing. And women can change their minds at any time they want.

So no, radical feminists, there is nothing morally wrong or inherently hateful in being a ball-breaker. Speak your truths. Kill boners of feel-good rhetoric and challenge the lies.

* By the same token, I ought to tell every straight man that thinks lesbians are man-haters to go suck a dick, or else they’re homophobic (which they are regardless) and just as man-hating.

Leave a Reply

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

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