And here I thought it was sex that made a woman lose “the flower of her body.” How foolish. Everyone knows that it’s during pregnancy when women go from being acceptably fuckable objects to vessels which no longer exist solely for male pleasure (now they exist for promulgation of the male seed, obviously) and are therefore not worthy of fucking. Or something.
Despite Charles Mudede’s bizarre assertion that “if a woman’s pregnancy is far along the way, having sex with her must mean having sex with the baby” (I think someone needs to repeat 7th grade biology), I can’t help but suspect that perhaps his argument hinges on the ever-popular view that women’s bodies exist solely for male use and definition. Charles Mudede doesn’t find pregnant bodies attractive because that body has run its course of usefulness in his life — it’s been “used up,” as he pleasantly phrases it:
The body that had the sex that resulted in the pregnancy is not the same as the body that is in the process of producing a whole new life. The first body was attractive (like a flower is attractive); the pregnant body, on the other hand, is used up by the function of the pregnancy.
Because Charles doesn’t find the pregnant body attractive, the pregnant body is objectively not attractive. Because Charles views women’s bodies as means to an end (first for his sexual pleasure, then for birthing “his” child, and useless thereafter), women’s bodies are a means to an end.
Entitled much?
And any of you who think differently are just fooling yourselves. Plus, you’re having inauthentic sex if you’re fucking while pregnant.
He does have a point about the sheer hideousness of pregnant women, though. What beasts: