Right, on this point of asexuality, people have to remember MIM abolished psychology for its approach. MIM said three times in the magazine that gender is a relationship between groups. Asexuality is only something that helps you think as an individual.

See page 124 in MT2/3. It says "When speaking of romantic relations, MIM is referring to relations with an active sexual component." See that's the only way to understand groups and to cut through Christian ideas about love and friendship. You HAVE to define things or they go on and on without saying anything.

Now Tani generally gets to the same point as MIM, but by different means. She questions the sexual component for those of female biology, because most are putting up with men whose dicks are too small and don't fuck and can't reach the G-spot etc. So all those romance relations what is it asks Tani? What it is makes MIM question the whole thing from top to bottom. Maybe there really isn't this all-powerful bio driving everyone to sex, but in fact, most of the time it's something social and oppressive. Then the question between MIM and Tani is : how few wimmin is it that know themselves, big dicks, G-spots and fucking? And if it's a small percentage of the 2 or 2.5 billion with female biology, why?