Saturday, February 5, 2022

Pimping Out Coeds for the Feminist Cause

You will be forgiven for suspecting that sex-positive feminism was conjured by a band of pimple-faced adolescent boys. And yet, unwholesome feminists produced this aberration, and women are suffering for it.

After all, convincing women that they should have sex with whomever, whenever and however is hardly something that a self-respecting woman would have otherwise embraced. 

Nowadays, it has become nearly a norm. We are aware of some women who have railed against it. And we, not being of the female persuasion, have denounced it on these pages. 

Still, for some reason, movement feminists, especially the older variety, seem at some point to have encouraged women to have more sex with whomever under God-knows-what circumstances. You will be forgiven for thinking that they were pimping out young women for the cause. After all, the experience is most likely to be traumatic. It is most likely to damage a young woman’s reputation. When these damaged young women share their agonies with their agony aunt feminists they will be told that the fault lies with the men who do not accept them as fully sexualized beings.

If you conclude that feminism is a subtle form of stealth misogyny, one that allows women to be hurt to advance a cause, you would also be forgiven.

Having sex with someone you do not know is not intrinsic to the female condition. It has most often been practiced by certain members of the male persuasion-- I will not say more.

The interesting point about sex-positive feminism is that it detaches sex from relationships. It tells women to go for the orgasm, with whomever, regardless. That few women are inclined to do so and would not do so without feminist prodding seems not to enter the equation.

Whereas sex seems always to have taken up residence in defined relationships, whether marriage or institutionalized adultery or even prostitution, sex-positive feminism has persuaded a generation of young women that they should give it away for free. And that if they feel like shit afterwards, the fault lies in those who would judge them. The theory leaves no place for any woman’s moral sense and leaves no place for the special risks a woman incurs when she decides to have sex like a man.

The latter thought, having sprung from the minds of feminists, is absurd on its face. Put into practice, it means that more women are taking more unnecessary risks, are distancing themselves from conjugality and are getting hurt.

And we should add that in a time when pornography is ubiquitous, young women seem to believe that following the call of their lust means following the scripts that they or their paramours have seen on PornHub. When you cannot figure out the difference between expressing your desires and acting out a porno script, you have a problem.

So, a generation of women is starting to question sex-positive feminism. It’s about time. And they are doing so in the Guardian, in a review of the thinking of a sex educator pseudonymously named Lala, who questions a cultural practice that has been seriously hurting young women.

To begin, here is a definition:

The idea that nobody should be judged for their sexual desires lies at the heart of so-called “sex-positive feminism”, the credo that stripping away the stigma historically surrounding female sexuality will liberate women to enjoy themselves without guilt or shame and help to eliminate the slut-shaming and victim-blaming that often stops violence against women being taken seriously. The movement is credited with shattering taboos around issues such as masturbation, periods, LGBT rights and female genital mutilation, thanks to its insistence on women’s right to sexual pleasure.

Of course, as the article notes, sex for young women has become a free-for-all. For reasons that escape the limited acumen of their feminist madams, these young women do not understand that giving it away for free makes you feel cheap.

But if sex-positive feminism champions women pursuing their own desires without feeling judged, it also demands that they refrain from judging the way other people have sex – at least between consenting adults. Now, some are questioning who this free-for-all really serves and how consent is defined, in a society where women are still heavily conditioned to please men.

As it happens, even Lala now recognizes that hookups do not easily coexist with relationships. Of course, that was always the point. The goal of this aberrant practice was to fracture society by undermining long term relationships between men and women. In that it has largely succeeded. Men and women are less likely to get married and even less likely to stay married than at any time in history.

But, while the endless supply of potential hook-ups provided by dating apps has been great for women who just want casual sex, she argues, it has downsides for those seeking long-term relationships. “Since sex has become easier to get,” she writes, “love has become harder to find.” 

Through her Instagram account and the dating column she writes for OK! magazine, she hears regularly from women tolerating activities they don’t enjoy in bed for fear of being rejected for someone more willing – an age-old story, except that those sexual norms are now set by pornography.

Even Lala talks about finding love, a wistful wish for women who have been giving their love away for free. This means, she is incapable of recognizing that women’s interests are best guaranteed by committed defined relationships.

As I said, the net result of sex positive feminism is that women get hurt. In the physical as well as the psychological sense of the term.

When Lala polled her Instagram followers recently, almost three quarters said they had experienced rough or painful sex but had chosen not to complain about it. “It’s like: ‘I don’t want to disappoint him, I don’t want to be bad in bed.’ If you really like someone but every time you have sex it hurts and you don’t want that, how do you negotiate that when you’re only 18?” 

A third of British women under 40 have experienced unwanted slapping, spitting, choking or gagging in bed, according to research carried out for the pressure group We Can’t Consent to This, which campaigns to limit the so-called “rough sex” defence for murder (used by men who killed their partners to argue that the women died accidentally, in consensual sex games). It is one of a string of recent grassroots campaigns led by young women against tech-enabled forms of sexual aggression, from the unsolicited sending of “dick pics” to sharing intimate photos online.

So, women were pimped out for the feminist cause. Perhaps their feminist madams did not know or understand how much damage they were going, but they are still responsible for the damage done.

Some might say sex positivity has benefited women such as Adams, giving them the confidence to set boundaries in bed and discuss their experiences openly. But she is unconvinced. “It doesn’t benefit women. Even if there are individuals who feel personally empowered, collectively it continues to oppress us,” she says. “It’s all well and good saying that we can have sex now without being shamed and victim blamed. But it’s not like that’s being translated into real life.” The sense that the revolution hasn’t lived up to its idealistic promises may be fuelling resistance.

Trying to find a silver lining in this cloud is like finding that at least the poison tastes good. Still, allow Lala her glimmer of optimism.

Lala argues, is a cultural shift in men’s attitudes. “Sex-positive feminism has laid the foundations, it’s given us a platform and a voice and a space to use our voices. But without getting men on board and proper sex education, we’re all going to be on the same old hamster wheel.”

That won’t happen overnight, she acknowledges. But she does see glimmers of hope. Recently, she counselled a man who had been choking his girlfriend during sex for years. It was only when the girlfriend mustered the courage to say she didn’t like it that he admitted he didn’t like it, either. They were both, it turned out, going along with what they thought the other one wanted, and each secretly wishing the other would make it stop.


Bizzy Brain said...

I never "did it" with every woman I could have, but then again, I've never had VD. Many promiscuous women have incurable VD (Herpes). Who wants that in a wife?

Dean Barry said...

I've heard of "choking the chicken," but never "choking the girlfriend." I think Lala makes this stuff up.

Stuart Schneiderman said...

Unfortunately, she didn't make it up. The practice is not uncommon.

bobby said...

Choking a woman during sex is not uncommon?

I cannot imagine what sort of guy would do that.

I REALLY cannot imagine what sort of woman would go back for seconds when that happens.

Ah, we are so much more advanced than when I was young.

Dean Barry said...

Well, Stuart, I am 79. Times have CERTAINLY changed. Lol!

370H55V said...

One of the realllly tiresome bromides of anti-feminists (going as far back 50 years in Midge Decter's "The New Chastity") is that "sex-positive feminism" has been a great deal for men, offering them the opportunity to cat around with no adverse consequences.

That's not what happened. When we decoupled sex from marriage, we wound up with a situation in which fewer and fewer men are having more and more sex with a larger number of women "riding the carousel".

While most of the resulting huge number of incel men accept their circumstances, our society cannot leave them in their frustration and sorrow, but rather not only considers them potential terrorists and violent criminals a la George Sodini or Eliot Rodger, but also criminalizes their efforts to cure their problem. The wrong guy who "traumatizes" a girl or makes her feel "unsafe" by trying to get something going, or even makes her "uncomfortable" by his presence at school or work (without an initiative on his part--maybe even actually avoiding her!) can be fired, expelled, suspended, or even arrested.

How much of this are men willing to take?

IamDevo said...

"The interesting point about sex-positive feminism is that it detaches sex from relationships." May I humbly suggest that the red line was crossed when contraception by pharmacological means became popular? Once the procreative aspect of sexual activity became decoupled from its natural outcome, the development of "sex-positive feminism" was inevitable.