Opinion We must defend a woman's right to sex

Link (Archive)

We must defend a woman's right to sex​

"Have sex like a man." Isn’t that what they used to say? Women: have sex like a man. It was the whispered undercurrent of the sexual liberation invoked by the release of the contraceptive pill in the 1960s and it was the rallying cry of the 1990s, with ‘ladette’ culture dominating our gender politics and Sex and the City dedicating its pilot episode (and initial gambit) to this seemingly novel concept.

But what exactly does ‘have sex like a man’ really mean? On the surface it is the ‘Samantha-isation’ of sex; indulging in casual trysts and one-night stands, putting pleasureabove commitment. But what underscores this is far more significant. Because to have sex like a man ultimately means to have sex with impunity; without consequence, fear, judgment or shame. The overturn of Roe v Wade in America has sent shockwaves throughout the world for myriad reasons, but one of them is the overhaul of this view. Women, it says: have sex like a woman.

Having sex like a woman is a complicated business, and it always has been. The physical consequences of sex have always fallen upon us, meaning the scales of sexual equity have never really been balanced. Our every sexual encounter is clouded by the fear of pregnancy. Access to safe and legal abortions and proper reproductive care were as close as we have ever come to reaching some form of equilibrium. What overturning Roe v Wade has done, and what it may well kickstart across the globe, is a destruction of that balance, a return to – physically at least – an extremely gendered approach to sex.

But there has always been a frustratingly gendered approach to how we perceive sex. Women are not expected, firstly, to even want sex the same way men do. Our pleasure, both societally, and frequently on an interpersonal level (hi there, orgasm gender gap) is frequently disregarded. A man’s sexual appetite is anticipated, practically encouraged; a woman’s is ignored, shielded, tutted about, almost feared. As far as sex is concerned, boys will be boys, and girls will be quiet. Having sex like a woman means pretending you don’t really want it at all.

Because, of course, when a woman dares to step outside of these binaries, she is met with a singular and particularly vicious sort of judgement. We still live, and perhaps always have, in a world of players and whores, studs and sluts. What we praise in one, we condemn in the other. The concept of female purity – of ‘good’ girls and bad ones, of the ones you can bring home to mother and the ones you can’t – feels archaic, and yet this still has a chokehold on our culture. How often is sexual language deployed at women when they are disproportionately trolled online? A 2020 US research paper found the words 'slut' and 'whore' were used 419,000 times in misogynistic tweets over the span of one week – and slut-shaming is prolific among young adults, including the horrific use of revenge porn. Having sex like a woman means that, actually, it might be best not to have sex at all, for our society still struggles to make room for female sexuality. In fact, it penalises it.

These traditional and harmful views about a woman’s ‘virtue’ and how she should and should not have sex are fundamental to the anti-abortion rhetoric. Whether consciously declared or not, it is inescapable to me that the negation of a woman’s sexual agency is one of the pillars which props up the ‘pro-life’ argument. The overturn of Roe v Wadereinforces the idea that a woman’s sexuality is not, in fact, for her at all. Fertility is the aim, not pleasure. Anything not in the service of creating life is frivolous, shameful, wasteful. Our entire right to sexual pleasure was wiped out by that judgement. For how can we have ‘sex like a man’ now – when the threat of forced birth and trauma, the destruction of our bodies and our mental health, the evisceration of our dreams, hangs over every sexual encounter? If you ask the internet this, the army of trolls will simply reply, as I have seen proof of: then don’t have so much sex, you slut.

It could be the overturn of Roe which reminds us – even on this side of the pond – just how circumstantial and vulnerable our sexual freedoms are, and how knotted they remain with antiquated views of female propriety. For while we fight for bodily autonomy, let us not forget that this includes the right to a healthy, consensual sex life. We must defend a woman’s right to sex. We must redefine what it really means to have sex like a woman.
 
and yet they never are

are women just completely incapable of imagining doing something without the approval of other people? women like the author seem to not exist outside of being observed externally, fucking quantum hoes
They exist but you don't hear from them because they aren't terminally on social media.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LurkTrawl
These people are insane. A woman can entrap a man in pregnancy, indenture him into 18 years of servitude by way of child support. A man can sire a son or daughter and the woman can "abort," that child against his wishes, and he had no recourse.

The ear of this just drivel is just he usual sort of moral particularlism, where women should be afforded unbridledicense to do as they please, which men cannot begin to fathom for themselves.
I wish womens and mens rights activists would work together to present compromises in law rather than this game of cat and mouse. Mens rights has largely been defensive and timid while Womens rights has been aggressive and invasive. It's just getting us nowhere.

Acknowledging the modern needs of both sexes is a conflict both sexes must resolve together. Inb4 some nigger chimes in and claims womens rights only benefits whites.

That said, If human reproduction mostly occurs via parasitic means on female bodies, then yes women get control of the growing creature inside her. When children rely on women's breasts as sustenance for the first 6 months or so, then yes women get control. Cope. That's just how humans work. If you don't like it, troon out and 3D print your own artificial womb to birth your own Habsburg dynasty or don't reproduce.

"Women just want to have promiscuous sex and abort kids frivolously" This low IQ, tone-deaf and unintelligent trigger reaction in very common in the misinformation surrounding abortion. Not just a result of poor education of all (thanks public schools), but a defensive mechanism amongst anti-abortionists to keep themselves ignorant of truth. The dehumanization of the process is their only defense against what is truly an invasive, physically and mentally devastating process for females that no person would casually choose to engage.

Fact of the matter is that women just want the right to control how they have sex without the ridiculous amount of stigma surrounding female sexuality. Women want to have say in whether or not they will have bear children, faithful women want to have sex without being called a whore, young women want to be able to have sex when they are ready.

and yet they never are

are women just completely incapable of imagining doing something without the approval of other people? women like the author seem to not exist outside of being observed externally, fucking quantum hoes
Womens rights is reliant on men acknowledging the needs of women being enforced across society. If not, then you are implying the notion that a society without men is the only reasonable solution for women to attain rights and individuality.

Womens rights is about both sexes working together, not the lunacy that is female supremacy.
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • _methode_sundaytimes_prod_web_bin_e889f25a-4d05-11e7-a20e-a11097d3353d.jpg
    _methode_sundaytimes_prod_web_bin_e889f25a-4d05-11e7-a20e-a11097d3353d.jpg
    129.7 KB · Views: 26
That said, If human reproduction mostly occurs via parasitic means on female bodies[...]
>call fetuses parasites and "creatures"
>emphasize maternal duties as justification for commissioning abortions


You wield your femininity as a rhetorical tool to justify unnecessary feticide without actually honoring said femininity. Galling.

Almost as bad is that what you're trying to argue for doesn't even work out in the rest of the corpus of custody law-- the default position is that parents share custody of the child, and the rationale for this has to do with the fact that the child is the flesh and blood of both mother and father. When we chase after men to pay child support, we do it because the child is also their flesh and blood, meaning that he has duties to said child that we acknowledge. If gestating and nursing a child meant that you had sole say in whether said child lived or died, the mother would have sole custody and we would see this in the rest of custody law.

But we don't.

Fact of the matter is that women just want the right to control how they have sex without the ridiculous amount of stigma surrounding female sexuality.
You have no conception of how agency works.

You cede the means of your "control"-- abortion-- to the men who perform it, fund it, sanction it, and innovate it. Yet, you're so daft that you can talk well about how you want to "control how [you] have sex" beyond just not having sex outside of a interpersonally and financially stable relationship.

The dehumanization of the process is their only defense against what is truly an invasive, physically and mentally devastating process for females that no person would casually choose to engage.
Maybe you have a completely novel understanding of "casual".

1) The author in this article talks of abortion as though it were contraception,
2) since Roe, there have been 600k to 1m abortions yearly, totaling to somewhere in the thereabouts of 60 million dead babies, and
3) less than 13% of abortions were for anything the likes of maternal danger or even rape/incest.

Women want to have say in whether or not they will have bear children, faithful women want to have sex without being called a whore, young women want to be able to have sex when they are ready.
They do (don't have sex or use birth control), they already can, and they can.

Yours is exactly the persistent delusion that I remarked the thread article had.
 
I wish womens and mens rights activists would work together to present compromises in law rather than this game of cat and mouse. Mens rights has largely been defensive and timid while Womens rights has been aggressive and invasive. It's just getting us nowhere.

Acknowledging the modern needs of both sexes is a conflict both sexes must resolve together. Inb4 some nigger chimes in and claims womens rights only benefits whites.

That said, If human reproduction mostly occurs via parasitic means on female bodies, then yes women get control of the growing creature inside her. When children rely on women's breasts as sustenance for the first 6 months or so, then yes women get control. Cope. That's just how humans work. If you don't like it, troon out and 3D print your own artificial womb to birth your own Habsburg dynasty or don't reproduce.

"Women just want to have promiscuous sex and abort kids frivolously" This low IQ, tone-deaf and unintelligent trigger reaction in very common in the misinformation surrounding abortion. Not just a result of poor education of all (thanks public schools), but a defensive mechanism amongst anti-abortionists to keep themselves ignorant of truth. The dehumanization of the process is their only defense against what is truly an invasive, physically and mentally devastating process for females that no person would casually choose to engage.

Fact of the matter is that women just want the right to control how they have sex without the ridiculous amount of stigma surrounding female sexuality. Women want to have say in whether or not they will have bear children, faithful women want to have sex without being called a whore, young women want to be able to have sex when they are ready.


Womens rights is reliant on men acknowledging the needs of women being enforced across society. If not, then you are implying the notion that a society without men is the only reasonable solution for women to attain rights and individuality.

Womens rights is about both sexes working together, not the lunacy that is female supremacy.

Lol Appropriate username
 
Because to have sex like a man ultimately means to have sex with impunity; without consequence, fear, judgment or shame.
Free sex on tap without consequence or rules or taboos with multiple partners has not really been so good for society has it? It’s almost as though sex does have consequences, and is in fact a fairly large deal, physically and emotionally.
If you want to have sex there are always consequences- no contraception is perfect, there’s always a risk of pregnancy. Sex outside of a monogamous relationship also risks disease. It’s not a consequence free act.
 
Women are not expected, firstly, to even want sex the same way men do. Our pleasure, both societally, and frequently on an interpersonal level (hi there, orgasm gender gap) is frequently disregarded. A man’s sexual appetite is anticipated, practically encouraged; a woman’s is ignored, shielded, tutted about, almost feared. As far as sex is concerned, boys will be boys, and girls will be quiet. Having sex like a woman means pretending you don’t really want it at all.
Honey…we don’t. Listen to and believe men when they state outright that women do not and cannot understand that it is different for them. And of course there’s a thousand miles of highway between “not wanting it like men do” and “not wanting it at all,” and it is only your deranged, culturally induced conviction that not wanting it like men do means not wanting it at all that leads you to this conclusion. YOU are the one ignoring female sexuality and treating it like if it doesn’t look like a man’s, it doesn’t exist.

Is it really so bad and unbelievable that the smaller, weaker sex class that bears the physical burden of pregnancy would’ve evolved to be more selective and choose partners based upon trust and knowledge of the person, so you know they will be a good father? Maybe that little voice inside of you saying “hey don't go home with strangers” is instinct and a good thing, not evil imposed slut shaming. It’s the gift of fear, moron.

What’s actually happening is that the louder cultural message screamed at you your entire life is what’s unnatural and telling you to do things to prove something, even though they’re neither enjoyable nor worth the risk. That’s who is trying to control your sexuality, sweetheart. The people telling you your goal should be to fuck like a man.
 
Yeah, I'm not sure what to say anymore. The headline alone was retarded enough. All of the hypocrisy from commonly held views about men feeling entitled to sex too. It's just one big delusional rant about how bad women have it. Didya know 1 in 4 homeless are women? So horrible. Now they're not having as much sex either :(

I don't think the female gender can honest to god reason nor perform anywhere close to the male one. I have yet to meet a woman in my life who acknowledged their faults, use of excuses, and mistakes in totality. Their views are loaned or transitory, based on their feelings and social observation, as are what can be considered their hobbies. While they can be nurturing, I cannot find any other admirable quality. The extent at which I can relate to them has dwindled to nothing as I've matured. We live in completely different worlds, and it's obvious to both of us, yet we play this game of pretend because it's not the politically correct thing to say nor acknowledge.

this has been your daily dosage of gender wars with a fellow autistic kiwi
 
Back