Secular, Left Wing Feminist Site That Is Against Slut Shaming But For Casual Sex Publishes Article That Inadvertently Makes A Case Against Casual Sex
(Language warning: Please note the article I excerpt farther below contains the “F” word a few times)
I sometimes think left wing, secular feminists suffer from cognitive dissonance.
The site “Jezebel” is a left wing, secular, feminist site. I find myself agreeing with some of their essays about dating, sex, or women, but not often. This is one of those essays I’m not sure I’m agreeing with, or I’m seeing some odd presuppositions to it.
I saw this essay on their site, which asks how can society (or women) make casual sex better for women, when the entire essay reads to me as reasons as to why maybe women should refrain from casual sex altogether, or strongly reconsider it.
The essay outlines other articles, books, studies, or polls which say things like most women do not achieve orgasm in casual sex, most women do not orgasm from penis in vagina (intercourse) action, and that many men who are engaging in casual sex with a woman do not care if the woman orgasms or not (the men only care if they get off).
I may be overlooking other cogent points the essay made, other negative ramifications of having casual sex, but those are just a few that make casual sex sound very unappealing.
Here is a link to the Jezebel page:
(Link): How Can We Make Casual Sex Better For Women? by Tracy Moore
Some excerpts from that page follow below – and please note, these excerpts from the page make it sound like women should really reconsider casual sex, though the author is framing this as asking, “how can we, as women, retool this entire enterprise to make it work for us, and not just work for men”?
Celibacy is in fact an option every woman has. (Feminists never consider celibacy an option; neither do others in society.)
But then, masturbation is another option these women can consider. You don’t need a guy to have an orgasm.
Excerpts:
- Anyone woman has embarked on a first-time hookup with a man knows the following: it can be terrible, just OK, or great, but it’s highly unlikely you will get off. Is this a fixed truth of casual sex, or is there something we can do to change it?
- While we may be experiencing some of the most laid-back attitudes toward sex in history, that doesn’t seem to have changed much on the sexual satisfaction front, at least for women. In other words, if an increasingly celebratory attitude toward the act as something both innately good and no big deal has finally trickled down to most of us, then why hasn’t the sex itself improved?
- That is, in part, the argument Alana Massey presents in a Guardian essay in defense of “sex blahsitivity.” It rhymes with sex positivity; only it promotes a woman’s right to not be that into sex, because sex, particularly casual sex, is often not worth the trouble.
- Massey writes that while we mistakenly believed that sexual inequality was resolved by the Pill, feminism, and the sexual revolution, that simply isn’t the case.
- For one, sex will never not be potentially dangerous for women, but also, sex with men often just isn’t that good.
- “Too often, sex positivity feels rooted in a feminism that secretly wants boys to like it,” she (Link): writes. “It wants to be cool.” Being cool with sex is great, but if we haven’t “decentralized men’s orgasms as the ultimate purpose of sex between a man and a woman,” then where does that leave us? Frustrated. We don’t teach men how to prioritize a woman’s pleasure. We don’t provide realistic anatomy charts.
- …In part, I would argue it’s the nature of the act itself that works against women. Casual sex is often defined by the start and finish of a boner, but it’s also synonymous with instant gratification, sexually speaking—you don’t want to do the work of a relationship with this person, you just want to put your bodies together and feel good as a result. The feeling-good part won’t necessarily happen for the woman, though, because a hookup is, by design, somewhat impersonal; there’s not a lot of communication, and not a lot of effort.
-
So men tend to fuck until they orgasm, and women tend to fuck until men orgasm, too. Certainly a man can try to get a woman off first, or continue to try to get the woman off after he’s finished (less thrilling from his perspective I would imagine), but more often than not, that requires effort that sometimes feels counter to the free-spirited, impassioned, lust-driven charge of sex that “just happens.”
- …This is why so many women define relationship sex as the best sex they’ve had, and that’s not just because it involves being in love. It’s more often because only in more serious relationships do they feel more comfortable, and do men seem motivated in investing more effort in getting them off.
- …But we’ve written about women who are totally fine with casual hookups not resulting in orgasm, simply because it’s too much work, and, hey, that’s not always the best part about fucking, anyway.
- …A study looking at college hookups (Link): told us, to no one’s surprise, that it is harder for women to get off with strangers. Researchers found that women are twice as likely to get off in relationships, and in a poll of thousands of college students asked about their last hookup, some 80 percent of men had an orgasm versus only 42 percent of women. This is widely attributed to the men-giving-a-shit factor, which is a thing they tend to do less of when only fucking.
- Given all this, it seems that when it comes to reaping the benefits of all this no-strings sex out there, women are stuck between a rock and a hard place that never results in their orgasm. That, at best, we have to lower our standards and focus on how nice everything but the orgasm feels, because we are shit out of luck regardless. Massey argues that so long as we “tell women to have sex with as many partners as they like, but then don’t vigorously encourage those partners to be any good at sex,” women have the right to be meh about sex.
- But is it possible to reframe the idea of casual sex as the ultimate work of creating pleasure for both people? What does it look like when a man makes getting a woman off his mission?
- We know from studies that only a quarter of women are able to have vaginal orgasms. That the (Link): other 75 percent orgasm with a vibrator, their fingers, someone’s tongue, an iPhone alarm set to go off constantly, whatever it takes. Some research says 11 percent of women (Link): don’t orgasm at all. But the majority of women need beyond-dick assistance.
- Of course, this is where we have to mention faking it, an unfortunate practice that isn’t helping anyone. Media depictions aren’t helping either, which make orgasms look so easy.
After having read the entire article – or even if one only sees the portions I excerpted above – I am not seeing why any woman would find casual sex appealing, or why left wing, secular feminists keep encouraging women of all ages to be sexually promiscuous and yes, have one night stands.
One of several goals of having sex is to achieve an orgasm. I see little to no point in a woman having sex if having an orgasm is only a very slight possibility.
Even their own quotes in this article, taken from other pages or studies, say most women only climax (or more likely to) if in a caring, stable, committed relationship with a man – so why, why, why, do left wing, secular feminists keep pushing girls and women to engage in a behavior that does not benefit them, but may leave them feeling angry, resentful, used, taken advantage of, and frustrated?
Any time any of us speak up to disagree with the sexual hedonism in culture, we get screamed at by these feminists as being “slut shamers” or as being “sex negative,” or whatever terms the left has come up with.
I find their article ironic. The author is wondering how women can make causal sex work better for them, but the overall message I get is that casual sex sounds like a big lose for women, so women shouldn’t bother, or should not participate in it.
The author’s article reads like an unintentional PSA (Public Service Announcement) to women against having casual sex, not in favor of it.
Much like women who go on and on about how dreadful and horrible pregnancy and child bearing is, and when you say, “Well then, Thank God I never experienced either one!,” they often backtrack by saying, “Oh no, no, no, you should totally consider having kids, they are so great.”
I am sorry, but no – you can’t sit there running down a million reasons why doing “X” is awful or painful and then turn around and try to convince me to do “X,” whether it’s have a kid or have casual sex.
Cognitive dissonance is a funny thing.
—————————
Related Posts:
(Link): Our Bodies Were Not Made for Sex by T. Swann
(Link): Inconsistency on Feminist Site – Choices Have Consequences
(Link): The Contemporary Church Undervalues Celibacy / Virginity
(Link): How Feminists Are Making Women Easier Rape Targets
(Link): On Miley Cyrus Being Sexual at 2013 VMAs – Hypocrisy of Secular Feminists
Christian Pundit 