wait… what? Women… LIKE SEX!?!?!?

Posted on August 11, 2011


Anti-feminist market theories of sexuality fail to explain the data..

The common theme of anti-feminism of the ’60s through roughly the ’90s was basically, “Feminism is emasculating.  Now go make me a sandwich.”  Alas, anti-feminists are beginning to realize that overt misogyny isn’t really the selling point it used to be, and so now anti-feminism has taken a strange turn. Instead of pleading on behalf of men, anti-feminists claim that feminism is bad forwomen.

The argument goes something like this:  Feminists, being ladies and therefore gullible, took a look around and saw that men controlled religion, government, business, and family and assumed that this meant that we lived in a patriarchy where women were inferior to men.  Not so!  Actually, it was a system created and dominated by women, where women used men’s need to have sex with them to control men and obtain resources for them.  All that stuff that looks like patriarchy, including vicious control of women’s sexuality through slut-shaming, religious garb, and female genital mutilation?  Just women controlling the market to make sure the price of the poon was high.  And all that business, religion, government, etc?  Just men trying to get resources so they could acquire top-dollar vagina, which was a market that women controlled totally and men have no say in.  And feminists ruined it all for women by making them work and stuff.

Emphasis mine. I love how Amanda breaks down the arguments by being snarky and cutting through the fluffy rhetoric that’s been used to ever so eloquently describe exactly what she’s writing about.  I’ve seen it with my own eyes as I peruse the interwebs.  I like her version better.

It’s a strange theory that has no real historical evidence for it, but adherents to this belief will not give it up without a fight. Which explains this bizarre interview with Roy Baumeister.  Baumeister’s theory is that women are the producers but not consumers of sex, and men are the consumers and not producers of sex, and it causes him to point to things like men buying dinner (ladies are whores for the hamburgers!) and the supposed death of sex in marriage, as women who have obtained a man’s resources stop having sex because they got what they wanted.

you know, though, i may be with roy on this one.  It makes way more sense that men pay for dinners because they want to fuck (and a woman knows if a man pays for dinner she better put out), and not because historically speaking women were not given the same capitalistic opportunities afforded to men and these traditions of men literally needing to take care of women have been passed on.  Amirite? Seriously though, what a wanker:

His argument is that equality somehow “lowered” the price of sex, because as women have more economic resources of their own, they slut-shame each other less.

okay well first, sex shouldn’t be fucking commodified, it’s not money – but alas, in a patriarchal, capitalistic world nothing is worth talking about unless it has value to be traded for something else.  Nevermind that it’s a sharing of energy between two people… what kind of leverage can it have?  Anyway,  this is where Amanda really lays the smack down:

He claims married women aren’t into it, but also that single women aren’t into casual sex.  Commitment doesn’t make us horny.  Newness doesn’t make us horny.  It appears nothing makes us horny.

I wonder where he gets this impression?  He should come talk to me and my lady friends for a day…

If that’s the case, then we should actually see sex rates plummet, and not just in marriage.  Actually, we should see marriage rates plummet, too, if marriage is simply an exchange of vagina for economic stability. If women just aren’t into sex, and they don’t need to exchange sex for goods and services, which is the traditional reason Baumeister says we have sex, then why wouldn’t we just give it up?  That’s actually how markets work.

not only does this guy not know anything about women and our sex drives, he’d make a horrible economist.  And probably a horrible lover.  How are you going to please a partner if you think they’re only in it so you’ll provide them with economic stability (that they’re increasingly not needing as they gain “power” in the present system)?  Did he never take a biology class?  Sex ed?  He probably either went to public school or religious school.  Is he unaware that our orgasms are in many ways better than his… we get to ride the waves, baby! So, in summary:

The feminist theory about sex is probably still the better one:  Women, like men, enjoy sex.  In a patriarchal system, women’s bodies are seen as objects to control, and women’s sexual desires threaten the system because women will make choices based on what they, as women want, and not what men want them to do.  So women’s sexuality is systematically surpressed.  Women enforce the rules because the system penalizes them for not doing so, but if women collectively stop enforcing the rules, i.e. become feminists, then the system collapses.  And women, liberated from patriarchal domination of their sexuality, start having the same kind of variety of sex (casual, commited, somewhere in between) that men have always preserved for themselves alone

I think he’s another man who’s been made uncomfortable by female autonomy.  Hopefully he can catch up to the 21st century and have the epic, mindblowing kind of sex feminists can have 😉