Yeah, exactly. If men are innately punitive/violent enough to the point where women fear for their safety whenever they speak up (in the bedroom, the workplace, etc.), we should probably throw out liberal modernity and take steps to separate men and women throughout society on this basis. Thankfully this is not necessarily the case — liberal modernity works and, if anything, would work better if women were more assertive in these situations.
Assertive in what way? If a married woman is assertive about not wanting to have sex, then it is time for a divorce. If she's assertive about other things, well - it depends on what those things are, and her reasons for being assertive about them.
So it matters what her reasons are about other things but not her reasons about not wanting sex? Just straight to divorce asap in that case?
Anyway, divorces are going down because people are marrying less and that downward trend will continue into the foreseeable future so problem solved I guess.
My bad - I ripped off a response too quickly and didn't give it the attention it deserved.
So, yes, it matters why a man's wife doesn't want to have sex. But with a framing of 'being assertive' I'm assuming you meant that she simply doesn't want to have sex.
If for example she doesn't want to have sex because it is painful, then of course a conversation is in order.
If we're talking about a truly 'sexless marriage', then we are not talking about a marginal reduction in frequency - we're talking about no sex at all. If it is just a marginal reduction, then that is another conversation - no need to rush to a divorce!
Setting aside an issue like painful sex, and assuming we are talking about a sexless marriage - then yes, it is time for a divorce. If a woman doesn't want to have sex with her husband, she likely does not care for him. Additionally, sex is one of the main reasons men get married. If a woman does not want to provide sex, then why should the man want to continue to provide resources to her? If he decided to quit his job and sit on the couch all day, she would be equally entitled to reevaluate their marriage.
Maybe you have a counter example - a situation where a woman decides she no longer wishes to have sex with her husband, but the man should want to remain with her. I have a hard time envisioning such cases (again, excepting things like physical pain during sex), but maybe you have such cases in mind.
"If a woman does not want to provide sex, then why should the man want to continue to provide resources to her?"
--- In a usual marriage the spouses are providing resources to each other and their kids. Sex is not "exchanged" for resources. Sex is "exchanged" for sex.
You are framing sex as commodity that is possessed by one entity in exchange for another commodity possessed by another entity and that simply is not at all what sex is or how it functions in marriage. If anyone sees sex like this I would advise everyone on the planet against ever get near him (or her) in a sexual manner. And if anyone does, I guarantee their sexual experience will not be pleasurable. (I'm talking in context of marriage here, not sex work like prostituion wherein that is certainly the norm as it is a job).
Moreover your emphasis on physical pain as the one and only reason a person might not want to have sex is inaccurate. Physically painful sex is only one of many reasons a person may not have interest in sex.
I hope we can get to a substantive point of disagreement here.
Marriage is a trade, at some level. Obviously you're not going to come home and ask your wife, "Hey baby - I brought home some groceries, but let's trade sex for groceries!" In fact the Onion brilliantly lampooned this years ago.
Focusing on the framing of sex/resources is ignoring the main problem, the thing you objected to - should a man get a divorce if his wife does not want to have sex with him? I said generally 'yes', though with some exceptions.
I was pretty careful and emphasized that painful sex was an example - it is hardly the only reason, but was intended to give an idea of the types of reasons a woman might not want to have sex, but where it wouldn't necessarily doom a marriage.
I asked for counterexamples, if you had any - do you? You referenced 'sexless marriages' and 'assertive' women. Can you give me an example of a sexless marriage due to an assertive woman, where a man should want to remain? I don't claim there are none - painful intercourse is the type of exception I can easily see, do you have others?
All of life is tradeoffs, men, women, toms, queens.
The life of a feral tomcat is roaming, hanging out with friends, chasing pussy, hunting occasionally, fornicating frequently. I come and go as I please, even if I rarely know when my next meal will be.
Such a life also is short, compared with that of the neutered, declawed cats I see staring out through glass windows.
"Those to my right worry about women having sex out of “politeness”, which they see as a downstream consequence of liberal sexual norms coupled with relatively higher female agreeableness. The left-wing concern is that consent is complicated when sexual partners are of different ages, incomes etc. and more broadly that all of women’s sexual choices are complicated by their feelings of responsibility for men’s pleasure and their fears of male violence."
Let's set aside fears of male violence, as I see that as a special case.
I think these are strange framings of sex. The idea seems to be that women may decide to have sex with men for a variety of reasons, not all of which are related to her own pleasure-seeking.
I'm sure that is true! I'm also sure that this means sex is like everything else in life. Everything we do, we do for a variety of reasons. I may take out the trash not because I enjoy it, or because I think it needs to go out - I may instead take it out because my wife is annoyed by the trash (maybe a slight odor emanates), and my life will be much easier if I just take it out. We even have a phrase to describe this phenomenon - "Happy wife, happy life." Nobody thinks this is a major social ill either.
It is strange to demand that consent to sex must happen in some sort of incentive vacuum, where the only allowable consideration is whether the woman is having sex for her own pleasure.
People do nice things for each other all the time - why can't sex be one of those things? Both the right and left want to elevate sex into some special plane, free of influence from every day considerations.
These types of considerations around sex are strong evidence of the patriarchy. Left wingers (who claim to reject the patriarchy) fail to see that their own attitudes and conceptions of women/sex are in fact the very *embodiment* of the patriarchy.
Consider also - I've been to strip clubs where I've seen young women hustle men into spending literally thousands of dollars on them. It is very clear that women are using their sexuality to manipulate men into doing their bidding.
I was at a bachelor party at a strip club where I gave a women hundreds of dollars, and she kept pressuring/cajoling me into going to the ATM to get more money. She even used subtle suggestions that I was less of a man for refusing to do so ("oh I understand, you don't want your wife to know").
For whatever reason, *that* type of cajoling goes without notice. The sexual power a young woman has (especially without her clothes on!) is immense. Yet because of the patriarchy, society assumes (correctly, in my view) that men have (or should have) enough self-control to maintain responsibility for themselves and their spending.
Unless we extend the same expectations to women, women can't truly be free. Of course I am not sure that most women want to be free. In fact, I think this conflict between a desire for freedom and simultaneously a yearning for the protective embrace of the patriarchy is at the root of a lot of frustration for modern women.
This was a good read! Definitely an under-discussed topic.
I think there is also an internal consistency problem here. If one takes seriously the pressure women feel to be agreeable and please men surely one needs to take seriously the pressure men feel from society to be dominant, take charge and have lots of sexual conquests.
If the woman is assumed to be helpless to resist those pressures why is the man assumed to have the agency to do so? Isn't that just a kind of backdoor way to give men all the social agency?
I agree with you but will try to give potential retorts from each side. I think radical feminists would agree that men are also victims of patriarchy but because of their place within it they are victim and abuser, perpetuating male dominance even when it’s to their detriment. I think the trad feminists would say that women are more conformist and agreeable and therefore need more protection via well aligned norms and rules.
That's a fair response but note how it's a fundamentally different discussion now. In particular, we are now having a discussion about the most effective/useful rules for society and one can't necessarily apply those to get conclusions about individual moral blame, e.g., the way we may need to punish hard to catch crimes more but it doesn't tell us the perpetrator was morally more blameworthy
Also, it's now a matter of degree and we have to ask where we are on that balance.
So sure, that's a perfectly reasonable response but it's not really a response which defends the kind of reaction actually happening -- one could imagine ways in which it could be extended but it requires getting into messy quantatative discussions of exactly the type that the original kind of moral approbation of the men refused to do.
Who is the "society" you are talking about? You do realize human beings don't have shared conscience? Sounds more like dumb men taking other dumb men too seriously.
1) If a women consents and encourages 90% of the way to intercourse then changes course, you're playing with fire and testing a man's self control. While every man should have the self control to accept this last minute change of course, some will not. It seems reasonable that many of those men would have accepted the "no" earlier in the night. It is dumb to rely on the good will and judgement another person in an emotional, hormonal and often intoxicated situations.
2) There are really two stable equilibrium: sex within trusting, committed (and optionally socially recognized) relationships or some acceptance of rape culture/date rape. Three components of this: 1) from the female perspective low trust sex involves acceptance of some risk of less then consent. 2) guys in a punitive culture for non-consent will require trust and commitment to avoid misunderstandings. Some guys in a culture that accepts some non-consent will take advantage especially around the edges. 3) Justice (legal or communal) can adjudicate consent issues often in punitive manner if there is a strong legal/social norm for committed relationships : we all know Johnny isn't with Jill so he must have raped her. Without a bright line commitment, it is practically difficult to adjudicate situations justly. If you apply a punative standard anyway you push equilibrium to sexual conservatism. If the justice standard steps back from being punitive in non obvious situations, you effectively accept a date rape culture.
I see today's culture as moving towards conservative norms: Celibacy and committed relationships. As team trad virtues, I support that. I think team sexual liberation should accept that this comes with some tolerance of rape culture just as team 2nd amendment accepts some level of gun violence.
I don't agree that sexual liberalism requires an acceptance of rape *culture*. In fact I think that the more sexually conservative cultures normalize and accept rape (which I see as the essence of rape culture) far more than do sexually liberal cultures. I think that even in the absence of rape culture there will still be some rape, and that those who engage in casual sex have to be aware that they're more at risk of that in any given interaction since they haven't done as thorough a vetting of their sexual partner. But I don't think an acceptance that more freedom comes with the risk of rape, and as a result that if women engage in casual sex they have to be willing to be assertive and aware of warning signs if they expect to avoid unwanted sex, implies that men who sexually assault or rape women shouldn't be punished.
My struggle is with the pragmaticism and justice of punishing ambiguous consent situations (he said/she said, intoxication, misunderstandings) in a culture that accepts sexual liberalism. If you are aggressive in punishment, you push the culture to sexual conservatism (and appropriately so). If you are slow to punish, bad players will intentionally create ambiguous consent situations (aka rape culture). Rape is the scare line in a a conservative culture to keep women from promiscuity, but also as a threat to deter men from sexual aggression.
My experience is that more sexually permissive sub cultures have a higher baseline of ambiguous consent events while conservative cultures have lower baselines but very ugly bad players (because of you're breaking one rule, why not 5). I don't get the equilibrium were ambiguous consent situations are justly and aggressively prosecute (legally or socially) while supporting sexual exploration with untrusted, uncommitted partners. I don't see how the game theory works (hidden information game, random matching, global equilibrium, good/bad types, with the availability of costly screening, etc... you pay for the information if the cost of the bad case is high or you just tolerate occasional bad outcomes if expected high good match rate outweighs bad).
To address the 90% comment: much of the information needed for a woman to determine safe/unsafe, pleasure or pain, is available in those latter moments - how someone begins touching you or responding to your communication happens immediately prior to intercourse, and often not known prior. For example, there could have been lots of discussion about likes/dislikes, boundaries and expectations and the only way to know of those agreements are being respected is somewhat in the moment.
I don't disagree, which is why moving towards sex with an untrusted partners is high risk. Conservative courtship will give you a sense of compatibility without starting from a vulnerable place with a bad player.
I agree that courtship allows for more context and more information to expand the decision window, but ultimately, what happens on the threshold of actual intercourse could still diverge from a previous sense of compatibility or safety, and now there is the added pressure of a long courtship and related investment, how does that impact the disconnect or sense of obligation or expectation? I don’t have a clear answer and appreciate the engagement. I am a married woman with a deep trust that my husband would respect any moment I wanted to disengage from any activity. My personal need for deep trust and a sense of safety informs my preferences, and eliminates my desire for casual intimacy, but at the same time I don’t have any moral or ethical concerns against it.
What is morals and ethics but norms that promote human flourishing? I'd argue that many of the issues you're pointing out evidence that casual intimacy detracts from human flourishing. From the perspective of the women it's fairly clear that untrusted partners can lead to dangerous and situations of uncertain pressures, but your experience in a trusting, committed relationship has been allowed for flourishing sexuality. You can also cite the literature that married people are having more sex and elevated wellbeing.
More controversially, the other party in the 90% stop situation is placed in a bad situation. Encouraging a person's libido, then retracting is problematic on several levels. First, you don't take an alcoholic to a bar. While it is within a women's rights to pull back at any time for any reason, it's never good form to tease an addict. For good biological reasons, guys have a strong innate response to advances from women. Putting someone in a position where they are more likely to do something horrible is bad social norm. If the guy fucks up, the woman has to live with it and the guy has to live with himself. If the guy gets a late rejection and does the right thing, it is very unlikely the two talk out the situation to amicable agreement as in a trusting relationship. Instead the guy could either internalizes the rejection or it reinforces negative notions about women. None of this is good for the individual or culture. Then there is simple honesty about intentions: the participants expressing interest and consent both verbally and physically is implicitly conditional on their vibes moment to moment. This is both appropriate and inherently dishonest. Fundamentally both partners require trust and relationship for honest intimacy.
I view there to be a strong case that casual intimacy is poor social norm aka immoral. That is to say, if someone asked my advise I would tell them that casual intimacy is dangerous personally and detracts from the common good. I would encourage committed relationships that actually make people flourishing and build cultural stability.
If the girl goes 90% of the way and then says no, the guy needs to stop. I've been in that very scenario (as the guy who stopped). If they don't, they're a fucking rapist and throw the book at them.
Your theory would insinuate that cultures with more liberal sexual norms have higher rates of rape . .which is not true (actually the opposite is the case; rape rates were significantly higher in the U.S. 50 years ago))
I think I was very clear that the guy needs to stop at 90% as does the women if the guy says no. Legally, it is very difficult to throw the book at a guy when your signaled sexual intent, then withdrew consent late in the interaction. The defense is that consent was given and encouraged throughout the engagement, there was miscommunication and confusion at the end. The lawyer walks through all verbal and nonverbal signals of consent getting 90% of the way there, then says basically says the last bit was mixed signals, after the fact regret, and he said/she said. Good luck finding a prosecutor, let alone convicting with a bunch of normie 50 year old on the jury.
I'm not justifying the action, it's just very hard to prosecute. It's also really dumb for a woman to take a man and put him in that situation because you leave yourself with limited legal and physical protection.
The reason why you could prosecute rape in the past is because there were clear social norms and boundaries. Many women today claim to be sexually assaulted, but predators are protected by situations which isolate women, where sexuality is expected and norms make it incredibly difficult to distinguish appropriate and inappropriate sexuality. Fetish culture normalizes violent sex, Tinder isolates vulnerable women, etc.
"While I accept that women are on average more agreeable, that doesn’t exempt us from internalizing the consequences of our actions. Just as men being subject to more violent impulses doesn’t exempt them from being held accountable when they act on those impulses."
I really like this quote. Does this imply though that if nature stacks things against us (genetically), we are no less accountable for the outcomes of our actions?
I agree very much that, in the case above of male violence, we are as accountable as anyone else. But I wonder how this generalizes.
It depends what level of abstraction you’re talking about. I don’t believe in free will, so in some sense I don’t think anyone is truly responsible for their actions. But to function I think we’re all best off acting as though we are and dealing with the consequences of our choices. The fundamental fiction of liberal society is that all men are created equal, obviously not true, but it works. And the point is that if you don’t want to be held accountable for your choices then you have to give up on your right to liberty. It’s one or the other. We don’t hold kids responsible for their actions in the same way we do adults, which is why we let their parents make the important decisions for them. If women want to be protected from unpleasant interactions then they can’t also be liberated equals with men. Feminism was originally about women asking for the chance to compete and live on equal terms with men, and to me, looking for excessive protection is an anti feminist sentiment
Regan, I think you've threaded the needle well here! And I appreciate your take on the Aziz Ansari situation. When it happened, I couldn't believe we were all supposed to hate this guy, just for being a (truly) bad date. It's very frustrating, the way women have been lectured to and infantilized, at least my entire adult life. I have a 13-year-old daughter and a nine-year-old daughter now, and these questions are starting to come up (only as hypotheticals so far, thank God!), and I feel like I'm constantly parsing through the messages I got to see what's worth passing on. (And I was raised an Orthodox Jew, so I can only imagine what it was like for people more in the thick of things!)
This is great...been trying to articulate this for a long time. I hate the impulse to infantilize women. Placing all the focus is on mens' behavior makes it difficult to teach young women how to judge potential sexual partners and assess the situations they are contemplating putting themselves in.
It still boggles my mind that mainstream establishment feminists will try to argue that the young man in the case cited by Srinivasan received remotely fair treatment. The Obama-Biden effort to abandon all pretense of due process or concern for the truth in cases of so-called "sexual assault" was a major clue that the "principled liberals" were rapidly losing influence in comparison to the Woke.
Fascinating essay..... and on a maddeningly complex and nuanced subject....one that I have written about occasinally on my own 'stack. I will (tentatively) add this other dimension to the complexity you have discussed here: "Research has tended to confirm yet another piece of folklore. Behaviour that sometimes gets labelled as ‘toxic’ is most typical of the kind of male to whom a very lot of women (and especially young women) are most sexually attracted - at least in the short term. This is an elephant in the feminist room but is revealed in abundance in story form. The handsome (or sometimes not so handsome) bad guy always with a pretty girl in tow is the stuff of every tv soap opera ever made. Then there were “Oh you [delicious] brute!” fantasies of 19th century novelists like Edith Hull. And then there are the “more disconcerting research findings that men who use sexual coercion have more partners than men who do not.....[and men] ...high on Dark Triad traits are viewed as more attractive by women, are more likely to have consensual sexual partners, and are more likely to engage in sexual coercion.” (One thinks here of those gut-wrenching stories of women who, escaping one violent, abusive relationship, head straight for similar in the choice of their next partner.)" https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/the-less-desired
I am 73 so for me it's mostly 'reflections in tranquility' but it sometimes seems to me that sexual relations between men and women - especially young men and women - could be described as a kind of Faustian tango.
Absolutely agree! I remember, years ago, reading a comment on a Quillette piece that was somewhat related to this topic (can't remember the writer or the piece, unfortunately, but it was a good one!) in which the commenter (in kind of a "Oh, come off it!" tone) mentioned the kick his wife got out of him throwing her on the bed, pushing her up against walls, holding her in certain positions, and my immediate thought was, yup!
(Obviously, abusive situations are another story, but I agree that the attraction to this kind of take-charge, demanding guy is a common denominator among women that people are too embarrassed to talk about. The fact that my husband -- a kind, gentle, patient, thoroughly undemanding person in general -- is much much stronger than I am and chooses opportune moments to make that obvious is an incredible turn-on, but it's something I definitely get looks about if I mention it to other women.)
Thanks Rosalind, I completely agree - you might check out this other post of mine which talks more about the heterosexual sexual dynamic, along precisely these lines ;)
A lot of what makes a woman decide that a sexual situation was "wrong" and "violating" is not because of what happened during the actual sex, but how the guy acted afterwards. Men could save themselves a lot of trouble by just not being a dick after. A woman gets drunk and hooks up with a frat guy and the next day he sends her nice texts and asks her out. Versus same thing and then she never heard from him again or he blows her off or she hears he was talking shit about her and bragging to his friends. The dude in the latter scenario is putting himself in serious danger that she will later decide that he violated her and did something wrong.
well, the Aziz case didn't fit that mold though. Nor did the one I cited from Srinivasan's essay. In both those cases the guys were nice after the fact.
"Men could save themselves a lot of trouble by just not being a dick after."
So if a man sleeps with a woman and thinks "she might be the one" and he tries to pursue her and she's not interested, she gets to accuse him of being a dick, a creep, a stalker and a sexual harasser.
But if a woman sleeps with a man and thinks "he might be the one" and she tries to pursue him, and he's not interested then he is the one being a dick. How dare he blow her off like that! What a bastard!
So his disinterest in her is a form of sexual exploitation, whereas her disinterest in him is a woman's right. It's a total double standard. And one which is most fiercely defended by feminists - even though they claim to want gender equality. This double standard - along with the very real threat of being accused of rape if he falls short of the woman's expectations (fantasies) of him - is why so many men are opting out of relationships altogether. They just don't feel safe having anything to do with women. And their concerns are completely justified.
There is another double standard that society is mostly blind to..... what we call being a dick AFTER (being cavalier) is the same behaviour that women often engage in BEFORE. Women's way of objectifying and exploiting men is to go out dressed provocatively (or just very attractively) and then engage with a man and treat him as walking cash dispenser, a free vending machine for drinks, a dancing partner, an ego massager and a vanity booster...... before ditching him at the end of the evening.
She is objectifying the man because she is not treating him as a human being, but as a free utility instead. Women who behave like this can easily drain a man of all of his disposable income for that week in a single evening. Men put up with it because they have no choice. Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Women have the power.
Society does not care about the men who wake up 'the morning after' a night out with a hangover, an empty wallet, an empty bed, their weekend already over and feelings of regret over of being exploited, objectified and taken advantage of by a woman in this way.
I'm not suggesting society necessarily should care, or that men should not take it on the chin as part of the whole mating game (which is inherently unfair). I'm just pointing out that 'being used' is not something that only women experience, and that women generally have ALL the options and ALL the power.... including the false narrative that men have all the options and all the power! :)
If a woman wants to avoid the hollow feeling of a casual one night stand, all she has to do is adopt the traditional courtship conventions and social etiquette that feminism dismantled in the name of 'empowerment' and 'liberation'. Those conventions were put in place to protect both men and women from the effects of alcohol, hormones, pheromones and the powerful urge to make babies regardless of circumstances or even personal feelings.
What drives male/ female sexual behaviour is not men or women - but the future baby who is desperate to be conceived and born! Both sexes are constantly being manipulated (seduced if you will) to make that baby happen! Traditional courtship and relationship conventions (and culture generally) recognised this fact. We recognised that procreation is a very long process which starts with flirting and dating - and not foreplay and thrusting! Consent is a BODILY transaction (energetic even), and not just a verbal one. The moment either side starts investing in a relationship they are beginning the process of consent.
Modern post feminist culture defines men's investment in women (drinks, attention, meals etc) as a woman's right, and not the beginnings of the consent transaction. This is where all the confusion and dysfunction stems from. It is the modern 'empowered' woman's objectification of men (as utilities put on Earth to serve women's vanity and ego) which sets up all the confusion, conflicting emotions and regret further down the line.
It's not just how the man behaves, but also how the woman's social circle reacts to her having sex with that particular man. There have been a lot of times where consentual sex turned to "rape" in the woman's mouth when her friends reacted in disgust to the thought of sex with her partner.
What happens afterwards cannot have an impact in what happened yesterday. It either was consensual or it wasn’t. How one feels about it later or after chatting with friends or watching a movie cannot change the past. Surely you don’t believe that! We’d have to re-define reality and direction of time otherwise.
Oh totally agree. No one should expect a random hookup with someone they have no established history or relationship with will become anything more than that. But it seems to happen anyway...everyone likes to feel wanted. And I think it hurts most people's feelings (men and women, we just don't talk as much about it happening to men) if they never hear from the person again or get blown off afterwards. Irrational but it happens nonetheless. And at least some women are prone to interpreting an event by their emotional state afterwards. So if I had a college aged son, I'd warn him that if he's going to hook up, he better be prepared to always be nice afterwards...even if it means pretending to like a girl for a few weeks. It's just not worth the risk otherwise. At least, not unless you have some evidence like in texts that she really is 100% just down to hook up and nothing more.
Women in the USA are acutely aware of the nuances surrounding sexual consent and assault, as evidenced by the low reporting rates of 20-30%. This suggests a significant level of doubt benefitting men in these scenarios. The alarming statistic that only 7 out of 1,000 sexual assaults result in a felony conviction underscores the high impunity of this crime. Women are often left to navigate the physical and emotional aftermath of sexual incidents, which can shape their future intimate interactions.The data contradicts the notion that women are over-identifying as victims in legal contexts. However, equating the choice to have sex, possibly to avoid awkwardness, with victimhood can be detrimental.
It's essential to differentiate between consensual decisions and responses to perceived threats. The line between agreeableness and a fight, flight, or fawn response is challenging to discern. Fawning, or feigned consent, can be a strategy to avoid harm, making it difficult for the other party to recognize non-consent. Bluntly put: blatant non-consensual penetrative sex is more likely to be painful, violent and can escalate with anger, whereas fawning and feigned-consent will significantly decrease the odds of pain and violence. Even in this scenario where a woman is fawning or feigning consent, I wouldn’t place blame on the man because, if the fawning is effective, he wouldn’t necessarily know it was happening. This further illustrates the need for women to have more agency over their options and choices in those moments. Feeling afraid doesn’t always equal danger. But if a woman truly feels a sense of danger or even isn’t interested in what may come
next, when possible, she should grab her purse and bolt. There is no need to be nice or even explain. Women should be empowered to make choices that align with their desires and be prepared to handle the consequences.
Educating women on their options and encouraging assertiveness can help prevent misunderstandings and enhance safety in intimate situations. I recall a situation where I felt unsafe and outnumbered, and I chose to leave without explanation. It was an awkward conversation later, but it reinforced the importance of listening to my instincts and asserting my boundaries.
Have you read Camille paglia’s essays yet? They cover a lot of this territory; it’s interesting to see many of the issues litigated in the 80s and 90s re-litigated in many of the same terms, albeit with different examples, in the 2010s and 20s.
yes, largely, but I actually think her position is more extreme than mine in terms of her expectations of women. I think it's good that norms have changed to expect men not to pressure women into sex etc. even though they sometimes still will and women should be aware of and prepared for that. I don't think she would see Aziz Ansari's behavior as unethical, as I do, for example. I also think she has said things that imply that once you've gone up to someone's apartment or initiated sexual contact that you can't cry victim if you change your mind midway through and the man doesn't respond accordingly. I disagree with this. I think both parties can at any time choose to stop a sexual interaction and that if the other person doesn't comply with that request they are assaulting them. I agree with her that, from a safety perspective, if you know you don't want to have sex it might be unwise to go to a private place with a man, especially if there's alcohol or drugs involved. But I think I expect significantly more from men in these situations than she does.
True, and yes her position was considered extremely provocative and controversial when her book came out. I remember because I wrote a paper on it for my debate class in high school and I recall some of my classmates being infuriated when it was my turn to read my paper. 😉
Though I read that Aziz story and my take was that it was just as much about the woman being upset at his conduct outside the bedroom (or I guess, his living room, in her story), than what happened sexually. She was expecting to go on a fancy date and to be able to brag to all her friends about dating a celebrity. That was the sense I got. And then all he did was buy a cheap glass of wine and want to go home and bone. She had expected to be wooed and instead she got treated like a booty call and I don't think that was at all what she'd expected. There was likely also some weird cross signals going there, where if not for him being a celebrity she would've thought him below her...he's a short skinny guy, not exactly dashingly handsome...so she thought he should be thankful to be on a date with her and underestimated how many sexual opportunities celebrities get, and that she was just one of hundreds. I don't think she wanted to admit to herself that she was basically acting like a groupie herself, and went out with him bc he was famous, not because she was attracted to him. Him treating her basically like a piece of meat was too much reality into what was going on and why they were on a date.
It's not a new observation, but him being a bit pushy and insistent is the type of behavior that rarely if ever bothers a woman if it's done by a guy who is sweeping her off her feet and that she's enamored by. Aziz being pushy was offensive bc there was a fundamental mismatch in their respective understandings of their relative status and purpose of their date.
Yeah, I had that same feeling after I read that account. It mostly just felt like crossed wires led to cringey, bad sex. There's this dumb game where men and women role play cat and mouse; it seems like Ansari thought that was what was going on, and she just went along with it rather than walking out.
And it seems like the author gave the woman no agency as if she didn’t know what she was doing when she wrote “But I also think so-called “Grace” failed herself through her inability to act to protect her own interests.”
Maybe by staying even when she realized Aziz wanted something she didn’t want, she was looking after her interests. Being on a date with a celeb was likely weighing heavily on her decision to stay. What if she could eventually after a couple of dates change his mind and get him to date her/commit to her?
The piece says we need to hold women accountable but in this scenario doesn’t allow any accountability that this woman may have known exactly what she was doing by continuing with the cringey awkward date/sex.
Glad to have found this Substack! These are conversations that need to be had, and in ways that they rarely are had.
Yeah, exactly. If men are innately punitive/violent enough to the point where women fear for their safety whenever they speak up (in the bedroom, the workplace, etc.), we should probably throw out liberal modernity and take steps to separate men and women throughout society on this basis. Thankfully this is not necessarily the case — liberal modernity works and, if anything, would work better if women were more assertive in these situations.
And yet when married women are assertive their husbands complain about "sexless marriage".
Assertive in what way? If a married woman is assertive about not wanting to have sex, then it is time for a divorce. If she's assertive about other things, well - it depends on what those things are, and her reasons for being assertive about them.
So it matters what her reasons are about other things but not her reasons about not wanting sex? Just straight to divorce asap in that case?
Anyway, divorces are going down because people are marrying less and that downward trend will continue into the foreseeable future so problem solved I guess.
My bad - I ripped off a response too quickly and didn't give it the attention it deserved.
So, yes, it matters why a man's wife doesn't want to have sex. But with a framing of 'being assertive' I'm assuming you meant that she simply doesn't want to have sex.
If for example she doesn't want to have sex because it is painful, then of course a conversation is in order.
If we're talking about a truly 'sexless marriage', then we are not talking about a marginal reduction in frequency - we're talking about no sex at all. If it is just a marginal reduction, then that is another conversation - no need to rush to a divorce!
Setting aside an issue like painful sex, and assuming we are talking about a sexless marriage - then yes, it is time for a divorce. If a woman doesn't want to have sex with her husband, she likely does not care for him. Additionally, sex is one of the main reasons men get married. If a woman does not want to provide sex, then why should the man want to continue to provide resources to her? If he decided to quit his job and sit on the couch all day, she would be equally entitled to reevaluate their marriage.
Maybe you have a counter example - a situation where a woman decides she no longer wishes to have sex with her husband, but the man should want to remain with her. I have a hard time envisioning such cases (again, excepting things like physical pain during sex), but maybe you have such cases in mind.
"If a woman does not want to provide sex, then why should the man want to continue to provide resources to her?"
--- In a usual marriage the spouses are providing resources to each other and their kids. Sex is not "exchanged" for resources. Sex is "exchanged" for sex.
You are framing sex as commodity that is possessed by one entity in exchange for another commodity possessed by another entity and that simply is not at all what sex is or how it functions in marriage. If anyone sees sex like this I would advise everyone on the planet against ever get near him (or her) in a sexual manner. And if anyone does, I guarantee their sexual experience will not be pleasurable. (I'm talking in context of marriage here, not sex work like prostituion wherein that is certainly the norm as it is a job).
Moreover your emphasis on physical pain as the one and only reason a person might not want to have sex is inaccurate. Physically painful sex is only one of many reasons a person may not have interest in sex.
I hope we can get to a substantive point of disagreement here.
Marriage is a trade, at some level. Obviously you're not going to come home and ask your wife, "Hey baby - I brought home some groceries, but let's trade sex for groceries!" In fact the Onion brilliantly lampooned this years ago.
Focusing on the framing of sex/resources is ignoring the main problem, the thing you objected to - should a man get a divorce if his wife does not want to have sex with him? I said generally 'yes', though with some exceptions.
I was pretty careful and emphasized that painful sex was an example - it is hardly the only reason, but was intended to give an idea of the types of reasons a woman might not want to have sex, but where it wouldn't necessarily doom a marriage.
I asked for counterexamples, if you had any - do you? You referenced 'sexless marriages' and 'assertive' women. Can you give me an example of a sexless marriage due to an assertive woman, where a man should want to remain? I don't claim there are none - painful intercourse is the type of exception I can easily see, do you have others?
All of life is tradeoffs, men, women, toms, queens.
The life of a feral tomcat is roaming, hanging out with friends, chasing pussy, hunting occasionally, fornicating frequently. I come and go as I please, even if I rarely know when my next meal will be.
Such a life also is short, compared with that of the neutered, declawed cats I see staring out through glass windows.
Haha I love this. The mind of a cat.
"Those to my right worry about women having sex out of “politeness”, which they see as a downstream consequence of liberal sexual norms coupled with relatively higher female agreeableness. The left-wing concern is that consent is complicated when sexual partners are of different ages, incomes etc. and more broadly that all of women’s sexual choices are complicated by their feelings of responsibility for men’s pleasure and their fears of male violence."
Let's set aside fears of male violence, as I see that as a special case.
I think these are strange framings of sex. The idea seems to be that women may decide to have sex with men for a variety of reasons, not all of which are related to her own pleasure-seeking.
I'm sure that is true! I'm also sure that this means sex is like everything else in life. Everything we do, we do for a variety of reasons. I may take out the trash not because I enjoy it, or because I think it needs to go out - I may instead take it out because my wife is annoyed by the trash (maybe a slight odor emanates), and my life will be much easier if I just take it out. We even have a phrase to describe this phenomenon - "Happy wife, happy life." Nobody thinks this is a major social ill either.
It is strange to demand that consent to sex must happen in some sort of incentive vacuum, where the only allowable consideration is whether the woman is having sex for her own pleasure.
People do nice things for each other all the time - why can't sex be one of those things? Both the right and left want to elevate sex into some special plane, free of influence from every day considerations.
These types of considerations around sex are strong evidence of the patriarchy. Left wingers (who claim to reject the patriarchy) fail to see that their own attitudes and conceptions of women/sex are in fact the very *embodiment* of the patriarchy.
Consider also - I've been to strip clubs where I've seen young women hustle men into spending literally thousands of dollars on them. It is very clear that women are using their sexuality to manipulate men into doing their bidding.
I was at a bachelor party at a strip club where I gave a women hundreds of dollars, and she kept pressuring/cajoling me into going to the ATM to get more money. She even used subtle suggestions that I was less of a man for refusing to do so ("oh I understand, you don't want your wife to know").
For whatever reason, *that* type of cajoling goes without notice. The sexual power a young woman has (especially without her clothes on!) is immense. Yet because of the patriarchy, society assumes (correctly, in my view) that men have (or should have) enough self-control to maintain responsibility for themselves and their spending.
Unless we extend the same expectations to women, women can't truly be free. Of course I am not sure that most women want to be free. In fact, I think this conflict between a desire for freedom and simultaneously a yearning for the protective embrace of the patriarchy is at the root of a lot of frustration for modern women.
This was a good read! Definitely an under-discussed topic.
I think there is also an internal consistency problem here. If one takes seriously the pressure women feel to be agreeable and please men surely one needs to take seriously the pressure men feel from society to be dominant, take charge and have lots of sexual conquests.
If the woman is assumed to be helpless to resist those pressures why is the man assumed to have the agency to do so? Isn't that just a kind of backdoor way to give men all the social agency?
I agree with you but will try to give potential retorts from each side. I think radical feminists would agree that men are also victims of patriarchy but because of their place within it they are victim and abuser, perpetuating male dominance even when it’s to their detriment. I think the trad feminists would say that women are more conformist and agreeable and therefore need more protection via well aligned norms and rules.
That's a fair response but note how it's a fundamentally different discussion now. In particular, we are now having a discussion about the most effective/useful rules for society and one can't necessarily apply those to get conclusions about individual moral blame, e.g., the way we may need to punish hard to catch crimes more but it doesn't tell us the perpetrator was morally more blameworthy
Also, it's now a matter of degree and we have to ask where we are on that balance.
So sure, that's a perfectly reasonable response but it's not really a response which defends the kind of reaction actually happening -- one could imagine ways in which it could be extended but it requires getting into messy quantatative discussions of exactly the type that the original kind of moral approbation of the men refused to do.
Who is the "society" you are talking about? You do realize human beings don't have shared conscience? Sounds more like dumb men taking other dumb men too seriously.
Two thoughts:
1) If a women consents and encourages 90% of the way to intercourse then changes course, you're playing with fire and testing a man's self control. While every man should have the self control to accept this last minute change of course, some will not. It seems reasonable that many of those men would have accepted the "no" earlier in the night. It is dumb to rely on the good will and judgement another person in an emotional, hormonal and often intoxicated situations.
2) There are really two stable equilibrium: sex within trusting, committed (and optionally socially recognized) relationships or some acceptance of rape culture/date rape. Three components of this: 1) from the female perspective low trust sex involves acceptance of some risk of less then consent. 2) guys in a punitive culture for non-consent will require trust and commitment to avoid misunderstandings. Some guys in a culture that accepts some non-consent will take advantage especially around the edges. 3) Justice (legal or communal) can adjudicate consent issues often in punitive manner if there is a strong legal/social norm for committed relationships : we all know Johnny isn't with Jill so he must have raped her. Without a bright line commitment, it is practically difficult to adjudicate situations justly. If you apply a punative standard anyway you push equilibrium to sexual conservatism. If the justice standard steps back from being punitive in non obvious situations, you effectively accept a date rape culture.
I see today's culture as moving towards conservative norms: Celibacy and committed relationships. As team trad virtues, I support that. I think team sexual liberation should accept that this comes with some tolerance of rape culture just as team 2nd amendment accepts some level of gun violence.
I don't agree that sexual liberalism requires an acceptance of rape *culture*. In fact I think that the more sexually conservative cultures normalize and accept rape (which I see as the essence of rape culture) far more than do sexually liberal cultures. I think that even in the absence of rape culture there will still be some rape, and that those who engage in casual sex have to be aware that they're more at risk of that in any given interaction since they haven't done as thorough a vetting of their sexual partner. But I don't think an acceptance that more freedom comes with the risk of rape, and as a result that if women engage in casual sex they have to be willing to be assertive and aware of warning signs if they expect to avoid unwanted sex, implies that men who sexually assault or rape women shouldn't be punished.
My struggle is with the pragmaticism and justice of punishing ambiguous consent situations (he said/she said, intoxication, misunderstandings) in a culture that accepts sexual liberalism. If you are aggressive in punishment, you push the culture to sexual conservatism (and appropriately so). If you are slow to punish, bad players will intentionally create ambiguous consent situations (aka rape culture). Rape is the scare line in a a conservative culture to keep women from promiscuity, but also as a threat to deter men from sexual aggression.
My experience is that more sexually permissive sub cultures have a higher baseline of ambiguous consent events while conservative cultures have lower baselines but very ugly bad players (because of you're breaking one rule, why not 5). I don't get the equilibrium were ambiguous consent situations are justly and aggressively prosecute (legally or socially) while supporting sexual exploration with untrusted, uncommitted partners. I don't see how the game theory works (hidden information game, random matching, global equilibrium, good/bad types, with the availability of costly screening, etc... you pay for the information if the cost of the bad case is high or you just tolerate occasional bad outcomes if expected high good match rate outweighs bad).
To address the 90% comment: much of the information needed for a woman to determine safe/unsafe, pleasure or pain, is available in those latter moments - how someone begins touching you or responding to your communication happens immediately prior to intercourse, and often not known prior. For example, there could have been lots of discussion about likes/dislikes, boundaries and expectations and the only way to know of those agreements are being respected is somewhat in the moment.
I don't disagree, which is why moving towards sex with an untrusted partners is high risk. Conservative courtship will give you a sense of compatibility without starting from a vulnerable place with a bad player.
I agree that courtship allows for more context and more information to expand the decision window, but ultimately, what happens on the threshold of actual intercourse could still diverge from a previous sense of compatibility or safety, and now there is the added pressure of a long courtship and related investment, how does that impact the disconnect or sense of obligation or expectation? I don’t have a clear answer and appreciate the engagement. I am a married woman with a deep trust that my husband would respect any moment I wanted to disengage from any activity. My personal need for deep trust and a sense of safety informs my preferences, and eliminates my desire for casual intimacy, but at the same time I don’t have any moral or ethical concerns against it.
What is morals and ethics but norms that promote human flourishing? I'd argue that many of the issues you're pointing out evidence that casual intimacy detracts from human flourishing. From the perspective of the women it's fairly clear that untrusted partners can lead to dangerous and situations of uncertain pressures, but your experience in a trusting, committed relationship has been allowed for flourishing sexuality. You can also cite the literature that married people are having more sex and elevated wellbeing.
More controversially, the other party in the 90% stop situation is placed in a bad situation. Encouraging a person's libido, then retracting is problematic on several levels. First, you don't take an alcoholic to a bar. While it is within a women's rights to pull back at any time for any reason, it's never good form to tease an addict. For good biological reasons, guys have a strong innate response to advances from women. Putting someone in a position where they are more likely to do something horrible is bad social norm. If the guy fucks up, the woman has to live with it and the guy has to live with himself. If the guy gets a late rejection and does the right thing, it is very unlikely the two talk out the situation to amicable agreement as in a trusting relationship. Instead the guy could either internalizes the rejection or it reinforces negative notions about women. None of this is good for the individual or culture. Then there is simple honesty about intentions: the participants expressing interest and consent both verbally and physically is implicitly conditional on their vibes moment to moment. This is both appropriate and inherently dishonest. Fundamentally both partners require trust and relationship for honest intimacy.
I view there to be a strong case that casual intimacy is poor social norm aka immoral. That is to say, if someone asked my advise I would tell them that casual intimacy is dangerous personally and detracts from the common good. I would encourage committed relationships that actually make people flourishing and build cultural stability.
No.
If the girl goes 90% of the way and then says no, the guy needs to stop. I've been in that very scenario (as the guy who stopped). If they don't, they're a fucking rapist and throw the book at them.
Your theory would insinuate that cultures with more liberal sexual norms have higher rates of rape . .which is not true (actually the opposite is the case; rape rates were significantly higher in the U.S. 50 years ago))
I think I was very clear that the guy needs to stop at 90% as does the women if the guy says no. Legally, it is very difficult to throw the book at a guy when your signaled sexual intent, then withdrew consent late in the interaction. The defense is that consent was given and encouraged throughout the engagement, there was miscommunication and confusion at the end. The lawyer walks through all verbal and nonverbal signals of consent getting 90% of the way there, then says basically says the last bit was mixed signals, after the fact regret, and he said/she said. Good luck finding a prosecutor, let alone convicting with a bunch of normie 50 year old on the jury.
I'm not justifying the action, it's just very hard to prosecute. It's also really dumb for a woman to take a man and put him in that situation because you leave yourself with limited legal and physical protection.
The reason why you could prosecute rape in the past is because there were clear social norms and boundaries. Many women today claim to be sexually assaulted, but predators are protected by situations which isolate women, where sexuality is expected and norms make it incredibly difficult to distinguish appropriate and inappropriate sexuality. Fetish culture normalizes violent sex, Tinder isolates vulnerable women, etc.
"While I accept that women are on average more agreeable, that doesn’t exempt us from internalizing the consequences of our actions. Just as men being subject to more violent impulses doesn’t exempt them from being held accountable when they act on those impulses."
I really like this quote. Does this imply though that if nature stacks things against us (genetically), we are no less accountable for the outcomes of our actions?
I agree very much that, in the case above of male violence, we are as accountable as anyone else. But I wonder how this generalizes.
It depends what level of abstraction you’re talking about. I don’t believe in free will, so in some sense I don’t think anyone is truly responsible for their actions. But to function I think we’re all best off acting as though we are and dealing with the consequences of our choices. The fundamental fiction of liberal society is that all men are created equal, obviously not true, but it works. And the point is that if you don’t want to be held accountable for your choices then you have to give up on your right to liberty. It’s one or the other. We don’t hold kids responsible for their actions in the same way we do adults, which is why we let their parents make the important decisions for them. If women want to be protected from unpleasant interactions then they can’t also be liberated equals with men. Feminism was originally about women asking for the chance to compete and live on equal terms with men, and to me, looking for excessive protection is an anti feminist sentiment
If we heeded the wisdom of Camille Paglia 30 years ago, we wouldn’t be in this mess. 😭 Anyway, great essay! You just gained a new subscriber.
Thanks very much, Monica!
Regan, I think you've threaded the needle well here! And I appreciate your take on the Aziz Ansari situation. When it happened, I couldn't believe we were all supposed to hate this guy, just for being a (truly) bad date. It's very frustrating, the way women have been lectured to and infantilized, at least my entire adult life. I have a 13-year-old daughter and a nine-year-old daughter now, and these questions are starting to come up (only as hypotheticals so far, thank God!), and I feel like I'm constantly parsing through the messages I got to see what's worth passing on. (And I was raised an Orthodox Jew, so I can only imagine what it was like for people more in the thick of things!)
This is great...been trying to articulate this for a long time. I hate the impulse to infantilize women. Placing all the focus is on mens' behavior makes it difficult to teach young women how to judge potential sexual partners and assess the situations they are contemplating putting themselves in.
It still boggles my mind that mainstream establishment feminists will try to argue that the young man in the case cited by Srinivasan received remotely fair treatment. The Obama-Biden effort to abandon all pretense of due process or concern for the truth in cases of so-called "sexual assault" was a major clue that the "principled liberals" were rapidly losing influence in comparison to the Woke.
https://reason.com/2017/04/04/six-years-ago-today-obamas-education-dep/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/betsy-devos-campus-sexual-assault-end-kangaroo-courts/
> But both parties failed to live up to what I think should be expected of them.
So what do you think should have been expected of them, and how is it different from the "sexual repression" you oppose?
Fascinating essay..... and on a maddeningly complex and nuanced subject....one that I have written about occasinally on my own 'stack. I will (tentatively) add this other dimension to the complexity you have discussed here: "Research has tended to confirm yet another piece of folklore. Behaviour that sometimes gets labelled as ‘toxic’ is most typical of the kind of male to whom a very lot of women (and especially young women) are most sexually attracted - at least in the short term. This is an elephant in the feminist room but is revealed in abundance in story form. The handsome (or sometimes not so handsome) bad guy always with a pretty girl in tow is the stuff of every tv soap opera ever made. Then there were “Oh you [delicious] brute!” fantasies of 19th century novelists like Edith Hull. And then there are the “more disconcerting research findings that men who use sexual coercion have more partners than men who do not.....[and men] ...high on Dark Triad traits are viewed as more attractive by women, are more likely to have consensual sexual partners, and are more likely to engage in sexual coercion.” (One thinks here of those gut-wrenching stories of women who, escaping one violent, abusive relationship, head straight for similar in the choice of their next partner.)" https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/the-less-desired
I am 73 so for me it's mostly 'reflections in tranquility' but it sometimes seems to me that sexual relations between men and women - especially young men and women - could be described as a kind of Faustian tango.
Absolutely agree! I remember, years ago, reading a comment on a Quillette piece that was somewhat related to this topic (can't remember the writer or the piece, unfortunately, but it was a good one!) in which the commenter (in kind of a "Oh, come off it!" tone) mentioned the kick his wife got out of him throwing her on the bed, pushing her up against walls, holding her in certain positions, and my immediate thought was, yup!
(Obviously, abusive situations are another story, but I agree that the attraction to this kind of take-charge, demanding guy is a common denominator among women that people are too embarrassed to talk about. The fact that my husband -- a kind, gentle, patient, thoroughly undemanding person in general -- is much much stronger than I am and chooses opportune moments to make that obvious is an incredible turn-on, but it's something I definitely get looks about if I mention it to other women.)
Thanks Rosalind, I completely agree - you might check out this other post of mine which talks more about the heterosexual sexual dynamic, along precisely these lines ;)
https://www.allcatsarefemale.com/p/default-heterosexual-sadomasochism
Intrigued! It's on my list :-)
A lot of what makes a woman decide that a sexual situation was "wrong" and "violating" is not because of what happened during the actual sex, but how the guy acted afterwards. Men could save themselves a lot of trouble by just not being a dick after. A woman gets drunk and hooks up with a frat guy and the next day he sends her nice texts and asks her out. Versus same thing and then she never heard from him again or he blows her off or she hears he was talking shit about her and bragging to his friends. The dude in the latter scenario is putting himself in serious danger that she will later decide that he violated her and did something wrong.
well, the Aziz case didn't fit that mold though. Nor did the one I cited from Srinivasan's essay. In both those cases the guys were nice after the fact.
"Men could save themselves a lot of trouble by just not being a dick after."
So if a man sleeps with a woman and thinks "she might be the one" and he tries to pursue her and she's not interested, she gets to accuse him of being a dick, a creep, a stalker and a sexual harasser.
But if a woman sleeps with a man and thinks "he might be the one" and she tries to pursue him, and he's not interested then he is the one being a dick. How dare he blow her off like that! What a bastard!
So his disinterest in her is a form of sexual exploitation, whereas her disinterest in him is a woman's right. It's a total double standard. And one which is most fiercely defended by feminists - even though they claim to want gender equality. This double standard - along with the very real threat of being accused of rape if he falls short of the woman's expectations (fantasies) of him - is why so many men are opting out of relationships altogether. They just don't feel safe having anything to do with women. And their concerns are completely justified.
There is another double standard that society is mostly blind to..... what we call being a dick AFTER (being cavalier) is the same behaviour that women often engage in BEFORE. Women's way of objectifying and exploiting men is to go out dressed provocatively (or just very attractively) and then engage with a man and treat him as walking cash dispenser, a free vending machine for drinks, a dancing partner, an ego massager and a vanity booster...... before ditching him at the end of the evening.
She is objectifying the man because she is not treating him as a human being, but as a free utility instead. Women who behave like this can easily drain a man of all of his disposable income for that week in a single evening. Men put up with it because they have no choice. Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Women have the power.
Society does not care about the men who wake up 'the morning after' a night out with a hangover, an empty wallet, an empty bed, their weekend already over and feelings of regret over of being exploited, objectified and taken advantage of by a woman in this way.
I'm not suggesting society necessarily should care, or that men should not take it on the chin as part of the whole mating game (which is inherently unfair). I'm just pointing out that 'being used' is not something that only women experience, and that women generally have ALL the options and ALL the power.... including the false narrative that men have all the options and all the power! :)
If a woman wants to avoid the hollow feeling of a casual one night stand, all she has to do is adopt the traditional courtship conventions and social etiquette that feminism dismantled in the name of 'empowerment' and 'liberation'. Those conventions were put in place to protect both men and women from the effects of alcohol, hormones, pheromones and the powerful urge to make babies regardless of circumstances or even personal feelings.
What drives male/ female sexual behaviour is not men or women - but the future baby who is desperate to be conceived and born! Both sexes are constantly being manipulated (seduced if you will) to make that baby happen! Traditional courtship and relationship conventions (and culture generally) recognised this fact. We recognised that procreation is a very long process which starts with flirting and dating - and not foreplay and thrusting! Consent is a BODILY transaction (energetic even), and not just a verbal one. The moment either side starts investing in a relationship they are beginning the process of consent.
Modern post feminist culture defines men's investment in women (drinks, attention, meals etc) as a woman's right, and not the beginnings of the consent transaction. This is where all the confusion and dysfunction stems from. It is the modern 'empowered' woman's objectification of men (as utilities put on Earth to serve women's vanity and ego) which sets up all the confusion, conflicting emotions and regret further down the line.
It's not just how the man behaves, but also how the woman's social circle reacts to her having sex with that particular man. There have been a lot of times where consentual sex turned to "rape" in the woman's mouth when her friends reacted in disgust to the thought of sex with her partner.
What happens afterwards cannot have an impact in what happened yesterday. It either was consensual or it wasn’t. How one feels about it later or after chatting with friends or watching a movie cannot change the past. Surely you don’t believe that! We’d have to re-define reality and direction of time otherwise.
Oh totally agree. No one should expect a random hookup with someone they have no established history or relationship with will become anything more than that. But it seems to happen anyway...everyone likes to feel wanted. And I think it hurts most people's feelings (men and women, we just don't talk as much about it happening to men) if they never hear from the person again or get blown off afterwards. Irrational but it happens nonetheless. And at least some women are prone to interpreting an event by their emotional state afterwards. So if I had a college aged son, I'd warn him that if he's going to hook up, he better be prepared to always be nice afterwards...even if it means pretending to like a girl for a few weeks. It's just not worth the risk otherwise. At least, not unless you have some evidence like in texts that she really is 100% just down to hook up and nothing more.
Women in the USA are acutely aware of the nuances surrounding sexual consent and assault, as evidenced by the low reporting rates of 20-30%. This suggests a significant level of doubt benefitting men in these scenarios. The alarming statistic that only 7 out of 1,000 sexual assaults result in a felony conviction underscores the high impunity of this crime. Women are often left to navigate the physical and emotional aftermath of sexual incidents, which can shape their future intimate interactions.The data contradicts the notion that women are over-identifying as victims in legal contexts. However, equating the choice to have sex, possibly to avoid awkwardness, with victimhood can be detrimental.
It's essential to differentiate between consensual decisions and responses to perceived threats. The line between agreeableness and a fight, flight, or fawn response is challenging to discern. Fawning, or feigned consent, can be a strategy to avoid harm, making it difficult for the other party to recognize non-consent. Bluntly put: blatant non-consensual penetrative sex is more likely to be painful, violent and can escalate with anger, whereas fawning and feigned-consent will significantly decrease the odds of pain and violence. Even in this scenario where a woman is fawning or feigning consent, I wouldn’t place blame on the man because, if the fawning is effective, he wouldn’t necessarily know it was happening. This further illustrates the need for women to have more agency over their options and choices in those moments. Feeling afraid doesn’t always equal danger. But if a woman truly feels a sense of danger or even isn’t interested in what may come
next, when possible, she should grab her purse and bolt. There is no need to be nice or even explain. Women should be empowered to make choices that align with their desires and be prepared to handle the consequences.
Educating women on their options and encouraging assertiveness can help prevent misunderstandings and enhance safety in intimate situations. I recall a situation where I felt unsafe and outnumbered, and I chose to leave without explanation. It was an awkward conversation later, but it reinforced the importance of listening to my instincts and asserting my boundaries.
Have you read Camille paglia’s essays yet? They cover a lot of this territory; it’s interesting to see many of the issues litigated in the 80s and 90s re-litigated in many of the same terms, albeit with different examples, in the 2010s and 20s.
yes, I love her.
Yep, that was my thought. This exact argument is thoroughly covered in her essays from Sex, Art, and American Culture, published in the 90s.
yes, largely, but I actually think her position is more extreme than mine in terms of her expectations of women. I think it's good that norms have changed to expect men not to pressure women into sex etc. even though they sometimes still will and women should be aware of and prepared for that. I don't think she would see Aziz Ansari's behavior as unethical, as I do, for example. I also think she has said things that imply that once you've gone up to someone's apartment or initiated sexual contact that you can't cry victim if you change your mind midway through and the man doesn't respond accordingly. I disagree with this. I think both parties can at any time choose to stop a sexual interaction and that if the other person doesn't comply with that request they are assaulting them. I agree with her that, from a safety perspective, if you know you don't want to have sex it might be unwise to go to a private place with a man, especially if there's alcohol or drugs involved. But I think I expect significantly more from men in these situations than she does.
True, and yes her position was considered extremely provocative and controversial when her book came out. I remember because I wrote a paper on it for my debate class in high school and I recall some of my classmates being infuriated when it was my turn to read my paper. 😉
Though I read that Aziz story and my take was that it was just as much about the woman being upset at his conduct outside the bedroom (or I guess, his living room, in her story), than what happened sexually. She was expecting to go on a fancy date and to be able to brag to all her friends about dating a celebrity. That was the sense I got. And then all he did was buy a cheap glass of wine and want to go home and bone. She had expected to be wooed and instead she got treated like a booty call and I don't think that was at all what she'd expected. There was likely also some weird cross signals going there, where if not for him being a celebrity she would've thought him below her...he's a short skinny guy, not exactly dashingly handsome...so she thought he should be thankful to be on a date with her and underestimated how many sexual opportunities celebrities get, and that she was just one of hundreds. I don't think she wanted to admit to herself that she was basically acting like a groupie herself, and went out with him bc he was famous, not because she was attracted to him. Him treating her basically like a piece of meat was too much reality into what was going on and why they were on a date.
It's not a new observation, but him being a bit pushy and insistent is the type of behavior that rarely if ever bothers a woman if it's done by a guy who is sweeping her off her feet and that she's enamored by. Aziz being pushy was offensive bc there was a fundamental mismatch in their respective understandings of their relative status and purpose of their date.
Yeah, I had that same feeling after I read that account. It mostly just felt like crossed wires led to cringey, bad sex. There's this dumb game where men and women role play cat and mouse; it seems like Ansari thought that was what was going on, and she just went along with it rather than walking out.
And it seems like the author gave the woman no agency as if she didn’t know what she was doing when she wrote “But I also think so-called “Grace” failed herself through her inability to act to protect her own interests.”
Maybe by staying even when she realized Aziz wanted something she didn’t want, she was looking after her interests. Being on a date with a celeb was likely weighing heavily on her decision to stay. What if she could eventually after a couple of dates change his mind and get him to date her/commit to her?
The piece says we need to hold women accountable but in this scenario doesn’t allow any accountability that this woman may have known exactly what she was doing by continuing with the cringey awkward date/sex.