Policing Sexual Desire

Article here. Excerpt:

'The New York Times now has a “gender editor” and “gender team,” created in the wake of the #MeToo movement to infuse feminist sensibility even further throughout the paper. The gender editor, Jessica Bennett, penned an op-ed last month that serves as a template for the hypocritical state of modern feminism. Bennett had unforced sex with a 30-year-old acquaintance when she was 19 because “saying ‘yes’ [was] easier than saying ‘no,’” as the op-ed’s title puts it. She allowed the encounter to proceed out of “some combination of fear (that I wasn’t as mature as he thought), shame (that I had let it get this far), and guilt (would I hurt his feelings?).” Naturally, Bennett attributes her passivity and embarrassment at that moment to “dangerously outdated gender norms.” It is the patriarchy, she claims, that makes “even seemingly straightforward ideas about sex—such as, you know, whether we want to engage in it or not—feel utterly complex.”

Actually, it is not the patriarchy that makes sexual decisions “utterly complex”; it is sex itself. Sex is the realm of the inarticulate and irrational, inherently fraught with “fear,” “shame,” and “guilt.” Sexual seduction is carried on through ambiguity and indirection; exposing that ambiguity to light, naming what may or may not be going on, is uncomfortable and risks denial and rejection. “Dangerously outdated gender norms” are not what make it difficult to say no to sexual advances; contemporarygender norms have confused these already fraught situations. Traditional mores set the default for premarital sex at “no,” at least for females. This default recognized the different sexual drives of males and females and the difficulties of bargaining with the male libido. The default “no” to premarital sex meant that a female did not have to negotiate the refusal with every opportuning male; it was simply assumed. She could, of course, cast aside the default assumption; that was her power and prerogative. But she did not have to provide reasons for shutting down a sexual advance.'

Like0 Dislike0


All you have to do is simply state what you want. If the other party says no, that's that. Walk away.

Really it isn't that hard. By just being out with it, you save a huge amt. of time and trouble. Such a system of simply stating directly what you want and getting a straight yes/no answer removes all ambiguities and guessing work. It's like anything else.

In my experience a woman decides if she would bang you or not in the first 2 seconds of meeting you. No amount of bullshitting around affects her opinion. If you're interested in banging her and she feels the same and you ask her if she wants to fuck (use other words, may I suggest), you'll get a yes or no. If she's the kind who can't answer that question with a straight-forward yes or no, then assume it's no and move on. Don't waste time with ambivalent types or women who "just don't know" what they want.

Since adopting this approach about two decades ago, my success rate with women has improved greatly. The usual feedback I get is, it's nice to have someone just plain come out and ask instead of song and dancing. Also, I avoid wasting time with women who aren't serious about fucking.

Just tellin' like it is.

Like0 Dislike0

I found that there were so many feminist and/or anti male articles in the Times, that I stopped my subscription. Their gender editor is a feminist. No real effort was made to include men's issues. End of story.

Like0 Dislike0