Jezebel says: feminism has no relevance to sex!

What? Did you read that right? Yes. Yes you did. Female-targeting megablog Jezebel has a new sex advice columnist, and she wants you to stop thinking about feminist principles when you have sex:

I understand there are complex emotions involved in sex, so everything isn’t always black and white, but I also think that sometimes girls’ brains become so clouded by bullshit “feminist” ideals — “thou shall not be treated like an object,” “thou shall always be offended by men’s pervy remarks” (as if we are not equally adept at dismissing them, and dishing them out) — that we spoil our own fun.

Hat tip to Jezebel for making the bold statement that women should accept being treated like an object in the name of sex. My wife remarked that this veers dangerously in “lie down and just enjoy it” territory. Maybe next they’ll publish an entry stating that women should stay in the kitchen so their men will fuck them more.

Furthermore, if we can’t use “bullshit feminist ideas” when evaluating sex, how can we know what rape is? The identification of rape, after all, is the result of applying feminist ideas to sex; and yes, I know rape is not about sex, but again, how would you know that if you’re busy not thinking about such a “bullshit feminist idea” as rape because it spoils your “fun”?

Here are some other thoughts about this from Feminist Current.

Oh, and this new columnist’s personal blog is called Slutever. Ooooh, that’s so edgy. Will cynical woman-haters keep targeting women forever? Or will women finally wake up and realize what junk they’re being fed?

16 thoughts on “Jezebel says: feminism has no relevance to sex!

  1. Gomi October 13, 2012 at 20:51

    I would argue that the identification of rape comes long before the application of feminist ideas. For example, it was termed the “Rape of the Sabines” long before anyone had any enlightened ideas about the equality of women. A non-feminist definition of rape is likely to be too narrow, but still cover plenty if examples.

    Regardless, her phrasing was clumsy, but the idea behind it holds some validity. We can become tied up in our analytical perceptions to the detriment of baser enjoyment. The same logic applies to BS social constructs of beauty or body image. There are times when letting yourself go, getting immersed in the moment, needs to take a little precedent. Times when our actions in the bedroom don’t need to be a political statement.

    Tying that into accepting sexual assaults like objectification and wolf whistles is the wrong message. But I think her intent isn’t as wrong.

    • Francois Tremblay October 13, 2012 at 21:26

      “I would argue that the identification of rape comes long before the application of feminist ideas. For example, it was termed the “Rape of the Sabines” long before anyone had any enlightened ideas about the equality of women.”

      Actually, no. It didn’t mean “rape” as in sexual assault, but abduction. At least look it up before making such a painfully wrong example. Using the word “rape” to mean “sexual assault” started its use in English in the 15th century.

      “Regardless, her phrasing was clumsy, but the idea behind it holds some validity. We can become tied up in our analytical perceptions to the detriment of baser enjoyment… Times when our actions in the bedroom don’t need to be a political statement. ”

      Stop being an asshole, Gomi. All personal acts are political acts. Fuck your “baser enjoyment” at the expense of the intellect.

      • Gomi October 14, 2012 at 04:52

        The Sabines were abducted to be wives, specifically for needed procreation. That means sexual assault. The criminal term was applied centuries later, but the idea came long before both that and feminism.

        Also, while your cursing is an eloquent rebuttal, the Jezebel author (and I) are arguing that personal acts don’t *always* have to be political. It’s not necessarily a truism, at least to some people.

        • Francois Tremblay October 14, 2012 at 05:00

          You are ONCE AGAIN concentrating on the superficial and missing the point here, you fuckwit. The point is that you and Jezebel are putting “baser enjoyment” ahead of actual thinking. Her point was that when sex is concerned, women should simply stop applying feminist principles and “lie back and just enjoy it.” That’s plainly evil.

          And yes, all personal acts are political acts. You don’t get to define sexual acts as exceptions. If anything, sexual acts are far more political in nature than most acts. Again, rape is an ethical and political concept and can only be understood within a political worldview, just to name taht one example. How do you reconcile the “sex is a tool that serves the sole purpose of orgasm” view with the concept of rape? You can’t, so don’t even try.

          And I swear at you because you always do this bullshit dance. I wish you’d either grow a brain or go away.

          • Gomi October 14, 2012 at 05:20

            Yes, rape, as a violation and assault, is defined as an ethical concept. But why does that mean sex must *always* be a political act? Why must the private actions of consenting adults, in the bedroom, be necessarily political?

            There are times when sex needs to be political, but there are times when it doesn’t have to be. And that was the point of the Jezebel author.

  2. Alison Randall October 15, 2012 at 16:00

    It’s irrelevant whether something *needs* to be political or not: it just *is.* Why? Because there are two people (or sometimes more) who happen to have been indoctrinated in one or more cultures. You can’t pretend that sex happens in a vacuum.

    • Gomi October 15, 2012 at 16:13

      It doesn’t happen in a vacuum, but going into every sexual encounter with conscious decisions of political meaning and implication for every action and attitude can rob a little of the passion and romance, don’t you think? There are times when the politics can be left at the door and two people can simply enjoy the touch and presence of another.

      Yes, on one level, everything is political including your choice of breakfast food. But sometimes things don’t have to be political. They can just be, in the moment.

      • Francois Tremblay October 15, 2012 at 18:09

        You truly are a fucking tool, Gomi. You totally missed Alison’s point just so you could reiterate your bullshit. Are you autistic or something?

        • Gomi October 15, 2012 at 18:17

          How very ableist of you, Frankie, but yes, I am on the spectrum.

          • Francois Tremblay October 15, 2012 at 18:22

            I wish you’d give me a reason to ban you… I am really tired of your bullshit.

          • Gomi October 15, 2012 at 18:29

            Why do you need a reason? This is your little corner, your fiefdom on the ‘net.

            Unless you actually enjoy the arguments.

          • Francois Tremblay October 15, 2012 at 18:36

            I do not enjoy your presence, no, but I don’t ban people without reason. I’m not an asshole. You’re like the numbness after a dental operation that won’t go away.

          • Gomi October 15, 2012 at 18:43

            And that’s why I stick around, Francois. You reason. You think. I often agree with you. But, when I don’t, I comment.

          • Francois Tremblay October 15, 2012 at 18:51

            I don’t even want to talk to you any more. I give up Gomi. You can have this blog and post whatever the fuck you want.

            Just kidding.

  3. Alison Randall October 15, 2012 at 18:13

    Gomi, there are people in this world who actually and truly are able to live “in the moment.” They are toddlers, and the profoundly autistic. They cannot consent. Everyone else who says they live in the moment are making pretend and/or lying to get into panties. “Let’s just live in the moment, baby, the now. That’s all that really exists, anyway.”

    Not. Not for most of us, and not for those of us who have memories and can make decisions. Your argument straw-manned and false dichotomied the hell out of Franc’s argument, just so you could make pretend.

    • Gomi October 15, 2012 at 18:21

      No, my argument pointed out that things aren’t all extreme political decisions about rape. There are times when sex between two consenting adults is just about enjoying that experience. Times that the Jezebel author is talking about.

      The strawman here is taking the author’s intent and turning it into some implied misogynist support for rape.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: