Jessica points to an article in the Times Online which asks, right in its subhead, if feminism has "gone too far" by giving women control of their sex lives. I can't believe the idea women having control of their own sex lives is even seriously at issue, but so it is:
The simple answer to the question posed therein is no. No—feminism has not gone too far by giving women control of their sex lives. And the simple answer about a relationship that's risked by saying no to sex when you don't want to have it is that it's a relationship not worth bloody saving in the first place.
To paraphrase Jessica, the whole article smacks of "Imagine the nerve of a woman thinking that her sexuality belongs to herself!" And the last time I saw that attitude was…two posts ago, in which comments in response to the assertion that a woman's body is her own were recounted, one after the other exhibiting the attitude that a woman's body shown in public is assumed to be there for the taking.
The difference between "dont wear the uniform if you cant play the game" and "too many women see the sexual side of their lives as something to be claimed completely and utterly as their own" is effectively nothing. Whether it's a random dude suggesting that women who dress provocatively owe something to the men they titillate, or a doctor suggesting that women must "share" their sexuality with male partners and regard sex as a duty, it's just the same shit being sold in different packages.
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus