Liberal women call for 'sex strike' before midterms

What if liberal women called for a "sex strike" against their men and no one cared – least of all men?

It's true.  A bunch of liberal women have bared it all in the "grab them by the ballot" campaign that calls for women to deny sex to their mates and boyfriends to protest...something.

The familiar litany of feminist complaints against society can be addressed by refusing to have sex with men until they vote the "right" people into office.  It's not a novel idea.  One of the most famous Greek playwrights, Aristophanes, penned an antiwar play called Lysistrata, where Greek women refused to have sex with their husbands until they ended the Peloponnesian War.

This campaign is predicated on the simple notion that men are animals and are so desperate for sex that they will do anything to get a woman to open her legs.

(This photo is safe for work unless you've just eaten, in which case you might want to look away.)

 

 

What is the "reasoning" behind this campaign?  Apparently, women are incredibly miserable in and out of the bedroom, and by denying sex to (presumably) males, their situation will improve.

...especially in the field of marital relations, where women are forced into "service sex" – having sex with their partners even if they don't want to.

Wednesday Martin:

It's time for a revolution.  At the polls, and in the bedroom.  And in our understanding of who women are, sexually and otherwise.  Given the tight interweaving of economic and political power with sexual entitlement, female sexual autonomy has never been more urgent, and women's sexual pleasure has never been more political.  Let's consider what it might mean to go on a sex strike of sorts – to get what we want, rather than give what we think we owe others.

I don't hate this woman.  I have enormous pity for her if she actually believes that sexual pleasure is political in any way.  Sexual pleasure is one of the greatest gifts given to the human race and to reduce it to politics is, well, crazy.

But Ms. Martin isn't finished.  Because women make so much less than men, a sex strike would actually empower women:

Resetting the balance so women no longer provide service sex is not in itself a comprehensive answer to gendered inequalities, of course.  But making sex female-focused and female-pleasure-centric could begin to force other shifts in thinking in important ways.  When we cease to consider what women like and want as foreplay and reframe it as the main event, for example, we begin to challenge, from the most intimate and private and emotionally powerful place, a long-accepted, deeply believed but nearly invisible world view, and make an impossible-to-miss statement about who and what counts.  In the ancient Greek comedy by Aristophanes, the character Lysistrata urges women to go on a sex strike to get men on both sides to end the Peloponnesian War.  In our case, a sex strike against service sex can be a powerful statement – that female desire, a metric of agency like women's votes, will be heard.

Another reason to pity this woman is that she's obviously never been in a truly loving relationship with a man – a real man, anyway. Perhaps she's the Obamacare Pajama Boy's girlfriend?

Would he even care if his girlfriend went on a sex strike?  Perhaps he hasn't had sex at all?  It's hard if you're living at home with Ma and Pa.  Intimate relationships with women are a logistical nightmare.  Where to do it?  In the back of a car?  Does he sneak his girl into the basement after his parents go to bed?

Clearly, Ms. Martin has had relationships only with "men" like Pajama Boy.  Real men care about the real pleasure their women experience during sex and are supportive, loving, caring, nurturing, with all the manly virtues that this poor, deluded woman is unaware of. 

Denying men sex is not the answer to greater political power or even more pleasure in the bedroom (although some men could probably use a wake-up call).  How desperate and unhappy these women are!  Sex is sex, and politics is politics, and the idea that you can conflate the two is a feminist intellectual construct that looks to make life itself a political arena.

The fact that Ms. Martin believes that women are incapable of being sexually fulfilled unless they are not in a monogamous relationship tells me this woman could never make any man – unless he is a cuckold – happy and content.  I'm not saying this should be the goal in life of every woman – to make her man happy.  It should be the goal of every married couple to make each other as happy as they can.  Equal happiness, equal pleasure – these are the things that truly make life worth living, and this miserable woman will never experience that joy.

 

 

What if liberal women called for a "sex strike" against their men and no one cared – least of all men?

It's true.  A bunch of liberal women have bared it all in the "grab them by the ballot" campaign that calls for women to deny sex to their mates and boyfriends to protest...something.

The familiar litany of feminist complaints against society can be addressed by refusing to have sex with men until they vote the "right" people into office.  It's not a novel idea.  One of the most famous Greek playwrights, Aristophanes, penned an antiwar play called Lysistrata, where Greek women refused to have sex with their husbands until they ended the Peloponnesian War.

This campaign is predicated on the simple notion that men are animals and are so desperate for sex that they will do anything to get a woman to open her legs.

(This photo is safe for work unless you've just eaten, in which case you might want to look away.)

 

 

What is the "reasoning" behind this campaign?  Apparently, women are incredibly miserable in and out of the bedroom, and by denying sex to (presumably) males, their situation will improve.

...especially in the field of marital relations, where women are forced into "service sex" – having sex with their partners even if they don't want to.

Wednesday Martin:

It's time for a revolution.  At the polls, and in the bedroom.  And in our understanding of who women are, sexually and otherwise.  Given the tight interweaving of economic and political power with sexual entitlement, female sexual autonomy has never been more urgent, and women's sexual pleasure has never been more political.  Let's consider what it might mean to go on a sex strike of sorts – to get what we want, rather than give what we think we owe others.

I don't hate this woman.  I have enormous pity for her if she actually believes that sexual pleasure is political in any way.  Sexual pleasure is one of the greatest gifts given to the human race and to reduce it to politics is, well, crazy.

But Ms. Martin isn't finished.  Because women make so much less than men, a sex strike would actually empower women:

Resetting the balance so women no longer provide service sex is not in itself a comprehensive answer to gendered inequalities, of course.  But making sex female-focused and female-pleasure-centric could begin to force other shifts in thinking in important ways.  When we cease to consider what women like and want as foreplay and reframe it as the main event, for example, we begin to challenge, from the most intimate and private and emotionally powerful place, a long-accepted, deeply believed but nearly invisible world view, and make an impossible-to-miss statement about who and what counts.  In the ancient Greek comedy by Aristophanes, the character Lysistrata urges women to go on a sex strike to get men on both sides to end the Peloponnesian War.  In our case, a sex strike against service sex can be a powerful statement – that female desire, a metric of agency like women's votes, will be heard.

Another reason to pity this woman is that she's obviously never been in a truly loving relationship with a man – a real man, anyway. Perhaps she's the Obamacare Pajama Boy's girlfriend?

Would he even care if his girlfriend went on a sex strike?  Perhaps he hasn't had sex at all?  It's hard if you're living at home with Ma and Pa.  Intimate relationships with women are a logistical nightmare.  Where to do it?  In the back of a car?  Does he sneak his girl into the basement after his parents go to bed?

Clearly, Ms. Martin has had relationships only with "men" like Pajama Boy.  Real men care about the real pleasure their women experience during sex and are supportive, loving, caring, nurturing, with all the manly virtues that this poor, deluded woman is unaware of. 

Denying men sex is not the answer to greater political power or even more pleasure in the bedroom (although some men could probably use a wake-up call).  How desperate and unhappy these women are!  Sex is sex, and politics is politics, and the idea that you can conflate the two is a feminist intellectual construct that looks to make life itself a political arena.

The fact that Ms. Martin believes that women are incapable of being sexually fulfilled unless they are not in a monogamous relationship tells me this woman could never make any man – unless he is a cuckold – happy and content.  I'm not saying this should be the goal in life of every woman – to make her man happy.  It should be the goal of every married couple to make each other as happy as they can.  Equal happiness, equal pleasure – these are the things that truly make life worth living, and this miserable woman will never experience that joy.