349
submitted 2 years ago by TheBat@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 44 points 2 years ago

Here's the basic line of thought:

Men occupy a more powerful position in society due to the generally patriarchal structures. Women occupy a less powerful position than men, even when a particular women holds more overt power (e.g., a woman that's a CEO). As a result, sexual relationships between men and women always have a power imbalance; that imbalance of power means that women can never really be consenting, since there's always some form of 'threat' involved. A woman that believes she wants sex believes that way because society has conditioned her to be that way, rather than that being something she chose in a vacuum.

And theoretically, this is all true, kind of. But it also isn't, because that would mean that women can never have any agency over their own body or their own sexual choices. ...Unless they "choose" to be lesbian, which isn't actually a choice at all.

[-] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 42 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

No, it's not all true, not even theoretically. The idea that women can't consent to sex is complete and utter horseshit, not to mention insanely sexist.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I mean it is true to an extent, it is just treating consent as an absolute and not a spectrum. Power imbalances absolutely impact where that needle is.

I've had lots of sex like "yes please". I've had sex where I was like "ill probably enjoy enjoy this" or "I genuinely don't really care one way or another and it will please my partner" (who I'm not vulnerable to in a societally enforced way) and all of them would fit the binary of consensual but are at various points on the spectrum.

The last example is an illustrative example where it would clearly fall at different points on the spectrum if I was more or less dependent on/vulnerable to my partner.

Sex negative feminism had some points that were correct to some extent, sex negative and sex positive feminism both synthesized into a more sex neutral position for a reason.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] wizzor@sopuli.xyz 27 points 2 years ago

Wouldn't that line of thinking imply that women don't have any agency about anything? Whatever they decide can be framed as a reaction to internalized fear.

Not to mention that gender roles also affect men.

[-] systemglitch@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago

Sounds suspiciously like insanity to me.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

But also they shame lesbians when we actually fuck because we’re “imitating male behavior”. Like, girl, I assure you that while some men offer to take turns performing oral this is far from us imitating them. We’re just horny

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Katrisia@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

I've heard the argument based not on structural power but average physical capabilities and biological structures. [I'm going to use the terms meaning sex and not gender]. The man is most likely the person that can gain control during the act, and he doesn't risk being in pain as much as the woman. Therefore, the man holds more power and is more of a threat on average.

This is also technically true, and I don't think it is about consent but freedom. [I'll keep using the words for sex and not gender]. Sexuality becomes another form in which women can become subjugated, so it's a matter of precaution, I guess (especially since men are being socialized to be entitled or even violent, which is the other part of the picture).

I've also heard the extreme version of this argument saying that penetration is what I just described, always, without exception.

In both cases and in yours and in others, I don't think the meme is correct because the reasons are very different from puritanism.

[-] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 33 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

To be fair I've been called puritanical for pointing out that people shouldn't sexualize minors. It's the ultimate thought-terminating cliché.

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 19 points 2 years ago

That's... Genuinely complicated.

Kids aren't asexual, and then BOOM they're sexual the second they hit 18. I was very interested in sex from an age that would make most people deeply uncomfortable to think about. Romeo and Juliet laws exist because we recognize that first, kids are going to be sexual, and second, it's not always going to be with peers that are exactly their own age, and that prosecuting minors for statutory rape--since neither party could legally consent--is a little crazy.

So there needs to be some kind of line between recognizing that kids are sexual, and adults not treating them in a sexual way.

[-] Liz@midwest.social 8 points 2 years ago

Clearly what we need to do is a bunch of gene editing so that humans go through a cocoon phase where they sexually mature and emerge as a fully-formed adult.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Sometimes you get something more blended. Dworkin was great at that because you can absolutely see where she’s coming from and get her line of thinking, but also she totally missed the part where most women want to have sex.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
349 points (91.3% liked)

Memes

54277 readers
1101 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS