Skip to comments.Stop Feministsplaining Sex to Men
Posted on 01/17/2018 5:41:55 AM PST by Kaslin
There's a word that has become popular in feminist circles these days: "mansplaining." The word is a mashup of "man" and "explaining" and refers to men who condescendingly explain the facts of life to women. So, for example, if a man believes a woman doesn't understand directions and slowly repeats those directions to a woman, he's mansplaining and, therefore, guilty of cruelty and stupidity.
Well, feminists, it's time to stop "feministsplaining" sex to men.
The #MeToo movement has been good for America. It's good that women who have been sexually assaulted and abused are coming forward; it's good that we're finally having conversations about the nature of consent and the problems with a casual hookup culture that obfuscates sexual responsibility. But the #MeToo movement hasn't stopped there. Men are now being pilloried for the sin of taking women too literally -- of not reading women's minds.
Take, for example, "Grace," an anonymous woman who went on a rotten date with comedian Aziz Ansari. According to Grace, Ansari treated her abominably: He took her to dinner, gave her white wine instead of red, pushed her to come to his apartment and then engaged in a vigorous round of sexual activities to which she apparently consented. She eventually said no -- and when she did, he stopped. Later, she suggested that Ansari hadn't obeyed her "non-verbal cues" -- nonverbal cues that reportedly included undressing and then voluntarily servicing Ansari.
In the aftermath, Grace felt used. So she texted Ansari, explaining to him that she felt terrible about the date. "I want to make sure you're aware so maybe the next girl doesn't have to cry on the ride home," she said.
This is feministsplaining sex. Here's the problem: The condescension isn't earned. From Grace's story, it seems she was less than clear in her nonverbal communications but she wanted Ansari to read her mind -- and that when he didn't, she therefore had leeway to lecture him about his sins and, more broadly, those of all men.
It's not just Grace. Rachel Thompson of Mashable explained: "The responses to the woman's story are peppered with the word 'should.' She should have said no ... For many women, uttering an explicit 'no' is not as easy or straightforward as you might think." Well, as it turns out, reading minds is not quite as easy or straightforward as feminists might think. It was feminists who boiled down sexual relations to the issue of consent. Traditionalists always argued that physical intimacy and emotional intimacy ought to be linked. But they were accused of removing female agency with such linkage and condemned for "mansplaining."
How about this: no feministsplaining and no mansplaining when it comes to sex? How about we instead focus on communication between men and women? How about sexual partners demand more from one another than physical release so they aren't disappointed that they're being treated as sex objects? A system prizing love and commitment doesn't require nearly the amount of explanation as a system that dispenses with both.
Women be trippin’
The SJW madness currently gripping the culture is the logical result of YEARS of indoctrination by the Left, yet many old guard Liberals act SURPRISED when their Frankensteins’ end up destroying their creators...
Look up the root of hysteria.
It’s really more like (in my case) a male theater person explaining to me (a theater female) about theater - basically assuming I know nothing. It is annoying BUT: that’s all it is. And any smart woman can come back with a snappy putdown instead of sniffling into her cornflakes and wearing a stupid pink hat.
There are some great youtube videos of feminists getting owned. The best way to really get to them is to basically have fun with what they say. i.e. laugh at it. :)
Of course, you have to be ready to explain why it’s so funny. And the answer is that they no longer have anything to complain about. They got what they wanted. Their cause is no more. They are a political vestigial organ.
Women are always right.
Men are always wrong.
This has been a “fact” since the rise of feminism.
Time for it to stop. Women don’t get to win 100% of the arguments.
Surprise, surprise, surprise -- this results in women being used and treated like disposable sex objects, and many of them don't like it.
Here's a clue: if the results stink, maybe the premises are wrong. Maybe men and women aren't alike "except for plumbing". Maybe our sexual behavior evolved, not to amuse us, but to propagate the species, and maybe propagating the species places profoundly different demands on women and men. Maybe that means that men and women have a very different approach to, and understanding of, sex.
And this should be blatantly obvious to anyone with an ounce of brains, but the feminist ideologues who rule our culture and especially our universities don't have even that.
yet many old guard Liberals act SURPRISED when their Frankensteins end up destroying their creators...
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I have caught much ‘grief’ over the years by using the words
‘Just remember-—THESE are not only the children/grandchildren of the ‘Greatest Generation’ they are also OUR children/grandchildren....Of course from being around such profound wordsmiths as the Modern Libs, I throw in the word COLLECTIVELY OURs.....’
Also the dissidents of the 60s and the results of the ‘Hippy Camps and Communes’ are now running most everything.
‘We’ took our lumps by going out and joining the Military then getting a job and settling down to a productive life while the people that CONDEMNED and DAMNED us ‘back in the day’ now have the tenured professors and senior Government jobs.....
Was it Stalin or Khrushchev that ‘vowed’ to destroy us from within?
The Dems/Libs have been selling the R’s as the party of the rich for many years....check out who the billionaires are..then you have those like PDT who are opportunistic because of business or whatever and you find them cozying up to the Sharptons/Clintons/ etc if it puts them in a favorable light.
Of course one wonders who is ‘hurt’ more by having old pictures of PDT with him and B&H, AS, JJ, Hollywood types - WE use the same ‘propaganda’ when a picture of ‘whoever’ shows up with a questionable character.
People can run in those circles and not be partaking in all the side activities....sometimes part of the job.
Like a head of United Way had said years ago...
‘You complain about my expense account, am I supposed to go out and raise Billions by living in the Motel 6 and hosting dinner parties at McDonalds?’
We have females who do the same thing. I have a cousin, knows everything, tells you at any excuse, interminably. Its not a man/woman thing. It’s a people thing.
If you describe it as such there is a rush of recognition because most women have had that done to them by a man but flip it and it’s still a rush of recognition, woman to woman, woman to man, man to man. We all have met life’s backseat drivers and pseudo experts.
Women are always right.
Men are always wrong.
= = = = = = = = = =
Which leads to the age old question...
IF a Man is in the middle of the Gobi desert and he says something with no women around,
IS HE still wrong?
How about this: Save the tweets and the texts. If a crime has been committed, it should be reported to police.
Social media is turning America into a Junior High School.
Funny video! One of the comments after:
“If a man says something in the forest and no woman is there to hear him, is he still wrong?”
Here's the brutal reality. Men want sex. Women want Alpha males to commit to them. Women give sex (but only to the most desirable high-status men they can get). Alpha males accept the sex, then disappoint the women by not committing.
Here's the reality, ladies: in a promiscuous environment, yes you CAN get a desirable man to go out with you. But only if you offer no-strings sex. He's not going to commit to YOU, if there are a dozen other women willing to replace you in his informal harem.
In the old system, the "patriarchy" which women despised, it was different. Patriarchy does not mean "rule by men". It means "rule by FATHERS", which is a very different thing. Fathers used to control who got to court their daughters, and used to restrict access to men who were likely to marry them and support them. This upset girls, because so many exciting cads were excluded, but served to maintain social stability.
more like “b**chsplaining”
A very good response to this story is by Matt Walsh and is titled, “You Feel Violated After Casual Sex Because You Degraded Yourself. Not Because It Was Rape.”
It’s at a site that for some reason isn’t welcome here on FR.
Here’s some of it:
The #MeToo crusaders do seem to have picked up on one important truth. They have gone in entirely the wrong direction with it, and learned all the wrong lessons from it, but they are right, at least, about this: there is something wrong with the way we approach sex in modern society, and its leaving a lot of people feeling hurt and abused.
But, beholden always to their narrative, they read a story like Graces and automatically interpret it as a struggle between an innocent woman and a depraved rapist of a man. When they hear that Grace felt violated after the fact, they declare that it must have been her consent that was violated. After all, the only thing either participant is required to respect is consent. Its the only rule. The One Commandment. The only thing that can be violated. There are, in the modern mind, only two types of sex: consensual and rape. Whatever falls under the first umbrella must be good. So if a woman feels not-good the next morning, it must have been the not-good type, which means it must have been rape.
But the effort to fit begrudging yet consensual sex into the rape category requires the formation of a bunch of new and confusing and constantly changing rules. The overly simplified “good or rape” formula suddenly turns into an overly complicated calculus, and the only way for a man to really know whether he has committed rape or not is to ask his partner the next day. And even then, she may not make the determination until the following week, or next month after she sees you on TV winning a Golden Globe. And suddenly we have fixed the problem of sex in modern society by turning it into a criminal act. Ironically, conservatives are always accused of wanting to criminalize promiscuity but liberals have actually done it.
Their narratives and formulas have blinded them. They don’t understand that a person can be consensually violated during sex. A woman can unmistakably communicate consent say, by getting naked in a strange man’s living room and grabbing his genitals but still wind up feeling degraded and abused by the end of it because her dignity was violated. They don’t understand this concept because they don’t understand that human beings have inherent dignity to begin with. It’s like trying to diagnose a heart condition while denying the existence of the heart.
Here is the reality: Sex that consensually violates the dignity of a person is immoral and harmful, but legal and reciprocal. Casual sex sex between strangers who just met on Tinder or at a party is a mutual violation of human dignity. Both partners reduce the other to mere flesh and bone; a set of body parts with no soul or purpose other than to be used as a glorified masturbatory device. This is the essence of casual sex. Its what makes it casual. And it’s why you have that icky feeling the next morning.
In a nutshell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.