Globe and Mail Article: "Why are young feminists so clueless about sex?"

TL;DR Older female columnist questions if casual sex is actually empowering, commenters alternate between feminist outrage and traditionalist calls for men Man Up and get back to the plantation (although they neglect to mention exactly how this would benefit individual men)

Body

I'll post the entire shortish article and add my own commentary.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/why-are-young-feminists-so-clueless-about-sex/article26950887/?click=sf_globefb

A few months ago, a Harvard senior named Reina Gattuso wrote a column in the school newspaper. It described her crummy night of drunken sex with a couple of men she didn’t know. “I have so much to drink my memory becomes dark water,” she wrote. She freely admitted that she consented. Enthusiastically. And that was the problem. She thought she would enjoy it, but instead she just felt rotten!

Most people might conclude from this experience that random sex with drunken strangers is a poor idea, and Ms. Gattuso really should not try that again. Old-fashioned moralists might even call such behaviour tawdry, degrading and sluttish. Not Ms. Gattuso. And not Rebecca Traister, the New York Magazine writer who wrote about it. To them, the moral of the story is that the world is awash in bad consensual sex. This is due to the persistent power imbalances between women and men. Until we fix this, women cannot be sexually happy. As Ms. Traister argues, “The game is rigged.”

Ironically, today’s feminists are serious about consent but casual about sex. And to their shock, they’ve discovered that there’s an awful lot of bad sex out there. They did not expect this. They’ve been told they are supposed to be having a super-positive sex life – unconflicted, joyous, casual and abundant. They’ve been told they should be able to have as many partners and initiate sex just as often as men do. And they’ve tried that. And it hasn’t worked out very well. Instead of feeling super-positive, they feel sexually dissatisfied, emotionally disconnected and more than a little used.

A woman's main purpose for sex is a Pavlovian conditioning mechanism to control men. Tame that wild, charismatic bad bad boy with sex and bend him to your will to become your own personal provider / attack dog. If that fails lock down a beta and use him for the same purpose. That's probably why Ms. Gattuso feels "rotten" and "used", she exchanged her main bargaining chip for a cheap thrill.

The trouble isn’t men, of course. Nor is it the culture. The trouble is that these women have been sold a lie. They’ve been told that the profound sexual and behavioural differences between men and women are merely matters of individual preference, which would largely dissolve if we ever managed to shed our noxious cultural baggage.

Ok, the writer seems to be on the right track.

Nothing could be further from the truth, of course. These differences are to a great extent hard-wired. Female sexual desire can be as powerful and urgent as men’s. But most women are only able to have good sex with men they feel connected to and trust; for most men, that’s not the case. Most women really do not want sex unless it might lead to commitment. Men really do not want to invest a lot of time in women unless it leads to sex. And so it goes. Women’s best reproductive strategy is to be selective. Men’s best reproductive strategy is to be promiscuous. As Woody Allen once wrote: “Sex without love is an empty experience … But as empty experiences go, it’s one of the best.”

Eventually men will bond with you, of course, and everything will change, and they will be willing, even eager, to faithfully protect you and your babies. But until that happens you really can’t expect much from them.

Not bad, not bad. One criticism I'd make is that the writer seems to think women need only bring sex to the table. Sexual exclusivity automatically entitles a woman to a loyal and faithful provider. A bit of traditionalist entitlement seeping in, but oh well. Carrying on:

I know all of this is a cliché. But it’s also true. Unfortunately, the emotional, behavioural, hormonal and biochemical differences between the sexes are not taught in sex ed or gender-studies courses because the truth is considered so reactionary. Some people also consider it monstrously unfair to women. Sadly, much in life is unfair. Men can pee standing up. But what can you do?

Many of us learned this stuff the hard way, at the dawn of the feminist revolution. The 1970s were paradise for men. They told us that if we didn’t sleep with them we must be unliberated and sexually uptight. I can’t tell you how many women swallowed this cow manure before we smartened up.

Wrong! The sexual revolution of the 1960's and 70's was dreamt up and initiated by Feminists, 99% of whom were women. Men didn't trick you into anything. You weren't a victim. Stop trying to deflect responsibility. Only the top 20% of men benefited anyway. As it's been noted on TRP before, traditionalist beta men only accepted the sexual revolution because they were told "the sex would trickle down".

But now, young women are peddling this manure to themselves. In a world that’s already disturbingly oversexualized, they insist that sexual display and promiscuity (dare I use that word?) are synonymous with female empowerment.

Fair enough.

These days, in fact, sexual restraint is a sign that something must be wrong with you. Last week, a young woman named Ali Rachel Pearl confessed in an essay in The New York Times that she hadn’t had sex for two whole years. She can’t really explain why. There was a guy who broke her heart, and so on. It turns out that this strange condition even has a name – “secondary abstinence.” As she tells it, her friends are aghast. “How can you go so long?” they ask. “Get rid of your hang-ups.” “Be more open.” “Stop being afraid.” They all feel sorry for her.

Wow. Sex is some hedonistic necessity you always have to be engaging in. It really speaks to the shallowness and instant gratification mindset of Ms. Pearl's friends. Do not LTR these types of women. You are but one cock on the carousel to them.

It’s so old-fashioned – this bizarre notion that maybe you should feel some attachment to the person you are sleeping with. Too old-fashioned for our most progressive and enlightened young women, who, I’m afraid, are in for a world of unnecessary hurt. If only feminists would smarten up about sex, our daughters – and our sons – would be a lot better off.

She could have expanded extensively on this last paragraph. The single-mother epidemic and all the social dysfunction (crime, rising welfare costs) that it entails. The fact that hookup culture and unfair marriage laws give modern men strong disincentives for marriage or commitment. Oh well. She's a vaguely traditionalist columnist, not an MRA. At least she's acknowledging there's a problem.

The comments section is full of righteous feminist indignation and man-shaming bullshit:

This is crap, Maggie...this is the NEW old bill-of-goods that is being sold to women today...women are just as capable as men of having random partners and enjoying the experience....IF, AND ONLY IF, THE RANDOM PARTNER HAS SOME SKILL...that's what's wrong with the sex many women have today, both in and out of long-term (or short-term) trusting relationships...men still can't find the little man in the boat... Wake up Maggie, and stop moralizing...commit Sociology, as your dear departed former leader would say

Men's fault for having small dicks being unable to find the clitoris. Learn some sociology you old hag!

No strings attached is an illusion. It was an overreaction against Victorian morals which went too far the other way. There are always consequences: emotional, physical, or otherwise. Women have more to lose in this new arena. Less and less men want to get married and start a family as many are quite happy to remain in an immature state where they jump from intense short-term relationship to the next one, never having to take responsibility for the woman, or never having to care for her in the long term. By the time the man gets around to wanting a family, he still has plenty of time. A woman does not.

Kind of on the mark... but neglects to mention why a man should "take responsibility" and "care long term". It's just assumed that it's a man's natural role. How does it benefit him? Whatever. Males are disposable worker drones. Shut up and do your work!

Decades of academic work as resulted in a very well respected theoretical basis for gender studies. Feminist theory is now used in critical studies of a wide range of topics including disability and identity. I wish journalists like Wente would do some research. This is simply empty rhetoric. Another reason why I only read this rag on FB occasionally.

Well respected in the echo chamber of modern liberal arts campuses.

"But most women are only able to have good sex with men they feel connected to and trust; for most men, that’s not the case. Most women really do not want sex unless it might lead to commitment. Men really do not want to invest a lot of time in women unless it leads to sex." Really? it's your time to retire, Ms. Wente.

Ah yes, respond with incredulity, call her an old hag.

edit [added another comment]

I believe most women know how to guard themselves and be dignified while enjoying fulfilling relationships. Trouble is, some women (feminists or not) want it both ways: be promiscuous beforehand and launch an offense afterwards if certain things didn't go their way. Either be serious and maintain self-respect or be casual and face the consequence. Having it both ways is to rape the society's tolerance and goodwill.

Meanwhile, men, as much as being hardwired to look for sex, should be responsible too. Don't prey on the vulnerable! Stop being pigs!

This guy makes a decent point in that feminists can't have it both ways, but in the end it's men's fault for accepting something that was freely offered. Man Up, manboypigs!

Conclusion

The writer makes some good points, aka maybe the sexual revolution has had some major downsides. She doesn't go into much detail though. At TRP we know the major downside is that 100% women use sex (aka their main bargaining chip) to chase and try and lock down the top 20% of men. Obviously with polygamy being illegal in The West, 80% of women will fail and end up feeling "rotten" and "used". The bottom 80% of men will remain on the sidelines and end up with the alpha-widowed leftovers. I didn't expect her to come to these conclusions. They're a bit too radical for the current mainstream politically correct discourse.

But even suggesting the sexual revolution had some unintended negative consequences because it fundamentally misunderstood sexual dynamics and human nature has some commenters up in arms. They can only respond with "the solution is more feminism!" or "men need to Man Up!"

Move along, nothing to see here...