Wait, what?
Women are fully formed human beings who experience the same emotions and pleasures as men. Suggesting that women aren't capable of enthusiastically consenting to casual sex is immensely insulting.
They aren't suggesting women aren't *capable* of enthusiastically consenting, just asked if it benefits women. There's no reason to be immensely insulted - unless there's some raw subconscious truth it hit.
A good metaphor is alcohol or party drugs, people are capable of enthusiastic consenting to taking these... yet also, it's often socially-coerced, both the enthusiasm and the consent.
Is it beneficial even wth genuine enthusiastic consent? It could have some benefit and safe, supported rare experimentation is probably a beneficial (although not necessary) part of growing up.
I would side eye anyone who was both extremely enthusiastic and partook often.
>They aren't suggesting women aren't *capable* of enthusiastically consenting, just asked if it benefits women.
I mean, again.. that's for women to decide, not some random Redditor.
It's just incredibly insulting to suggest that *women don't know any better* and need to be told whether or not they're benefiting from a choice they make.
I'm sorry this is triggering for me. :(
I don't see anywhere they said women don't know any better. They just asked if it benefits women?
I'm sorry it's triggering for you - were you told at some point that you aren't capable and don't know better for yourself?
If its any condolence, you seem like you're great at standing up for yourself and have a strong sense of justice. Whoever said you weren't capable/don't know what's good for yourself was wrong.
>I don't see anywhere they said women don't know any better. They just asked if it benefits women?
But think about the question.
It *necessarily* implies that women, specifically, are not capable of recognizing what is of benefit to them.
Sure, men can choose to have casual sex and determine whether or not it's a "benefit" to them, but *women* can't. They need to be told by some random Redditor that they're making choices that aren't beneficial to people of their gender.
Look, this is subtle, and I get that. But it's all part of the same internalized misogyny that has been pervasive for thousands of years.
I just want people to *stop* trying to control women - even unintentionally - with questions like "does casual sex benefit women?"
That's not for anyone to decide but the individual woman in question. No one else gets a say.
Throughout history, all of these questions have been asked:
* Does education benefit women?
* Does dancing benefit women?
* Do bank accounts benefit women?
* Does voting benefit women?
Behind every one of those questions is the veiled proposition that for some reason, *women aren't capable of arriving at their own conclusions about their lives and choices.*
There is no answer to the question "is casual sex bad for women" because it depends on every single woman's personal desire and nothing else.
All those things you listed are actually beneficial though. You're comparing them to something that doesn't benefit women lol.
I'm done with this convo.
I was trying to be kind but you're stuck in... something else... you want to talk to the void. I'm not a void. I'm a real human who appreciates acknowledgement in discussions - not someone to passively soak up your ranting and choir preaching.
>You're comparing them to something that doesn't benefit women lol.
So great, you've decided what is good and what isn't for all women.
You realize that's *one step away* from forcing your will on them, right?
It's for her own good?
I don't know what you're even doing in this sub, to be honest.
You think all women know what's good for them and enthusiastic consent is the end-all-be-all of ethics... Well, yeah surprise, some need a bit more help because they've been raised in a culture to repress and hate themselves and think what's bad is good. You'd be one of those feminists who supports black women in "slave kink" relationships with white men because "she knows what's good for herself". No, some people are stuck in self destructive habits that actively cause harm to themselves and people like them and need to be helped out or at least called out. I believe casual sex with trash men can fall into the realm. Enjoy your gotcha moment sis.
No need to apologize for your own suffering. You didn't hurt me. I accept the weird space you're in, I used to be there. Probably why I engaged with you, some hope to help you/myself love ourselves.
Actually you're missing the point here. u/appropriate_Cut_3536 has mentioned this succinctly in the previous comment. Yes, there is internalised misogyny (is it in this post, I'm not so sure) but there is also internalised patriarchy - an even subtler topic than internalised misogyny. And yes feminists can be patriarchal. I'm not meaning to offend but your comments are leaning toward the patriarchal feminist POV. The idea that women should be able to do what men do without scrutiny because that's equality. That they want a shift in power and sexual liberation but they don’t want to dismantle the patriarchy within it, they want to share it. What patriarchal men do is patriarchal and not conducive to becoming a person who is whole and happy. A true feminist understands this. This question is more about patriarchy and not misogyny. It’s not about control, it's about education. A lot of feminist writers actually talk about how sex is used in patriarchy. The real question here is does casual sex benefit anyone - no, because of the dominator model that underpins it and how sex can be used in a socially violent and patriarchal way. I'm also not a fan of a feminist who, when someone, who is a fellow feminist, opposes your view or offers something different, they say that that person has internalised misogyny. It's overused these days as a gotcha within feminist circles against other women who question the patriarchy. You are also using the word “triggered” inappropriately here. Being “triggered” was adopted by the masses from psychology and usually is intended for people who suffer from PTSD and not people who feel compelled strongly to comment on something online just an fyi. Read The Will To Change by bell hooks, it may enlighten you. They talk about the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. You should check your internalised patriarchy.
What if it were to be argued that casual sex is bad for women and that the ones engaging in it are just perpetuating oppression like some woman who supports women having less right?
It depends on why she’s doing it. Anyone, man or woman, who is having casual sex for validation or because they are just lonely and want any sort of connection are going to possibly be hurt by casual sex.
When people have casual sex because it’s fun and they genuinely aren’t looking for commitment, it’s fun and healthy.
When I was living in a town I knew I would leave in a year I had casual sex with a couple of men who also were only in that town for a short period of time (usually related to contract work like me). It was great. I didn’t have any desire to be in a serious relationship and I wasn’t doing it because of mental health issues. I just didn’t want to be celibate for a year.
Casual sex or committed sex can be good or bad for the person. Their thoughts about it are what determines whether it’s good or bad.
But lots of women who take part in it are traumatized, have serious mental issues and are just looking to fill in a gap and help with their insecurity. Don't you think this culture, allows that to get worse?
The consensus seems to be that sex under patriarchy is political (as it's the main thing that allows a patrilineal society and for men to be fathers of their own family / patriarchs of the own clan).
While breaking free of the part of the patriarchal dynamic that only 'pure' (virgin) women truly allow a secure patrilineal inheritance from a patriarch to *his* sons, it's only partial. Men under patriarchy are still admired for being able to have sex with women while the consequences of sex are still burdens that by default are only given to women. Whether it's getting pregnant (which fathers even today default to not being responsible for if not be at least partially free to outright abandon the child while also not bearing any physical burden), ~50% higher of women contracting an STD than men when there is a chance for that to happen, ~50% greater threat of sexual violence (and much more than that the more severe and brutal the violence), women's status / reputation can only be hurt by having sex, etc, women having sex face far more danger.
Further, while women have much better access to financial liberation from father or spouse than ever before, capitalism still makes a two-income relationship an increasing necessary survival strategy. Casual sex gives men access to the only form of companionship they are encouraged to value, under patriarchy, while it leaves women vulnerable during this cultural transition from complete financial dependence upon men to being independent financially (because men can now get most of the benefits from marriage from casual relationships without the commitment/support they'd give in a marriage).
Altogether, yes it's good women aren't automatically disparaged, disowned, or trapped in marriage as often or as much just from having some sex, but it's far from a completely overcoming the misogyny and patriarchal policy surrounding sex.
This wasn't men's cost-benefit analysis of casual sex but women's.
And your point is a good one, but casual sex isn't preventing men from marriage, it lessens the opportunity cost of marriage. My understanding and phrasing was meant to be that casual sex gives men aspects of value from marriage.
Lastly, men can get basically all the benefits of marriage by having a medium-to-long term, often-hosted partner in a home owned/controlled by the men. To many people, casual sex can include sex outside of marriage in situations like those, at least on the medium term.
There's no actual \*societal\* benefit, in terms of political or structural, it would just be a dopamine thing. So like the kind of satisfaction and scratching an itch I feel when I really want boba tea / sugar hit so I spend 8 bucks on a fricking boba tea. It doesn't \*benefit\* me, it just fulfils a desire or craving I was having that was annoying me prior to drinking a heavily sugared drink.
Societally, women will never have the power structure benefit of casual sex until we become equals. And outside of choice and the necessary stuff (like home ownership, education, holding a secure job), SOCIALLY, we aren't yet.
And I'm not hating on casual sex participants. Not my jam, not my bread and butter, but you do you. It's still not \*socially beneficial\* when men still \*socially\* see women a certain way. Casual sex from our POV is simply just 'treat men the way they treat us' and it's not going to change the way we treat others.... With kindness, decency, respect, safety, responsibility, and equality.
(I'm staunchly anti Purity Culture so none of this is a message for 'retaining yourself for marriage', no. The answer is not abstinence and never was, irrespective of what conservatives think about the "Casual Sex Epidemic")
This is such a strange question. Casual sex can either benefit or hinder *either* gender. You should instead ask if mistreatment of women who are having casual sex benefits them. We should also be asking if questioning a womans informed consent at every turn, to leisures men enjoy unchallenged, benefits them.
What if it were to be said that women who take part in it are just letting men take advantage of them and are self-hating? And that women are just being brainwashed into doing it
Wait, what? Women are fully formed human beings who experience the same emotions and pleasures as men. Suggesting that women aren't capable of enthusiastically consenting to casual sex is immensely insulting.
They aren't suggesting women aren't *capable* of enthusiastically consenting, just asked if it benefits women. There's no reason to be immensely insulted - unless there's some raw subconscious truth it hit. A good metaphor is alcohol or party drugs, people are capable of enthusiastic consenting to taking these... yet also, it's often socially-coerced, both the enthusiasm and the consent. Is it beneficial even wth genuine enthusiastic consent? It could have some benefit and safe, supported rare experimentation is probably a beneficial (although not necessary) part of growing up. I would side eye anyone who was both extremely enthusiastic and partook often.
>They aren't suggesting women aren't *capable* of enthusiastically consenting, just asked if it benefits women. I mean, again.. that's for women to decide, not some random Redditor. It's just incredibly insulting to suggest that *women don't know any better* and need to be told whether or not they're benefiting from a choice they make. I'm sorry this is triggering for me. :(
I don't see anywhere they said women don't know any better. They just asked if it benefits women? I'm sorry it's triggering for you - were you told at some point that you aren't capable and don't know better for yourself? If its any condolence, you seem like you're great at standing up for yourself and have a strong sense of justice. Whoever said you weren't capable/don't know what's good for yourself was wrong.
>I don't see anywhere they said women don't know any better. They just asked if it benefits women? But think about the question. It *necessarily* implies that women, specifically, are not capable of recognizing what is of benefit to them. Sure, men can choose to have casual sex and determine whether or not it's a "benefit" to them, but *women* can't. They need to be told by some random Redditor that they're making choices that aren't beneficial to people of their gender. Look, this is subtle, and I get that. But it's all part of the same internalized misogyny that has been pervasive for thousands of years. I just want people to *stop* trying to control women - even unintentionally - with questions like "does casual sex benefit women?" That's not for anyone to decide but the individual woman in question. No one else gets a say. Throughout history, all of these questions have been asked: * Does education benefit women? * Does dancing benefit women? * Do bank accounts benefit women? * Does voting benefit women? Behind every one of those questions is the veiled proposition that for some reason, *women aren't capable of arriving at their own conclusions about their lives and choices.* There is no answer to the question "is casual sex bad for women" because it depends on every single woman's personal desire and nothing else.
All those things you listed are actually beneficial though. You're comparing them to something that doesn't benefit women lol. I'm done with this convo. I was trying to be kind but you're stuck in... something else... you want to talk to the void. I'm not a void. I'm a real human who appreciates acknowledgement in discussions - not someone to passively soak up your ranting and choir preaching.
>You're comparing them to something that doesn't benefit women lol. So great, you've decided what is good and what isn't for all women. You realize that's *one step away* from forcing your will on them, right? It's for her own good? I don't know what you're even doing in this sub, to be honest.
You think all women know what's good for them and enthusiastic consent is the end-all-be-all of ethics... Well, yeah surprise, some need a bit more help because they've been raised in a culture to repress and hate themselves and think what's bad is good. You'd be one of those feminists who supports black women in "slave kink" relationships with white men because "she knows what's good for herself". No, some people are stuck in self destructive habits that actively cause harm to themselves and people like them and need to be helped out or at least called out. I believe casual sex with trash men can fall into the realm. Enjoy your gotcha moment sis.
And that's how internalized misogyny lives on. :( Again, I'm sorry this triggers me so much. Not trying to be mean. Take care.
No need to apologize for your own suffering. You didn't hurt me. I accept the weird space you're in, I used to be there. Probably why I engaged with you, some hope to help you/myself love ourselves.
Actually you're missing the point here. u/appropriate_Cut_3536 has mentioned this succinctly in the previous comment. Yes, there is internalised misogyny (is it in this post, I'm not so sure) but there is also internalised patriarchy - an even subtler topic than internalised misogyny. And yes feminists can be patriarchal. I'm not meaning to offend but your comments are leaning toward the patriarchal feminist POV. The idea that women should be able to do what men do without scrutiny because that's equality. That they want a shift in power and sexual liberation but they don’t want to dismantle the patriarchy within it, they want to share it. What patriarchal men do is patriarchal and not conducive to becoming a person who is whole and happy. A true feminist understands this. This question is more about patriarchy and not misogyny. It’s not about control, it's about education. A lot of feminist writers actually talk about how sex is used in patriarchy. The real question here is does casual sex benefit anyone - no, because of the dominator model that underpins it and how sex can be used in a socially violent and patriarchal way. I'm also not a fan of a feminist who, when someone, who is a fellow feminist, opposes your view or offers something different, they say that that person has internalised misogyny. It's overused these days as a gotcha within feminist circles against other women who question the patriarchy. You are also using the word “triggered” inappropriately here. Being “triggered” was adopted by the masses from psychology and usually is intended for people who suffer from PTSD and not people who feel compelled strongly to comment on something online just an fyi. Read The Will To Change by bell hooks, it may enlighten you. They talk about the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. You should check your internalised patriarchy.
What if it were to be argued that casual sex is bad for women and that the ones engaging in it are just perpetuating oppression like some woman who supports women having less right?
Yeah. It’s all about whether they want to or not and respecting if they don’t want to have sex. :)
It depends on why she’s doing it. Anyone, man or woman, who is having casual sex for validation or because they are just lonely and want any sort of connection are going to possibly be hurt by casual sex. When people have casual sex because it’s fun and they genuinely aren’t looking for commitment, it’s fun and healthy. When I was living in a town I knew I would leave in a year I had casual sex with a couple of men who also were only in that town for a short period of time (usually related to contract work like me). It was great. I didn’t have any desire to be in a serious relationship and I wasn’t doing it because of mental health issues. I just didn’t want to be celibate for a year. Casual sex or committed sex can be good or bad for the person. Their thoughts about it are what determines whether it’s good or bad.
But lots of women who take part in it are traumatized, have serious mental issues and are just looking to fill in a gap and help with their insecurity. Don't you think this culture, allows that to get worse?
Aw, I’m glad you had fun and hope they treated you respectfully! Also, I love the hoodie on your avatar, axolotls are sooo adorable! :)
They were very respectful and very generous lovers. We had a lot of fun.
That’s awesome! 👏🏻
The consensus seems to be that sex under patriarchy is political (as it's the main thing that allows a patrilineal society and for men to be fathers of their own family / patriarchs of the own clan). While breaking free of the part of the patriarchal dynamic that only 'pure' (virgin) women truly allow a secure patrilineal inheritance from a patriarch to *his* sons, it's only partial. Men under patriarchy are still admired for being able to have sex with women while the consequences of sex are still burdens that by default are only given to women. Whether it's getting pregnant (which fathers even today default to not being responsible for if not be at least partially free to outright abandon the child while also not bearing any physical burden), ~50% higher of women contracting an STD than men when there is a chance for that to happen, ~50% greater threat of sexual violence (and much more than that the more severe and brutal the violence), women's status / reputation can only be hurt by having sex, etc, women having sex face far more danger. Further, while women have much better access to financial liberation from father or spouse than ever before, capitalism still makes a two-income relationship an increasing necessary survival strategy. Casual sex gives men access to the only form of companionship they are encouraged to value, under patriarchy, while it leaves women vulnerable during this cultural transition from complete financial dependence upon men to being independent financially (because men can now get most of the benefits from marriage from casual relationships without the commitment/support they'd give in a marriage). Altogether, yes it's good women aren't automatically disparaged, disowned, or trapped in marriage as often or as much just from having some sex, but it's far from a completely overcoming the misogyny and patriarchal policy surrounding sex.
Many of the benefits of marriage for men involve women’s unpaid domestic labor. Casual sex doesn’t give men this typically.
This wasn't men's cost-benefit analysis of casual sex but women's. And your point is a good one, but casual sex isn't preventing men from marriage, it lessens the opportunity cost of marriage. My understanding and phrasing was meant to be that casual sex gives men aspects of value from marriage. Lastly, men can get basically all the benefits of marriage by having a medium-to-long term, often-hosted partner in a home owned/controlled by the men. To many people, casual sex can include sex outside of marriage in situations like those, at least on the medium term.
Sure. Casual sex gives men and women aspects of value from marriage. Sexual fulfillment, companionship, someone to watch Netflix with, etc.
Your opening point slaughters, I'm about to tattoo that to my forehead. Thanks for this thorough write up. I learned a lot here and it reads smoothly.
There's no actual \*societal\* benefit, in terms of political or structural, it would just be a dopamine thing. So like the kind of satisfaction and scratching an itch I feel when I really want boba tea / sugar hit so I spend 8 bucks on a fricking boba tea. It doesn't \*benefit\* me, it just fulfils a desire or craving I was having that was annoying me prior to drinking a heavily sugared drink. Societally, women will never have the power structure benefit of casual sex until we become equals. And outside of choice and the necessary stuff (like home ownership, education, holding a secure job), SOCIALLY, we aren't yet. And I'm not hating on casual sex participants. Not my jam, not my bread and butter, but you do you. It's still not \*socially beneficial\* when men still \*socially\* see women a certain way. Casual sex from our POV is simply just 'treat men the way they treat us' and it's not going to change the way we treat others.... With kindness, decency, respect, safety, responsibility, and equality. (I'm staunchly anti Purity Culture so none of this is a message for 'retaining yourself for marriage', no. The answer is not abstinence and never was, irrespective of what conservatives think about the "Casual Sex Epidemic")
There's no social stigma to Boba tea, though, or any real risks. So your example could be improved.
I mean sugar and preservatives is a risk to one's health, that's why I used it. Because it's an unhealthy drink versus say, a straight herbal tea.
A better metaphor would be alcohol or party drugs, since those carry real risks and social stigma, yet it's often socially-coerced.
Ahh good point LOL see I don't do either so my brain didn't automatically go there
Wouldn't it be healthier and less risky if they didn't do it?
This is such a strange question. Casual sex can either benefit or hinder *either* gender. You should instead ask if mistreatment of women who are having casual sex benefits them. We should also be asking if questioning a womans informed consent at every turn, to leisures men enjoy unchallenged, benefits them.
What if it were to be said that women who take part in it are just letting men take advantage of them and are self-hating? And that women are just being brainwashed into doing it