I have lived through the whole of the sexual revolution and I see men taking less and less responsibility for any baby that may result from sexual intercourse with a woman. I have decided that actually women have lost more than they gained, being required to put out on most occasions without getting any significant amount of pleasure…..plus poison their bodies with all kinds of pharmaceuticals… who gains here???
It is hardly surprising, though, when men are told frequently in our culture that they are optional, unnecessary and even toxic. They have few parental rights, the courts are stacked against them. The sane response in this situation is to keep your distance. But the societal costs are terribly high.
I don’t agree; when a man has a child or children and fails, of his own accord, to inhabit the role of father, provider and male role model he is letting himself down just as much as his woman and offspring.
(If his agency is taken away from him by the woman herself out of dislike, that is a bit different, then he has another chance of making good with another woman better suited to him, he might still be able to rescue part of his role and relationship with his first child later on.)
I think everyone loses.
It could be argued that there is short term gain from the sexual shennanigens for men but surely that’s superficial and a bit empty.
I don’t think we disagree Claire. I wasn’t thinking about children – easily available contraception has made it possible for them to be removed from the equation. I was thinking about consequence-free sex, from which (as Alison suggests) women may have lost more than they’ve gained. Men I’m afraid tend not to pass up an opportunity for short term shenanigans, however superficial and empty that may sound. I agree that in the long term neither sex benefits.
CD
Claire D
3 years ago
There’s a great line in one of Barbara Pym’s novels written in the 1960s, one of the male characters says ” . . . how very obliging young women are these days.”
Yes, when women stop being prim and become Dionysian, the End is Nigh.
Hence the West is collapsing
AL
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
No wonder what passes for feminism today is confused. We’ve gone from “hear me roar” to “hear me whine.” Like any strain of activism, it exists for the aggrandizement of those who make a living or draw notoriety from it. The goals of the original feminists have been achieved, but their successors refuse to take yes for an answer.
BM
Karen Lindquist
3 years ago
Careful, speaking truths such as these will get the ire and fury of both women defending being used and discarded while they lie to themselves and everyone around them about what they really want, and the men who love those women because they do backflips to prove how liberated they are by serving men in every way possible for absolutely no personal gain.
WC
William Cameron
3 years ago
Women have not spotted the other threat.House prices are high because of demand and supply. Indeed while house prices have trebled and quadrupled the population has risen less than 20%. So supply is a small issue the big issue pushing up prices is demand- and demand is driven by lending. Banks are smart. They saw if they lent more on houses they would not just just suck in the main wage they would suck in two wages. So they lent more and shoved prices up as a result. Thus forcing married women / partners to work and delay childbirth.
Absolutely agree. Since the 1970s I have believed that ‘equality’ has actually been detrimental for women. Instead of having basically one job, child rearing, we have to have a full time career as well! Men have got the better side of this bargain.
Wrong. Demand rises every year by the equivalent of a city somewhere between the size of Nottingham or Cardiff. That is just immigration-driven demand. Those people have to live somewhere… supply is short and demand is high. Ergo, prices rise…
Sorry . You are mixing up desire with demand . If lenders do not give mortgages there is no demand -however much people want something- its not demand -in the economic sense- unless they can pay for it.
I accept the distinction, but I am not mixing them up. There is, very simply, a shortage of housing. The drivers are complex and there are many of them. The discussion on housing pressures, however, is almost always bogus since the link to mass immigration is denied in most public discourse.
John K
3 years ago
Best of luck with that. Mammals including humans are driven by the urge to reproduce and all the societal controls in the world don’t alter biology.
Anecdote: I was talking to three young Mormon women about the “silver ring thing” movement a few years ago. I asked them what the pregnancy rate among women who wore one was, compared to the wider community, One looked me in the eye and said “about the same”.
But that’s his point. These Mormon girls don’t abstain at any higher rates, nor do they use contraceptives. Hence, the higher pregnancy rates.
VB
Vanya Body
3 years ago
This is my view: not enough attention is paid to the extraordinary emotional toll taken by casual sexual relationships. Young women are encouraged to have sex without qualms with young men who are told there are genuinely no strings and no responsibilities. So boys learn that dating apps, such as Tinder, will allow them to pass from woman to woman without giving them a second thought. I believe every time a woman has sex with a new partner, somewhere deep down in her soul she is hoping that this will turn out to be the actual life partner. Isn’t this just innate and are women not basically hard-wired to seek the best possible mate for our children, even if it is subconsciously done? One who will protect and be there for the long haul? If that is viewed as ‘old fashioned’ or ‘anti-feminist’ I would say: ‘who are we really kidding?.’ I have a daughter just entering adulthood. I am so fearful for her future as she navigates this tinder-framed emotional minefield. Hopes raised and dashed, continuously until emotional numbness sets in.
MS
M Spahn
3 years ago
It would take a cataclysmic shock to modern social and technological infrastructures to disrupt the mass availability of birth control. . .we’ll need a radical revision of what ‘feminism’ looks like.
Yes, it would . . . and in that scenario we’d have much bigger problems than revising feminism.
But fear not Mary, it may not take that. The new generation of antisex wokehadi feminists may be game for an alliance of sorts with you revanchist church ladies, if that’s what it takes to dictate everyone else’s s*x life to them.
LH
L H
3 years ago
Sex education in schools has gone a long way towards squeezing the living, long term family. Instead of teaching ‘family planning’ the subject is actually ‘family avoidance’. By the time women start to really push against the cultural pressure to delay, delay, delay they often must make the inevitable hard choices for motherhood and against their own personal dreams and non-maternal interests, anyway. All is subsumed by the drive toward motherhood. It has always been ever thus. School sex education should mention the realities of the drive to actually reproduce. There should be a focus on long term family relations not just short term sexual ones. In this secular world, an improved health curriculum might help women achieve important maternity goals with perhaps a bit more dignity.
JR
J. Rob
3 years ago
I have personally always raised an eyebrow at women who equate casual sex with “empowerment” and “liberation from men,” as if men take any issue with a woman not calling after a one-night-stand. Aside from the reasons mentioned in this article (greater risk of pregnancy, violence, disease, etc), they don’t even seem to get any pleasure out of it. Men are unlikely to put much effort into sex with a woman they’ll never see again, and so these women rarely even orgasm during these encounters (less than half, according to webMD). The only thing they seem to get out of it is validation that they’re still “f*ckable,” which isn’t exactly high praise. I work at a bridal shop, and have found that attractiveness isn’t much of a factor when it comes to which women men will marry, let alone f*ck. However, I figured that my lack of understanding stemmed from the fact that I’m a lesbian and don’t really understand heterosexual attraction, so how could I understand the desire to have casual sex with men?
Still, even on the lesbian side of things, where orgasm is more likely in the case of casual sex, there doesn’t seem to be much interest in it. I was just on a lesbian forum today where someone asked our opinions on no-strings-attached sex, to which almost everyone replied, “No, I want to have an emotional connection with whoever I have sex with.” These aren’t exactly conservative women either, most of them are radical feminists. They just have nothing to prove by pretending to like casual sex.
I have noticed that, at least within my own circle, the women who are the biggest proponents of “sex-positive feminism” are the same ones who are the most insecure and seem to change their interests and personality every time they get a new boyfriend. It’s no wonder they also adopt the same masculine, exploitative attitude towards sex. They try hard to present this image to the world of being a “cool girl,” who doesn’t care about silly things like “monogamy” and “relationships”. She likes raunchy sex, just like the guys. She likes porn, just like the guys. She’s straight, but down for threesomes with other women, because that’s what the guys like, isn’t it? Isn’t she such a cool and liberated woman?
I would argue that it’s ok not to settle for bad sex with strangers. One doesn’t necessarily have to wait until marriage, but one can at least wait until she finds someone who cares about her and her pleasure in the bedroom. Standards don’t make you less of a feminist, nor does not treating your sexual partners like disposable sex toys. Connection is important to a lot of women; this is not a weakness. And if you need more convincing from a feminist perspective, read Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy.
PK
Peter Kriens
3 years ago
Mary, don’t you think most men also have a strong bond with ther off spring and feel a responsibility to provide? They also have zero power about the pregnancy, have no say in an abortion, and can be forced to pay child support regardless of the woman’s intentions. The movie the Red Pill has interesting section on this topic.
It might help to include the male perspective because the far majority of males are programmed to take responsibility.
It might also help to realize that the few ‘bad boy’ men that want to avoid taking responsibility seem far more attractive to many women than the far majority of more responsible bros.
This story is much more two sided than you make it sound.
More like 4,5,or 6 sided. This is the whinging of upper middle-class “sex & the city” princess types.
Boys are told to “take it like a man”, i.e. accept their lot, in this instance, in the gender lottery; and, girls have always been similarly instructed.
Most women aren’t “babes”, and even they are only so for a few years at best. Bourgeois culture way over-values the physical beauty of youth and sexual pleasure. And the sex & the city types end up with Donald Trump or Jeffrey Epstein types they deserve, … and never grow up.
And their are easily as many female predators, …tho it is considered unmanly to write songs about it.
I wonder if there aren’t as many predators on the one side as the other? only that it’s ungallant to write songs for one?
DH
Dave H
3 years ago
“When the inevitable collapse of society comes, your decadent ways won’t cut it any more!” is what I read here.
Same screed you get from religious nuts, preppers and all sorts of other loons. Guess it’s the right social background for it, what with the pandemic going on. Doesn’t really make it meaningful though.
Not sure anyone’s up for “abolishing” marriage either, though some would end state involvement in the process.
I got the same impression. The essay is well written, but the premise is not particularly insightful or illuminating.
It’s understood that, for most of human history, biology has played a massive role in shaping gender roles, sexuality, and values. As the author says, technological advancements have helped to level the playing field and allowed women greater agency over their reproductive journey.
That said, I fail to see the point of theorizing about what might occur in a fictional future where birth control is somehow taken off the table and we’re compelled to revert to more traditional views of sex. It isn’t a likely or even realistic scenario and, to me, the essay reads a bit like uninteresting speculative fiction. The toothpaste is unlikely to reenter the tube. For good or ill, libido and commitment have been decoupled.
I got the same impression. The essay is well written, but the premise is not particularly insightful or illuminating.
It’s understood that, for most of human history, biology has played a massive role in shaping gender roles, sexuality, and values. As the author says, technological advancements have helped to level the playing field and allowed woman greater agency over their reproductive journey.
I fail to see the point of theorizing about what might occur in a fictional future where birth control is somehow taken of the table and we’re compelled to revert to more traditional views of sex. It isn’t a likely or even realistic scenario and, to me, the essay reads a bit like uninteresting speculative fiction. The toothpaste is unlikely to reenter the tube. For good or ill, libido and commitment have been decoupled.
Twice now I have tried responding to this comment and twice now the UnHerd staff have blocked/deleted my comment. I’ve no idea why. The moderators are fickle and inscrutable.
I got the same impression. The piece is well written, but the premise is not particularly insightful or illuminating.
It’s understood that, for most of human history, biology has played a massive role in shaping gender roles, sexuality, and values. As the piece says, technological advancements have helped to level the playing field and allowed woman greater agency over their reproductive journey.
I fail to see the point of theorizing about what might occur in a fictional future where birth control is somehow taken of the table and we’re compelled to revert to more traditional views of sex. It isn’t a likely or even realistic scenario and, to me, the piece reads a bit like uninteresting speculative fiction. The toothpaste is unlikely to reenter the tube. For good or ill, libido and commitment have been decoupled.
I think the point is as Harrington says – a lot of women have been told, and believe, that the sexual norms of the past were there to repress female sexuality and make women’s lives difficult. They look at rules around marriage, or women being chaperoned when out with men, and really believe that these existed mainly to disempower women while men were free do do as they wished.
It means they misunderstand what they are identifying as patriarchal structures that need to be dismantled, and can’t understand women’s place in societies historically. Much of their thinking about women is based on a misunderstanding.
As for whether it’s possible that widespread access to birth control could change, there are plenty of places where that is true right now.
BB
cap0119
3 years ago
All well and good, but unfortunately, the ultimate fact is that even a husband can desert or run around, and even a woman who refuses pre-marital sex can be coerced or raped.
We are again stuck with having to dismantle the patriarchy. When women have economic power in a society they don’t need a husband. And I don’t mean liberal feminist-type “job opportunities”. I mean ultimate control of the resources, as in Hopi society where all of the real estate belongs to the women. And when men are raised in a matriarchy, they don’t rape and abuse women.
The Hopi and Mosuo of China are better places for us to look to than traditional patriarchal marriage, in which women often end up traded like livestock as an economic asset / dependent.
JB
Joe Blow
3 years ago
I have advised my sons and anyone who would listen that it is foolish for a man to marry. In fact, if he is only to co-habit, he must get strict and clear legal boundaries in place early.
The risks and costs of being vulnerable to the whim of a woman in the context of a misandrist legal system are simply not worth it. Just say no. You can always find sex; the rest is not worth the trouble.
JS
James Suarez
3 years ago
But I thought marriage was a patriarchal institution. Now it seems to be both saving women from men, and shackling them to a man.
If marriage were so patriarchal, the groom would get to wear an outfit unlike that of anyone else at the wedding, while the bride is dressed exactly like all the bridesmaids.
TB
Tony Buck
3 years ago
In an ideal world – where there was no selfishness, injustice or oppression – female vulnerability wouldn’t present a problem.
The problem is Original Sin – that human nature is Fallen and out of joint with God’s goodness.
PW
Paul Whiting
3 years ago
Interesting article, and it helped me understand something of why feminists think the way they do. Thanks! However it also confirmed my belief that feminists take an extremely narrow and selective view of how the world works, from which flawed premises they inevitably reach their warped conclusions.
MJ
Meghan Kathleen Jamieson
3 years ago
Not only is this “freedom” fragile and technologically dependent, it’s questionable how pro-woman a position that requires suppression of our reproductive role really is. Can you really say that women are valuable as women when participation in society depends on making themselves more like men?
The outcome is that we have a society that isn’t particularly supportive of social roles apart from working for wages, sees children as a luxury product, and tends to see women who leave their careers as a little embarrassing.
MS
M Spahn
3 years ago
ddd
CR
Charles Rense
3 years ago
As long as you don’t mind a little infidelity, I see no problem with this.
JC
jamesconfla
3 years ago
An American culture is in it’s final gasps of decay and certain failure : there is but one solution! Look upward America!
I wouldn’t put my faith in Elon Musk getting us to Mars.
SG
Steve Gwynne
3 years ago
Perhaps a deeper question is why isn’t masturbation (self-sex) more normalised as an alternative to couple sex.
With practice (possibly aided and abetted with aphrodisiacs) it is possible to experience the same sort of euphoric highs, have multiple mind blowing orgasms and have deep insights on the way.
All without the need for porn or lurid fantasies or the need to be an Incel.
Google ‘tantric masturbation’ or a good book is ‘The Tao of Health, Sex and Longevity’.
In my opinion, tantric masturbation should be a perquisite before embarking on the emotionally messy game of couple sex.
JB
Jonathan Barker
3 years ago
Everyone of my wide circle of friends and acquaintances has had sex before marriage – most/all of them have had more than one adult intimate partner. Such would be the case almost everywhere in the Western world.
Meanwhile why not check out the books by Stephanie Coontz titled The Way We Never Were, and, Marriage A History
Report this comment
This site is registered on wpml.org as a development site. Switch to a production site key to remove this banner.
I have lived through the whole of the sexual revolution and I see men taking less and less responsibility for any baby that may result from sexual intercourse with a woman. I have decided that actually women have lost more than they gained, being required to put out on most occasions without getting any significant amount of pleasure…..plus poison their bodies with all kinds of pharmaceuticals… who gains here???
It is hardly surprising, though, when men are told frequently in our culture that they are optional, unnecessary and even toxic. They have few parental rights, the courts are stacked against them. The sane response in this situation is to keep your distance. But the societal costs are terribly high.
I have no problem with men keeping their distance. Provided of course they they insist very strongly on adequate contaceptive measures.
Women aren’t required to do anything, it’s up to them. That’s the point.
Men
I don’t agree; when a man has a child or children and fails, of his own accord, to inhabit the role of father, provider and male role model he is letting himself down just as much as his woman and offspring.
(If his agency is taken away from him by the woman herself out of dislike, that is a bit different, then he has another chance of making good with another woman better suited to him, he might still be able to rescue part of his role and relationship with his first child later on.)
I think everyone loses.
It could be argued that there is short term gain from the sexual shennanigens for men but surely that’s superficial and a bit empty.
Yes – the woman loses in the short-term, the man in the long-term.
I don’t think we disagree Claire. I wasn’t thinking about children – easily available contraception has made it possible for them to be removed from the equation. I was thinking about consequence-free sex, from which (as Alison suggests) women may have lost more than they’ve gained. Men I’m afraid tend not to pass up an opportunity for short term shenanigans, however superficial and empty that may sound. I agree that in the long term neither sex benefits.
There’s a great line in one of Barbara Pym’s novels written in the 1960s, one of the male characters says ” . . . how very obliging young women are these days.”
Yes, when women stop being prim and become Dionysian, the End is Nigh.
Hence the West is collapsing
No wonder what passes for feminism today is confused. We’ve gone from “hear me roar” to “hear me whine.” Like any strain of activism, it exists for the aggrandizement of those who make a living or draw notoriety from it. The goals of the original feminists have been achieved, but their successors refuse to take yes for an answer.
Careful, speaking truths such as these will get the ire and fury of both women defending being used and discarded while they lie to themselves and everyone around them about what they really want, and the men who love those women because they do backflips to prove how liberated they are by serving men in every way possible for absolutely no personal gain.
Women have not spotted the other threat.House prices are high because of demand and supply. Indeed while house prices have trebled and quadrupled the population has risen less than 20%. So supply is a small issue the big issue pushing up prices is demand- and demand is driven by lending.
Banks are smart. They saw if they lent more on houses they would not just just suck in the main wage they would suck in two wages. So they lent more and shoved prices up as a result.
Thus forcing married women / partners to work and delay childbirth.
Absolutely agree. Since the 1970s I have believed that ‘equality’ has actually been detrimental for women. Instead of having basically one job, child rearing, we have to have a full time career as well! Men have got the better side of this bargain.
Wrong. Demand rises every year by the equivalent of a city somewhere between the size of Nottingham or Cardiff. That is just immigration-driven demand. Those people have to live somewhere… supply is short and demand is high. Ergo, prices rise…
Sorry . You are mixing up desire with demand . If lenders do not give mortgages there is no demand -however much people want something- its not demand -in the economic sense- unless they can pay for it.
I accept the distinction, but I am not mixing them up. There is, very simply, a shortage of housing. The drivers are complex and there are many of them.
The discussion on housing pressures, however, is almost always bogus since the link to mass immigration is denied in most public discourse.
Best of luck with that. Mammals including humans are driven by the urge to reproduce and all the societal controls in the world don’t alter biology.
Anecdote: I was talking to three young Mormon women about the “silver ring thing” movement a few years ago. I asked them what the pregnancy rate among women who wore one was, compared to the wider community, One looked me in the eye and said “about the same”.
Real Abstinence would certainly be popular if the supply of contraceptives gave out.
But that’s his point. These Mormon girls don’t abstain at any higher rates, nor do they use contraceptives. Hence, the higher pregnancy rates.
This is my view: not enough attention is paid to the extraordinary emotional toll taken by casual sexual relationships. Young women are encouraged to have sex without qualms with young men who are told there are genuinely no strings and no responsibilities. So boys learn that dating apps, such as Tinder, will allow them to pass from woman to woman without giving them a second thought. I believe every time a woman has sex with a new partner, somewhere deep down in her soul she is hoping that this will turn out to be the actual life partner. Isn’t this just innate and are women not basically hard-wired to seek the best possible mate for our children, even if it is subconsciously done? One who will protect and be there for the long haul? If that is viewed as ‘old fashioned’ or ‘anti-feminist’ I would say: ‘who are we really kidding?.’ I have a daughter just entering adulthood. I am so fearful for her future as she navigates this tinder-framed emotional minefield. Hopes raised and dashed, continuously until emotional numbness sets in.
It would take a cataclysmic shock to modern social and technological infrastructures to disrupt the mass availability of birth control. . .we’ll need a radical revision of what ‘feminism’ looks like.
Yes, it would . . . and in that scenario we’d have much bigger problems than revising feminism.
But fear not Mary, it may not take that. The new generation of antisex wokehadi feminists may be game for an alliance of sorts with you revanchist church ladies, if that’s what it takes to dictate everyone else’s s*x life to them.
Sex education in schools has gone a long way towards squeezing the living, long term family. Instead of teaching ‘family planning’ the subject is actually ‘family avoidance’. By the time women start to really push against the cultural pressure to delay, delay, delay they often must make the inevitable hard choices for motherhood and against their own personal dreams and non-maternal interests, anyway. All is subsumed by the drive toward motherhood. It has always been ever thus. School sex education should mention the realities of the drive to actually reproduce. There should be a focus on long term family relations not just short term sexual ones. In this secular world, an improved health curriculum might help women achieve important maternity goals with perhaps a bit more dignity.
I have personally always raised an eyebrow at women who equate casual sex with “empowerment” and “liberation from men,” as if men take any issue with a woman not calling after a one-night-stand. Aside from the reasons mentioned in this article (greater risk of pregnancy, violence, disease, etc), they don’t even seem to get any pleasure out of it. Men are unlikely to put much effort into sex with a woman they’ll never see again, and so these women rarely even orgasm during these encounters (less than half, according to webMD). The only thing they seem to get out of it is validation that they’re still “f*ckable,” which isn’t exactly high praise. I work at a bridal shop, and have found that attractiveness isn’t much of a factor when it comes to which women men will marry, let alone f*ck. However, I figured that my lack of understanding stemmed from the fact that I’m a lesbian and don’t really understand heterosexual attraction, so how could I understand the desire to have casual sex with men?
Still, even on the lesbian side of things, where orgasm is more likely in the case of casual sex, there doesn’t seem to be much interest in it. I was just on a lesbian forum today where someone asked our opinions on no-strings-attached sex, to which almost everyone replied, “No, I want to have an emotional connection with whoever I have sex with.” These aren’t exactly conservative women either, most of them are radical feminists. They just have nothing to prove by pretending to like casual sex.
I have noticed that, at least within my own circle, the women who are the biggest proponents of “sex-positive feminism” are the same ones who are the most insecure and seem to change their interests and personality every time they get a new boyfriend. It’s no wonder they also adopt the same masculine, exploitative attitude towards sex. They try hard to present this image to the world of being a “cool girl,” who doesn’t care about silly things like “monogamy” and “relationships”. She likes raunchy sex, just like the guys. She likes porn, just like the guys. She’s straight, but down for threesomes with other women, because that’s what the guys like, isn’t it? Isn’t she such a cool and liberated woman?
I would argue that it’s ok not to settle for bad sex with strangers. One doesn’t necessarily have to wait until marriage, but one can at least wait until she finds someone who cares about her and her pleasure in the bedroom. Standards don’t make you less of a feminist, nor does not treating your sexual partners like disposable sex toys. Connection is important to a lot of women; this is not a weakness. And if you need more convincing from a feminist perspective, read Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy.
Mary, don’t you think most men also have a strong bond with ther off spring and feel a responsibility to provide? They also have zero power about the pregnancy, have no say in an abortion, and can be forced to pay child support regardless of the woman’s intentions. The movie the Red Pill has interesting section on this topic.
It might help to include the male perspective because the far majority of males are programmed to take responsibility.
It might also help to realize that the few ‘bad boy’ men that want to avoid taking responsibility seem far more attractive to many women than the far majority of more responsible bros.
This story is much more two sided than you make it sound.
More like 4,5,or 6 sided. This is the whinging of upper middle-class “sex & the city” princess types.
Boys are told to “take it like a man”, i.e. accept their lot, in this instance, in the gender lottery; and, girls have always been similarly instructed.
Most women aren’t “babes”, and even they are only so for a few years at best. Bourgeois culture way over-values the physical beauty of youth and sexual pleasure. And the sex & the city types end up with Donald Trump or Jeffrey Epstein types they deserve, … and never grow up.
And their are easily as many female predators, …tho it is considered unmanly to write songs about it.
I wonder if there aren’t as many predators on the one side as the other? only that it’s ungallant to write songs for one?
“When the inevitable collapse of society comes, your decadent ways won’t cut it any more!” is what I read here.
Same screed you get from religious nuts, preppers and all sorts of other loons. Guess it’s the right social background for it, what with the pandemic going on. Doesn’t really make it meaningful though.
Not sure anyone’s up for “abolishing” marriage either, though some would end state involvement in the process.
You appear to have read a different article to me.
I got the same impression. The essay is well written, but the premise is not particularly insightful or illuminating.
It’s understood that, for most of human history, biology has played a massive role in shaping gender roles, sexuality, and values. As the author says, technological advancements have helped to level the playing field and allowed women greater agency over their reproductive journey.
That said, I fail to see the point of theorizing about what might occur in a fictional future where birth control is somehow taken off the table and we’re compelled to revert to more traditional views of sex. It isn’t a likely or even realistic scenario and, to me, the essay reads a bit like uninteresting speculative fiction. The toothpaste is unlikely to reenter the tube. For good or ill, libido and commitment have been decoupled.
I got the same impression. The essay is well written, but the premise is not particularly insightful or illuminating.
It’s understood that, for most of human history, biology has played a massive role in shaping gender roles, sexuality, and values. As the author says, technological advancements have helped to level the playing field and allowed woman greater agency over their reproductive journey.
I fail to see the point of theorizing about what might occur in a fictional future where birth control is somehow taken of the table and we’re compelled to revert to more traditional views of sex. It isn’t a likely or even realistic scenario and, to me, the essay reads a bit like uninteresting speculative fiction. The toothpaste is unlikely to reenter the tube. For good or ill, libido and commitment have been decoupled.
Twice now I have tried responding to this comment and twice now the UnHerd staff have blocked/deleted my comment. I’ve no idea why. The moderators are fickle and inscrutable.
I got the same impression. The piece is well written, but the premise is not particularly insightful or illuminating.
It’s understood that, for most of human history, biology has played a massive role in shaping gender roles, sexuality, and values. As the piece says, technological advancements have helped to level the playing field and allowed woman greater agency over their reproductive journey.
I fail to see the point of theorizing about what might occur in a fictional future where birth control is somehow taken of the table and we’re compelled to revert to more traditional views of sex. It isn’t a likely or even realistic scenario and, to me, the piece reads a bit like uninteresting speculative fiction. The toothpaste is unlikely to reenter the tube. For good or ill, libido and commitment have been decoupled.
I think the point is as Harrington says – a lot of women have been told, and believe, that the sexual norms of the past were there to repress female sexuality and make women’s lives difficult. They look at rules around marriage, or women being chaperoned when out with men, and really believe that these existed mainly to disempower women while men were free do do as they wished.
It means they misunderstand what they are identifying as patriarchal structures that need to be dismantled, and can’t understand women’s place in societies historically. Much of their thinking about women is based on a misunderstanding.
As for whether it’s possible that widespread access to birth control could change, there are plenty of places where that is true right now.
All well and good, but unfortunately, the ultimate fact is that even a husband can desert or run around, and even a woman who refuses pre-marital sex can be coerced or raped.
We are again stuck with having to dismantle the patriarchy. When women have economic power in a society they don’t need a husband. And I don’t mean liberal feminist-type “job opportunities”. I mean ultimate control of the resources, as in Hopi society where all of the real estate belongs to the women. And when men are raised in a matriarchy, they don’t rape and abuse women.
The Hopi and Mosuo of China are better places for us to look to than traditional patriarchal marriage, in which women often end up traded like livestock as an economic asset / dependent.
I have advised my sons and anyone who would listen that it is foolish for a man to marry. In fact, if he is only to co-habit, he must get strict and clear legal boundaries in place early.
The risks and costs of being vulnerable to the whim of a woman in the context of a misandrist legal system are simply not worth it. Just say no. You can always find sex; the rest is not worth the trouble.
But I thought marriage was a patriarchal institution.
Now it seems to be both saving women from men, and shackling them to a man.
Exactly. See my comment above.
If marriage were so patriarchal, the groom would get to wear an outfit unlike that of anyone else at the wedding, while the bride is dressed exactly like all the bridesmaids.
In an ideal world – where there was no selfishness, injustice or oppression – female vulnerability wouldn’t present a problem.
The problem is Original Sin – that human nature is Fallen and out of joint with God’s goodness.
Interesting article, and it helped me understand something of why feminists think the way they do. Thanks! However it also confirmed my belief that feminists take an extremely narrow and selective view of how the world works, from which flawed premises they inevitably reach their warped conclusions.
Not only is this “freedom” fragile and technologically dependent, it’s questionable how pro-woman a position that requires suppression of our reproductive role really is. Can you really say that women are valuable as women when participation in society depends on making themselves more like men?
The outcome is that we have a society that isn’t particularly supportive of social roles apart from working for wages, sees children as a luxury product, and tends to see women who leave their careers as a little embarrassing.
ddd
As long as you don’t mind a little infidelity, I see no problem with this.
An American culture is in it’s final gasps of decay and certain failure : there is but one solution! Look upward America!
I wouldn’t put my faith in Elon Musk getting us to Mars.
Perhaps a deeper question is why isn’t masturbation (self-sex) more normalised as an alternative to couple sex.
With practice (possibly aided and abetted with aphrodisiacs) it is possible to experience the same sort of euphoric highs, have multiple mind blowing orgasms and have deep insights on the way.
All without the need for porn or lurid fantasies or the need to be an Incel.
Google ‘tantric masturbation’ or a good book is
‘The Tao of Health, Sex and Longevity’.
In my opinion, tantric masturbation should be a perquisite before embarking on the emotionally messy game of couple sex.
Everyone of my wide circle of friends and acquaintances has had sex before marriage – most/all of them have had more than one adult intimate partner.
Such would be the case almost everywhere in the Western world.
Meanwhile why not check out the books by Stephanie Coontz titled The Way We Never Were, and, Marriage A History