• HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        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.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Okay, let’s put it this way.

        Let’s say you’re a woman, and you’ve been pulled over by a male cop. He’s got you dead to rights on possession of cocaine with intent to distribute after spotting the bales of cocaine in your back seat. He’s willing to just give you a ticket for a burned out tail light, but only if he can fuck you, right then and there. Can you, in that moment, morally and ethically consent to sex with him, when he has the legal authority to arrest you and ensure that your life is fucked forever if you do not consent? Most people would say no, that entire environment is coercive, so there’s no way that, within that framework I’ve presented, that the woman could morally or ethically consent to sex in order to make her ‘little problem’ go away.

        2nd wave feminism presented all male-female relationships in that way, although usually with a less blatant abuse of power going on. If you assume that patriarchy stacks the power deck in favor of men, then there’s very little basis for women to ever consent to sex with a man, because she is never able to have an equal position of power within society from which to consent. But that’s also a problem, because it abstracts people to the point where it’s almost meaningless on an individual level.

        • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          Right, and that stance is complete and utter sexist horse shit for both genders. It’s saying that women don’t have any agency over their actions at any time, and that all straight men are guilty of raping their partners. It’s also discounting the fact that women can and have raped men.

          I’d be willing to bet that most people who believe this have some form of PTSD from the actions of a male, which would be a completely understandable viewpoint to have in that situation.

          But, a viewpoint being understandable doesn’t make it reasonable, valid, or healthy. If someone truly believes that no women can ever consent to intimacy with a man, they need to speak to a mental health professional.

          It’s no more valid of a viewpoint than saying all white people are racists.

    • wizzor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.

      • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yeah it does and you couldn’t really change it. As women would act based on internalized sexism and even if a man wants to respect the wish of a woman and give her 100% control, she would act in the sexist norms, which would signal to the men that women want those sexist norms. So men would continue to “enforce” those norms as women would fear to stop the men.

        So sexism can’t be solved; and then we can ask why bother trying to change it then?

        Stupid line of thinking that is insulting to both, women and men. No means no, my friends. No means no. Respect your fellow humans.

          • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            I didn’t exclude them. And I want to make clear that I strongly believe women to be equal to men. Ofc there are men who want to be dominated.

            But I was giving a critic to the idea that women wouldn’t be able to freely consent due to some vague sense of possible abuse from a man. Because that would imply that e.g. if a man chains himself on a board and give a woman a cat o’ nine tails, the woman couldn’t freely choose to hit him as the man is still a source of some vague sense of possible abuse in the future as a consequence of her decision. Which isn’t completely wrong, of course there are women to are in such a situation, but as a general condition, it heavily implies that women can’t consent to anything, even to anything that would less the threat of abuse. Which is simply insulting to women, and invalidating any woman’s opinion on these things, especially those who prefer something that it viewed as possibly abusive.

            Like take people seriously, and support the creation of supportive structures for those who need them to get out of a situation where leaving is difficult.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        A lot of 2nd wave feminism does sound weird now, yeah. But at the time–this would have been the 50s-70s or so–it was a novel way of viewing power dynamics and what consent meant.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      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

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Wait wait wait, does that mean that being gay is the ultimate straight behaviour? Like, it’s gay to like women, because only a man knows what a man wants? ;)

    • Katrisia@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      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.

        • nickwitha_k (he/him)
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 years ago

          Unfortunately, sometimes the impact of trauma (especially early childhood trauma) can cause misperception of aggression in statements not intended to be aggressive. I think your comment was unintentionally triggering, in the true sense of the term, not the colloquial and derogatory sense. This, in turn, leading to “friendly fire” from people who actually seem to be wanting the same things.

    • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’m generalizing here, but men’s lib looks VERY different to women’s lib. Women started from a position of very low power, liberation was nearly a continuous improvement for all but the most privileged women.

      Men’s lib requires first giving up a lot of patriarchal power before gaining the benefits of men’s lib, which in my opinion far surpass those of patriarchal power. There are a lot of barriers to this. First, most “online” feminists talk only about giving up patriarchal power. This feels hostile to most men and has bolstered misogynist influencers like tate et al. Second real life men and women are typically both complicit as men in enforcing patriarchal views of what a man is supposed to be. You can see experiences of men crying or expressing real emotion in front their prospective significant others as a prime example of this. Third there is no easy to access popular description of the benefits to men of men’s lib. There are great examples, but they aren’t as culturally relevant as patriarchal influencers yet.

      The path to men’s lib is complex and has very different challenges than women’s lib. I think we’re getting there, but it’s certainly a slow process and at this time I think the counter reaction is more prevalent and popular.

      • Shampiss@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        53
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        Hey, what’s up with the tone my guy? Message me if you need to talk fr

        Regarding the subject at hand,

        Evidently women still have many issues coming from male dominant culture formed before the industrial revolution, there has been good progress but there’s still a long path ahead.

        Men have issues coming from cultural norms too. imo the biggest hindrance for men at the moment is not nearly enough people talk about men’s mental health.

        MOST IMPORTANT NOTE IS:

        Promoting solutions for women doesn’t mean ignoring men’s issues.

        Promoting awareness to men’s issues is not against women’s interests.

        When someone is promoting progress, let’s not jump to “there are bigger problems elsewhere”

        If you want to promote change via debate, being aggressive is the worst strategy. Why not say “hey, I hear your argument for women, and on this note I’d also like to raise this other related subject about men’s issues.”

        That’s a win win conversation

        • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 years ago

          It is, but there are a ton of people pushing for women’s issues and other currently hot button social topics who are incredibly aggressive themselves, and pretending those people don’t exist, or that it’s okay when pointed at the non-marginalized group is a problem.

          Let’s not pretend that explicit misandry doesn’t exist just because it frequently comes from people hiding behind the shield of championing women’s rights. Let’s not brush off misandry because men aren’t marginalized.

          Go to town about whether or not it’s worse, but I find very often that people want to pretend it simply does not exist.

          Most posts like the one you’re responding to would get a lot of support if it were flipped to be a woman going off on a guy, but generally when things like thay are brought up you get decried for whataboutism.

        • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Would you belive if I tell there are men problem even in “Male-dominant society”? In a male dominant society men are supposed to be dominant and they have pressures to do certain things. Also there are many cases in which women are given more previlages even in laws(atleast here), which makes no sense to distinguish people by sex in laws. You may argue its still due to male dominant culture we previously had but that is one of the men’s problem too. Just reminding

          • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            As a man, I’ll confirm that we have issues, but, most of them are self imposed.

            I could do without toxic masculinity, and the social rules that say we cannot empathize, cannot have emotion, we must eat raw meat and punch each other so we can pick up heavy things and smash even heavier things.

            But, I don’t know who you are crying victim to. Men set these rules for other men, and I can’t really wrap my head around the concept of men asking men to stop taking away the rights of men.

              • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                If it’s poor vs rich, why even mention gender?

                I agree we are all getting fucked by the system. The results of that in my life are different than how it affects your life. The system screws men in a different way than it screws women. It screws black people different than white people. It screws this religion different than that religion.

                It just sounds selfish to me when you acknowledge that the problem is bigger than “Men’s issues”. And although it’s not quite as bad, it reminds me of All Lives Matter.

                Cancer has MANY symptoms. When someone is complaining about how they lost both their legs to cancer, and you’re like “But MY cancer occasionally makes me feel dizzy”, yeah, it sucks that you have cancer, and I wish you didn’t, but trying to equate your dizziness with amputation just makes you sound ignorant and desperate for attention.

                By all means, let’s cure the cancer for everyone, but until we can do that, we should triage, and treat the most severe symptoms before we start worrying about the occasional dizziness.

          • Shampiss@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            I understand that you’re angry. Sure the initial comment was slightly snarky, and yes, a lot of frustration is caused by a large lack of willingness to address men’s issues.

            But I’d just like you to find out what you want to achieve with your commentary.

            If your objective was to raise an argument and change someone’s mind, then starting a conversation with

            Stop pretending you know jack shit

            And

            STFU about your cope bullshit Will never convince anyone

            If you just wanted to express your anger, then I think it’s unjustified to direct it so intensely to the initial comment. The intensity does not match the casual tone of the comment and it’s uncalled for.

            Maybe you just wanted to spend some idle time by commenting on posts. Sure that’s fair, but considering the stress you put into this I’d say that’s probably a net loss for your mood

            That’s not what’s happening here

            Sorry if I misunderstood that. But your tone did not help with my understanding of your point

            The problem is that they brought up men’s rights issues in the most passive aggressive snarky way

            Sure I agree that the initial comment deserves some correction, but You will never get your point across by insulting someone. often to convince someone you should talk to them like they’re your friend. I know the insults might come more naturally than friendship, but respect is what effectively causes change.

            I’m just suggesting you use your energy and patience more efficiently

            I enjoyed this conversation, and hope you did too. Cheers

      • maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        2 years ago

        But you don’t understand, as a man you have absolutely no issues in today’s society that disproportionately affect your gender! Check your privilege! If a societal shortcoming affect men, it’s their own fault, since they made it this way! Negative gender stereotypes only hurt other groups, if it’s about men, they are actually helpful and move society forward!

        /s if it wasn’t obvious.

      • Katrisia@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        The suicide rates have become one of the most popular arguments, which is a shame because it is incomplete. More men complete the suicidal act, but more women attempt it (apparently, they just own less guns, less substances in the garage, etc.). In other words—because I explain like sh*t in English: women are more suicidal, but less lethal in their attempts.

        Both sexes, and intersex people, suffer a lot. The various genders suffer a lot.

        I know influencers that talk about this problem without being Andrew Tate, but when I recommend them, I get downvoted as if they were worth nothing. I disagree. Of course, it is not a solution because life is always hard and confusing, but to listen to leftist men who understand feminism and other current social movements, and speak of the role of masculinity today considering those is very refreshing and it definitely helps and it is a step forward.

        In a nutshell, they talk about caring about mental health. Many of them already are through their own journeys via psychotherapy or other means of introspection and emotional awareness. They talk about feelings and beliefs within the people that were told that they need to be a cartoon, an action figure, because vulnerability is for the lesser sex and a real man™ despises those things. They talk about healing, understanding, cooperation, etc. I don’t know if you’re a leftist, but that’s behind other concepts such as anarchy or social welfare. It is nice to see the line of thought from healing the personal to healing the communal, and viceversa.

        So… yeah, ostracism is not the solution. It’s funny because I’ve suffered from agoraphobia and things like that in other moments of my life, and I understand the dysphoric feeling brought by just thinking about society. I have rejected society time and time again, but we are social creatures and we need each other.
        I need you because writing this comment is something that I feel I have to do. You’re giving me some minutes of purpose and even hope that I can make you feel less alone in this world. We both need the person that is making Lemmy possible, and our instances, and many other people on that chain. We like having friends and romantic relationships and random interactions on social media. We like going to events and activities in our towns or cities.

        As I see it, If society is not ‘rejectable’ without hurting ourselves and others, the next thing to do would be to interact healthily with our fellow human beings. It is an available journey, there are people willing to help in each step, but you need to trust and trust is hard as f*ck.

  • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        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.

      • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        2 years ago

        It’s not complicated you’re just a pedophile. And I think you would have found that person doing the sexualizing was well past their 30s.

        • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          Wow, what a completely unhinged reply to what was simply stating the obvious.

          The person you replied to didn’t see the scenario you imagined in your head. They replied to the words you wrote.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          And I think you would have found that person doing the sexualizing was well past their 30s

          …What are you even talking about?

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    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.