Even if she didn’t reference the no-sex class outlook by name (blush) I’d have to quote this post by Kink In Exile

[M]y sexuality is not a political statement. I have seen too many blogs in recent weeks about how all women are superior to all men. Matriarchy is the salvation of humanity and I must immediately demand the gentleman behind me at the grocery checkout fall to his knees and lick my boots while we both await the pimply kid behind the register.

To borrow a line from Sarah Jones — your revolution will not happen between these thighs.

What all of these ideas of female domination lack is respect for my desires. I’m going to say this again because it’s really important: if in seeking do submit to women you refuse to acknowledge the fact that not all women want to dominate you you have missed a really huge point. If you refuse to acknowledge the fact that some women get off on submission to men you have shown blatant disrespect for female sexuality. If you insist on calling me mistress despite the fact that I do not enjoy the title you have missed the point. If you are, in fact, unaware of the amount of effort and energy that I invest into the scenes I top then you are taking me for granted and have not moved one inch past the women as no-sex class issues endemic to patriarchy.

She said it here.

M’yeah, funny how that whole pedestalizing business works. You get to be all superior and “admirable” and chaste and aloof and “statuesque” in order for me to stay perpetually horny. Gee, how gender-bendery is that!?!?!?!?

Y’know rule #1, that says it’s simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for women to feel sexual desire? Given how intensely prowess is engrained into men’s sexual identities who do you think is more invested in women’s sexual restraint? Who’s more invested in keeping men “teased” into perpetual arousal. Who’s more invested in “pro femdoms” wearing sexualized but actual-sexually impenetrable leather cat suits, whacking men with floggers, chastising them for having “dirty” thoughts, and (I love this) not defining the activities as sex because there’s no “contact?” Who’s more invested in women spending days, weeks, or months keeping men “on fire” through orgasm denial?

Yeah, that’s where the “inconceivable” part of rule #1 comes in.

Y’know rule #1, that says it’s simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for women to feel sexual desire? Let’s turn that around for a minute and ask what would become of men’s identities as horny animals if women wolf-whistled us into elevators, lurked naked in desk wells waiting to give us blowjobs, begged us to undo their bikini tops… and bottoms… so they’d tan “evenly” all the way down every beach, texted at all hours for hot 8-way sex with their sorority sisters and/or nursing shift and/or bridge club, and otherwise manifested every viagra-spam email title on the planet?

And, m, yeah, hello, refractory period? Bye bye men as the sex class. That’s where the “intolerable” part of rule #1 comes in.

Point being that claims that “women are superior,” whether as saintly inviolable mothers, or “outa yer league” supermodels with “a boyfriend who could break you in half,” or as whip cracking, spit-when-you-walk-past man haters (or, clue, even as “hairy legged” separatists feminist lesbians) it’s all about keeping the status quo as completely and utterly conventional as possible.