One of the more frustrating things about the "radmenz" movement is their ongoing convergence with "radfems." "Radfem" separatists cooked up "the sex strike," which was supposed to bring men to our knees a la Aristophanes'sLysistratda. And since, contrary to popular belief, most "radfem "sex-strikers weren't and aren't lesbians and were thus pretty impatient to get the thing over with they were if anything even more aggravated with women who wouldn't go along with the strike than they were with men themselves.
Turns out "radmenz" separatists have cooked up their own notion of a "sex strike." Only instead of withholding sex till which is fine for the minority who are gay or asexual but no more fun for hetero male separatists than it was for hetero female separatists. And consequently they're just as over-the-top annoyed with men who "break the strike." David Futrelle, who links to "radmenz" sites so I don't have to, quotes one very angry gentleman who
The reason I believe women get away with exorbitant prices (associated risks) for pussy is the existing demand, which sustains the price and favors similar conditions for each subsequent iteration of the trade. … I fail to understand how catering to a woman’s skewed entitlement and grandiose sense of self-worth (telling her lies, buying her things for sex, investing more time in entertaining her than in actual sex … etc) can ever be helpful or instrumental to bring the market price (risks and costs) of pussy down.
Source: Man Boobz
What. Ever.
What's particularly... well... striking about both the "radfem" and "radmenz" notions of the sex strike is the complete investment in the disgraceful transactional model of hetero sex. I'm sure both sides will say I'm being unfair, which I don't mind since I think their respective enterprises are based on fundamental misunderstandings of... just about everything about human nature. But "radfems" basically believe that if women just withhold sex men will do whatever it is they want, whereas "radmenz" believe if they stop "paying" for sex women will do... whatever it is they want.
Of course an even better approach might be to overturn the whole fucking fetish for transactional sex in the first place. But hey, 40-odd years of "the sex strike" hasn't moved the needle for "radfems" compared to the entirely more reasonable approach of feminists who challenge the transactional model, and so there's no reason to imagine that "radmenz" will move the needle any further the other way.
Hint: I think the idea of a "sex strike" worked a whole lot better back when everyone still believed masturbation made you go blind.
He's overlooking the fact
Submitted by Lynn Gazis-Sax (not verified) on Wed, 2011-06-15 20:46.He's overlooking the fact that women imposing "exhorbitant prices (associated risks)" for sex are generally acting in a context where they're obliged to themselves pay prices/risks for sex of at least the same scale, even if in a different coin.
Also, on "more time in entertaining her than in actual sex," seriously, how long does this guy engage in actual sex? I'm doubting it's long enough that conversing for longer than that would actually be an ordeal, if it's a conversation with someone he actually likes.
But on the more general point, I agree; a "sex strike" is a stupid tactic, whether women or men are proposing it.
He's overlooking a lot. Or
Submitted by figleaf on Wed, 2011-06-15 22:43.He's overlooking a lot. Or else he's not overlooking it but is blinded to it by some kind of unresolved trauma. Which is also a characteristic of "radfems." Which is a shame whenever it happens to anyone. Thanks, Lynn. --fl
What prices/risks do women
Submitted by tu quoque (not verified) on Thu, 2011-06-16 23:03.What prices/risks do women pay for sex that men don't?
I dunno, tu quoque. If you
Submitted by figleaf on Thu, 2011-06-16 23:26.I dunno, tu quoque. If you can, tell your mom you don't think she undertook any greater risk or paid any greater price for sex than your dad did. Let me know how that goes. --fl
Umm, because my mom and dad
Submitted by tu quoque (not verified) on Sun, 2011-06-19 00:07.Umm, because my mom and dad represent all men and women?
What is the point of this response? It smacks of insincerity.
Actually I realize that by
Submitted by figleaf on Sun, 2011-06-19 10:50.Actually I realize that by referring you to your mother I didn't actually answer your question. I actually referenced your mother because I felt you asked your question in extremely bad fath, and so I answered in poor faith. Here's how I'd have answered if I hadn't been so surprised by your question.
The risks and costs of entirely consensual, vanilla sex between a man and a woman are higher for the woman. They are higher in several social dimensions (consequences of "losing" her "reputation" or being "devalued" by a subsequent partner for being "used goods.")
The risks and potential costs are higher in economic terms in the sense that to the extent that consensual vanilla sex can result in pregnancy, a woman will on average lose approximately one year of career experience and thus at least a year of career advancement compared to her partner.
And the risks and potential costs to health are astronomically higher for women than for men. First of all women are at greater risk of contracting the average sexually-transmitted illness during sex with a man than the man is at risk of contracting it from a woman. And second of all there's that whole pregnancy thing.
Your mom and dad represent the average man and woman in terms of the risks and cost of sex. For any given heterosexual encounter men and women by-definition share an exactly equal risk of pregnancy.
If pregnancy doesn't happen then the cost to both the man and woman remain approximately equal, and so every time your dad and mom had sex that didn't result in pregnancy their costs were approximately equal.
But since you asked the question then by-definition your parents had sex at least once that *did* result in pregnancy. And once she became pregnant then to the extent your mom and dad represent the average man and woman both the potential and real social, economic, and biological risks and costs skyrocketed for your mom compared to your dad. For instance to the best of my knowledge no father has ever developed preeclampsia, no matter how closely involved he is with the mother's pregnancy, and consequently no father has ever stroked out during labor. As a friend nearly did (she was in a coma deep enough that her doctors were discussing the option of pulling the plug with her husband.)
That's all above and beyond any risks and costs that accrue during sex where reproduction is categorically not going to happen.
Consequently even though your mother and father don't represent all men and women, in actuarial terms they nevertheless fit into probability profiles where the costs and risks of sex can be projected with a fairly high degree of accuracy. So while there's some entirely non-zero chance that your father bore higher risks and potential costs than your mother eah individual time they had sex, there was also always a non-zero chance that pregnancy would result, and at that point then even in the most economically, personally, and socially egalitarian relationship the risks and costs still fall disproportionately on the woman.
Those are the primary risks/costs women pay for sex above and beyond the risks and costs men also face. They're not insignificant differences.
---
I'd just add that the costs and risks I'm discussing have absolutely no bearing on the original author's framing of heterosexuality purely in terms of avoidable transactional costs for men seeking to "buy pussy." Which attitude in itself is a risk and cost women face in a way that straight or gay men virtually never do.
figleaf
Brilliant reply.
Submitted by Quercki (not verified) on Sun, 2011-06-19 08:07.Brilliant reply.
Two of my three sisters have
Submitted by Lynn Gazis-Sax (not verified) on Sun, 2011-06-19 14:38.Two of my three sisters have had life threatening pregnancies (and that's not even getting to the risks involved in the pregnancies of my sisters-in-law).
Given that birth control fails sometimes and that tubal pregnancies are not that rare, I'd say the different risks of pregnancy between the sexes impose a different level of risk even in the case where both parties are agreed in doing their best to avoid children.
(There are, of course, also other risks, as figleaf described. I just want to point out that risky pregnancies are way more common than some people think.)
And this is why I get so
Submitted by Ginny (not verified) on Thu, 2011-06-16 04:47.And this is why I get so fiery about the transactional model of sex. I have a great respect for economics, but economic interactions can get ugly and dehumanizing. Sex should be the opposite of that.
The irony is that I don't think radfems, radmenz, and the moderate-sounding voices that promote the transactional model because its "realistic" or "reasonable" or because it's never occurred to them to question it (I'm thinking of Hooking up Smart along with Cosmo et al) have any idea how closely linked their ideologies are. They're all living in the same world, with their viewpoint determined by where they happen to fall on the gender and good fortune grid.
Aside from the transactional
Submitted by Christina (not verified) on Thu, 2011-06-16 05:59.Aside from the transactional model of sex and relationships, I´m amazed at how many people accept emotional blackmail and bribery as a normal and in some cases even desired part of sex and dating.
this comic made me thinking
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-06-16 07:01.this comic made me thinking of you: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2271#comic
because "clearly, a woman telling something like that MUST be lying". :P
It took me ages to connect
Submitted by SnowdropExplodes (not verified) on Thu, 2011-06-16 16:54.It took me ages to connect the dots and see what the first three frames had to do with the bottom frame.
Interestingly, the writers of "He's Just Not That Into You" warn against doing this sort of thing (as a woman) because it makes the man into the Greeks (since women obviously are incapable of separating "sex" from 'relationship OMG I luuuuurve him!!!!!" Apparently.)
"a woman’s skewed entitlement
Submitted by AB (not verified) on Sat, 2011-06-18 05:51."a woman’s skewed entitlement and grandiose sense of self-worth (telling her lies, buying her things for sex, investing more time in entertaining her than in actual sex … etc)".
So telling a woman lies is not only an acceptable tactic to get pussy, it's also a favour done to women which they're not worthy of? What's this guy smoking? Also, I like how he complains about investing more time in entertaining her than in actual sex, as if having a good time with her without sex was out of the question. He basically saying “Hey vagina-creature! You're a pathetic sack of shit and I hate being with you, but you make for a decent masturbatory device, so if I spend a little while pretending I actually like you, I think it's only fair I get to use you in that capacity forever after”, and then acts surprised when women are less than enthusiastic about having sex with him.
There are plenty of guys who have no problem getting laid without having to pay for it, but the most successful of those guys I've met have mastered the art of liking women for their own sex, and getting them interested in sex for its own sake. Judging from this guy's rant, I'd prefer it if he went on a sex-strike, preferably forever.
The fact you're using
Submitted by Gumble (not verified) on Sun, 2011-06-19 04:34.The fact you're using manboobs as your source of information on the mens rights movement is your main problem here. It's like researching the civil rights movement by reading stormfront.org
Hi Gumble. I think it's more
Submitted by figleaf on Sun, 2011-06-19 11:32.Hi Gumble. I think it's more like researching family safety practices by watching America's Funniest Videos. It's not that AFV is representative of American families, but it does map one edge of the field. So reading ManBoobz is to researching men's rights as reading Twisty Faster is to researching women's rights. It's not that each side doesn't have valid points -- they absolutely do. It's that, at least for me, they tend to cast extremely exaggerated shadows that make it easier to diagnose and counter underlying concerns. And, at least in my case, by casting ordinary biases, misinterpretations, and fallacies into exaggerated relief one can better understand how best to articulate, and resolve, the very real underlying concerns. --fl
What part of the word
Submitted by Ginny (not verified) on Sun, 2011-06-19 15:31.What part of the word "radmenz" do you not understand? The discussion is about the wacko fringe idiots that make absurd generalizations about the opposite sex and seem more invested in fueling their own hatred than in making real social progress: both "radfems' and "radmenz." David Futrelle does a great job of highlighting the crazy rhetoric of the "radmenz" faction, and you can't deny that they're out there making noise.
I'm a bit confused about your
Submitted by mythago (not verified) on Mon, 2011-06-20 21:18.I'm a bit confused about your take on radfems. As I remember it, the idea wasn't to re-create <I>Lysistrata</I> (which everybody forgets was a comedy, by the way), but a permanent rejection of heterosexual pairing: since relationships with men were inherently unequal, you shouldn't have them. There was no 'and someday utopia will arrive.' This led to an awful lot of upheaval in the lesbian community, which had to deal with an influx of women who rejected men, but were otherwise heterosexual and had sex with women for political reasons, not erotic ones. Ugh.
This is not to say that one "side" is "better" than the other. But as I understand it, the MGTOW thing is not about men becoming politically homosexual at all; it's primarily about either shunning women, or choosing women from developing nations who are perceived to be more "submissive", accomodating and powerless than the MGTOW's countrywomen ("Ameriskanks"). The radfem equivalent, I guess, would be gleeful chortling over how women are all going to start marrying Scandinavians and soon those comparatively-spoiled and sexist American guys will be alone and unmarried and die alone with their cats.