Can we just say out front that there aren’t many euphemisms more trapped in the “no-sex” class paradigm than “accommodating woman?”

It overlooks manipulation, coercion, and reluctance if “accommodating” means sex when she isn’t interested, or it overlooks enthusiasm, initiative, and participation if it means sex when she is. And either way its role in language makes her an object of someone else’s sexual interest at the expense of her own agency.

This would be valid if and only if men’s world view, our paradigm of women, insists they have no sexual agency of their own — that they… you!... are the “no-sex” class.

Yet since all human beings have agency, including sexual agency, women have agency and therefore men’s paradigm of women as an sexual-agency-free class… a “no-sex” class… is not valid.

Therefore efforts to seek “accommodations” from women for sex as if they had no interest in it for it’s own sake, as in exchange for the attention/popularity of old school filmstrips, for economic remuneration or security, or any of the other canards linked to comedian Billy Crystal’s ur-sexist quip “Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place.”

Now if, as I’ve been repeating ad absurdum (and perhaps ad nauseam) lately, that women are independently sexual beings and that men are indoctrinated (by themselves and others) not to see it, then to that extent the terms we try to impose on our sexual relationships are false and therefore to that extent the “accommodating” relationships themselves are self-told lies.