It’s no laughing matter when Leftists insist that men are cruel for giving women orgasms; this is just another way to advance state control over individuals.
I haven’t yet processed the longer term implications of the House Republicans’ Obamacare debacle, so I’d much rather talk about Cosmopolitan Magazine’s insistence that it’s sexist for men to enjoy giving their female partners orgasms. I’m not the first one to address this ridiculousness. Ace and Robert Tracinski already wrote excellent posts on the subject. However, I believe I’m the only person who’s written a long American Thinker article entitled Sex and State Power, which intersects with this latest example of Leftist craziness.
If you don’t have the stomach to reach Cosmo’s article, something I fully understand, let me summarize for you the pertinent points in the article. According to a study in the Journal of Sex Research, men who successfully bring their female partners to orgasm are proud of themselves. It is, say that study’s authors, a “masculinity achievement.”
Before I go any further, do keep in mind that one of feminism’s chief complaints starting in the 1960s was that too many men had a “wham, bam, thank you, ma’am” approach to sex. Women, said the feminists, were complicated and therefore needed delicacy and attention in order to get sexual pleasure. Meanwhile, men were single celled amoebas would could pop out their own orgasms and then just walk away.
For the last forty or fifty years, the message to American men has been that, to be a good partner in bed, it’s not enough to say, “This is great, wasn’t it?” Instead, men need to be attentive, skilled, caring, compassionate, empathetic and, above all, patient so that their partner can get as much pleasure from sex as men routinely do. No wonder that men, most of whom really can orgasm through very simple stimulation, feel proud when they delay their own pleasure, and make the extra effort and take the extra time to see to their partner’s pleasure. I applaud those men.
Modern feminists, though, do not applaud those men. The problem, you see, is that, to the extent that men get pleasure from pleasuring women, those evil men are robbing women of control over their own orgasms. And no, that is not bad writing on my part. That is utterly appalling thinking on the part of Sara Chadwick and Sari van Anders, the *ahem* researchers behind the study:
In a separate statement from Chadwick and van Anders, they explained why it’s a bad thing for men to gain masculinity points for bringing female partners to orgasm. “One reason is that it might pressure some heterosexual men to feel like they have to ‘give’ women orgasms, as if orgasm is something men pulled out of a hat and presented to women,” they wrote. “This ties into cultural ideas of women as passive recipients of whatever men give them.”
They also mention another sexist orgasm trope: women feeling pressured to fake orgasms in order to appease a male partner, or in their words, “to protect men’s feelings.” For women who have sex with male partners, the pressure to orgasm is a relatable feeling. Hence all the faking that we know is going down in hetero bedrooms all over the country.
The researchers draw a fairly frightening conclusion from the research findings. When women’s orgasms begin to serve as a masculinity achievement for male partners, the orgasms cease to be about women’s liberation or sexual pleasure. They just become another opportunity for men to flex, or “shore up their sense of masculinity.” (Emphasis mine.)
You know what? If you want to shore up your masculinity by giving me incredible pleasure . . . I’m good with that.
Before I get to sex and Leftists, I want to add here that the study’s authors, not surprisingly for Leftists, totally don’t get altruism or sacrifice, both of which Western culture has previously considered to be virtues. The deal with true altruism or sacrifice is that the actor’s pleasure comes, not from direct sensory pleasure, but from the thought that he or she has done something valuable for someone else. The ability to put someone’s pleasure ahead of our own is a sign of maturity, separating us from children who think only of their own pleasure.
(Do I point out here that Mussolini was reputedly brutal in bed, preferring prostitutes, enjoying inflicting pain, and completely focused on his own pleasure? Yes, I guess I do point it out.)
Before that daft study came out, most women would have said that a man who looked to her pleasure, rather than focusing solely on his own, was virtuous, if only in that regard. Sexual pleasure is a good thing, insofar as it’s mutually beneficial and . . . it strengthens relationships, which is where I get to my whole “sex and state power” shtick.
The point of that article was that the Leftists have always been desperate to uncouple people from their own bodies. To that end, they’ve encouraged women to treat sex as men have traditionally (or at least reputedly) done — without emotional commitment.
Because women connect sex and emotional commitment, separating the two actually disempowers women. It turns sex into something that is alien to their basic nature. From the Leftist point of view, that’s a good thing. When people feel disconnected from their bodies, which are the single thing over which they’re supposed to be able to exercise control, then they can be more easily controlled by others.
But what are Leftists supposed to do when men come along — and damn their evil hides! — start doing things that reconnect women’s bodies, brains, and emotions? It’s all well and good if a man crudely uses a woman’s body because there is parity there. She, after all, has been trained to crudely use his as well. Also, you can use his insensitivity as a bludgeon. The Left likes bludgeoning straight males who are, to the Left’s horror, the ballast and engine of Western civilization.
Things go to pieces, though, when a man is caring, thoughtful, generous, and patient. Not only has the Left lost a cudgel that it can perpetually swing at straight men, something even worse has happened. Suddenly, the same woman who has been conditioned to separate sex from emotions gets an inkling that, for her at least, things are better when she’s more than just a body. They’re better when the man treats her as a unique person, with unique responses that a man can learn and then use, not just to his benefit, but to hers as well.
This kind of symbiotic pleasure runs the risk of reminding women that good men matter. If a woman really thinks about it, she might conclude that she needs a good, caring man a whole lot more than a fish needs a bicycle. And then where is modern feminism?
It’s a good thing that, back in the first years of this century, nobody told Robin Williams that he was a sexist pig for joking about men’s desperate efforts to leave women happy and satisfied in bed (language and content warning):