Ahhh... a little retro reminiscing about a VERY retro lady.
She's a real piece of work.

You know, normally the stuff that I read about on here makes me feel so angry and depressed, but this is just funnier than hell. Women cause erectile dysfunction by wearing men out? Come on! Any number of things can contribute to erectile dysfunction...smoking, bad diet, depression/anxiety, etc.

And as for these so-called men who get turned off by the opinions of women (assuming they're not a product of Laura Session Stepps twisted imagination) that's just too bad. Even if a guy didn't have erectile dysfunction, what woman would want to date a man who denied her a voice?

That is one of the stupidest things, ever.

Here's the thing. I've watched a lot of video porn (used to work for a company that sold it, and now I write reviews of it). And one of the most common tropes you see in hetero video porn -- so common that after a while you stop even noticing it -- is that of the very horny, sexually aggressive woman, who says exactly what she wants and is very verbal about how much she wants it.

Now, it's true that what people enjoy in their porn and their fantasies isn't necessarily what they enjoy in real life. And it could easily be that "horny, sexually aggressive women" is less a fantasy for college-age men than it is for men in long-term relationships where the sex is dwindling. But I think it's clear that plenty of men find sexually outspoken women who initiate sex desirable.

And even if they didn't -- so what? Even if men are sexually threatened by women who know what they want and say it... this is our fault somehow? Even if this really were a problem, it should be fixed by women going back to being coy? Why can't the problem be fixed by men getting the fuck over it?

BTW, "countless reports" has "anecdotal evidence" written all over it. This whole thing reminds me way too much of the old Doonesbury series, where the gullible reporter goes to the college campus and finds a "national trend" of wild sex and drug use -- by talking to a few students who are pulling his leg.

Has anyone read "Unhooked: How Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both?" That shit kind of made me want to throw up. It's the same goddamned rhetoric again, about how women are supposed to be coy, and we're supposed to chase them, taking their coyness is a sign that "Oh, I want to, but don't want to admit to it."

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that she isn't a "real" feminist?

For the feminists, though, opinions are like Viagra mixed with ectasy. Not that I'd know. :X

Seriously, I don't know. Never tried either one.

ProFeministMale, that book title reminds me of a sermon I heard at a local megachurch (I went as a guest) from a traveling speaker. That's the newest way of pitching the argument that sexually active women are damaged goods: if you have premarital sex, you've ruined your ability to have ANY deep, meaningful relationship with a partner you're committed to. It all goes back to the same assumption that no sexually active unmarried person is capable of self-respect, or deserving of respect from their partner.

Um, so women shouldn't say they want sex, yet when they say they don't want sex it's ok for men to rape them???

How do these people live with their own thoughts? Oh and college guys having ED?! Give me a break.

Oh yeah: the subtext of the sermon, and I'm guessing your book, was that sexually active people (both men and women) would end up alone, single, and sexless.

Riiiiight.

Whatever happened to the guys upset with the feminazi conspiracy?

Awesome, so not only does it not matter if a woman says "NO," but she's not even allowed to say "yes" at the risk of coming off as "too aggressive"?

Horseshit. This asshole is trying to erode the very concept of consensual sex, I hope she realizes it.

Oy. I've heard of lots of guys who have trouble 'getting it up' the very first time they have sex with a particular girl. In fact, this happened the first time my boyfriend and I tried to have sex. It hasn't happened again, and I'd say it's more nervousness than erectile dysfunction. Just putting in my two cents.

Any guy who suffers erectile dysfunction because a woman comes on to him or has an opinion is pretty high on the loser scale.

The article in question mostly lists a bunch of other reasons for it and doesn't really give any good statistical backing for the claim that sassy women will somehow shut men down, just anecdotes.

Which tends to be a big problem in a lot of newspaper articles that claim all ivy league women want BABIES BABIES BABIES or whatever--they're almost always based on talking to maybe 6 people, not on any thorough going study.

who would want to be w/ men like that anyhow?
if a man is scared of my mind or feels emasculated that i am confident about sex, then he isn't "man enough" for me...(no that is not me making some gender biased remark about manliness...)
i deserve better.
and so do all women who want a man...
(i would say the same for anyone...regardless of persuasion...who the hell wants to be w/ someone who doesn't enjoy the whole person?)

DarkEyed - funny you should even mention that you were a guess rather than actually being a part of the church. I was amused.

I do the same thing everytime I visit a conservative church. As a Unitarian Universalist, I always feel the need to announce I am only doing such as a part of my intellectual religious pursuit, and not because I actually believe in that stuff. :)

"Awesome, so not only does it not matter if a woman says 'NO,' but she's not even allowed to say 'yes' at the risk of coming off as "too aggressive"?

"Horseshit. This asshole is trying to erode the very concept of consensual sex, I hope she realizes it."

Either that or trying to go *back* to the erosion of "the good old days"? Even today, some people believe that a girl or woman who refuses sex is a disobedient wife, a girl or woman who wants sex will want sex with men besides her husband too, and a girl or woman should resign herself to enduring sex with her husband (or at least dry out her vagina's lubrication ahead of time if she is aroused).

"ProFeministMale, that book title reminds me of a sermon I heard at a local megachurch (I went as a guest) from a traveling speaker. That's the newest way of pitching the argument that sexually active women are damaged goods: if you have premarital sex, you've ruined your ability to have ANY deep, meaningful relationship with a partner you're committed to."

If I remember correctly from the "Good Sex Survey", N = 65000, number of premarital sex partners was unrelated to sex or relationship satisfaction.

People with more sex partners than average were 1.25 times more likely to cheat on their partners than individuals with the average number of sex partners.

WOW, lots of harshness here:

WOMBAT: "Any guy who suffers erectile dysfunction because a woman comes on to him or has an opinion is pretty high on the loser scale. "

OUYANGDAN "who would want to be w/ men like that anyhow? if a man is scared of my mind or feels emasculated that i am confident about sex, then he isn't "man enough" for me...i deserve better.
and so do all women who want a man..."

First of all, I'm definitely down with the assertive woman in bed = sexy idea.

But, some men taught from puberty on that they have a specific role, that in order to be a real man they need to enact that role, and if they fail to enact that role then they are not real men. This can create a great deal of strain, guilt, and confusion when a man feels that he is unable to fulfill that role (even if he cognitively rejects that role).

A similar thing happens with women. Women are taught from the day they are born, basically, that they need to be very thin and large-breasted. Some women who don't embody this idea of how women "should be" may feel distress, guilt, strain, even if they cognitively reject the idea that they "should" be a certain way. Would you be sympathetic towards those individuals, or harsh?

If the thinness example doesn't work for you, then fill in which ever socially proscribed role does cause you strain.

Man, the only term I can find to define this woman's twisted sense of sexual ethics is "pro-rape." She doesn't want women to consent, and she doesn't want the law to take their consent into account. Where else could she be going with this?

"She doesn't want women to consent, and she doesn't want the law to take their consent into account. Where else could she be going with this?"

Especially since she also does want men to have sex, instead of wanting everyone to refuse sex from anyone...

This woman believes that unless they're coercing, harassing, or forcing women into it, men don't want sex. In other words, men don't want sex with willing or enthusiastic partners. And they reserve the right to get what they want (prey).
Pretty sick.

I guess someone forgot to send my boyfriend's penis the "don't get hard if she starts it" memo.

UCLABodyImage - allow me to counter. I guess, and please correct me if I am wrong, what you're saying here is that we oughtn't be so harsh to men who buy into these genders roles, because they are the "victims" of gender roles and social constructs as well.

I have a problem with that argument, and whenever else a person, feminist, pro-feminist male or otherwise, claims that men are also the victims of gender roles and we (feminists and allies) ought to sympathize with them rather than be harsh, even if what they're doing is wrong.

The reason is this: sure, men are also a product of gender roles, but the truth of the matter is, we can't be claimed as victims because we're actually gaining and reinforcing male privilege from these very gender roles.

Are we expected to act a certain way? Absolutely. But in those expectations, by virtue of "birth right," we're also given privilege rather than be oppressed. In essense, gender roles, for men, come with a reward for acting the way society thinks we're supposed to.

So, I don't feel one ounce of sympathy for these "poor" men - a product of gender roles, who are "oh, so oppressed" because of society.

For me, feminism comes in many layers. On the social layers, we need to explore the complexities of social constructs and intersectionalities so that neither gender has to put up with gender roles, but on a personal level, I think it's acceptable to be harsh and write a person off as a loser or whatever if a person's behavior warrants such - especially if such behaviors are oppressive.

"but on a personal level, I think it's acceptable to be harsh and write a person off as a loser or whatever if a person's behavior warrants such - especially if such behaviors are oppressive."

Right on!

Well, now it'll be a lot harder for all these limp-dicked men to "gray rape" us. Just act sexually aggressive- problem solved!

That whole concept runs totally counter to my experiences. 99% of the time men have only started being really aggressive in hitting on me (in an acceptable way, not a pushy/violent asshole way) when I've shown that I have a mind. Can I keep one step ahead of them in conversation? Come up with the good one-liners? Show that I'm both interested in and open about sex, even without a strong indication that I intend to sleep with them? Those are the things that I've observed really get their motors running. You can actually see their eyes light up.

What kind of weak-ass men has this woman been talking to?

ProFeministMale, I hear ya. I made a point of identifying myself as a guest for a couple of reasons: first, that I was so uncomfortable with the message; and second, I am a confirmed Catholic and was at a Protestant church that night. I think I will always feel like a "guest" instead of a member of any other church. Not that the Catholic Church doesn't have its share of odd ideas about sexuality, of course. :)

ProFeministMale, I hear ya. I made a point of identifying myself as a guest for a couple of reasons: first, that I was so uncomfortable with the message; and second, I am a confirmed Catholic and was at a Protestant church that night. I think I will always feel like a "guest" instead of a member of any other church. Not that the Catholic Church doesn't have its share of odd ideas about sexuality, of course. :)

Profeministmale, you responded to UCLAbodyimage

"So, I don't feel one ounce of sympathy for these "poor" men - a product of gender roles, who are "oh, so oppressed" because of society.

For me, feminism comes in many layers. On the social layers, we need to explore the complexities of social constructs and intersectionalities so that neither gender has to put up with gender roles, but on a personal level, I think it's acceptable to be harsh and write a person off as a loser or whatever if a person's behavior warrants such - especially if such behaviors are oppressive."

I think UCLA's point is that if a man may have consciously rejected the constructed gender roles, but the years of conditioning may mean it's a little harder to get the message through to the body.

More bluntly, if he's a nice guy, with good feminist intentions, but has a problem with ED when a woman comes on to him, maybe it's worth sticking around and retraining his body rather than kicking him to the curb.