Who’s Afraid of Not Getting Laid?

Male feminists are a curious bunch. They want the rest of us men to believe that they can liberate us from the prisons of our own device. They say we are slaves to old stereotypes about masculinity. And yet some of these fellows make much ado about the sex lives of MRAs. Sigh. I guess some people still think manhood is dependent upon copulation with women. Consider this recent quip from Hugo Schwyzer:

“On the other hand, MRAs are angry because they feel that men are being manipulated and ‘used’ by ‘scheming women’; they are frustrated, I suspect, both by their own inability to gain access to women and by their own vulnerability to flirtation and arousal. They become enraged by what they desire but generally cannot have.”

Ah, yes, the old “bitter men who can’t get laid” shtick. This wouldn’t be like men calling feminists “bitter, fat women who can’t get laid,” now would it? The feminists regard this charge against them as being utterly stupid and besides the point in their great battle against sexist double-standards. Yes, I said sexist double-standards (which obviously doesn’t cover the realm of cheap shots that feminists employ).

But anyway, just what kind of women should I see as desirable? Third wave feminists? Ah, those women! Gen-X fem grrls! They seem to differ from the second wavers in that they openly admit that they would like to have sex with men. Oh, well. I guess they are not going to follow through with their separatism and leave their “oppressors” alone in peace, after all.

So, I ask, who’s worried about getting laid, these days? Well, this week Hugo has pointed us all to a feminist man who is worried about getting laid. I will not cut-n-paste; let me merely direct you to the post. I think it speaks volumes about male feminists. By the way, you lurkers can tell ol’ Jedmunds that turn about is fair play.

1 Response to “Who’s Afraid of Not Getting Laid?”

  1. 1 Michael
    August 4, 2006 at 12:49 pm

    The Christian admonition against adultery is very wise taken in the context of personal dignity and social morality. Because as soon as one considers sex as a commodity, inevitably it implies that other people (of the opposite sex) are a commodity, and hence oneself is also a commodity. What does this mean? To me, it means that if I can accept that sex outside of procreation is morally acceptable, then it means I can accept that other people are only a means to satisfying my personal desires, and hence I can also be reduced to a means of satisfying not only other people’s sexual desires, but also as devices for other people to exploit financially, politically, or otherwise.

    In the short, if I deny others the dignity and worth of their humanity, I deny the same human dignity of myself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: