people have been demonizing it for most of the AD years i think but it’s quite pleasant really. are there any proven negative effects?
people have been demonizing it for most of the AD years i think but it’s quite pleasant really. are there any proven negative effects?
Most of the different waves of feminisms are actually quite vocal about masturbation being a positive thing regardless of gender.
Feminists infamously had a moral panic about pornography in the 1970’s as adult theaters and the nascent home video porno market started to take off.
They predicted porn would condition men to expect sex on demand and sexual assault rates would skyrocket when in fact the opposite happened.
You see this same moral panic from feminists regarding AI girlfriends and you there’s a rising fundamentalist strain of feminism that still says porn is dangerous.
Reminds me of “computer games turns teenagers into killer machines” saying.
I think you’re right about the porn thing, but that isn’t masturbation
The current 3rd/4th wave feminism finds male sexual pleasure very abhorrent. If you can find anything in the mainstream discourse coming from a feminist that says otherwise please share.
Feminists can’t even agree to be against circumcision which is clearly genital mutilation.
Thats just not true my dude, there is nothing about feminist thought that says that male pleasure is abhorrent. To think so shows a lack of understanding of feminism…
Feminism suffers from being very broad. There are a lot of conflict viewpoints living under the umbrella of feminism and people saying that their interpretation is the correct one. And there ate a bunch of waves of feminism too, each one a bit different.
So there are absolutely feminists who are anti male. They may be a loud fringe minority, but they’re there.
Bah dum tiss 🥁
I won’t disagree that there are definitely anti-men feminists, but there have also been anti-bi feminists, and currently there are anti-trans feminists. But none of them are worth discussing when talking about feminism as a whole because they really don’t apply. Those are ideologies that should be tackled independently, and should not be considered representative of the movement in general.
But I’m talking about mainstream feminism in the public discourse right now. Think the “Barbie” movie. Male sexuality is very clearly depicted a inherently dangerous which is core mainstream feminist belief.
Did you actually watch the movie or just regurgitating a viewpoint someone else claimed the movie was about.
I haven’t seen the movie. How does it depict make sexuality as inherently dangerous?
Not to mention Ken’s attraction to Barbie nearly destroys Barbie land and is revealed to based on selfish social climbing and his broken psychology.
Barbie is immediately sexually harassed several times upon first interacting with human men.
Also see “Wonder Woman '84” for more examples which was directed by a feminists with explicitly feminists ideology.
I’d like to point out that toxic masculinity is not the same thing as male sexuality. One can be criticised without the other being condemned.
Ironically though, I could see how a misogynist might conflate the two.
Also feminism as depicted in movies does not equal actual feminism
Okay, post some mainstream feminist discourse that says otherwise. Highly influential feminists like Dworkin go as far as saying that any sexual intercourse with men is sexual assault.
First, Dworkin has never said that and did not think that.
Second, she died almost twenty years ago my dude. Intercourse was published in '87 during the second wave of feminism. Why are you misquoting her as an example of current mainstream discourse? And even if we’re going to be talking about feminist views of the 80’s, you’re conveniently ignoring sex-positive feminism. The sex wars were like, the defining feminist debate of that era.
She did in fact say that and your link doesn’t refute that. And sex positive feminism is not sex positive for men. As I’ve said many times before I’m talking about mainstream feminist discourse. Feminist always use this tactic of digging up some progressive strain of feminism knowing full well it’s not influential.
Dworkin may have died awhile ago but her work is still regularly cites and studies by mainstream feminism and her influence can be seen in movies like the Barbie movie.
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/MoorcockInterview.html
All she’s saying is that she meant maritial sex is a form of violence because maritial rape was legal, which wasn’t even true.
It’s a distinction without a difference.
She’s saying women cannot legally consent to sex in marriage when marital rape is legal. She wasn’t saying that all sex was violent, she was saying it was all not the “free act of a free woman” because wives were property of their husbands and could be legally raped even if they denied sexual consent.
Also, marital rape was fully legal in the entirety of the US until the 1970s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_in_the_United_States
You seem to have a pretty loose grasp on the issues here. I get that you didn’t like the Barbie movie, but that all that means is that you didn’t like the Barbie movie.
Come now. She very clearly denies saying it in the interview I linked to:
If you want to claim she’s lying about her own statements, find me a direct quote of her saying it.
She did say it’s degrading and a form of contempt inflicted by men on women. In the context of the books it’s not at all unreasonable to interpret it as rape.
Regardless it DOES posit male sexuality and violence and degragation of women when it is expressesed.
Regardless that’s her influence even if unintentional and it’s all over media and culture.
“She is often said to argue that “all heterosexual sex is rape”, based on the line from the book that says, “Violation is a synonym for intercourse.” However, Dworkin has denied this interpretation, stating, “What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That’s my point.”[1]”
Second paragraph on wikipedia…
But she posits that patriarchy is all encompassing and subordinates all women. Even the feminist that wrote the forward said that’s what she meant.
Numerous feminists have said they interpreted that way. It’s hard to take her denial seriously given the context of her book and the rest of her writings.
“She didn’t actually say what she said in the book. Or what she said in multiple interviews. She really said whatever dumb strawman I want to make up.”
This is exactly my point. This is a harsh misunderstanding at what she was getting at…
She is saying that the reality of sex for the vast majority of history has been about men dominating women, not interested in satisfying the women involved, but someone already covered that point.
Got caught beating it at work, eh?
deleted by creator
I don’t find downplaying the gentital mutation of innocent babies funny. I’m not sure why feminists do.
Downplaying the nonsense that you tried to make more palatable by putting it next to actual issues and hoping you could use it to misdirect when you got called out, while also pointing out your completely untrue claims betray that you got justly called out for some IRL bad behavior and want to blame feminists for creating a social norm where that behavior is no longer tolerated.