Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

ahalbert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 87 posts

Re: The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

#21

Post by vacuity »

msla wrote: post #11
maze-le wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess some people are uncomfortable with the issues raised in the article. Alternative explanation: some users are trigger-happy and flag an article based on the headline before they have a chance to read it. ~Its un-flagged by now~, and I vouched too BTW... Its a good article and a balanced discussion about feminism would be very nice to have here...

The author questions whether men are "entitled" to their own bodies. Saying people's preferences are "Problematic" is a way to pressure them into sex: "You're a horrible person if you don't have sex with me!"

That is dubious but people are calling it out and everything else seems not egregious, so it seems better to not flag it and let the discussion carry on.

Nevermind, seems like I suffered from the same misunderstanding. I even read the next part but I forgot.

Re: The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

#22

Post by tehwebguy »

msla wrote: post #7

> In college, I was with a group of white men and the topic of dating came up. One of them mentioned he wouldn’t date a black woman. To my shock, the rest of the group agreed with him. We say that nobody is entitled to a relationship with someone else, but I was still disgusted. Are they entitled to have this preference, when it comes to something as personal as dating and sex? What the Hell is this? Of course they'r…

Keep pulling that thread, you are very close to discovering something about yourself worth working on! You may not want to figure it out in public though.

Re: The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

#23

Post by foogazi »

msla wrote: post #15
cuttysnark wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are not entitled to sex with anyone, but people can have preferences that are problematic . I read the whole article, but at this sentence I reached for Cmd+W, which was done via muscle memory as my eyes were rolled so far back into my head.

Yeah, she doesn't explicitly condone rape, but you're a Very Horrible Person if she can't pressure you into sex. Also, yes, dating effectively means sex and trying to defend a rapist by splitting hairs makes you horrible.

date != sex

Thomas Jefferson didn’t date black women but didn’t have a problem having sex with one his slaves (allegedly)

Re: The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

#24

Post by joenot443 »

maze-le wrote: post #12
joenot443 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

True, but I really don't think the article in question is that divisive or out of touch with reality. Its a simple book review, with a balanced approach to the subject

You're right, that comparison wasn't apt.

Re: The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

#25

Post by foogazi »

msla wrote: post #19
foogazi wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What the Hell is this? Of course they're "entitled" to their own bodies. The author didn’t mention bodies, but minds. The author wrotes the men said they would not even “date” a black woman The men presumably are attracted to women, but said they would not date a woman of black skin > One of them mentioned he wouldn’t date a black woman. > Are they entitled to have this preference

You're trying to defend someone who wants to use the language of social justice to pressure others into sex. Pressuring someone into sex is disgusting, and horrible, and it doesn't matter who's doing it or why.

date != sex

Re: The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

#26

Post by vacuity »

foogazi wrote: post #13
andai wrote: post #2

>She thinks that like therapy, hat the teaching process can be charged with eroticism, and the professors should channel that impulse towards learning. Man, I've been taking the wrong courses!

I read this differently As in the therapy example: attraction might develop between the student & teacher. Instead of participating, the teacher should recognize/be aware that this exist but channel it back toward learning

Seems weird to me. Of course it started from Freud. I'm not outright discounting it (not like I have any evidence to) but it rubs me the wrong way that attraction would even be considered as part of the learning process. Not that the kind of power dynamic described between professors and students is great either.

Re: The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

#27

Post by vacuity »

foogazi wrote: post #25
msla wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're trying to defend someone who wants to use the language of social justice to pressure others into sex. Pressuring someone into sex is disgusting, and horrible, and it doesn't matter who's doing it or why.

date != sex

I think it's fair to say that for this book dating implies having sex, since it's peak intimacy. The title starts with "The Right to Sex" and the article mentions sex a lot.

Re: The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

#28

Post by LMYahooTFY »

tehwebguy wrote: post #22
msla wrote: post #7

> In college, I was with a group of white men and the topic of dating came up. One of them mentioned he wouldn’t date a black woman. To my shock, the rest of the group agreed with him. We say that nobody is entitled to a relationship with someone else, but I was still disgusted. Are they entitled to have this preference, when it comes to something as personal as dating and sex? What the Hell is this? Of course they'r…

Keep pulling that thread, you are very close to discovering something about yourself worth working on! You may not want to figure it out in public though.

This snark is unoriginal and I don't think it's constructive. It certainly falls far short of calmly pointing out what you think is important.

Re: The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

#29

Post by ctrlp »

The essayist sounds like a typical academic subversive. She offers no answers or theories, only questions, aka "...the politics of X" . In other words, she only "problematizes". Let's see:

She offers a clinical yet sexually charged analysis of porn with no policy proposals (heaven forbid). Could there be a greater cliche in the Humanities departments of modern universities? Oh wait, of course she wants safe, legal sex work as well. Bingo!

She wants to eroticize pedagogy, but also make sure the college administration is there to manage it. Oh, the frisson! Reference to Fraud, er Freud? Check! OH WOW! SUCH FREUD!

Freudianism was/is a pseudo-scientific cult that only lit-crit academics and $200/hr therapists still take seriously. Along with its marxist offshoots, its radical political program was instrumental in the 20th century european/american cultural suicide that had its death rattle in the 60s counter-culture victory. Our modern malaise, including the ubiquitous porn rotting our children's sexual health is the creature of those flower-power radicals.

But it's just "Porn" in the abstract. Not the creation of actual people whom it would be fairly easy to constrain if there is a cultural will to do so. But hiding that fact behind the massive force of inevitable abstractions demoralizes the people, er "consumers", to the point of impotence. Essayists like this loathsome academic are the priestly caste of the modern world, they baffle and confuse decent people.

Re: The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

#30

Post by vacuity »

johnchristopher wrote: post #16
keldami wrote: post #4

As with almost everything. Moderate use is key.

Moderate use of what ? Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...

Sex, presumably. How parent thinks people should determine when to have sex or not, dunno.
Post reply on HN