Tag: Sex

Member Post


Corinne Fisher is a stand-up comedian, co-host of popular podcast Guys We [email protected]#ked, and co-author of the book F*cked: Being Sexually Explorative and Self-Confident in a World That’s Screwed, with creative partner, Krystyna Hutchinson. She and Bridget have a conversation that is surprisingly not all about sex, though that’s certainly covered. They also talk the […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Restoring the Patriarchy?


I think it would be a good idea. Oh, not the legal aspects of it: with two narrow exceptions, I think men and women should be treated the same under the law. Rather, I think we should restore the cultural aspect of patriarchy, the idea that the father has a special authority and a special responsibility within the home, and that men, in general, have special obligations within society.

Men are, in general, more powerful (by which I mean more powerful than women; all the comparatives here refer to men relative to women because there are only two kinds, male and female). Men do most of the creating and most of the destroying, impose most of the structure, cause most of the mayhem. Men are the principal actors in society by virtue of their greater drive and aggression and strength, their lesser interest in people, their greater interest in things and in the manipulation and control of things.


Member Post


Having solved the overuse of natural gas in homes problem now the city of Berkely has moved on. From USA today and other sources: Berkeley’s municipal code will no longer feature words like “manhole” and “manpower,” and instead say, “maintenance hole” and “human effort” or “workforce.” The measure passed unanimously Tuesday and replaces more than […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

History: Not About What They Did, But Who


When your kids learn about George Washington at school, what facts might be of importance? It would be good to know that he was Commander of the Continental Army. That he was our first President. The fact that he was a slave owner would also be a pertinent piece of information. How much time would you want teachers to spend telling your children about George Washington’s sex life?

While you might expect stoic people like George and Martha to stick to the missionary position, we have determined that to spice things up George liked to . . .


Pride Month and Father’s Day


Sunday was Father’s Day and June is Pride month. Until a few years ago, I’d have found nothing particularly incongruous about that conjunction: there is nothing about the celebration of one’s sexual preference, however odd it may be to call that “pride,” that precludes, obfuscates, or undermines an appreciation of the role fathers play in the lives of their children and their value to society.


The Absolute Right to Choose Your Own Pronouns

I believe both in the right of individuals to express their personal pronoun preferences and in the right of other individuals to ignore them. It’s the same right in each case: the right of freedom of expression and it’s a right I hold dear. I understand that some folks in the trans movement would like to tell other people which words they can and can’t use. I don’t approve of that, because I really do believe in freedom of expression: the same freedom that lets a guy put on a dress and say “I’m a woman” lets me chuckle and say, “yeah, no. But let’s agree to disagree.” Live and let live. I know there are some men who like to dress up like women; there always have been. And I know there are people who are deeply confused about who and what they are. That’s too bad, but hardly new: troubled people have always been with us. What is new, and what I can’t abide, is this insistence that I go along with their fantasy. Everywhere else we disagree in this wonderful country, we stop short of telling other people to use our words, to profess our beliefs. We let people think differently, and we tolerate their expression of their ideas, of their differences, even if we find them odd, off-putting, or offensive. I believe that people are born either male or female and stay that way their whole lives, regardless of what they wear or what treatments they get. I think the trans movement is a silly often destructive fad and a way for people to avoid the stress of living up to their sex in a confused and sometimes challenging cultural climate. But, as I said, I respect the right, if not necessarily the choices, of people to express themselves as they wish, while retaining my own right to choose the pronouns I’ll use when referring to them. We don’t have to agree. We can just tolerate each other. I’m okay with that.



Now that I have your attention, I wish to direct it to a split decision handed down today by the 10th Circuit. On equal-protection grounds, the court struck down an ordinance in place in Fort Collins, CO forbidding women from baring their breasts in public except for the purpose of breastfeeding. Ed Whelan at National Review is on the case, and he reports the following:

In his majority opinion (joined by Judge Mary Beck Briscoe), Judge Gregory A. Phillips cites with approval the district court’s objection that the ordinance “perpetuates a stereotype engrained in our society that female breasts are primarily objects of sexual desire whereas male breasts are not.” In a classic false dichotomy, Phillips concludes that the city’s “professed interest in protecting children derives not from any morphological differences between men’s and women’s breasts but from negative stereotypes depicting women’s breasts, but not men’s breasts, as sex objects.” Ditto for “notions of morality” that might underlie the law.

The minority opinion, which Whelan quotes at length, is, as he points out, quite sensible. The difference between the two opinions, I would add, comes down to the majority’s acceptance of this absurd dogma: there is no natural difference between women and men worth noticing. Nearly everything that we used to attribute to sexual difference is explicable in terms of gender — which, when the term is appropriated from grammar and applied to human beings (as it first was ca. 1960), means that it is arbitrary . . . a social construct . . . and nothing more. Therefore, the law cannot take cognizance of the differences between women and men.

What is missing from the majority’s opinion is a recognition that the artificial mores and manners that we construct with an eye to the sexual differences supplied by nature are constructed on the foundation of those natural differences. These mores and manners differ somewhat from one society to another, but there is no civilization that fails to articulate mores and manners of this sort, and that is telling. Moreover, the majority willfully ignores the fact that, within this astonishing diversity of mores and manners, there is considerable uniformity and that this uniformity is a product of rumination concerning the import of natural sexual differences on the part of a vast number of human beings who are on other matters at odds.

The sad truth is that the dogma that provided the foundation for the 10th circuit’s decision is shared by nearly everyone who teaches at the colleges and universities in this country and that the credentialed elite produced by these institutions is by and large on board with this nonsense. What makes it particularly astonishing is that this dogma has gradually become established in an era in which students of biology have gone the other direction — suggesting that nature, rather than nurture, is the primary influence on the way we customarily think and the way we live. On the one side, there is ideology. On the other, there is science. We as a country are choosing the former.

I have no doubt that the Supreme Court will overturn this decision, which is at odds with the positions taken by other circuits. But we should not kid ourselves about what lies ahead.

Member Post


Welcome to the second installment on a discussion about the penis. I am a nurse with almost ten years of experience, now. I have probably seen over 3,000 penises during my career and have a decent idea of what is normal and abnormal due to my exposure. While many men may fret and concern themselves […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post


Kimberly Resnick Anderson, licensed sex therapist, and Bridget get real about the many issues facing couples in today’s modern world, from how common sexless marriages are, to power dynamics the #metoo movement and exploitation, to the impact of porn on men’s sexual function – particularly the neurological impact it can have on young men. Nothing […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post


God designed our private parts, didn’t he? As designed, protection would seem to be the primary purpose. Am I wrong? Full disclosure—I do not find tattoos, body piercings, or any other efforts to change the body to be appealing. I consider the health risks, being an insulin-dependent diabetic, to be too great for myself, and […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post


David Marcus on defining gender. WIRED and other progressive outlets are coming out against chromosomes and anatomy as being…anti-science? Progressives are barbarously enabling and encouraging mental illness and bodily mutilation. People that need help, often children, are being inflicted with irreversible mental and physical harm in an attempt to bend reality to fantasy. A rejection […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

The Gender Conformity Cop-In


@katebraestrup got a lot of love a while back on her post, “Thoughts From a Former Dysphoric”. My impression upon reading it was she was describing gender nonconformity, not dysphoria. Our dear Kate was a tomboy, and there ain’t nothing wrong with that. Dysphoria ought to mean deep discomfort, though, not just being a little different. The red tribe has an interest in both downplaying and, well, up playing “gender dysphoria”. Describing tomboyishness as “dysphoria” both downplays and up plays the condition: First, tomboyishness is not so bad, not really all that dysphoric, so what are people complaining about? Second, if every tomboy becomes convinced she’s “gender dysphoric” then oh my sweet Jesus on rollerskates, what is this world coming to?!! Before you know it, there’ll be fire and brimstone coming down from the skies; rivers and seas boiling; forty years of darkness; earthquakes, volcanoes; the dead rising from the grave; human sacrifice; dogs and cats living together – mass hysteria!

What about those who aren’t just tomboys, or their male equivalent, but truly unhappy in their birth sex, perhaps with good reason? Even then, even though their discomfort is real, they may find copping into gender conformity a more sensible solution than, as @henryracette put it, copping out of it.


Member Post


I don’t mean to sound like Admiral Motti aboard the Death Star in a New Hope but the attempt by feminists to organize a nation wide sex strike for the purpose of defending the institution of abortion is a useless gesture. That is not to say that a sex strike could not work or to […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post


Marriage and Love In high school my friend Josh and I once discussed marriage and love. Was true love even real? Do people marry other people for reasons of character or more material considerations? Was anyone even capable of keeping their virginity for marriage? He and I had different answers to these questions. Josh believed […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Thoughts from a Former Dysphoric


When I was a little girl, I wanted badly to be a boy. Boys got to play the games I wanted to play and had an exclusive claim on the adjectives I hoped to apply to my adult self, such as courageous, honorable and adventurous. I was in the wrong body to be what I wanted to be.

I shudder now to think what would have happened to me had my parents been encouraged, by childrearing experts and the general culture, to take me seriously when I vociferously and persistently declared my desire to be a boy.

My discovery of feminism cured my gender dysphoria. The problem, as the ’70s-era feminists defined it, wasn’t that my female body and individual personality were mismatched, but that the definitions of female and male were unnecessarily and irrationally narrow and pinched.

Feminism declared that I could play baseball and cops ‘n’ robbers, dream of any number of interesting and noble futures, be completely myself, and yet be a completely normal female too. This was liberating.

Naturally, feminist theory didn’t solve all the problems of embodied female life. Biology is what it is: I still had to endure menstruation; rape was a seemingly omnipresent threat (the statistics are a whole lot better now, FYI), and, when the time came, the physical and emotional demands of pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, and childrearing definitely got in the way of my becoming a rodeo rider, relief pitcher for the Orioles, or an FBI agent.

Well, that’s life.

Which is to say; that’s biology. And it is biology that the transgendered are struggling so desperately against, which essentially means they are mad at life itself. Or, specifically, that part of life that is most relentlessly gendered because genitals=genesis=genes=generation=regeneration … the original and still the best explanation for why little boys have lingams and little girls have yonis.

Yes, we humans are astonishingly plastic but remain, nonetheless, sexually dimorphic mammalian creatures. Just like chimpanzees, chipmunks, and Chihuahuas, we reproduce by means of sexual intercourse as it is enacted by persons defined as male and female by anatomy and chromosomes.

Clearly, human beings can decide not to reproduce — traditionally, by refraining from heterosexual intercourse but also by using our minds to invent workarounds. We can be involuntarily sterile, for that matter, but the essential anatomy and physiology that distinguishes — absolutely — male from female, and the purpose for that distinction remains. Celibate nuns and lesbians still menstruate and ovulate; gay men and men who believe themselves to be women nonetheless produce sperm.

As a little girl, I wanted to be what I imagined a boy was. Having never been a boy, I didn’t really know. And, I would posit — with all due respect and much, much sympathy — that a man cannot be or become a woman, or genuinely experience life as a woman. He can only experience life as he imagines a woman experiences it.

Why, though, can he do this? Why can the impression that a man — Caitlyn Jenner, say — actually is a woman be so incredibly powerful?

As a working hypothesis, the disorders of our minds arise out of our mental capabilities. There has to be an ability that precedes the disability. I nominate empathetic imagination as the ability gone awry in the transgendered mind.

During the Olympics, I watched a figure skater fly around the ice and leap into the air, spinning then landing lightly on one blade and swirling away: I didn’t just apprehend it with my eyes and mind, I felt it in my body. For long seconds, it was as if all I’d have to do is leap up from my comfy chair, throw on a pair of skates and my limbs would know how to do that magical thing.

Indeed, this may be why we are capable of finding joy in watching sports (or, for that matter, porn) because we can imagine ourselves into other bodies. Heck, we can imagine ourselves into the bodies of animals: the best equestriennes, dog trainers, and lion whisperers are surely those who teeter on the edge of identifying “as” rather than merely “with” their animals.

As an adult, I am a happily female mother of six adult children who looks forward with stereotypical eagerness to being a grandmother. And yet, I work primarily and gladly with men — specifically the courageous, honorable, adventurous men who work as game wardens in the Maine woods. I am frequently, and very comfortably, the only woman in a roomful of people and often the only woman for miles of snowy, woodland “around.”

The imaginative empathy that allows me to be with them might be on the continuum with that which once demanded I be them, no?

Activists who scornfully declare that a white, straight, middle-class man cannot possibly understand what it is like to be black, gay, poor, or female … are wrong.

That’s what the transgenderism “movement” demonstrates — not that we can or should determine our own gender (or race or whatever) “identity,” but that human beings are indeed capable of profound empathetic imagination. Because we can imagine ourselves into our neighbor’s lives, God’s command to “love your neighbor as yourself” is difficult … but it’s not actually impossible.

The transgendered provide perhaps extreme demonstrations of what is our common and sacred gift. Tyrants of various stripes urge us to suppress that talent — don’t feel sympathy for the deported Jews! Don’t imagine yourself an occupant of that basket of deplorables! Christ, however, asked us to nurture and encourage our capacity to truly see, truly understand and in some sense, at least for a long second, be and therefore truly love: it is the gift of which he was both giver and exemplar.

Member Post


Christianity and Eros: Essays on the Theme of Sexual Love, by Philip Sherrard, first published in 1976, is a modest attempt by an Orthodox theologian to begin to address the “sacramental potentiality of sexual love” from a Christian perspective, to correct what the author sees as several ways Christian thought has mis-stepped or erred over […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Are Women Prizes for Men to Win? “Cat Person” Says No


@henryracette ends a recent editorial with a plea to “re-establish the idea that women are, once again, prizes to be won by men.” I’m sure Henry means well by this, but women playing the role of men’s sexual prizes strikes me as part of the problem, not the solution, at least where women’s regrets about sex are concerned. Besides the fact that a man who believed he had “earned his prize” might be less inclined to take “no” for an answer, the short story “Cat Person” suggests that women seeing themselves as a sexual prize for men may be yet another prompt for women to “bestow” the “prize” of themselves unwisely, simply to gratify their own image of themselves as men’s “prize”.

Margot is the protagonist of “Cat Person.” Margot, a college student, flirts with Robert, an older man who’s no Master of the Universe. Robert’s not ripped, or powerful, or wealthy, just an ordinary Joe Margot met by chance, a Joe whom Margot knows little about, despite the two of them having struck up an elaborate texting correspondence. Robert, who says he has two cats, is a beguilingly witty texter. In person, though, Robert seems awkward, less than what Margot hoped from their texting. At times, Margot even seems to judge Robert as a loser, and yet she sleeps with him. Why? Chiefly, it seems, because she falls under the spell of her own vanity: she sees herself as Robert’s prize and falls in love with herself in that role.

What arouses Margot most about Robert isn’t Robert himself, but how Robert sees her. It’s not until she believes he has treated her “as though she were something precious” outside a 7-Eleven that she begins to feel “a sparkly lightness… the sign of an incipient crush.” The next moment she feels magic with him in person (and not via text) likewise focuses on how she sees Robert seeing her:

But, when Robert saw her face crumpling, a kind of magic happened. All the tension drained out of his posture; he stood up straight and wrapped his bearlike arms around her. “Oh, sweetheart,” he said. “Oh, honey, it’s O.K., it’s all right. Please don’t feel bad.” She let herself be folded against him, and she was flooded with the same feeling she’d had outside the 7-Eleven—that she was a delicate, precious thing he was afraid he might break. He kissed the top of her head, and she laughed and wiped her tears away.

“I can’t believe I’m crying because I didn’t get into a bar,” she said. “You must think I’m such an idiot.” But she knew he didn’t think that, from the way he was gazing at her; in his eyes, she could see how pretty she looked, smiling through her tears in the chalky glow of the streetlight, with a few flakes of snow coming down.

When she begins to imagine what sex with Robert would be like, although she guesses (correctly) she wouldn’t find sex with him satisfying, what excites her is “imagining how excited he would be, how hungry and eager to impress her”. When he reacts to her

as if she were something too bright and painful to look at,

she finds that

sexy, too, being made to feel like a kind of irresistible temptation.

Once Margot ends up in his bedroom, with him undressing, she finds herself overwhelmed by her predicament:

[T]he thought of what it would take to stop what she had set in motion was overwhelming; it would require an amount of tact and gentleness that she felt was impossible to summon. It wasn’t that she was scared he would try to force her to do something against her will but that insisting that they stop now, after everything she’d done to push this forward, would make her seem spoiled and capricious, as if she’d ordered something at a restaurant and then, once the food arrived, had changed her mind and sent it back.

Nonetheless, seeing herself as his prize is what gets her stalled motor running again:

As they kissed, she found herself carried away by a fantasy of such pure ego that she could hardly admit even to herself that she was having it. Look at this beautiful girl, she imagined him thinking. She’s so perfect, her body is perfect, everything about her is perfect, she’s only twenty years old, her skin is flawless, I want her so badly, I want her more than I’ve ever wanted anyone else, I want her so bad I might die.

The more she imagined his arousal, the more turned-on she got

When things stall again, she imagines herself “herself from above, naked and spread-eagled” while Robert touches her. Though the image disgusts and humiliates her, it still manages to fill her with “a kind of perverse cousin to arousal,” which is apparently enough to keep the tryst going.

Again and again, seeing herself as a sexual prize motivates Margot to press forward with Robert, no matter how little she desires Robert for himself or how much she might regret it later. If Margot were simply out for her own pleasure, and less fixated on how lavish a prize Robert must find her, she’d be less motivated to go so far with him so fast. But Margot is lost in her own fantasy, where she stars as some man’s prize – which man’s prize seems to matter less than that the prize is her.

Perhaps if Margot also believed marriage were a prerequisite for sex, both she and Robert would be less harmed by her role as sexual prize. After all, marriage forces you to consider who the other person is and whether you could stand a lifetime of him – or, for that matter, whether he could stand a lifetime of you. No matter how fixated a woman might be on her role as sexual prize during the honeymoon, no matter how much that fantasy might stroke her ego, it’s difficult to get to a honeymoon on ego alone. Even if Margot weren’t waiting all the way ’til marriage for sex, if she saw her role in dating as delaying sex, that would still buy her time to question whether the ego-stroke of being a man’s sex-prize is reason enough for sex with him. In both these cases, it’s the willingness to delay sex that makes women’s playing the role of sexual prize acceptably conservative. By itself, the role of woman as sexual prize has little to offer those of conservative sensibilities.

Treating a woman as if she’s your prize is a fantastic way to get a woman’s attention, true. A man looking to bowl a woman over for quick seduction could do worse than treat her as if she were some rare carved gem, some priceless treasure. Do that to a susceptible woman, and you might soon have her on her knees – if not kneeling to you, then to her deity of choice, begging for the strength to resist you. But it’s not her vision of herself as a prize to be won by men that would prompt her to resist your sexual advances. It would have to be something else. Perhaps her sense that her worth is not in whether she is a prize to be won by men. Perhaps some other shyness or modesty. Indeed, if she disagreed with your claim that she’s the sex-prize you’ve been anticipating, that by itself might be enough to render her bashful: nobody wishes to be revealed as a sexual disappointment.

Women are more vulnerable than men in important respects, so it makes sense for the notion of female honor to reflect that. Because women are more vulnerable, it makes sense for women to screen men carefully, to be sexually reticent, to consider their sexual reticence a part of their feminine honor. While we could call the screening process a test of male “worthiness”, it’s not the same as envisioning women’s role as “prizes to be won by men”.

Even saying women’s screening of men measures “worthiness” is slightly problematic: there are, after all, many worthy men we may have to screen out. I can count more men I’ve met who seemed worthy of me than I can those who proved clearly unworthy. And yet I’m married to one man and expect that marriage to last a lifetime. If I were a prize to be awarded to the worthiest man, which man should I have gone to? And where would I get social permission to refuse offering my body as a prize to any man who met my threshold of worthiness?

Now that I’m married, I can resort to niceties like reasoning that any man other than my husband who expected me to offer my body to him would by his very expectation prove himself unworthy. But when I was single, it wasn’t so simple. Moreover, men are people in their own right, and expecting me to value their worthiness purely in terms of their mate-value to me is really too ridiculous! If I thought I risked making a worthy man seriously unhappy if we coupled, should I yield? In practice, I did not. That decision carries wistfulness, but no regret.

That women should consider themselves “worth the wait” and hence delay sex might strike a man as equivalent to “the idea that women are, once again, prizes to be won by men.” But if we wish young women to behave the way I think we want them to, I would not teach them that they’re prizes to be won by men. Nor, really, would I teach young men that lesson, either, to spare young men the heartbreak, frustration, and anger of believing they’d earned their prize, only to have their prize turn them down.

Defensive Womaning and Navigating Missing Stairs


My husband and I met a potential new landlord yesterday, and without either of us realizing it, each of us walked away with very different impressions of what had happened during the meeting. The meeting was an ambiguous image, like the rabbit-duck or old-woman-young-woman illusion. Many human meetings are like that, particularly between the sexes.

Those of us who occasionally follow what feminists are saying, if only as reconnaissance, may have heard of the “missing stair problem” (warning: link not entirely SFW). Imagine a house with a poorly-lit stairway containing a missing stair. Everyone who lives there knows to step over the missing stair. Everyone who visits regularly knows about the stair, too. But a new visitor would not know, and if not told in time, might stumble and fall. Some people, the analogy goes, are like that missing stair – others must carefully work around them to avoid getting hurt, and the hazard they pose is simply taken for granted by those in the know. Sexual predators, in particular, are likened to the missing stair, especially sexual predators who aren’t “lone wolves” but who have ingratiated themselves into a community, where they become a fixture, and others take on the duty of attempting to protect innocent members from the predator (while also protecting the predator from social ostracism or having to change his ways) rather than “fixing the stair” by refusing to tolerate his predatory behavior.

Eventually you take it for granted that working around this guy is just a fact of life, and if he hurts someone, that’s the fault of whoever didn’t apply the workarounds correctly.

I have seen this happen. Most memorably at a church.

Myriad caddish, wolfish, or creepy behaviors fall short of being criminal, while some go beyond merely overstepping moral bounds and actually violate the law. Some guys are merely awkward and sometimes accidentally overstep bounds without meaning to. Others use ambiguity and the pretext of accident as cover for deliberately overstepping boundaries. The truly predatory are masters of the art of exploiting social ambiguity to take advantage, but many young men in love or at least in lust are a mix of trying to take advantage while also being rather overwhelmed themselves. How young women ought to act when surprised by – let’s just call it caddishness – is obviously an endlessly absorbing topic of conversation.

Evidently, young women should be schooled in defensive womaning, just as we school youths in defensive driving. It seems that girls used to get defensive womaning lessons, but we’ve dropped the ball with the past few generations:

I was a teenager in the late 1970s, long past the great awakening (sexual intercourse began in 1963, which was plenty of time for me), but as far away from Girl Power as World War I was from the Tet Offensive. The great girl-shaping institutions, significantly the magazines and advice books and novels that I devoured, were decades away from being handed over to actual girls and young women to write and edit, and they were still filled with the cautionary advice and moralistic codes of the ’50s…

…They told us over and over again that if a man tried to push you into anything you didn’t want, even just a kiss, you told him flat out you weren’t doing it. If he kept going, you got away from him. You were always to have “mad money” with you: cab fare in case he got “fresh” and then refused to drive you home. They told you to slap him if you had to; they told you to get out of the car and start wailing if you had to. They told you to do whatever it took to stop him from using your body in any way you didn’t want, and under no circumstances to go down without a fight. In so many ways, compared with today’s young women, we were weak; we were being prepared for being wives and mothers, not occupants of the C-Suite. But as far as getting away from a man who was trying to pressure us into sex we didn’t want, we were strong.

Neither liberals nor conservatives have given girls great lessons in defensive womaning lately. Anyone on the Right can recite the litany of what makes the Left’s lessons to young women bad – generally some variation on “this lesson encourages young women to avoid taking responsibility for themselves”. The Right’s lessons to young women don’t share a unifying flaw. Some lessons are too moralistic (“don’t do bad things and you won’t have to worry”). Some suffer from not being moral enough (“boys will be boys” or “experience is the best teacher!”). Advice on when and how young women should resort to violence in defense of their innocence tends to be conflicting: As conservatives, we don’t want to say violence is never the answer, but preparing young women to use violence to effectively deter unwanted sexual advances is, in fact, tricky, and it’s not really surprising when the underprepared freeze, especially when a strong desire to do violence to the one wronging them (a desire conservatives encourage) clashes with inexperience in handling sexually-charged scenarios (inexperience conservatives also encourage, since we value sexual innocence).

While plenty of people seem worried about stranger rape, the caddish behavior women find themselves (successfully or unsuccessfully) fending off typically comes from acquaintances. Even sources highly skeptical about what counts as rape or assault acknowledge that most sexual assaults occur between acquaintances. Furthermore, a great many invasions of personal space that shouldn’t be prosecuted as assault (after all, the law cannot demand that men be able to read minds, or decipher every subtle cue) are nonetheless morally violating, and understandably leave young women feeling wronged when they occur.

We’re conservatives: we more than any other group ought to recognize that the law does not exist to right all wrongs. And this means we ought to be able to understand that young women can be sexually traduced even when no crime has occurred; that their sense of having been wronged isn’t necessarily in error, even when the vocabulary they use to describe the wrong (such as “assault” when it’s not assault) is grievously in error.

Conservatives generally suspect more damage is done by labeling a sexual encounter as assault when it isn’t than is done by failing to label it assault when it is. We can believe this while still acknowledging that not every mislabeling of an incident as assault is terribly inaccurate, nor are the men involved in such incidents innocent of wrong just because they’re innocent of a crime.

Which brings me back to missing stairs. A dude doesn’t have to be a criminal to be sexually predatory. Because we’ll never create a world free of sexual predation, of course we want to equip youth – and young women in particular – with skills to fend it off: hence defensive womaning. But neither should we tolerate a world where it’s everyone else’s job but the sexual predator’s to prevent sexual predation from happening. So, while we can teach young women truisms like guys are on average more socially clueless than girls, and can’t be trusted to respect every soft refusal, we rightfully won’t be believed if we push such lessons too far.

If we treat the disparity between men and women’s social skills as so great that we sound as if we’re claiming women are the ones responsible each time “clueless” men wishfully misinterpret women’s cues as sexual when they aren’t (rather than men being primarily responsible for themselves), we rightfully won’t be believed. The truth is, plenty of men are capable of understanding subtler social cues, at least when it’s convenient for them to do so, and while there are plenty of awkward young men out there, it’s also common for predators – or to use more neutral terminology, the sexually over-eager – to use “I didn’t geddit” as cover as long as they think they can get away with it.

If we treat young women’s freezing or hesitation in the face of shocking scenarios as something that only happens to babies with “no moral agency” – as if it’s impossible to be an adult who froze – we rightfully won’t be believed. If we keep on yammering on about women’s duty to carefully step over each missing stair, but we’re mysteriously silent on ever fixing a missing stair, we rightfully won’t be believed.

Even today, there are times when the plea, “Could we stop treating it as women’s duty to learn the art of carefully stepping around every missing stair and sometimes just fix the goddamn staircase instead?!” is a sensible one. This may come as a shock, but just because it’s a plea feminists make doesn’t automatically make it wrong.

Women: Why Bother?


Laid up with some injuries, figure I might as well write something provocative so I can enjoy the show.

I’m a single guy. Let’s assume that I do want to get married and have kids. Safe assumption. Let’s walk through the process as modern feminism has wrought it.

You ask as girl out. As the kidnapper from Big Jake has it, if anything happens, your fault my fault nobody’s fault at all, the boy dies. Your Hollywood/media creep can get away with anything but the rest of us take a chance with the mildest of passes. Its like pissing in a minefield, sure the odds are low, but couldn’t you do something less dangerous?

Oh, and not just any girl. If she’s not in your age bracket or already taken or doesn’t click with you or just isn’t desirable because she’s a shrieking feminist harpy then game over, go back to square one. Heck, maybe she just doesn’t like you.

Then, if you do get a girl, she takes up your free time. Whipping noises aside there’s a real opportunity cost to maintaining a relationship. If you’re not devoting your free time to thinking about keeping her happy you won’t have a relationship long.

Let’s say you do get married. Strictly from the numbers there’s a good chance you won’t stay married. When you do get divorced she’s getting half your stuff, minimum, and the kids because she’s the woman.

Lets say I navigate that Scylla and Charybdis, what’s my reward at the end? A modern girl whose slept with de minimis three guys before me, who insists that I do the cleaning and laundry, who pays me no respect but demands an instant kowtow at any slight. So, a modern girl.

That’s not to say there aren’t good girls out there. That they have no problems in the dating market. The rules that make it impossible for men also make it impossible for women as a logical consequence.

This all brings me back to the original question. Given the costs versus the rewards, why bother?

Member Post


Do you know what all the women above have in common? They are all teachers, at K-12 level, who have been arrested for having sexual relationships with their students. All of those students were under 18 years of age. A teacher has power over her students, so can order them to do things that they […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.