The Backlash! - What Everyone Should Know about Feminist Issues - Sex
  On-line since 1995 - Updated November 19, 2011  | Cowlitz Country News  | 


American Flag
Hot Links
  ‑ Male Defender!
  ‑ Angry Harry
  ‑ Anti-Feminist Technology
  ‑ Anti-Feminist Theory
  ‑ Anti-Misandry
  ‑ Articles About Men
  ‑ Boycott American Women
  ‑ DadsDivorce
  ‑ DadsNow
  ‑ Debunker's Domain
  ‑ DV Men
  ‑ Equal But Different
  ‑ Exposing Feminism
  ‑ False Rape Society
  ‑ Fathers and Families
  ‑ Feminist Apocalypse
  ‑ Fiebert's Bibliography
  ‑ Good Men Project
  ‑ Heretical Sex
  ‑ Leykis 101
  ‑ Intact America
  ‑ Male Affirmative
  ‑ Man Woman & Myth
  ‑ Men Are Good
  ‑ MensActivism
  ‑ MensENews
  ‑ MensNewsDaily
  ‑ Men's Rights Blog
  ‑ Men's Rights Online
  ‑ National Coalition for Men
  ‑ NoCirc
  ‑ No Ma'am
  ‑ Stephen Baskerville
  ‑ Traitors Of Men
  ‑ Women Against Men
Sex: The Politics of Scarcity and Victimization
By Rod Van Mechelen
Critiques of rape, pornography, and prostitution are "sex-negative" without qualification or examination, perhaps because so many men use these ignoble routes of access and domination to get laid, and without them the number of fucks would so significantly decrease that men might nearly be chaste. -- Andrea Dworkin, Intercourse

In the younger age groups single men have ... less than half as much sexual activity as single females. -- George Gilder, Men and Marriage

1993 Bellevue, Wash. - "Height and Weight Proportional," she said. "I'm so sick of seeing that!"

It was another Tuesday night gender discussion meeting at Jim's, the subject was personal ads in the Seattle Weekly, and one rotund woman was complaining that, at 35, she'd had it with shallow men who couldn't see beyond a woman's girth. True, she had dumped several nice but dull men because they lacked "chemistry." But, dammit, the kind of men who interested her were all so shallow! Why do they reject her just because she's heavy?

Why, indeed? Should we condemn men for expressing a personal preference? Are men who are not aroused by a rotund build "shallow"? Should we require them to altruistically provide stud service to "unattractive" women? Can you say rape?

If, as pop-feminists agree, rape is, among other things, having sex with someone when you don't want to have sex with them, then women who demand that men follow a female agenda, are demanding nothing less than that men agree to be raped.

Oral Sex
Insofar as pop-feminists are concerned, anything that promotes the idea men oppress women through sex is fair game. Truth is irrelevant. To this end, some, like Shere Hite, assert most men don't enjoy oral sex. (Women & Love, St. Martin's Press mass market edition, 1989, Shere Hite, p 234) Ironically, female experience disagrees with pop-feminist punditry: "I started out with oral sex at sixteen! Most men like it." (Women & Love, St. Martin's Press mass market edition, 1989, Shere Hite, p 317)

What's more, male literature, such as Playboy, Penthouse, and Gallery, is filled with hundreds of letters and articles on the delights of "going down" on women. (All that research was a dirty job ... but someone had to do it! :-) Indeed, the repertoire of bawdy male jokes includes several about men's longing to engage in cunnilingus.

So why do pop-feminists promote the idea men dislike oral sex? Perhaps because they are trying to cover up that many women may have an aversion to the male ejaculate. (Women & Love, St. Martin's Press mass market edition, 1989, Shere Hite, p 334) By blaming this on men, perhaps they hope to encourage men to pressure women for oral sex, thereby making more women angry with men and increasing the number of accusations of rape.

To laugh like men at the New Rage women
Every post sexual revolution man knows that if he "hits on" many attractive women, some will say yes. Good odds, if all you're after is sex.

So, how come most men aren't hitting on every woman they meet? Ask women, and likely they'll tell you that's exactly what men are doing; yet according to the recent Battelle study of male sexuality, half of all American men will have 7 or fewer sexual partners during their life times.

Something's wrong here: If most of us know we can "score" with a new woman every day by being callous Casanovas, then why don't we?

From the August 1993 issue of Glamour magazine, another statistic: "On the average crowded street, about one out of every seven men you see hasn't had sex for a year."

Yeh, right - old men and derelicts. Not! The article profiled ten young professionals who experienced prolonged periods of celibacy. Men of above average financial or social status who should find flings easy to come by. So, why would they go without? Because there's more to men than their gonads? Because women are the one's obsessed with sex?

Remember, you read this here, first: Women use sex to attract men: wiggling their "bait," they get our attention. When we move in for a closer look, they back off; hooked, we give chase.

There was a time in western history when giving chase and getting sex seldom meant marriage. Prior to the 16th century, a European teenager's sex life would probably earn him a reputation as a stud today. (The History of Sexuality, by Michel Foucault.) But once women began in earnest to trade sex, under the stern gaze of Christian orthodoxy, for monogamy, the values that made modern civilization possible spread: A bad deal only for those who prefer the primitive to progress.

Thus building upon our biology, the evolution of agreements between the sexes imbued each with certain power over the other. Men had the edge in creating wealth, women, in creating community. Like a wise investment, this worked so well that each generation was able to pass it on to the next with dividends: everybody benefited.

Unfortunately, 25 years ago a few ill-intentioned women squandered their inheritance by promoting, practicing and profiting from a perverted version of the sexual revolution. Aging, however, past their ability to abuse the sexual power generations of women husbanded, they attacked men for the libido they had liberated in themselves.

Under attack, then, is where we find ourselves today, and their anti social salvoes rely at least in part on two unacknowledged facts. First, that by nature, women are at least as obsessed with sex (the basis of their power) as men. Second, how hard they work to assure men are similarly obsessed. (This is the secret premise of the book, The Beauty Myth.)

After the orgasm, there is much else in life men like to think about and do: exploring, fishing and inventing, baseball, scratching themselves and reading the newspaper in the bathroom, to name a few. But to acknowledge and celebrate this would not only prove pop-feminism's demise, but decrease women's sexual power.

Thus, at the same time millions of women willingly (though perhaps unintentionally) entice us to obsess about sex, androphobes attack our masculine libido. In response to the former, we could adopt hippie attitudes about work and sex: spend less time making money and more time making love. But that would fail because we do not live in a socialist fantasy world where "society" does the work: Our survival depends on encouraging individuals to work long, productive hours at a job.

The androphobes, on the other hand -- led primarily by the New Rage women with their hateful message that women + rage = power -- would prefer us to sublimate our sexual nature altogether; but, as should be obvious to anyone not living in the dark ages, this would be both silly and unhealthy.

So we need to find a happy medium: catering to the way we naturally are, while still encouraging enlightened choices. And that is precisely what we were beginning to do before the New Rage women fouled things up by poisoning millions of women with their have your cake and hate men too ideology.

We have arrived at an important juncture in our history: increasingly, legislators, jurists, academicians and the media are paying homage to this ideology of hate. Witness the men who squirmed like worms before the pyrogenic prattle of Anita Hill. If we do nothing, our oppression will be complete. More and more anti male laws will be passed, fewer children will grow up knowing their fathers, and all of society will suffer.

What can we do about this? Blow up sperm banks to make our seed scarce and, therefore, more valuable? After all, as pop-feminist author Sylvia Ann Hewlett points out in her book, A Lesser Life, "oppressors are usually deaf to reasoned whispers." But we can do better than that.

The Politics of Scarcity
First, we can withhold sex. Stop giving women so much sexual power over us, stage a new sexual revolution by playing the politics of scarcity that will give men sexual power, too, and make women work for it. Second, fight pop-feminism with writings, data, demonstrations and ridicule. Let them know we will not tolerate their hate anymore.

The feminist movement that began with the politics of emancipation, ended in the politics of victimization. Now, as the New Rage women whine their way to power, the fastest way to rid ourselves of these professional victims is to expose them for the sexist sows they are, and laugh.


Rod Van Mechelen



The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex And Feminism: Carrie Lukas slams the door on the screaming harpies of NOW, feminist professors, and the rest of the bra-burners who have done so much to wreck women’s lives.

Join The Backlash! Forum

Copyright © 1991, 1992, 1993 Rod Van Mechelen; all rights reserved.

Rod Van Mechelen, Publisher & Editor,

Rod Van Mechelen, Publisher & Editor,

Hosted by: The Zip Connection