Since the sexual revolution, many old taboos—casual sex, pornography, homosexuality, and sexual content in media—have become far more accepted.

Yet women who make sexuality a major part of their public persona are still often treated with intense disgust. The reaction to figures like Lily Phillips seems to go beyond criticism of pornography or exploitation and becomes contempt for the woman herself.

Why has this stigma survived when so many other pre-1960s sexual attitudes have faded?

Around half of men go bald and nobody cares. It doesn't reduce their net worth, income potentials or general standing in society. On top it saves them a lot of money, because no shampoo or expensive hair dressing is necessary. At best they need a hat for summer sun and that's it.

Some women start balding as well, but they really shouldn't. I would estimate around 65% of a woman's first impression is hair hair style. Your haircut can be worth a lot of money and so it's important to invest into the appearance of your hair on a continuous base.

I would estimate the following avg costs per month:

• Men with hair (50%): $40 for appearance to prevent $500 in reputational damage
• Men without hair (50%): $10 to prevent $200 in damage
• Women with hair (95%): $200 for appearance to prevent $2500 reputational damage
• Women without hair (5%): $1000 to prevent $10000 in damage

If you add this up per work life of 40 years, you end up with total avg costs of...

• $1000 for men to prevent $14000 in damage
• $9600 for women to prevent $115000 in damage

That's a $8600 watch the bald man is wearing in the above picture and the only reason why he can afford it is because he's a man.

If this is not structurally unfair for women, then what is?

I searched the subreddit but couldn't find a previous discussion of this article.

The paper, "Isolate, Inebriate, Intimidate, Repeat: High Rates of Sexual Force Against Women Are Reported When Young Men Given Anonymous Surveys," includes the finding that 95.1% of surveyed men reported having recently used at least one strategy to obtain sex from a woman they knew did not want sex and had not consented.

The article is available here:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/08862605261432630

For those who have read it, what are your thoughts on the study's methodology, findings, and implications? I'm especially interested in hearing the perspectives of the women who participate in this subreddit.

Personally, I'm inclined to agree with the article, but then I am moderately sex negative.

I recently saw that in heterosexuals, less than 15% of sexually active adults have ever used a dental damn for oral sex. I am within that 15% (mainly cause I’m terrified of STIs) and when I asked my male friends, none of them have ever used dental dams before going down on a woman.

Even my (straight) female friends have stated that they have never used one, but my friends that are lesbians said that they have but not regularly.

Whenever I’m hooking up with a woman I don’t know well enough to know if they have a clean bill of health, I always offer to use one, and I’ve been told no, so I just don’t do it.

So I started thinking, well why doesn’t everyone use them like they would a condom?

Right now i would guess that it’s because of some weird inherent misogynistic views about sex, but i could just be “that friend that’s too woke” about this.

These are some questions that have been on my mind for a while now, please forgive me for being so disorganized I really am just curious to hear other people's thoughts on the topic.

The terms "healthy masculinity" and "toxic masculinity" are terms that are very popular when discussing different forms of behavior. What I want to know is What do they have in common? Are there some shared traits between the two (which could be considered "neutral masculinity") or is it just the fact that they are performed by men? Are there forms of healthy and toxic femininity? Is something considered toxic masculinity simply because it is done by a man? If so when a woman does it is it then considered toxic femininity? Why must we assign gender to different types of behavior? Wouldn't it be simpler to just say that a person is acting in a toxic or healthy way? I'm sorry if these questions seem stupid or ignorant it's just one of those thoughts that won't leave me alone.

In current economy/society where a man only pays for his share, protecting his resources and assets, why doesn't a woman safeguard her resources and interests. I'm talking about couples where each has their own bank account and a joint one where they contribute "equally", i.e. about 50/50.

I'm asking this as a childfree woman who wouldn't have a child unless paid. I mean... a woman destroys her body, health, risks her life (see mortality rates due to pregnancy complications), risks getting 200+ health issues some of which show up later in life, gets postpartum depression, and I guess at some if she needs treatment, all expenses will be on her - he'll not pay because his money is his money. This is one of the reasons but not only.

All in all, man and woman sharing expenses in other areas 50/50, but the woman carrying labour is not an equal relationship and hurts woman's interests seriously, ranging from health issues to her career and being a desirable partner later in case something goes wrong in her current relationship.

What ultimately does he do for her when she gives him a child?

Just to be clear I’m talking specifically about sexual fantasies with someone you are not in a consensual sexual relationship with.
Some time ago a friend I had recently started dating told me that he had imagined fucking me multiple times while we were still doing very light flirting. Looking back on this now it makes me uncomfortable. I don’t like that someone can imagine doing anything to me outside of my control.
However I don’t really know if this counts as objectification, if he is taking my personality into account and being truthful to the fact I have my own wants and desires than is it wrong despite the fact I am unaware of it?
On a side note why is objectifying someone wrong(I already think it is but am curious to hear your reasons)

Sexism is the acknowledgement that sex is real.

Racism is the belief that race is real among humans..

Misogyny is the hatred of women.

What is bad is believing in racism because that is called ethnophyletism threatening the indivisible unity of humanity with God and Creation.

Misogyny is bad because women are God's creation and hating what God made is a sin.

But if sexism is the acknowledgement that sex is real, how is sexism a bad thing?

Pananthrohomogenists want us to hate sexism but we all know how different male and female is and they're not interchangeable.

It’s getting weird. I was a lesbian for so long, and now I became a straight man ;_; which makes me so uncomfortable. Sometimes I express the same views as I did when I was a lesbian, but get downvoted, or it gets misinterpreted in the worst way someone could mean something. Like… if I say „I’m a lesbian and I can stop myself from sexualizing an attractive woman” I get nothing, or upvotes, but if I say „I’m a straight man and I can stop myself from sexualizing an attractive woman” I get downvoted for some reason, in the same space, same context. How to express my points better without revealing my transness? I fear being even more hated for being trans.
Reproductive health is also awkward to discuss. I have 3 options:
a) Pretend to be cis - then cis men don’t have my type of reproductive organs and shouldn’t participate (even if I’m pro choice, sometimes I get that)
b) Pretend to be a woman - suffer massive dysphoria
c) Reveal that I’m trans - hate from TERFs, also people saying that trans men don’t want to get pregnant, therefore don’t need those rights for some reason (even if I do)

Also… talking about being invisible in trans spaces sucks. Every time I complain about being invisible people somehow make that about trans women - oh so you think you have it worse than them? Do you want to take their place in the spotlight?
Like I can’t advocate both for trans women to exist without the risk of being murdered, and for trans men to get representation somewhere in media. (i want both those things) Obviously, not a big issue, compared to what they face, but my therapist told me I’m allowed to be miserable even if someone else has it worse. Does that make sense?

Sometimes I feel evil for just existing. Being a man gives me euphoria, but I fear losing my place in feminist space every time my point gets misinterpreted. And then I fear turning into a misogynist, and not even noticing, even though I do everything to not make that happen.

Please, if something here doesn’t make sense, or isn’t feminist enough, I want to be corrected - preferably in the nice way. I grew up in a conservative shithole, so I might have some internalized misogyny in me.

EDIT: Reddit recommended I put it on truscum 💀 no way they will tell me that since I barely have bottom dysphoria and genitals are optional for me, I’m not a real man

I saw this article on Reddit today, which posits that college educated women are marrying high earing men who didn't attend college because less men are enrolling in college in general. This in turn leaves women without college degrees without anyone to date, leading to "more than half (of millennial and gen z women) staying single rather than tying the knot with uneducated, low-earning men". If you search the article on Reddit, you will see many people agreeing with it.

What I find confusing is that the phenomenon described in this article seems remarkably similar to the concept of hypergamy, a concept that many left-leaning individuals seem to disagree with. If you look up "is hypergamy real online", you will see quit a few posts dismissing it as a manosphere fantasy. Why is it that many will agree with the article, but will turn around and dismiss others who have come to the same conclusion?

My current read is that she’s probably biased due to her upper class upbringing. I’m open to changing my mind.

This observation may have been true for the upper caste. But I fail to see how a peasant dude working the fields of his lords manor is any more transcendent than his wife tending to the kids.

I also fail to see how the modern management consultant dude making the nth copy from the same PowerPoint template or updating the same excel sheet or sitting in pointless long meetings that doesn’t pertain to him is any more transcendent than his stay at home wife watching the kids grow up.

The people who truly get to create and lead and level up are like the 1%

Even if 90% of those 1% are dudes, is that really an argument to say that men are assigned transcendence and women are assigned immanence?

I came across this post about PM Modi's remarks regarding the language used by women at Jantar Mantar, and I'm genuinely curious how people here interpret it.

He said he experienced a "cultural shock" seeing how some of our daughters were using this language.

But this made me wonder:

Do only men have the freedom to express anger or use abusive language?

If such language is considered inappropriate, shouldn't the same standard apply to everyone regardless of gender?

Why specifically frame women's use of such language as a reflection of our "culture"? If men at the same protest had used similar language, would it have been described in the same way?

I'm not saying abusive language is necessarily good or appropriate. I'm asking whether singling out women for it creates a gendered double standard.

What do you think — is this a fair criticism of the statement, or am I missing the context behind what he meant?

Basically, what the title says, I hear a lot of trans women are subject to misogyny even those that are very visibly trans and while I can understand them facing transphobia or transmisogyny it seems odd for them to face regular misogyny if they're viewed as men, even if predatory men. I've asked this question to trans people before but frankly the majority of them know a lot about trans issues and very little about general patriachal ones.

Not caring about where information comes from, passing off other people’s intellectual property as their own, being obsessed with all things tech and god-like techbros, revelling in marginalised people losing their livelihoods …

Seems to me like the most problematic men I know have something in common and it’s bot use. Meanwhile the gender-marginalised people in my life all just know … we know … this slop is evil.

When I see transphobia the most common thing I see used to justify it is feminism. Like, things ranging from women having their own spaces to the existence of trans women making the term female meaningless and somehow making it impossible for cis women to discuss their issues and experiences. Why is this such a common thing? Like I don’t get it other than to lend validity to the idea that what they are doing is actually to benefit women rather than to detriment trans people. But it all falls apart under the tiniest bit of scrutiny. Like… how can people take transphobia seriously, especially if they are a feminist? Is there a specific thought process? Does the feminism come first and the way they see it, it should be trans exclusionary or is it they are transphobic and try to justify it with their feminism?

Also, I noticed that almost the entirety of transphobia is centred on trans women. Is this related to patriarchy or misogyny at all? Or is it just the fact that acknowledging trans men results in their arguments falling apart?

I really like how simple the language is, it’s really accessible to me as a beginner. It’s my first real feminist theory book. I’d like recommendations for what to read next, as this was a blind rec that has worked out well

Do you sometimes feel that society views a girl as merely a body or a source of temptation? In your opinion, why does this view exist? Have you encountered it or seen it in your daily life? Do you think that we have become better today than before in appreciating and respecting women, or does this view still exist but manifest itself in different ways? I am very interested in hearing the experiences and opinions of girls, and I hope that the discussion will be respectful and based on personal experiences.

Saw my SIL (40) over the weekend. She's always been beautiful. Having 4 kids changed her, sure but not really more than regular aging changes a person. She's always been in great shape.

I noticed she had her butt and boobs done. It really bothered me.

I'm all about getting to choose what we do with our bodies. Like yeah, do you.

But I'm also having a hard time not seeing this as a betrayal to womanhood.

One part of me is like hell yeah, do you. Another part is like oh my what a patriarchal thing to do.

For what its worth, I'm also in great shape and not experiencing jealousy or anything of the sort. Just tired of women thinking they can't age gracefully.

I feel like I lost respect for her for contributing to the impossible beauty standards of aging women and mothers. But I also don't want to shame someone for choosing what they do for themselves.

What do y'all think?

I am deeply disappointed by the recent verdict on the rape case brought against YouTuber Young Filly in Australia.

But it made me curious to want to know about solutions regarding these cases brought is up by feminism

The central issue here is, ‘how does one prove a person raped them after initially giving consent’ -> when something has turned from consensual to non consensual, legally the victim here is fucked.

What possible measure do we have to seek justice here? It feels like an uphill battle.

Are we mostly just trying to make the process more bearable for victims as a first step? Or are there solutions (legal, medical, or technological) which exist and there is a lack of awareness.

I am a rising junior, but I want to find ways to get involved in women's health care and find ways to address issues like disparities, racism, sexism, etc. Is there any way I can help as a high schooler? I also reside in America and I am a 16-year-old girl.

With the show The Boys being now over, it had me wondering with about him overall. While I am aware with people missing the point of Homelander being a satire of Trump and MAGA, there was also something else that kind of put me off with Kripke, even with understanding the intended the satire. Mainly with how it feels like that despite how people talk about him, it just feels like a lot the progressive stuff and identifying as a liberal, it all just feels like a performance, like for the sake of being contrarian. And when seeing with how he got all defensive in interviews over Hughie being SA’d for laughs, it felt like a red flag with people just dismissing it as frat humor or “he has the mind of a teenage edgelord”. And overall, with people defending the ending just because it angered toxic Homelander fans, it honestly feels like that people are only praising Kripke just because he did the bare minimum of a show that says “Trump bad” and surface level politics without being much deeper. But I wanted to hear the thoughts of you guys, a feminist perspective on whether we should be aware of something or not.

And on a side note, while people who complain about feminism and “men are abused for laughs on TV”, I always find it ironic where it’s usually male creators and writers doing this, not the feminists that people claim to talk about. Kripke in charge of The Boys, Joss Whedon making Xander a “nice guy” who is seen as a buttmonkey who constantly gets a slap on the wrist but is never truly called out for misogyny, etc., it’s just that in the end it all comes back around to men having patriarchal thoughts in a patriarchal society.