There are some responses that seem quite hysterical here over the suggestion that women can exercise their right to withhold sex, calling it a "tantrum," "hate speech," — Artemis

Fair enough. Although I don't think their rude dismissiveness was a reaction to the idea that women choose to "withhold sex" from men, but to the arresting idea that feminists' avoidance of heterosexual relationships is in some way progressive.

To think that supposes women were there to have sex with men in the first place, hence the withholding part, rather than just not partaking. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, I think it supposes that both men and women are sexual creatures for whom that is an important part of a fulfilled life.

I assumed the OP was just being sensational — frank

I think there is value in analyzing even sensational ideas, because it allows us to uncover why we think it's so sensational in the first place.

See for example the difference between posters here pointing to the obvious impracticalities of the notion, versus those who just dismiss it as "man-hating."

This results in a sort of ‘choosing’ of one’s sexual orientation because even if you choose not to undergo sexual orientation with either gender you would still be choosing asexuality. — Bridget Eagles

Essentially, this view allows women to choose their sexual orientation based off of the political results they want as feminists. — Bridget Eagles

A small semantic point, but you should be using the term "sexual behaviour", not "sexual orientation".

Just as there are men who hate women and so embrace sexism as a weapon, there are women who hate men and embrace lesbianhood and feminism with unveiled malice. Where there is any interest at all in the OP, it would make sense to peek under the veil to find the truth.

A small semantic point, but you should be using the term "sexual behaviour", not "sexual orientation". — Michael

I think the idea is more radical and interesting than that, namely that one intentionally takes on a different sexual orientation by sheer political will. It's radical and interesting because we're accustomed now to thinking that sexual orientation is not chosen, so self-consciously choosing a different one becomes a striking act of subversion. At least, that seems to be the idea.

are women who hate men and embrace lesbianhood and feminism with unveiled malice — frank

This is so stupid, I'm not going to bother responding.

This is so stupid, I'm not going to bother responding. — Artemis

Ok. It's true. When you meet your first one, think of me.

It's astonishing that someone could be so entitled.

Newsflash, someone not being interested in you sexually, is not malice. It just means you don't do it for them.

It's astonishing that someone could be so entitled.

Newsflash, someone not being interested in you sexually, is not malice. It just means you don't do — Artemis

Wasn't it you who asked about touched nerves?

Wasnt it you who asked about touched nerves? — frank

Because I'm calling out bigotry for what it is?

Because I'm calling out bigotry for what it is? — Artemis

Some women hate men. Some of them embrace lesbianhood and feminism with malice.

Are you not familiar with the word "Breeder?"

Under what rock have you been living?

It's astonishing that someone could be so entitled.

Newsflash, someone not being interested in you sexually, is not malice. It just means you don't do it for them. — Artemis

I don't see how this is an appropriate reply to @frank's comment. He simply pointed out that there are sexist women as well as sexist men. Accusing him of entitlement and making presumptions about his relationships (or lack thereof) with women is a non sequitur and an ad hominem.

Accusing him of entitlement and making presumptions about his relationships (or lack thereof) with women is a non sequitur and an ad hominem. — Michael

He's calling embracing "lesbianhood" malicious. How is that not both entitled and bigoted? Sure, only "some," but it still means he thinks not having sex with men is about being mean to men.

For the record, I don't think we should ever allow the assumption that any woman under any circumstances not having sex with men is somehow malicious and meant to harm the man.

He's calling embracing "lesbianhood" malicious. — Artemis

That's not what he said. He said that "there are women who hate men and embrace lesbianhood and feminism with unveiled malice".

Sure, only "some," but it still means he thinks not having sex with men is about being mean to men. — Artemis

It doesn't mean that at all.

It doesn't mean that at all. — Michael

It means that it sometimes is, which is just as disgusting.

It means that it sometimes is, which is just as disgusting. — Artemis

What he's saying is that there are some women who hate men and so embrace lesbianism and feminism. The SCUM Manifesto might be a notable example of that.

What he's saying is that there are some women who hate men and so embrace lesbianhood and feminism — Michael

Yes, there are women who hate men.
Yes, there are feminists and lesbians.

No, you cannot be malicious toward a person by refusing to bed them.

No, you cannot be malicious toward a person by refusing to bed them. — Artemis

He's not saying that they're malicious because they're lesbians; he's saying that they're lesbians because they're malicious.

He's not saying that they're malicious because they're lesbians; he's saying that they're lesbians because they're malicious — Michael

Where's the difference? Both ways it assumes malice behind refusing to sleep with someone. Whether your malicious for refusing it or maliciously refusing it makes little diffference.

No, you cannot be malicious toward a person by refusing to bed them. — Artemis

They aren't just hateful toward men. They also hate heterosexual women because they see them as upholding patriarchy. If you're heterosexual, they hate you.

You said we should examine sensational messages to see what we may learn. What you've had a chance to learn is that there are aspects of the world you don't know about.

Where's the difference? Both ways it assumes malice behind refusing to sleep with someone. Whether your malicious for refusing it or maliciously refusing it makes little diffference. — Artemis

There's a difference between saying that their lesbianism is an expression of malice (which frank isn't saying) and saying that their lesbianism is a consequence of their malice (which frank is saying).

What you've had a chance to learn is that there are aspects of the world you don't know about. — frank

It's presumptuous to assume that because I don't agree with you, I don't know what you're referring to.

My assertion of your bigotry rests solely on your assertion of malice.

and saying that their lesbianism is a consequence of their malice (which frank is saying). — Michael

How do you not see how that's a disgusting claim to make? No one is trying to hurt you by choosing to sleep with women. They just hate men and would rather die than be touched by them.

look up the wikipedia article on "slang breeder"

Go down to the LGBT community section. Read what it says about various uses of that word.

One of the uses will give you a window on some psychologically screwed up people. The coolest thing about this is that it gives you a way to aee that not all sexist men are really sexist. They just hate women because they're sick in the head.

A man-hating lesbian is also sick. Meet one, you'll see what I mean.

No one is trying to hurt you by choosing to sleep with women. — Artemis

frank isn't claiming otherwise.

They just hate men and would rather die than be touched by them. — Artemis

That's exactly the point he's making. Some women hate men and so only engage in lesbian relationships (if any at all).

This conversation is going in circles. We're clearly just not going to agree. Which is sad, but I guess it is what it is.

I'm not sure I'd be inclined to stick around to talk much given the level of engagement in most of the responses. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The other threads received more amiable responses though, but there was no further engagement.

I am no expert, but I would assume the notion that ” the action of sex typically demonstrates men as aggressive and dominant and women to be subordinate and passive" is a controversial notion among feminists, and the premise of this thread would be considered a fringe position.

There is still a difference between sexual orientation and engaging in hate speech on the other gender. I have never heard gay men saying hateful things about women, irrespective of the fact that they don't fancy them sexually. There seems to be a real need to rein in the lesbian hate speech on men. — alcontali

I don't think @Bridget Eagles's idea for gender segregation makes sense and reflects a lack of respect for men, but it isn't hate speech. I don't think it will be effective in meeting her goals on a societal scale, but it may on a personal level.

There was a thread started a bit more than a year ago by a man speculating that technological advances in the near future will make it possible for women to give birth without men. He proposed men be allowed to die out so that only women remained as a way of ending violence in society. I reacted ....vigorously to that thread. I said that writing something like that about women would never be allowed on the forum. Ultimately, the thread was deleted and the poster quit the forum.

@TimeLine and I talked that over and she made me recognize that pitting men against women here was not the way to deal with these issues. I wish she were here to participate in this discussion. She had a unique attitude toward relations between men and women. I'd like to hear what she has to say. Alas.