Look at how many people seemed to have missed the following line in the OP:

Also, my argument is not suggesting all women engage in political lesbianism, rather it is suggesting that if heterosexual women find this to be a relevant option towards achieving equality, then it is a viable course for feminism.
— Bridget Eagles — TheWillowOfDarkness

I certainly didn't miss that, and it certainly doesn't change my assessment of the opening post. It's not viable if there are much better, more sensible ways of dealing with the problems mentioned. It's not realistically viable at all for heterosexual women, purely on the basis that they're heterosexual women.

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. — T Clark

Asexual reproduction is a type of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single organism, and inherit the genes of that parent only; it does not involve the fusion of gametes, and almost never changes the number of chromosomes. Asexual reproduction is the primary form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such as archaea and bacteria. Many plants and fungi sometimes reproduce asexually.

Instead of progress it rather looks like a throwback to the level of bacteria.

Humanity is a non-human technology. Well, life in general is a non-human technology. Saying anything that is provable about life means that it necessarily follows from the unknown construction logic, i.e. the real blueprint, of life. So, real progress would come from answering the question if it is even possible to discover that blueprint? To illustrate his understanding, this person could, for example, throw dead organic material in a glass and make it come to life. There are other things he should be able to achieve to illustrate the soundness of his purported blueprint, such as growing an artificial arm or a leg and reattach it to living body.

Fiddling with artificially-fabricated sperm without having a copy of the blueprint of life sounds quite dangerous to me. It is probably even more dangerous than inundating the market with opioids ...

But then again, I don't really care, because every misbehaviour tends to be its own punishment. I will just be laughing when it predictably goes wrong again.

Has the suggestion touched a nerve for some? Is the idea of women being sexually independent from men so scary for some?

But yes, most here are hearteningly unthreatened and rather open to curious discussion. — Artemis

And where do I fall in that? You have no idea how inappropriate those comments could be. How much do you know about me?

It's more than just a notion of women withholding sex. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes indeed, otherwise it's a huge misnomer, and should instead be called political sexual abstinence, not political lesbianism. There's a huge difference there.

And where do I fall in that? — S

You tell me.

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

It's really not a small semantic point. It's very important. Getting that wrong is pretty offensive.

You tell me. — Artemis

Okay. It might have touched a nerve, but certainly not based on your presumptuous suggestion that women being sexually independent from men is so scary. I tend to keep my sexuality rather private and ambiguous, and resist labels, but I can tell you that I've slept with both men and women, and I'm going to see a band tomorrow with my best friend and her girlfriend. I'm also largely asexual and haven't had sex for ages. Does that put things more into perspective for you?

I'm not threatened at all by any of this, but I'm only open to what my good sense will allow.

Meanwhile, Bridget, who may be an incel, remains silent.

But then again, I don't really care, because every misbehaviour tends to be its own punishment. I will just be laughing when it predictably goes wrong again. — alcontali

I wasn't writing about the issue we discussed in that previous thread, i.e. getting rid of men, I was writing about the attitude I try to take into discussions like this one.

It might have touched a nerve, but certainly not based on your presumptuous suggestion that women being sexually independent from men is so scary — S

So then why?

The very idea of political lesbianism is drawn up against this notion. Political lesbians aren't heterosexuals in relationships with men in which they withhold sex. They are (sometimes) heterosexuals who make the choice not be with or for men at all. Rather than withholding sex from men who would otherwise get it, the political lesbian is holding a position she is not for the desire of men at all.

Heterosexual Men will desire political lesbian whether she likes it or not, depending on what she looks like. Shallow, sure, but likely true. Maybe political islamism is a better approach, because the best way to portray that you’re not for the desire of men is to walk around in something like a burka all day.

Heterosexual Men will desire political lesbian whether she likes it or not, depending on what she looks like. — NOS4A2

But that is not what women (lesbian or otherwise) are FOR.

So then why? — Artemis

All things contrary to good sense can touch a nerve for me. The topic could have been about almost anything, but if it's absurd then I'm not the type to shy away from saying so.

it's absurd then I'm not the type to shy away from saying so. — S

True that.

But that is not what women (lesbian or otherwise) are FOR.

Wouldn’t it protect from the male gaze?

This feminist said as much regarding her conversion to Islam.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/14/opinion/muslim-convert-irpt/index.html

Wouldn’t it protect from the male gaze? — NOS4A2

That's not a response to my post.

That's not a response to my post.

Let me check. Well, yes it was actually.

Let me check. Well, yes it was actually. — NOS4A2

Nope.