An article about male attitudes about sex written by a male with no reference whatsoever to the female viewpoint would be subject to an endless stream of hatorade from all corners of the internet.
well, I think it would depend on the context of the article. Don't get me wrong, your point is well taken and I think you'd be correct in a fair amount of circumstances (especially if a radfem from tumblr managed to notice it through the haze of their own self-importance). However, I think that an article that basically said
"you know guys, advertising agencies, porn and mainstream media constantly assert that you need to have sex to be manly, as much sex as possible. They infer that the only purpose of exercise is not self-betterment, but to to be as attractive to your sexual partners as possible, and they assert that you are idiots who have no idea what emotions are and no idea how to clean or cook.
These advertisers and media companies are fucking liars, and if you don't want to have sex, it's okay. If you want to have lots of sex, it's also okay. If you want to focus less on outside influence and more on self-improvement, you should. If you want to get sexy for the (insert partner here)s, then do it. There's not one way to live as a human and you shouldn't be ashamed to live as your authentic self."
would be pretty welcome anywhere - Because that's what feminism is and that's what sex positivity is: not whatever this article is about.
DID YOU KNOW that a lot of the Supreme Court decisions that lead up to Roe v. Wade were made possible because they argued how the system was sexist against men? Frontiero v. Richardson decided "that benefits given by the United States military to the family of service members cannot be given out differently because of sex" because a Female Lieutenant's husband wasn't eligible for benefits.Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld ruled that "unanimously held that the gender-based distinction under 42 U.S.C. § 402(g) of the Social Security Act of 1935 [...] violated the right to equal protection secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution." Why? because the case involved a widower who could not recieve benefits to take care of his child after his wife died. Duren v. Missouri Struck down voluntary jury duty (as opposed to mandatory jury duty) for women as unconstitutional because it treated women differently than men.
None of these have to do with sex. They barely have anything to do with roe v. wade. They have everything to do with equal rights for both genders, which is what feminism is actually about. They were all fought by now SCJ Ruth Bader Ginsburg while she was a lawyer for the Womens Rights Project at the ACLU.
Feminism represents men as much as it represents women, and those cases are proof positive of that fact. The fact that the current internet culture doesn't reflect that is fucked up, bad and wrong.
Ok. So what the fuck am I blathering on about here. Sex positivism, as a part of feminism, is about putting equal weight on the sexual lives of our gendered people. Currently, the virginity of men is valueless (if not negatively valued), whereas the virginity of women is simultaneously both valued and scorned. This is insanity, and goes back to when women were property (as you mention in your latterly linked post) and virginity was considered the plastic wrapping on the box that showed that your Telescoping Lightsaber Darth Vader figure from 1978 had never been played with and wouldn't spit out someone else's child that you would then have to confirm as your own, or deny and have your virility questioned.
Sex positivism is not about having lots of sex, it's about saying "sex is just a thing we happen to do and is not special unless you as a person choose it to be for yourself, and only for yourself. Don't judge other people's shit." That's literally all it is. Don't slut-shame people, don't virgin-shame people - pretty basic concept. I don't know how it turned into "well now I feel pressured to have sex even if I don't want to" because that's literally the opposite of what it's about.
It's also a gender neutral subject. Like, even though it's less common, men do get slut-shamed - I've seen my friends do it, and have it happen to them. More commonly, they do get virgin-shamed. It's bullshit and stupid.
On the other hand, women discussing sex without mentioning men's place in their autonomy is liberating while men discussing sex without mentioning women's place in their autonomy is misogynism.
I mean, they're both bad because at a fundamental level it is difficult and problematic to talk about any topic without using comparison, but I can see the argument for the first being "liberating" because it's still a relatively new topic. It's also still a controversial topic depending on where you live. I went to my master's with a girl who wasn't allowed to cut her hair and had to wear long dresses and 3/4 length sleeves all the time because her church believed that women's sexuality was something dangerous. She's christian, and this is in the liberal north of Ohio, which is itself a Swing State. Other girls in my school shamed one of my friends for having sex before marriage. This shit is a secular postsecondary school in the liberal section of a state in a "first world" country, not some backwater, or the bible belt, or some Islamic State stronghold. The struggle for women's autonomy is still being waged in the US, with Roe v. Wade being chipped away at by conservatives on almost a daily basis because they see denying women's autonomy as a method of control for both genders.
So I'm cool with "women discussing sex without mentioning men's place in their autonomy", but I'm not cool with "men discussing sex without mentioning women's place in their autonomy", not because I think either conversation is very good, but because "women discussing sex without mentioning men's place in their autonomy" is still dangerously liberal talk in the US. Hopefully I've made myself clear, and not look like an idiot in the process.