i can get that my comment was coarse, but i simply don't get what you're getting at. what does institutional sexism have to do with my comment? is it sexist to say "somebody needs to get laid"?
It feels a bit like something a bully would say; a reinforcement of the societal expectations that people who aren't having enough sex have something profoundly wrong with them -- but that wasn't the point I was getting at. When I said "institutional sexism", I was referring to the communities these anti-choice groups live in. I am not convinced there's anything wrong with the sex lives of the major peddlers of this misogyny; quite the opposite, actually, given the track record religious leaders have of dominating women in their congregation.
I guess what I'm saying is that the tribalistic knee-jerk reaction of assuming there's something deeply wrong with these individuals is a big smokescreen. They're probably perfectly healthy people doing what people do in a deeply misogynistic culture, which is finding out new and inventive ways to subjugate women.
my idiom, then. what i meant was "blow off some steam", which i thought was the meaning behind the phrase "need to get laid". you know i know about asexuality, and all of the variant sexualities around. i used an insensitive but well-understood idiom for the sake of a sex pun, nothing more.
would you rather i've based my pun around control? i don't think i'd've managed something clever with it, frankly, but live and learn.
also, unlike conservatives, i'm of the mind what you do with your ass is your and your partner's/s' concern and no one else.
i disagree that it's a smokescreen to say there's something wrong with these people. there is something wrong when sex isn't about pleasure but becomes a tool of control. that's some deeply rooted sexual deviance (and i don't mean that in a good way). could it be a byproduct of society? of course. no arguing there. but some offenders go beyond that. and that opens up a whole other can of worms entirely.
