I expect this will get lost in the commotion here, but:
The author uses language around sex that I think treats it, subtly but disturbingly, as a commodity. They write of a "withholder/withholdee", of "women who want to provide sexual intimacy" (note the word "provide"), and of "women... putting out".
The problem with this framework (which is endemic to the larger culture) is that it runs against bodily autonomy for all of us. If sex is a commodity, then the people who provide or withhold it are just means to an end. And treating people (including ourselves) as means to an end is rather degrading.
Imagine using the same language for any other consensual activity. If someone's partner no longer wanted to go out dancing, play board games, or make music together, would we say they were "withholding gameplay" or failing to "provide entertainment" or no longer "putting out music"? I hope not.
The author uses language around sex that I think treats it, subtly but disturbingly, as a commodity. They write of a "withholder/withholdee", of "women who want to provide sexual intimacy" (note the word "provide"), and of "women... putting out".
The problem with this framework (which is endemic to the larger culture) is that it runs against bodily autonomy for all of us. If sex is a commodity, then the people who provide or withhold it are just means to an end. And treating people (including ourselves) as means to an end is rather degrading.
Imagine using the same language for any other consensual activity. If someone's partner no longer wanted to go out dancing, play board games, or make music together, would we say they were "withholding gameplay" or failing to "provide entertainment" or no longer "putting out music"? I hope not.