4 ms·

I upvoted it because I found the article very interesting, and as you said, very "1970", and I hoped someone would say something pertinent here. Thanks. :)

DoreenMichele 7y ago
She was a very daring lady who advocated for women actually enjoying sex themselves. She always did enjoy sex herself, and I believe that's in part because she paid her own damn bills, never mind that women generally made less than men and this meant she had to actively be frugal. These are some of the principles I've tried to follow post divorce: that my agency matters more than my nominal income level and relationships with men need to be based on liking them, not on them paying my damn bills. I was a homemaker for about two decades. I don't regret that at all, but I'm absolutely not willing to be treated like some man can just "buy" me because men my age (give or take a few years) typically have a lot more money than I have. My agency is something I value far more than money. I'm not willing to give it up for a nominally cushier life.* (Insert joke about someone wishing to live in a mansion and - poof! - they are now a live-in maid.) Back then, a woman expecting to enjoy sex was a radical just begging to be branded with a Scarlet Letter. This is likely why this article talks about everyone focusing on her statements about affairs with married men: The real issue was "That hussy thinks women should actually have orgasms and, worse, personal agency." I basically stopped reading Cosmo after she stepped down as editor. It just wasn't the same without her. People who think she was just going the "sex sells" route really don't understand her life's work at all. She was a quiet radical who helped foment a bloodless revolution in this country. The world would be a better place with more people like her. * (For those who don't recognize me, I was homeless for years while people refused to take me seriously as someone who needed an earned income. Meanwhile, men were offering me money or places to live in exchange for sex.)

DoreenMichele 7y ago

She was a very daring lady who advocated for women actually enjoying sex themselves. She always did enjoy sex herself, and I believe that's in part because she paid her own damn bills, never mind that women generally made less than men and this meant she had to actively be frugal. These are some of the principles I've tried to follow post divorce: that my agency matters more than my nominal income level and relationships with men need to be based on liking them, not on them paying my damn bills. I was a homemaker for about two decades. I don't regret that at all, but I'm absolutely not willing to be treated like some man can just "buy" me because men my age (give or take a few years) typically have a lot more money than I have. My agency is something I value far more than money. I'm not willing to give it up for a nominally cushier life.* (Insert joke about someone wishing to live in a mansion and - poof! - they are now a live-in maid.) Back then, a woman expecting to enjoy sex was a radical just begging to be branded with a Scarlet Letter. This is likely why this article talks about everyone focusing on her statements about affairs with married men: The real issue was "That hussy thinks women should actually have orgasms and, worse, personal agency." I basically stopped reading Cosmo after she stepped down as editor. It just wasn't the same without her. People who think she was just going the "sex sells" route really don't understand her life's work at all. She was a quiet radical who helped foment a bloodless revolution in this country. The world would be a better place with more people like her. * (For those who don't recognize me, I was homeless for years while people refused to take me seriously as someone who needed an earned income. Meanwhile, men were offering me money or places to live in exchange for sex.)