@stellabelle, I was with you right up till the end. It's simply not true that:
Sean-king's article denies my creativity and intellectual capacities. This is problematic because it assumes that "all women are alike in this one area." Not all men are wired the same either. To assume so would be making a grave mistake.
How could you possibly have read what I wrote and think that I believe what you say I do? Of COURSE not all women are alike, in this area or any other area. And of COURSE women can excel intellectually and in a great many other ways. If you read the very first paragraph of my original post, you would see that I went to great lengths to say that I was speaking about mean and women ON AVERAGE and that not every man or every women fulfills, or should fulfill, their respective stereotype.
Additionally, I NEVER discounted women's intellectual capabilities.
The impetus of my post first post (and all subsequent ones and related comments) was NOT that women are only or even primarily sexual creatures. My point was that sexual power is inherent in a significant percentage of the female population, that this power is potent, and that women have been conned/shamed into not using it.
Let me give two brief examples from the music industry, Taylor Swift and Beyonce Knowles. Both are INCREDIBLE talents. Both are gifted artists, musicians and clearly far smarter than the average bear. Both COULD make a living, and have some power, by simply relying on their musical talent and their intelligence. They could sing in a paper sack and do okay. But...they don't. Yes, they most definitely exploit the heck out of their musical skills and talents, but they ALSO exploit the heck out of their sexuality too. And because they exploit ALL of their power, they are both incredibly powerful (and wealthy) women. What a shame it would be (IMHO) if either of them had been shamed or conned into laying down one of their great life advantages (their sexuality) and instead rely ONLY on others.
It's fine that YOU want to rely only on non-sexual gifts. I have ZERO problem with that. My only problem would be if you (like a great many traditional feminists) tried to shame or criticize other women (like Beyonce or Taylor, to name just two examples) for exploiting ALL their talents and opportunities. To date, I've not heard you say that you support and endorse women doing that (if that's what strikes their fancy), and that you oppose efforts to silence or prevent them from doing so. If you were to make such a statement, then you and I would be in complete agreement.
@stellabelle never shamed women for being open about their sexuality.
You're assuming the latter because she never specified otherwise? What you're saying sounds like a hasty allegation.
Not sure why you feel the need to argue about it when we're pretty much all on the same page.
We shouldn't assume or make if/and/all statements.
Please read my comments and posts more carefully. I tire of responding to criticisms that simply are invalid reflections of my position, and of slaying straw men. I NEVER accused @stellabelle of shaming women about their sexuality. Rather, I accused men, religion and traditional feminists (as opposed to more modern "sex positive" feminists) of doing so.
And, I'm not arguing. Rather, I was simply setting the record straight by responding to @stellabelle's straw man accusations that I "deny her creativity and intellectual capacities" and that my arguments assume that "all men" and "all women" are the same and that I "discount women's intellectual achievements.". To the extent that she really believes those things to be my position, we definitely are not "pretty much all on the same page."
Read this carefully, and it still seems like you are inferring that @stellabelle shames or shuns women's sexuality. Nor did she ever explicitly say that she feels that way.
To an outside perspective, this comes off as argumentative. (Trying to offer constructive input)