Noting that, Perry goes on to describe how many women, even liberal feminists, actually don't believe this to be the case. There's an odd, confusing, and very dissonant conversation going on about sex among women. On the one hand, sex means nothing. But on the other hand, sex really is unique. To illustrate this, Perry points to the discourse during the 2017 Me Too movement. She writes:
[L]iberal feminists do seem to recognize this disproportionate impact [of disenchanted, transactional sex upon women] as demonstrated by the popularity of the Me Too movement ... This outpouring of rage and sorrow was evidence of a sexual culture that wasn't working for women. The stories that came out of Me Too included plenty of unambiguously criminal behavior, but there were also a lot of women who described sexual encounters that were technically consensual but nevertheless left them feeling terrible because they were being asked to treat as meaningless something they felt was meaningful. The boss who expects sexual favors as a condition of promotion, or the date who expects a woman to 'put out' when he pays for dinner are both more than willing to accept the principle of sexual disenchantment and thus view sex as a meaningless product to be exchanged on a free market...
[Concerning the Me Too workplace cases, where bosses and superiors asked for sexual favors, there] was an intuitive recognition that asking for sex from an employee is not at all the same as asking them to do overtime or make coffee ... Everyone knows that having sex is not the same as making coffee, and when an ideology of sexual disenchantment demands that we pretend otherwise the result can be a distressing form of cognitive dissonance.
And liberal feminists don't have the conceptual framework necessary to resolve this distress ... [We eventually] return the only solution that liberal feminism has to offer: 'teach men not to rape.'
But then what else can liberal feminists advise? They have made the error of buying into an ideology that has always best served the likes of Hugh Hefner and Harvey Weinstein, his true heir. And from this they derive the false belief that women are still suffering only because the sexual revolution project of the 1960s is unfinished, rather than because it was always inherently flawed. Thus they prescribe more and more freedom and are continually surprised when their prescription doesn't cure the disease.
Let's follow the chain of Perry's argument.
The goal of the sexual revolution was to disenchant sex. Why? Sexual disenchantment reduces shame, stigma, and guilt. If sex is meaningless, if "it's just sex," then we'll be relieved of any guilt or shame we experience in our sexual lives. This seems like a win. And I'd express some nuanced agreement here. As a Christian, I think there is value is recalibrating the stakes of sex in relation to how we approach other classes of behavior. Rich people, for example, don't carry boatloads of shame in our churches the way pregnant girls do in our youth groups. Nor do boys carry the weight of evangelical purity culture the way girls do. The damage Christians have done in shaming sex is incalculable, and it demands a pastoral and theological response.
So, I see the desire among Christians in wanting to destigmatize sex. With a heart full of love and the very best of intentions, progressive Christians onboard the ideology of the sexual revolution: disenchant sex. This disenchantment solves the problems of guilt and shame. Mission accomplished.
But not so fast, argues Louise Perry. The cost of meaningless sex creates a world where sex is now commodified and transactional. I give you X, you give me sex. It's just sex, after all.
As the Me Too movement showed us, these are the sexual waters women now swim in, from the workplace to dating. Every woman on a first date knows, after the lovely dinner and drinks, that she is very likely going to have to face a transactional expectation at the end of evening. Her date will ask for sex. It's just sex, after all.
But it's not "just sex," not really, and everyone knows this. Which is Perry's point. Paying for dinner can't be traded for sex. Sex is different. Sex is, dare we say it, special.
Now, the response here is that the date shouldn't ask for sex. He's a creeper. But is he? He's seeking consent, is he not? He's asking. He's playing by the rules. Which brings us right to Perry's point. As the Me Too movement has shown us, these rules aren't working all that well for women. Women now spend their lives haggling over sex. It's unpleasant, awkward, guilt-inducing, and pressuring. And many, many women say yes just to be done with it, to get rid of the guy. Because "it's just sex," after all. Only it isn't. So you feel cheap and depressed afterward. You consented, but it all felt a little coerced.
Perry's point is that we've created this situation for women. By disenchanting sex we've created a world where sex is now traded. And because of their sexual psychologies, men do the asking and women face the constant pressure of saying yes. And if "it's just sex," after all, why should men feel any shame for constantly asking for something so meaningless and trivial? Plus, to ask is to seek consent! But more to the point, "if it's just sex" why would women ever say no?
Which brings home Perry's point: If sex is meaningless it seems very clear that women should say yes. Because it's just sex. Saying no, you silly willy, is to treat sex as if it means something. And everyone knows it means nothing. So don't be a prude. In short, meaningless sex is a perfect strategy for pressuring more and more women into more and more yeses. And pressure you we will.
Which is the height of irony. The sexual revolution wanted to liberate women from the guilt of having sex. It did so by guilting women into sex.
