The same contemporary, progressive women who are the target of Milano’s tweet are the ones who have been attempting to reverse the idea that men are the only ones interested in sex. They don’t want to be the gatekeepers of sex, but equal and willing participants. For these women to withhold it for political reasons would be an admission of the anti-feminist idea that men are after sex, and it’s up to women to be chased and to grant access based not on desire, attraction, love, or any of those things, but upon political worthiness. Weird.
In one fell swoop, Milano has embraced conservative ideas about traditional sex roles and considering the consequences of sex before engaging in it. She has also indulged in the kind of fear tactics that keep men and women in contemporary society from trusting one another, with her claim that “sex is extremely dangerous for women.” If sex is that scary, it’s no wonder Milano thinks women should avoid it. If women were to take up this sex strike, eschewing pregnancy like so many birth strikers, there would be far fewer abortions anyway.
In advocating for this revolutionary concept of women withholding sex from men in order to attain bodily autonomy, Milano has stumbled backwards into the realm of Christianity. The Christian perspective posits that the way for women to attain bodily autonomy is to not give away sex outside of marriage, to not risk pregnancy unless they have a loving partner, and to be aware of the dangers of ignoring the consequences of sexual activity outside of committed relationships.
Milano probably had a much more female-forward concept in mind, but what she doesn’t realize is that, with regard to safeguarding their sexual intentions, females have been forward for centuries.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/1...ike-reinforces-conservatives-view-sex-market/