Feb 21st, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Jessica Valenti on Anti-Feminists and So-Called “Hook-up Culture”
This is well worth reading. I’ll quote the end:
And fact is, focusing on hyped-up problems that sell newspapers, titillate the imagination and line the pockets of conservative organizations make it that much easier to ignore actual problems young women are facing, issues that take a lot more than a moral scolding to fix. [...] If the same people who are working themselves into a panic over women’s sexuality spent half as much time advocating on behalf of issues that young women really need help with, we might actually be getting somewhere. But instead, we’re stuck talking about what a shame it is that young women are having sex, when the truth is, it isn’t a shame at all.
Read the whole thing.
709 Responses to “Jessica Valenti on Anti-Feminists and So-Called “Hook-up Culture””
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
Cars
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
Infrastructure
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Pakistan
Palestine
planning
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 21st, 2009 at 8:49 pm
I definitely agree with her central premise that college sexuality is not really different now from what it has been at any time in the past half-century. It is not any different now than when I was an undergraduate in the 90s. And from my parent’s tales, it is not much different than it was in the 60s.
February 21st, 2009 at 8:53 pm
The shame isn’t that they are having sex, but that the smartest of them are not reproducing, while the dumbest of them are grandparents by the time they are in their mid thirties. By the time Jessica is in her late thirties and spending tens of thousands on fertility treatments so she can have the baby she finally realizes she wants (most likely as a single mother, since she will be unlikely to attract a marriageable man at that point), Manuela will have three daughters collecting WIC for their illegitimate kids. Manuela’s brood, net recipients of federal largess, won’t help pay for the universal health care Matt dreams about, let alone help pay for the entitlements we already have.
February 21st, 2009 at 8:57 pm
On the bright side, maybe by then Matt’s girlfriend will have achieved the education equivalent of the unified field theory, and will have figured out how to turn the lead of average black and Hispanic public school attendees into the gold of suburban white achievers. The magic solution is probably just around the corner if we throw more billions at the teachers unions.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:04 pm
“The shame isn’t that they are having sex, but that the smartest of them are not reproducing, while the dumbest of them are grandparents by the time they are in their mid thirties.”
Hmmm, I don’t think I would have put it this crudely. But the point is valid.
It’s one of those uncomfortable realities: those having many babies should probably have less while those not having any or one should probably have more.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:05 pm
When I was young and in college, the problem was that women were having too little sex. My theory was that if more women had more sex, then some of them might have sex with me. But I’m older now, and the problem I see is that middle aged women don’t have enough sex. The strange part of this is that we seem to ignore the other half of the issue. If women are having too much or too little sex, aren’t men in the same boat? Who are these women having sex with? Granted, some women are lesbians, but most aren’t. If the non-lesbian women are having sex, then aren’t men part of the issue as well? Why aren’t we talking about how horrible it is for men to have sex?
February 21st, 2009 at 9:11 pm
“those having many babies should probably have less while those not having any or one should probably have more.”
That was pretty much the point of the movie “Idiocracy”. It wasn’t a great movie, but it deserves credit for being the first movie to portray our future in a realistic manner.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:11 pm
By the time Jessica is in her late thirties and spending tens of thousands on fertility treatments so she can have the baby she finally realizes she wants (most likely as a single mother, since she will be unlikely to attract a marriageable man at that point). . . .
Not that it’s germane to the discussion here, but Ms. Valenti is, in fact, engaged.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:15 pm
If I had been better educated, I might have tightened up my analogy above by replacing “unified field theory” with “sorcerer’s stone”. Consider it so.
“If women are having too much or too little sex, aren’t men in the same boat? Who are these women having sex with?”
There’s a pretty simple logical explanation. Men with more game than you are juggling multiple women at the same time. A stud could be boning a different woman three nights a week while you’re having sex with none.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:17 pm
It’s one of those uncomfortable realities: those having many babies should probably have less while those not having any or one should probably have more.
This demands the obligatory link to the opening scene of idiocracy.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:18 pm
“Not that it’s germane to the discussion here, but Ms. Valenti is, in fact, engaged.”
That’s good. Now hopefully she’ll hurry up and pump out a few future symbol-manipulators who will help carry the tax burden for the expensive liberal social policies she and Matt will get enacted by the time those kids grow up. Imagine Sweden if it were 50% full of low-earning potential non-Asian minorities, and that will be the paradise in which her children will come of age.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:25 pm
This is well worth reading.
Not so much. I’ll paraphrase for the sake of those who don’t want to waste ten minutes of their lives: if you think engaging in serial no-strings sex is ultimately harmful to most young women, you want to repeal Roe.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:33 pm
It’s not a shame that “young women” are having sex. But it is a shame that some women are having sex for terrible reasons. By that I do not mean, “For reasons Sam M thinks are bad.” I mean, for reasons that do not make said women happy.
Similarly, I do not think it’s a shame that some young people drink. Or gamble. Or eat. But clearly, some people do so in a way that is self-destructive and, ultimately, counter-productive to their own happiness.
Generally, I think that “conservative” people are far too eager to define the good reasons for other people. And that people on the other side of the aisle are far too hesitant to make any judgment at all.
I teach English at the college level. I have brought in essays about the “hook up” culture from time to time. Generally, the consensus is that the writers are old and nasty and jealous and curmudgeonly and school-marmish and politicaly motivated. And… right about at least half of what they say.
Scary business.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:33 pm
while one side of this is obviously wrong, both interlocutors seem mainly interested in having an enemy. nobody can actually think this is a serious discussion.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:38 pm
P. Snowden, why is it that no one else came anywhere close to the reading you did?
I thought it was pretty good, and I’m actually of the opinion that it’s more wrong than right. Not in its description of what kind of attention hook up culture tends to attract (dirty old conservatives who want their slimy mitts all over coed ovaries), but in its denial that hook up culture is any different than it ever has been.
I am confident that if someone looked at the data on hetero-sexual interactions in colleges, you’d find distinct trends. Some good, some bad. But many of the bad things–the expectation that women must be sexually available to men, the burden of paying for birth control being on women, etc–fall into the broad idea called “raunch” or “hook-up” culture, and really just amount to women’s sexual liberation being co-opted to suit male desires.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:41 pm
It is generally bad that relatively large numbers of U.S. women in their teens are having babies (as compared to, say, Western Europe). But that doesn’t mean it is bad other U.S. women are now waiting longer to have babies–there is lots of evidence that doing so tends to be better for the parents and the child.
Waiting until their 20s is good, yes. Waiting until their late 30s, on the other hand, can be a bad thing if it makes it harder to have babies when the woman wants them. Moreover, the issue is also waiting until their 30s to think about marriage, which is abd time for a woman to start thinking about marriage if she wants to start a family.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:43 pm
That was pretty much the point of the movie “Idiocracy”.
Not to mention the older and far superior science fiction story by Cyril Kornbluth that probably inspired it.
The 1970s Woody Allen movie Sleeper also explored similar themes (Diane Keaton had a PhD in oral sex).
February 21st, 2009 at 9:44 pm
While I am against premarital sex, the “hook-up culture” did do wonders for my self-esteem in college, by giving me lots of people to look down on and compare myself favorably to.
Glaivester (the 30-year-old virgin – by choice).
February 21st, 2009 at 9:46 pm
In my experience, the shamers of sexually active young women, are women of any age who think that sex is a bargaining tool and free sex is driving down the market value. Whether they be holy-rollers or whores, they think men ought to pay for sex one way or another.
February 21st, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Fred – What the hell business of yours is it what any individual does with their life? This was a post about policy and general behavior, not somebody’s personal life.
Try sticking to the issues, not the personalities.
February 21st, 2009 at 10:34 pm
It is my impression that young people are having a lot less sex than our generation did and even than my parents and grandparents generation did. Depressingly so, just judging from my adult children and their circles, and what I hear of my friends’ adult children and their circles, it seems we have gone back to the Victorian era. Coed dorms, aids, late marriage, long distance relationships/marriage, a highly competitive job and academic market, and the demise of dating seem to have had an anti-aphrodisiac effect.
Let them have their fun, I say.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:09 pm
If I had been better educated, I might have tightened up my analogy above by replacing “unified field theory” with “sorcerer’s stone”.
And if you were really better educated, you would have used “philosopher’s stone” instead of the dumbed-down-for-Americans “sorcerer’s stone” term.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:09 pm
While I am against premarital sex, the “hook-up culture” did do wonders for my self-esteem in college, by giving me lots of people to look down on and compare myself favorably to.
Keep in mind that pride is also a sin.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:11 pm
I don’t think people who complain about the hook up culture are complaining about pre-marital sex – these aren’t the same thing.
People, like me, who complain about the hook up culture complain about the fact that young people don’t date anymore. I think pre-marital sex is just great, thanks, but we shouldn’t all be prompted to think of straight fucking as sexuality, much less as a significant form of freedom.
This article is a little too concerned with the various *people it wants to oppose (right wing think tanks!) rather than actually getting into any of these sorts of basic distinctions.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Those college girls need to be introduced to sex and gently educated by an older gentle, but still extraordinarily virile guy. Like me. In calls or out-calls avalable. Call 386-893-8880 24/7 Threesomes will be given special considerations.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:23 pm
If I had been better educated, I might have tightened up my analogy…
You would still be hopeless, Fred. Do women a favor and make a date with the big Fiskars. And I’m sure your analogy is tighter than hell.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:09 am
Jesus, Matt, linking to a Feministing article? Just don’t start banning anyone who doesn’t agree with everying Valenti says, okay? And don’t tell too many people that you’re doing this.
“It’s not a shame that “young women” are having sex. But it is a shame that some women are having sex for terrible reasons. I mean, for reasons that do not make said women happy.”
I agree with that. Again, don’t ban me! I’m not saying women are bad!
“I don’t think people who complain about the hook up culture are complaining about pre-marital sex – these aren’t the same thing. ”
I agree with that, too. If people want to have something fulfilling with another person, go for it. But if you have to keep doing something over and over and over, it might not be fulfilling you like it should.
Don’t ban me!
“The shame isn’t that they are having sex, but that the smartest of them are not reproducing, while the dumbest of them are grandparents by the time they are in their mid thirties. ”
Wow, eugenics! How retro! And not totally discredited, too!
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:11 am
That, or something much like it, does seem to be par for the course in the genre.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:11 am
” but we shouldn’t all be prompted to think of straight fucking as sexuality, much less as a significant form of freedom.”
Why not? Do you have a rational argument for mystifying and idealizing human sexuality, or is this the pronouncement of a widely-held intuitive and cultural bias?
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:22 am
Whether they be holy-rollers or whores, they think men ought to pay for sex one way or another.
I think they are probably right.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:24 am
Berger,
Good point. I’m not against premarital sex, per se, but I am against what you charmingly call “straight f*cking”, i.e. casual hookups. I’m not against the “sexual revolution” in principle, only against its worst excesses (abortion, homosexuality, casual sex, etc.) which I believe are separable from the whole.
Sexual activity should be in the context of a long-term, monogamous relationship, ideally one which is oriented towards eventual marriage and procreation, or at least the potential thereof. Casual encounters, not so much. It’s bad for women, bad for men, bad for children and bad for nature.
And actually, our society would be better off if women did not wait till their mid-30s to have children, and if society was set up to better support people who wanted to begin parenthood young. One of the pieces of advice I most frequently give my female friends is to start thinking about children early. Peak fertility is, after all, in the early 20s.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:24 am
“And if you were really better educated, you would have used “philosopher’s stone” instead of the dumbed-down-for-Americans “sorcerer’s stone” term.”
Ah, yes, now I remember that term. Clearly, you are the product of an expensive and tasteful education. Now if you only had some common sense to go along with it.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:26 am
Re: if you think engaging in serial no-strings sex is ultimately harmful to most young women, you want to repeal Roe.
Well, I do think that engaging in serial no-strings sex is deeply harmful to young women, and young men. With the exception of those few who are already corrupted enough that it doesn’t make any difference. And I do want to appeal Roe, very much so.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:30 am
But it’s nice that some of the Yglesian liberals on this thread are honest enough to admit the real reason they support Roe. None of this hipster BS about ‘autonomy’, ‘choice’, and the like. Not that anyone ever bought that anyway. The real reason that young men like Mr. Yglesias’ commenters support abortion, is because they like f*cking around, and want to dispose of the consequences if necessary, so they can go indulge in some more no-strings encounters at the club or whatever. I suppose it’s nice that they are at least being honest.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:36 am
An interesting longitudinal sociological survey could be done on this. Interview promiscuous college-age women, survey them about their happiness, etc., and then repeat annually for 20 or 30 years. Compare with a control group of non-promiscuous college age women (not necessarily virgins, but ones who engage in serial, multi-year monogamous relationships). I’m guessing the control group would be happier and better adjusted 20 or 30 years down the line, at least from the 30- 40- and 50-something women I’ve met who would fit into the other group.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:49 am
Lots of men commenting on this post and lecturing each other about how women should act sexually. It’d be funny, if it wasn’t so sadly typical.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:54 am
Fred: Men with more game than you are juggling multiple women at the same time.
Since you’ve been commenting on this post since about 6:00 pm PST, it’s safe to say that you one of the men with very little game.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:59 am
In case you hadn’t guessed, Fred is typing with one hand.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:03 am
Glaivester (the 30-year-old virgin – by choice).
i.e. the choice of every woman who has met Glaivester.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:04 am
“Since you’ve been commenting on this post since about 6:00 pm PST, it’s safe to say that you one of the men with very little game.”
I’ve been retired from the game for years, and have succumbed to the clutches of one woman, who mostly tolerates my addiction to arguing with pikers like you on the internets. I do appreciate your concern though.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:05 am
I think Carlin’s quip on pro-life women would come in handy here:
“Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the ones you wouldn’t want to fuck anyways?”
Paging K-Lo to the white courtesy phone…
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:11 am
““Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the ones you wouldn’t want to fuck anyways?””
Eh, the Upper West Side is full of plenty of pro-choice hags that most men wouldn’t want to throw a bone to. Funny thing is that, judging by the way so many of these women troop off to China to adopt a girl when they hit 50, they probably wish they could get a mulligan on one of the abortions they had when they were Valenti’s age.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:18 am
I’ve been retired from the game for years, and have succumbed to the clutches of one woman . . .
I just had a mental picture of a hand with a bad french manicure “clutching” onto your back hair.
Ew. It’s Saturday night in L.A. I’m outta here.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:24 am
“I just had a mental picture of a hand with a bad french manicure “clutching” onto your back hair.”
You’re too literal-minded. Besides, I have no back hair and the lady is well and tastefully manicured.
“It’s Saturday night in L.A. I’m outta here.”
Sure you are. Have fun eating your Del Taco by yourself in front of the TV.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:28 am
Keith – straight up sex is, obviously, sex. I just don’t think that sex is equatable with sexuality; which is inevitably determined by culture as well as biology.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:33 am
Once again, let’s talk about the obvious point. If women are having sex, there must be men involved. Hector deserves credit here, because he is willing to admit that when women have sex, there is a man involved. The rest of you should do the same. But is really strange that we talk about womens’ sex life without talking about men. We men are an integral part of this. If they are sluts, so are we. If they are prudes, then we are as well. Sex inherently involves two people. But we only talk about one of them. The fact that Matt Ygelsias can only talk about one side of the issue is bad enough, but his commenters are even worse. These women are having sex with men. Those men have behavior that is equal. Call it good or bad, but to say men aren’t even involved is to deny reality. It takes two to tango, let’s acknowledge it.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:45 am
who mostly tolerates my addiction to arguing with pikers like you on the internets
Understandable. Being able to type rather than rant about how those dumb spics and niggers (not to mention those dirty, dirty sluts) are somehow bringing you down must make the house so much quieter.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:15 am
young people have sex?!?!
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:45 am
“young people have sex?!?!”
Yes they do. Even us old farts do it. Imagine that. Wait, maybe you don’t want to imagine that. It’s not really pretty, but we still do it. So just imagine young people having sex. It’s a prettier picture.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:51 am
if you think engaging in serial no-strings sex is ultimately harmful to most young women,
Why would it be more harmful to young women than to young men?
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:56 am
Coming back and reading this comments thread, I just have to say… wow. Talking about college girls having sex really gets Fred and conservative friends going. And though I’m not a fan of “hook up culture,” I can see why Valenti went straight to the motivations of most of the people assailing it. Fred, go get laid. Get your (hetero?)sexual urges out of your system.
I was bored, so I went on Amazon and looked at the covers of all the books decrying “hook up culture.” They are, almost invariably, a coed in a state of undress. Bra coming off (Hooking Up), panties dropping to the floor (Generation S.L.U.T.), pulling her shirt off (Unhooked). There are some neutral ones (Prude, just text). But college aged guys dropping their boxers are sorely missing.
It does speak to the authors being much more worried about young women having sex than young men. Or, at least, the marketing departments, who know who’s buying them.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:01 am
You know, I still can’t imagine my mom having sex. But she must have done it. Apparently, even a geek like her can still get laid. Men like me may never have hope, but geeky women always have hope. They can produce children like me. If that’s not a curse, there never was one.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:26 am
“even a geek like her can still get laid.”
I guess I should note that my father wasn’t too concerned about who he slept with. But he had already had some kids with her, so it’s understandable that he’d have me after that. Regardless, I still question his choice in women. And I still say that his contraception techniques didn’t work very well. My father was really smart, you’d think he’d make sure he didn’t have another child. But he fucked up, and I exist. Oh well. I still think my father was a great guy.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:27 am
Some things never change. Young men are intimidated by “promiscuous” (sexually active?) women. Older men like them. So, as they grow older they all become happier.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:32 am
“But he fucked up, and I exist.”
I guess I should note that my parents were in the process of changing birth control methods, and it didn’t work out so well. I’m the result of that mistake. Oops.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:22 am
I think we should have lots more blog posts about topics in which conservative (generally or culturally) males can discuss their greatly enlightened and reflective opinions about young female sexual behavior and genetic intelligence breeding theories among the lower classes. It’s really great.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:25 am
“But many of the bad things–the expectation that women must be sexually available to men, the burden of paying for birth control being on women, etc–fall into the broad idea called “raunch” or “hook-up” culture, and really just amount to women’s sexual liberation being co-opted to suit male desires.”
Well put Zephyrus. I am a big fan of Jessica’s, and I love Feministing. She makes many good points, but…yeah. This looks a lot like how pornography was going to sexually liberate women. Did porn sexually liberate women? Or did it, and does it, sexually degrade them and turn sex into a near act of violence? After having experienced sex with men who are into internet porn, I’ve sworn them off. I will tell any woman, find yourself a man who won’t watch porn. Some don’t for ideological reasons. Now, out of those, (and it’s a small percentage to begin with), some won’t watch on religious grounds. Those aren’t the guys for me, but maybe they are for you. And some won’t watch because they know it degrades women. Those are the guys for me. No, they’re not gay, and you’ll actually exist as a person, not as a thing, in bed. They’re worth looking for. Men who are into internet porn, and this is not your father’s porn, it’s violent and degrading and the women are things, don’t know how to have sex with a human being. A lot of these girls who are engaging in casual sex, aren’t having orgasms or even coming close to orgasm. Because they’re sleeping with guys who gained their sexual knowledge from internet porn. So why are the girls having this sex?
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:58 am
Fred, nobody believes your married, stop, it’s embarrassing.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:28 am
Reading the non-feminist take on women’s issues is always… enlightening. You keep saying “girls” but we are talking about college age here, your “girls” are adults in charge of their lives. You are probably thinking something along these lines, instead
Stop infantilizing them, you fucking paternalists. If society isn’t safe for women to be openly sexual, then society should be fixed, not calling for women to go back to their closets/kitchens
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:57 am
KJK, in general anyone of that age is going to be referred to as ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ and not ‘woman’ or ‘man’. They aren’t even supporting themselves yet. They are still merely students. Adulthood, as a social meaning, doesn’t come with age. It comes by right of passage. Students haven’t yet had to make bank or budget, so they haven’t really passed that right yet.
And really, everyone paternalizes. Feminists will generally claim that two drunken people having sex is rape, an argument hard to make without paternalization. Anti-feminists merely use that paternalism as a smokescreen to justify their authoritarian and controlling impulses. That represents the real danger. Many of them don’t hate women because they hate women, they hate women because this is a patriarchal society and they can get away with hating women. They usually hate everyone they think they can get away with hating, because thats who they are. The face of evil.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:57 am
Re: It does speak to the authors being much more worried about young women having sex than young men.
Even in Victiorian times people didn ot fret much about young men sowing their wild oats, as long as they did so discretely at the local house of ill repute and left the good girls alone. There’s a cultural assumption that men (in their youth at least) should be sluts
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:10 am
I’m definitely a big fan of the ‘hook-up culture’. Why shouldn’t people do things that they find pleasurable, so long as they practice said activity safely.
I find many men are very hypocritical about sexual promiscuity. Their goal as a single person is to sleep with as many women as possible, but those women must be pure as the driven snow. Yeah, good luck there buddy. (I’ve had this conversation with several friends, I’m shocked that they think they can play around on their girlfriend, but if they found out their gf was doing the same it’d be splitsville)
And for the women, it’s just a way to exercise social dominance. “Hey, did you hear about Sally, she gets around. What a slut.”
A lot of the people here have laughable opinions. You all are concerned about women having sex for the ‘wrong reasons’. What exactly are the wrong reasons? Are they the wrong reasons because you say so? And what makes you think young women have sex as a way to deal with their insecurities, or whatever reason you happen to think people have sex for.
People have sex because they want to. Don’t project your morals onto someone else’s choices.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:15 am
KJK, I take issue with your ‘infantilizing’ accusation. I’m 29 and still typically refer to females around my age or younger as girls. Males are guys. I guess technically the correct alternative for guy is ‘gal’, but that sounds weird to me. I use ‘guy’ and ‘gal’, but I don’t see it as demeaning towards women.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:45 am
Having recently been in college, I can say firsthand that the hook-up culture is largely a myth. Most of the people I knew in college who were sexually active were so in the context of committed relationships. Those who did prefer to “hook up” with various partners were a relatively small subsection of society, divided pretty equally into women and men (The former, needless to say, were vilified, while the latter were congratulated). Furthermore, I found that unsafe, unconsidered sexual encounters had much more to do with substance abuse and specific personal, emotional and psychological issues than with some ephemeral “culture” of promiscuity.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:33 am
Always happy to see that nothing much has changed I was a young women. Men still have utter contempt for women. And the double standard lives.
No wonder none of you can get laid.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:42 am
“It’s one of those uncomfortable realities: those having many babies should probably have less while those not having any or one should probably have more.”
Except that one of the primary factors driving upward mobility for any society is a reduction in the birth rate. In agricultural societies with high birth rates, wealth is channelled into maintenance of large families to do the work, and not accumulated for the improvement of general living standards. The technical term for the move to a society with fewer children/household is “demographic transition,” and once a society makes it,life expectancy, quality of life, educational achievement, and economic prosperity follow in rather short order. In other words, one of the reasons “intelligent” people prosper in this society is because they *don’t* breed like rabbits.
The other half of this argument is that, if all Americans suddenly decided they wanted 5 or 6 kids, we would rapidly run out of decent jobs for these kids when they become adults. Despite the current mania for everyone to attend college, the brutal fact is that there are – and always will be – countless jobs that do not require much education, and which most educated people would never accept unless they were desperate. We will never eliminate the need for maids, janitors, street cleaners, garbage collectors, store clerks, busboys, etc. etc. etc. The less educated may make lots of folks uncomfortable, but our society will never be free of them entirely, so I guess you’ll just have to deal with them, unless you want to cook and serve your own fast food or haul your own garbage to the dump.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:42 am
Hook up culture, schmook up culture. It s no one’s goddam business what these young adutls do with their time. You hsould efinitely mind your own and not theirs.
“if you have to keep doing something over and over and over, it might not be fulfilling you like it should.”
Or you just might like doing it over and over again. I certainly do. Either way, it’s no one else’s business.
And Fred, do keep tilting at your convenient straw men. We all marvel at your manly intelllectual prowess as you vaquish them again and again.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:44 am
nice trolls you got here
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:50 am
“I’ve been retired from the game for years, and have succumbed to the clutches of one woman . . .”
Well, at least Fred’s honest enough to admit he’s an old, addled, loser whose settled for the only woman who would put up with his shit.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 am
Er, I refer to young women in their 20s as “girl”, usually. If it bothers you, too f*cking bad. I would also happily call myself a paternalist, towards men as well as women. I think that the principles of liberalism and much of what currently goes under the name ‘feminism’ are pretty contemptible, so feel free to call me a paternalist.
Jeremy, I’m not sure where you get the idea that people have the (moral) right to do anything they find pleasurable, but suffice it to say that there’s little warrant for this idea in any adequate moral theory. The sexual act belongs in a certain context (not necessarily marriage, but at least a loving relationship), and to tear it out of this context is to violate the natural order, and therefore to commit a sin. Whether the two participants both consent to the sin is rather irrelevant.
When encouraging young women not to treat their sexuality and fertility cheaply, or for the pleasure of young men like Yglesias and his commenters has become a form of ‘contempt’, than the word has really lost all meaning. I would suggest that the real contemptible ones here are those who babble meaningless hipster/feminist BS about ‘autonomy’ and ‘choice’ in order to justify their own penchant for using young women for casual sex and then discarding them.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:06 am
Catherine,
I don’t believe that only a small percentage of men don’t watch porn. I’ve never watched porn, and I don’t think most of my male friends have, though I’ll admit that it’s not a topic that we discuss much.
Daddy Love,
It’s interesting to see how furiously you see the need to defend your choices- could it be that at some level you do realize there’s something wrong with them? That said, the idea that everyone’s choices should be equal, and everyone should be able to do what they like, is laughable. We don’t have the right to do whatever we like, rather we have a duty to be obedient to the natural order.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:11 am
Fred, how would you describe a woman who is “juggling multiple men at the same time” or “boning a different man three times a week”? Thanks in advance.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:24 am
Hector…
Nice parody troll thing you have going on there.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:32 am
In case anyone is interested and it’s not named above, there are two Cyril Kornbluth stories that set out the “Idiocracy” premise: The Little Black Bag and The Marching Morons. Both are great stories. Which you’ve probably read if you didn’t have sex much in high school or college like those darn kids do now.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:34 am
Yeah, that’s it. Since there is no such thing as birth control, after all.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:37 am
Matt, this is what I was afraid of.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:53 am
“Feminists will generally claim that two drunken people having sex is rape”
No we won’t.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:04 am
During the last 100 years or so, 2 things have been happening consistently:
Crypto-racist windbags have complained that the wrong people are reproducing, which will make the population stupider, and:
As measured by IQ tests, the population has been steadily getting more intelligent (google “flynn effect.)
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:04 am
Jessica’s speech started off well but went aground. Yes, some people are overly preoccupied with the hookup culture, but Jessica is ignorant, and so are you Matt, about why:
IWF opposes VAWA
IWF believes there is no pay equity gap
Why Charlotte Allen’s statement about HPV makes sense.
First, as you know Matt, IWF is libertarian. Libertarian feminism. Gender neutral feminism. Remove barriers and create equal opportunities for all.
VAWA: Many many studies show that women are the initiator in 40% of domestic violence. And so VAWA should have been written in a gender neutral manner with respect to domestic violence. But it wasn’t. And Joe Biden, on VAWA’s renewal, was specifically asked to help rewrite it in a gender neutral fashion, but he refused. Opposing VAWA isn’t anti-feminist. It’s asking for laws that protect everyone’s civil liberties regardless of gender. It’s reality based and relies on science and not cant.
No equity pay gap. I’ll let Salon’s Broadsheet school you. Jessica Valenti will tell you about the 23 cent pay gap. For every dollar a man makes, a woman makes only 77 cents. Salon’s Broadsheet will tell you that’s just not true. The pay gap Matt is not 23 cents. It’s 5 cents.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/04/23/wage_gap/index.html?source=rss
All that being said, it isn’t that the pay gap is entirely attributable to gender. “The evidence shows that even when the ‘explanations’ for the pay gap are included in a regression, they cannot fully explain the pay disparity,” the report concludes. “The regressions for earnings one year after college indicate that when all variables are included, about one quarter of the pay gap is attributable to gender. That is, after controlling for all the factors known to affect earnings, college-educated women earn about 5 percent less than college-educated men earn.”
IWF doesn’t say the pay gap is non-existent. They say the pay gap is not 23 cents, but much much less. The attribute the other 18 cents to personal choices that different individuals make, JUST LIKE SALON does.
HPV. Gardasil has never been tested for effectiveness in the range of girls it is mandated for. How can it be, it would be unethical to give such young kids exposure to HPV. But there are indications it will work, but no testing. Worse though, it has never been tested for A) Long term efficacy, or B) Long term problems. It is being given for a cancer that will occur in 20-40 years. IF the vaccine is ineffective, or the vaccine only lasts for 5 years as some people believe, than Allen’s statement makes sense. These girls are NOT being protected, but believe they are. IT IS EXACTLY IDENTICAL TO SENDING OUR SOLDIERS INTO WAR WITH POOR ARMOR. The best way to defeat HPV, even with gardasil, is still said by the AMA to be annual pap smears.
And Matt, in 20 years, what treatments will doctors have for HPV? Betting on gardasil now is betting against science finding better cures.
There are other problems with gardasil regarding civil rights. Older feminists stated it well. KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OFF OUR BODIES. Jessica Valenti says: MANDATORY INJECTIONS FOR PREPUBESCENT GIRLS. One of those statements is the pov of a civil libertarian, and one is not. One statement is feminist, the other not.
As citizens, we tolerate mandatory injections for immediate public health crisis and for virulent disease. MMR because encephalitis strikes within 24 hours. And the R to protect pregnant women. We citizens we do not make injections to protect a disease that may occur in 20-40 years mandatory. We make those OPT-IN. We educate people about the vaccine, and trust in them to make the right decision.
Why does Jessica Valenti demand OPT-OUT mandatory injection? Why do we dislike spammers and corporations for using OPT-OUT for their spam? Or mail-order scams who use OPT-OUT? Or those monthly offers that start and won’t stop until you OPT-OUT? OPT-OUT relies on ignorance and laziness and is generally regarded as unethical, unless it is to promote gardasil.
Note Matt: none of the above relies one bit on religion, or fear of a woman’s or girl’s sexuality.
Many liberals. Many liberal parents. Many liberal parents know this.
If you had an integrity, you would examine these points, and respond to Jessica accordingly.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:11 am
Re: As measured by IQ tests, the population has been steadily getting more intelligent (google “flynn effect.)
Actually, Stitch, this isn’t true in Britain. The British population is actually getting dumber. Probably because under the influence of today’s secularized culture, today’s British young people would rather spend their time drinking, f*cking, and eating fries rather than studying. Father Nazir-Ali has connected the general breakdown in the intelligence and morals of British youth to the de-Christianization of society, and he is correct.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:15 am
MMR is a vaccine used to treat encephalitis. It’s not an STD, but it is associated with close contact including kissing. The only reason to give it to young kids is basically because as teenagers and college students they will be in close contact with a huge group of people who travel, who sneeze, who kiss, and who have sex.
MMR also protects pregnant women from rubella.
Ask gardasil opponents how they feel about giving MMR to their kids. That will give you another data point to consider.
I gave my two girls the MMR, because I want them to have healthy sex lives, and to protect the community around them. But not gardasil. Because there has been no long term testing.
How many times must the FDA screw up (and this was the Bush FDA that okayed it) before you ask for long term testing?
The history of the 20th century is one bad medical practice or drug after another. 1920s: Radiate infants to protect them from SIDS. Result 40,000 deaths from thyroid cancer for a completely ineffective treatment. Thalidomide. Vioxx, Celebrex, Bextra.
Asking for long term testing USED to be the reality based practice. Until Jessica and Matt decided that such demands were anti-feminist and due to religious nutcases seeking to control a woman’s sexuality.
Suddenly though, demanding long term testing and an adherence to science is castigated as anti-feminist.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:18 am
after reading the majority of comments here, I have to wonder if any of the commenters have a healthy sex life. You all come off like such a bunch of prudes and prigs, you make Abigail van Buren seem like Jenna Jameson.
Seriously, have any of the men here actually ever SEEN a vagina? And by that I mean “in real life, in the flesh, in bed with you.” Magazines, dvds, and blow up dolls don’t count. I don’t believe many of you have actually had a relationshoip with a woman, never mind engaging in coitus with one.
dorks.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
I definitely agree with her central premise that college sexuality is not really different now from what it has been at any time in the past half-century.
The advent of the birth control pill (circa 1961) brought about the sea change in sexual mores. It took a decade or so, but by 1972, sexual attitudes had more or less come to resemble the present and less of the previous 20 centuries and Richard Pryor’s “Great Pussy Drought” was over.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:26 am
Matt,
VAWA. If Domestic Violence is only men beating women, and if women are not the initiator in a significant percentage of cases, then how and why do 30 percent of lesbian couples experience domestic violence?
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianhealth/a/DVFactsMyths.htm
Being opposed to VAWA is not being against domestic violence. Opposition to VAWA is a civil liberties stance. If you want to be against domestic violence, it should be easy to come up with a gender neutral bill that does so.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:27 am
This thread is a celebration of the old male virgin losers with a bit of old-fashioned racism thrown in. They exist to make us feel better about ourselves. At least when things go bad in our lives, we can say “At least I’m not Fred or Hector.”
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:34 am
And speaking of Idiocracy, the one problem I had with it was its mechanism of idiocy — basically an argument about the overbreeding of low quality characters.
To the extent that it serves as a quite accurate documentary of the Bush Jr. years and their exuberant reincarnated Reaganite supporters, it’s clear that societies can descend into utter idiocy and collapse via the choices made by its most powerful and elite leaders, supported by the cultural predilections of conservative hordes, without ever having to wait around for some slow breeding theory to come about.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:39 am
Man, two comments in before some bitter man tells the feminists who make him feel stupid (due to our powers of observation) that we’ll never get a man. I keep telling my boyfriend that he can’t like me, because some dudes on the internet say so, but he disagrees.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:45 am
Aka, you’re just anti-sex, because even reading that paragraph is a turn-off. Absorbing and believing it means you’ll never be horny again.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:52 am
LOL. As if the countries whose kids outperform ours aren’t far less religious than the US.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:54 am
The world of warcraft doesn’t leave young people much time for dalliance.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Hi, Miss Marcotte. Hope you’re doing well, and that your gutter vocabulary hasn’t got you fired from any more campaigns recently.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Father Nazir-Ali has connected the general breakdown in the intelligence and morals of British youth to the de-Christianization of society, and he is correct.
Really, Hector? Less generous people in Britain who play the game of “pull a random correlation out of my ass” tend to point to all the second-generation South Asian immigrants.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Cognitive Dissonance? What’s that?
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Color me surprised that someone who is boorish about sex also has tedious attitudes about swear words and women. Can’t be having the little ladies using male-only language. Next they’ll be asking to be on top.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
An honest question—which disturbs your fragile hold on masculinity more: Women who fuck or women who say “fuck”?
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Hector says: One of the pieces of advice I most frequently give my female friends is to start thinking about children early.
This made me laugh out loud (if only we had a shorthand for that!) until I realized that Hector had forgotten to type “imaginary” between “my” and “female.” But I’m sure they’re very frequently grateful for the advice!
Oh, and Amanda, go procreate. It is your duty to the race, as Fred has shown with his powerful logic machine.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
No, no, no. He put a * in place of the “u.” Nothing untoward about that, see?
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
We also have horns growing out our vaginas. Hey, if you’re going to lie, why not go full hog?
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
More linking to Feministe, less to Megan McArdle, please.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Miss Marcotte,
I don’t care if you like to say “f*ck”, I care that you spoke profanely of the Blessed Mother of God. One would think that, as a woman, you would have a due reverence for the fact that by a woman came salvation into the world. But no one ever accused cosmopolitan hipster-feminists of having a great respect for logic.
Michael Berube,
No, I’m not joking, that’s a piece of advice that I often give. I disagree (though respectfully) with the Catholic position that every sexual act needs to be open to procreation, but I would agree that all of us should eventually be oriented towards marriage and children, and that sexual relationships should be open to developing into an ultimately procreative marriage. Morality doesn’t care what Miss Marcotte and her proudly sterile ‘feminist’ cohort may or may not want. I have seen a lot of older women trying desparately and fruitlessly to conceive, and so I often advise my (many) female friends to try and have children while they still can.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Amanda Marcotte: You have to know Hector, and that he’s got some weird High Anglican Church / Crusades / Paternalist Marxism / ‘the Ay-rabs are taking Europe with their kwik-breeding’ / ‘damn all you heathen sexy-talk hipsters‘ thing going on.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:02 pm
and so I often advise my (many) female friends
Hector, with that remark, you don’t give evidence of ever having met a woman. Give advice? What a creep. Who gives advice? to anyone? Can you give a brief sketch, a little dialog, that looks like the social situation in which the act of giving advice arises?
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:03 pm
HIPSTER ALERT!!!
Actually, the notion that stupid people are outbreeding smart people made a great science fiction story by Kornbluth, it made a really mediocare movie called Idiocracy, and it makes no sense at all in biological terms. This nonsense was discredited by the middle of the twentieth century, along with most of Hector’s other ideas.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Catherine,
“After having experienced sex with men who are into internet porn, I’ve sworn them off. I will tell any woman, find yourself a man who won’t watch porn.”
To paraphrase Chris Rock, every man has a stash of porn — maybe not enough to be illegal, but don’t kid yourself. And by the way, you seem a little closed-minded and prudish about sexuality. Sex can be more than laying like a corpse in the missionary position while your allegedly non-porn-watching man fumbles around.
“Fred, how would you describe a woman who is “juggling multiple men at the same time” or “boning a different man three times a week”? Thanks in advance.”
I wouldn’t say she has “game”, that’s for sure. It requires no special talent for a woman to have frequent, consensual sex with multiple different partners. But I care little what one particular woman is doing. I do think it’s healthier for society as a whole if more smart women reproduced and fewer non-smart women did.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Nothing says “logic” like biblical literacy. “Mary was pregnant, but a virgin. And her son was the sone of God, but also God at the same time. Now be logical!”
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
“This nonsense was discredited by the middle of the twentieth century…”
It wasn’t until the mid-1960s that America opened the flood gates to third world immigration. Many of these immigrants (from Mexico, for example) have lower IQs than whites and have more children. The dysgenic effects are obvious.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
My ex-wife.
HEY-O!
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
The depth of the paternalistic, hypocritical BS in these comments is remarkable. “Swearing” is not dirty. Sex is not dirty. Men like sex. Women like sex. Having different standards for each sex is ridiculous.
This is not at all complicated. Really.
Grow up and get over it.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
I don’t know but I like to imagine that it is a distinct minority who think that young women and young men having sex is a priori bad (and by young I mean “able to willingly” though most people would opt for late teens I’d imagine). Except for their own kids of course.
And that minority is further winnowed by the fact that most of them really think the possible negative outcomes are bad not the acts themselves.
Except for gay and lesbian sex of course which is always bad unless it is teenage lesbians are performing for the gratification of straight men.
As usual the gays ruin it for everyone because while it is OK for the quarterback to fuck a cheerleader it is definitely not OK for him to fuck the halfback.
And certainly not the coach.
Which is the other really big reason many sensible adults are troubled by teens having sex:
We don’t mind Romeo and Juliet near as much as Father Time and Little Miss Muffet.
For myself the only time I ever cared about anyone’s sex life was when I wanted to make out with them.
That’s the real problem because the older you get the wider becomes the fantasy pool.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Some day, archeologists will look at this thread and wonder why eugenics got inserted into a discussion of college behaviour.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Oh my freaking god.
LOL SHemp.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I believe that the world came into existence when an evil cat god coughed it up in a hairball. As you yourself are an issuance from a digestive tract, I would assume you’d have more respect for that.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
It wasn’t until the mid-1960s that America opened the flood gates to third world immigration.
That’s bullshit of course, even if it’s generally bigots with Irish surnames who have the shortest memories on the topic.
Just back from Sunday service at the Church of All Darkies Are Dumb and Lazy, Freddie?
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I’d like to think that, but I think history shows that eugenics, by whatever name, will never die. It gets tamped down but never bred out completely (heh).
I’m still waiting for the first Margaret Sanger reference.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Well, these books are all scientific. This fellow Fred has worked out the whole thing. It’s up to us, who are the dominant race, to watch out or these other races will have control of things. This idea is that we’re Nordics. I am, and you are, and you are, and we’ve produced all the things that go to make civilization — oh, science and art, and all that. Do you see?
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
> The sexual act belongs in a certain context
> (not necessarily marriage, but at least a loving
> relationship), and to tear it out of this context
> is to violate the natural order, and therefore to
> commit a sin. Whether the two participants both
> consent to the sin is rather irrelevant.
Where exactly is this “natural order” documented?
Cranky
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
In a letter from one of Hector’s college girlfriends explaining why she wouldn’t let him get to third base, I would imagine.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
We do have shorthand for that, right from the Bible.
“Go forth and multiply.”
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
“Just back from Sunday service at the Church of All Darkies Are Dumb and Lazy, Freddie?”
Feel free to refute what I actually wrote. I’m sure there are some Mexican geniuses, and, on the whole, Mexicans tend to be pretty hard working. That doesn’t change the fact that they are, on average, not as intelligent as whites (who are, on average, not as intelligent as Northeast Asians). What happens when you add a lot of lower-IQ people to a population, and the lower IQ people out breed the higher-IQ people? It’s not complicated to figure this out.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Fred, don’t be ridiculous. I don’t know what your lifestyle consists of, but _I_ certainly don’t use porn, nor do most of the guys I know. Really, you appear to be no better than Marcotte and Yglesias. Sexuality was not intended for the purpose of whacking off to “Debbie Does Dallas” or whatever the latest porn fad is.
To the rest of you guys….Have you ever considered whether you may be wrong? And whether there may be something to all this business about love, loyalty, obedience, virtue, self-denial, suffering, and “kenosis” after all? Just give it a thought, one of these days.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Hector, you are living evidence that your point of view has to be wrong. Because there’s just no way someone with your reasoning skills could operate a paper bag properly, much less figure out the way the universe works.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
People who invented the number zero and genetically engineered corn apparently aren’t smart enough to join the country where almost half the people still think Saddam Hussein planned 9/11.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Hector, I’ve spent most of my life considering that, as a matter of fact, and I’ve realized that people who speak about “self-denial and suffering” regarding sexuality are more onanistic than just about anyone.
Most religious constraints about sexuality are, at their roots, about the effect we have on other people. People like you, who make it all about your own desires and the sublimation thereof, have got it exactly backwards.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Feel free to refute what I actually wrote.
Already did, dumbass bigot. Fourth-generation “white ethnics” who whine about Mexicans forget what their ancestors left behind, and what greeted them when they arrived.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:29 pm
My bad.
“Be fruitful and multiply.”
Genesis 1:28
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Hector… if porn was bad then Fred’s Big Bad White God would not have invented the internets.
Just give THAT a thought one of these days.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Hector, you sly devil. People in D.C. pay good money ( our taz dollars) for that kind of thing.
Hector is a submissive looking for a good dominatrix with clean diapers.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Gee, I hope the son of someone from the third world never runs for president here in America. Since he couldn’t possibly be smart enough to win, he’s bound to be disappointed.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Hector says: I have seen a lot of older women trying desparately and fruitlessly to conceive, and so I often advise my (many) female friends to try and have children while they still can.
Oh thank goodness you’re on this thread, Hector! I have a very important question to ask you about my sexuality. You see, I’m sexually active, and I wonder if and when I should start thinking about having children, because I don’t want to become an older woman trying desparately and fruitlessly to conceive. Can you help me in any way? Please visit my MySpace page and we can chat at greater length.
Oh, and when you say you “see” these older women trying to conceive, do you mean you’re actually watching them?
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Hector says: I have seen a lot of older women trying desparately and fruitlessly to conceive, and so I often advise my (many) female friends to try and have children while they still can.
Hector was a great source of wisdom and support for me.
Who says the Vagina isn’t a clown car?
Nadya Suleman
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I read the article and a good chunk of the comments here.
I agree with most of Valenti’s article, but I don’t like the way a lot of people equate “conservative” with being anti-sex. I understand that the conservative groups Valenti is discussing are anti-sex to a degree, but I think the real characteristic that distinguishes the Republican mind is a sort of stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality and an insistence on professing your beliefs louder and louder the more obviously false they are.
Granted that is the main reason the anti-sex groups continue to blame young women having sex for all of society’s problems, but it is also the reason that many people go back to the bar every week even after throwing up (again) all morning after a bender and swearing “never again”, or hooking up with yet another “bad boy” after the last one cheated on her yet again.
To be honest, a lot of the time when I hear people talking about sex, I get struck by how Republican they are. Abstinence is the cause of everyone’s problems and sex is the solution. (Even in this thread. Disagreement is interpreted by some as the dissenter “not getting any”.) Later on taxes will become the cause of everyone’s problems and tax cuts will be the solution.
Certainly there are intelligent young people having sex. There is nothing stupid about it if you understand what you’re doing and enjoy it enough that the effort is worth your while. But I do think there is a fairly large chunk of people who start having sex for foolish reasons (status, for one) and I have several times listened to people deny that to be the case, just as they will later in life deny that federal regulation is sometimes necessary because businesses and financial institutions don’t always behave responsibly – the latter said in the middle of yet another round of foreclosures and bailouts.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Disagreement is interpreted by some as the dissenter “not getting any”
That’s right. Even by asshole professors who claim to be culture experts and claim to be liberal and claim to know about discourse, rhetoric, and argument, and so presumably should know better. Demonstrating they are 99% asshole fuckheads and 1% progressive liberals and 0% educators.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
What happens when you add a lot of lower-IQ people to a population, and the lower IQ people out breed the higher-IQ people? It’s not complicated to figure this out
You end up with a bunch of babies born to Catholics?
And Hector, before you get your joint out of joint: it used to be that the best and the brightest went into the priesthood, and were encouraged to do so. Requiring celibacy of them was as effective a means as any to prevent intelligence (assuming there’s a genetic component) from spreading.
And given Benedict’s latest shenanigans (”Oh Lawzy Lawzy, I had no idea Williamson was a Holocaust denier!”), it appears that strategy has been proved.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Fred -
By the way, I realize a guy who thinks he’s as intelligent as you obviously think you are can’t be bothered with a dictionary, but you really should look up the definition of some big words – like “piker” – before you misuse them to make a point.
Of course, I’m one of those lower-IQ people, so you can just ignore the point.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Sexuality was never “intended” at all. It wasn’t the result of any intentional intervention into humankind, unless you’re using the hipster meaning of “invention” meaning inventing a cultural discourse about sexuality.
I love it when the medievalists start lecturing us on how sexuality is to be understood.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Kenosis: not a fan, actually
I like to play Keno. I had no idea it was bad for your liver.
Idiocracy is actually based on Cyril M. Kornbluth’s short story, The Marching Morons.
I think we’ve passed that stage already and he was a bit odd himself.
# Name (required) Says:
Even by asshole professors who claim to be culture experts and claim to be liberal and claim to know about discourse, rhetoric, and argument, and so presumably should know better. Demonstrating they are 99% asshole fuckheads and 1% progressive liberals and 0% educators.
I thought we were discussing intercourse.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Asexual reproduction was Hector’s mother’s idea.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Disagreement is interpreted by some as the dissenter “not getting any.”
That’s right. Even by asshole professors who claim to be culture experts and claim to be liberal and claim to know about discourse, rhetoric, and argument, and so presumably should know better. Demonstrating they are 99% asshole fuckheads and 1% progressive liberals and 0% educators.
Well, thank goodness I don’t know any of those people.
And I think the point at issue had nothing to do with whether any “dissenters” were “getting any,” and everything to do with the ludicrousness of certain older men who claim to give young women advice — frequently — about how to conduct their intimate lives.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Dang, thought I closed the italics after “0% educators.”
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:25 pm
It seems that sexuality was intended on “Debbie Does Dallas”. I doubt you start off trying to make a legit movie and accidentally end up making a porno.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Clearly you’ve never seen The Passion of the Christ.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
You win the thread.
I hear if you watch “Passion of the Christ”, you turn into the kind of boor that says that all sex should be within a context of looking to get married and have babies. It’s possible that the risk of this is overstated, but why take the chance?
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Dang, thought I closed the italics after “0% educators.”
Apparently “Name (required)” had your number, you commie pinko. David Horowitz would never make that kind of mistake, now would he?
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I hear if you watch “Passion of the Christ”, you turn into the kind of boor that says that all sex should be within a context of looking to get married and have babies. It’s possible that the risk of this is overstated, but why take the chance?
That’s only if you sync (or, as Fred would say, “sink”) it up with “Dark Side of the Moon”, or maybe if you play Ozzy backwards while watching.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
As an archaeologist looking at this thread, all I can say is that it’s utterly unsurprising that eugenics and college behaviour have been linked.
Controlling sexuality (in recent historic contexts – ie the last 2000 years – female sexuality) is a key part of controlling society because through this control social mobility, access to and utilisation of material resources, wealth (including knowledge, power, access to ritual/religious knowledge) and maintaining ideological structures can all be maintained. Sexuality that exists outside the bounds of the normative social structure is a tangible threat to the continuation of that structure.
Thus, virginity of upper class women (ie, those who had access to wealth, resources, and social mobility as well as the symbols of ideology) was fetishised, controlled and treated as a commodity because if all those daughters of kings went off having babies with just anyone, then too many claims to the kings’ entrenched power would have developed and that many, partially royal spawn would have undermined the central precept of monarchical society: that the king, singular, is chosen by god (from a select pool of carefully bred children) to lead everyone else and take most of the resources.
Change king to religious leader or investment banker or white racist as you see fit.
Although there is a lot less evidence the further back you go (and no written words) it is likely that the control of sexuality (and concomitantly of reproduction) – and not just in patriarchal ways – has been a feature of human society since the beginning.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
And I think the point at issue had nothing to do with whether any “dissenters” were “getting any,” and everything to do with the ludicrousness of certain older men who claim to give young women advice — frequently — about how to conduct their intimate lives.
Look through this thread. Look through similar threads here, or at Pandagon or just about anywhere.
Very typical cliche response: “You can’t get any.” “Have you ever seen a vagina?” “I realized that Hector had forgotten to type “imaginary” between “my” and “female.””
How the hell do you know so much about Hector and his environment that you know he can’t possibly be giving advice to young women?
You’re just being a lazy bully, which is pretty cowardly of a tenured professor but is in particular, your oeuvre.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
David Horowitz would never make that kind of mistake, now would he?
Are you kidding? David thinks that a blog equals four internets. But yes, “Name (required)” — if that is his real name — has my number. Fie on him! I call my approach “the one percent progressive liberal doctrine.”
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:45 pm
One of the pieces of advice I most frequently give my female friends is to start thinking about children early.
And that’s why they call him “Hector”.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:45 pm
You’re just being a lazy bully, which is pretty cowardly of a tenured professor but is in particular, your oeuvre.
I think the word you want here is “omelet.” Being a lazy bully is my omelet.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I’m neither Michael nor a tenured professor, but I’ve of a mind that you tune the rigorousness of your discourse to your audience. Given Hector’s first comment on this thread (homosexuality is one of the worst excesses of the sexual revolution? Do you have an onion on your belt?) I feel like Michael was giving him points by not sticking to words of one syllable.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
If Hector is as religious as he seems to claim, isn’t it likely he is involved in a church and/or their community activities? Isn’t it likely that in that environment he very well could be giving advice to younger women?
You and Amanda and I may be upset to realize there are many women who are religious, and who dislike the pro-abortion movement, but that is likely the truth. To pretend there are no such women, is not terribly reality based.
I don’t know Hector. I am thinking of an acquaintance, a Mormon, and an incredibly smart and nice guy. I disagree with him on many political and religious issues, but he is straightforward, honest, and I have no doubt that at his temple he gives precisely the kind of advice you can’t imagine Hector could be giving.
(Your hectoring Hector in this manner demonstrates not communism but arrogance and laziness. Fuck David Horowitz, but if he’s against that in professors, I say kudos to him.)
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Name Required,
Thanks for the support, although I’m used to the chatterings of the Yglesias/Marcottes of the world. “Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.”
Just to clarify, I’m in my late 20s, so not that much older than the young women who are issue in the thread.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
How the hell do you know so much about Hector and his environment that you know he can’t possibly be giving advice to young women?
Hector’s writing deconstructs easier than a McMansion that can’t be sold. And Berube is an expert in this stuff.
The inly thing that Hector did was leave out the words “with me” in the sentence I quoted.
And Ladies of the World, please don’t worry! I am ready to have sex with any of you, and your reasons for doing so I assume are only the best. If they weren’t, you would be sleeping with someone else! My number’s in my comment further up the thread, call anytime your parents aren’t around. And tell your sister to call, too!
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Gee, I hope the son of someone from the third world never runs for president here in America. Since he couldn’t possibly be smart enough to win, he’s bound to be disappointed.
Clearly the genes from Obama’s white half beat the crap out of the genes from his black half, so we’re OK.
There’s no defense against those nasty Mexican genes, though. They conquer all.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
If Hector is as religious as he seems to claim, isn’t it likely he is involved in a church and/or their community activities? Isn’t it likely that in that environment he very well could be giving advice to younger women?
If those “younger women” are under the age of majority and Hector is giving them that kind of advice, I would suggest he leaves the state, pronto, and consider a name change.
“Isn’t it time you thought about having children, and we better get started in the next five minutes!” There’s an ugly name for that! Check your revised state code to find out what it is.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Name (required) Says: Fuck David Horowitz
Ewwww!
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
How the hell do you know so much about Hector and his environment that you know he can’t possibly be giving advice to young women?
Because we’ve lived in the world and know his type very well. Plus, there’s a strong correlation between having anti-sex attitudes and not getting laid. It’s like the correlations between being a teetotaler and not drinking.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
“Just to clarify, I’m in my late 20s, so not that much older than the young women who are issue in the thread.”
We shall follow your future career with intense interest! No doubt you’ll be in the news soon.
Funny, isn’t it, how they can never find any women to give younger women advice about these things. But yeah, it’s so embarrassing for women to talk to other women about it. They would much rather talk to a twenty-something man about it. In facy several have told me how much they enjoy being “hectored” about sex.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Fred (assuming there’s only one Fred): Don’t you realize that by suddenly endorsing porn and attacking a woman as “closed-minded and prudish,” you’re undercutting your own position. Hector may be odd with his Chavezism and relentless use of ornate rhetoric over the heads of his opponents, but he has done a much better and more consistent job representing the traditional Christian position in this particular thread.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Sex and Israel really brings out the comments.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
There should have been a question mark after “position.” Sorry.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Okay, “Hector” (if that is your real name), I dopn’t care if you want to satisfy your voyeurism by talking to underage girls about sex. That’s between you and your state law. But for God’s sake, keep both hands on top of the desk. Remember, every sperm is precious!
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Well, the advice I think it 100% unsolicited, so that’s an issue. But we all know that older men with screwed up attitudes about sex offering unsolicited advice to young women not to have certain pleasures said men are denied always find their advice is welcome. Because young women are well-trained, most of the time, to condescendingly pretend to agree with older men out of respect for their age and maleness. God knows that I received my lectures by rolling my eyes away from the man issuing them.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
traditional Christian position in this particular thread.
Cause, you know, there’s only been one, and it’s been consistent forever and every Christian adheres to it.
I think Hector should attend to his own sex life and leave women to theirs, and never the taint shall meet.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Plus, there’s a strong correlation between having anti-sex attitudes and not getting laid.
You talk the talk today, but then there are your blowjob posts and other posts politicizing sex depending on marital status or gender of the participants. (cf bratwurst as well as your 5 minute quickie in the kitchen between married couples)
So you really are not the pro-sex person you claim to be and that has been noted for quite awhile in the feminist blogosphere.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
You’re just being a lazy bully
Better a lazy bully than a wooly bully.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Because young women are well-trained, most of the time, to condescendingly pretend to agree with older men out of respect for their age and maleness.
Where can I find girls like that? All I ever get for my trouble is a kick in the nuts, and a lot of explaining to do to the police. I get nothing but bupkis for my trouble.
I have even developed theraputic role playing games to enable young women to re-inforce their resistance to sin, but all they do is call me a pervert, and tell me to put my pants back on.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Bratwurst? Dammit, Name (required), all outspoken women look the same to you, don’t they?
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
I can see it now:
Hector: Young lady, come into my office. I want to talk to you about sex!
Young Woman: Okay, Hector. What did you want to know?
Hector: Well, now that you ask…
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Bullshit Auguste. Twisty posted, and Amanda eagerly jumped in with link and agreement.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Thanks for the support, although I’m used to the chatterings of the Yglesias/Marcottes of the world.
Especially when he trolls the comments sections of their blogs.
(cf bratwurst as well as your 5 minute quickie in the kitchen between married couples)
I like a good kielbasa myself.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Name required, Hector, I’m getting all meshugga. So let’s get this cleared up. Sex; Are you for it, or agin’ it?
Please select one.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Speaking as a HIPSTER full of HIPSTER ideas and HIPSTER values, like rationality, empiricism, study, reflection and logic, I’ll make a few observations:
It wasn’t until the mid-1960s that America opened the flood gates to third world immigration. Many of these immigrants (from Mexico, for example) have lower IQs than whites and have more children. The dysgenic effects are obvious.
First, there’s almost no clinical evidence to suggest that IQ tests measure innate intelligence in any meaningful way. At best, IQ tests measure a particular problem solving facility within a cultural context, which can be generalized to some degree. What IQ tests really measure is the ability to do IQ tests, and they’ve been shown to be incredibly context dependent.
To say that Mexicans on average do more poorly on IQ tests than Americans is to say that Americans on average are born more frequently in the United States than Mexicans do. It’s a statement which verges on meaninglessness. Of course Americans will generall do better on a cultural specific test designed for their culture rather than Mexicans. This does not reflect in any meaningful way on the intelligence of Mexicans versus Americans.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Isn’t Jessica Valenti the tramp that stuck her tits out in front of Bill Clinton?
Why look, yes that’s her!
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
And your refusal to so much as mention the yards and yards of blogspace filled with analysis of that comment and Amanda’s link to same is pretty much par for the course, isn’t it, Name (required) (if that is your real name.)
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
JillyJob
Fuck, really? That’s really what this thread is going to do?
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Your hectoring Hector in this manner demonstrates not communism but arrogance and laziness. Fuck David Horowitz, but if he’s against that in professors, I say kudos to him.
You really need to make an outline of your “thoughts” before transcribing them to the intertubes.
Communism? Fuck David Horowitz but kudos to him?
Prof. Corey better watch his ass, or you’ll end up taking his place.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Re: Given Hector’s first comment on this thread (homosexuality is one of the worst excesses of the sexual revolution? Do you have an onion on your belt?)
I should clarify, I don’t think that homosexuals should be discriminated against _legally_, and I think that it’s a good thing that we recognize it’s an innate condition, and that the desires themselves are not bad or wrong. I don’t have a problem with _civil_ marriage for gays, although I’m very much against churches performing gay marriages or saying that homosexual acts are OK. What I think is a bad thing is that most people today don’t think that homosexual acts are _wrong_, and that people think that homosexual unions are _morally_ as well as legally equal to straight ones.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Isn’t Jessica Valenti the tramp that stuck her tits out in front of Bill Clinton?
I don’t know, but that guy on the right looks like a troublemaker. Probably a deviant, too.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
IQ tests don’t measure intelligence. They measure a statistical distribution of the ability to take IQ tests.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Let’s be fair to Hector and Fred. They believe sincerely in a world where women are cattle. Cattle to be respected, venerated, put up on a pedestal, to be the subject of all sorts of flowery endearments, but cattle nevertheless. Women in their world are not actually human.
This is harsh, and I suspect that Hector will argue. But really, that’s the way it is.
That’s not the way the world works. The trouble is that women get educations, they get jobs, they obtain a degree of social and political independence. Women vote. Like it or not, women are participating members of the modern industrialized society and economy. As such, they have the same rights to pursuit of pleasure that men in similar situations have.
Fine with me. The American constitution argues that people are entitled to life, liberty and the ‘pursuit of happyness.’
And truthfully, that’s a worthy pursuit. What’s the alternatives? The pursuit of misery? Of degradation? Tyranny? Is it the pursuit of arbitrary morality? The pursuit of half baked theology?
I would argue that a woman’s orgasm is a more worthy thing than the petty ruminations of 12th century monks. To those who venerate ignorance, hypocrisy and repression, I say “Have all you want. But leave your neighbor alone.”
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
And your refusal to so much as mention the yards and yards of blogspace filled with analysis of that comment and Amanda’s link to same is pretty much par for the course, isn’t it, Name (required) (if that is your real name.)
Amanda linked to the post and followed with her own that supported in full that post.
Amanda has made plenty of anti-sex statements. Worse, she’s just not anti-sex, she politicizes sex, judging acts not just on consensual agreement but depending on marital status of the participants. There is her 5 minute kitchen blowjob between married people post that you don’t bring up.
Amanda is no pro-sex feminist, as is clear should you actually begin to read what acknowledged pro-sex feminists have to say about Amanda.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
James Kabala,
“Fred (assuming there’s only one Fred): Don’t you realize that by suddenly endorsing porn and attacking a woman as “closed-minded and prudish,” you’re undercutting your own position.”
I didn’t “endorse” porn, Kabala, I just noted that consumption of it is ubiquitous among men, and alluded to the related point that the variety of porn roughly parallels the variety of kinds of consensual sex.
Skeptic,
“Speaking as a HIPSTER full of HIPSTER ideas and HIPSTER values, like rationality, empiricism, study, reflection and logic”
Why is it that all these “hipster” ideas get shut off when the subject turns to average group differences?
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Speaking as a Man of the 21st century, to a man whose Ideas were demonstrable nonsense by 1950, I’ll ask Hector if he can clarify a bit:
What I think is a bad thing is that most people today don’t think that homosexual acts are _wrong_,
What’s wrong with homosexual acts?
and that people think that homosexual unions are _morally_ as well as legally equal to straight ones.
Well, the legal question varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But why aren’t homosexual unions morally equivalent to straight ones?
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Skeptic, men don’t have a blanket right to pleasure either. I’m substantially more critical of the player men who look for casual sex at the club, then of the women who collaborate with them.
What’s odd to me is that the Yglesias/Marcotte types seem to think that progress for women lies in their becoming as amoral and selfish as men have historically been. Tolstoy said, in his essay on Balaam’s donkey, that the problem with feminism was that it sought to make women more like men, but that real progress would lie in making men more like women. He was right. The Marcottes of the world are being used by the Yglesian hipsters, and they don’t even realize it. It’s a sad story, and one I do my best to try and remedy.
as for the U.S. constitution, I’m not really a fan of it, or of our political/economic/social system in general. And Fred, you’re simply wrong, porn may be ubiquitous among you and your friends, but not among me and mine.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
What this article fails to address is the lack of figging in mainstream American sex culture.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Look, I understand all of your hipster desires to be all modern and new agey, but I frankly think we need to keep up the honored tradition of keeping women’s minds clear of the dirty world of politics, and that’s why suffrage is not now and will never be a good idea.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Skeptic,
I really need to go work, so I’ll have to check out of this discussion till tomorrow. But since you asked, I believe homosexual acts are wrong for four reasons.
1) they imply that gender is a matter of social construction, and not an innate and essential difference
2) they imply that our bodies are our own, and we can choose to use organs and functions as we please,
3) a homosexual relationship can never be open to biological procreation, whereas a heterosexual couple that uses contraception can still choose to have children down the road,
4) it implies that there is no absolute standard to which all healthy sexuality can conform, and we can make our own standards
5) it violates the complementarity of male and female.
I’m open to being convinced otherwise, and have heard compelling arguments from generally conservative clergymen that homosexuality isn’t always a sin. Perhaps I’ll eventually be convinced, but I am not yet. Bye for now.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Because, Fred, by and large, they are meaningless. All humans are descended from a small group, perhaps no more than a small band, that lived 40,000 years ago. Most ‘races’ are merely local cosmetic variations, of only a few thousand years. We have less genetic diversity than any other mammal save cheetahs. We are literally all cousins to each other.
In terms of differences between groups, the range of variation within these groups exceeds the distinction between groups. Human populations have been in constant movement and mixture. Hell, a look at European history over a mere 3000 years will tell you that. There has been constant mixing and intermingling.
The notion that there are significant hereditable differences in cognitive functioning between ‘races’ or ‘ethnic groups’ is simply unsustainable. There has not been enough time, and not nearly enough stability or isolation for natural selection to produce meaningful differences in cognitive function. Even if there were, the actual act of cognitive function queers the deal as tool using primates restructure their environment and deform natural selection.
So far as we can determine, it appears that cultural and environmental factors make up the vast bulk of cognitive differences.
To put it another way: The Egyptians and Babylonians were not the most highly evolved peoples of their day, and Western Europeans did not benefit from a bunch of mutations that suddenly made them smarter than the Egyptians in the 19th century.
Give it up lad, you got nothing.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Re: Thus, virginity of upper class women (ie, those who had access to wealth, resources, and social mobility as well as the symbols of ideology) was fetishised, controlled and treated as a commodity because if all those daughters of kings went off having babies with just anyone, then too many claims to the kings’ entrenched power would have developed and that many, partially royal spawn would have undermined the central precept of monarchical society
The problem with this analysis is that the sons of kings (and frequently the kings themselves) spawned bastard children all over the place. Even rulers generally noted as pious often had mistresses on the side. The way to handle this was simply to disinherit any child not born of a proper marriage. And sometimes too to disinherit the entire female line.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:59 pm
I really need to go work, so I’ll have to check out of this discussion till tomorrow. But since you asked, I believe homosexual acts are wrong for four reasons.
Yes, Hector, but how do you feel about figging?
Is figging wrong?
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:00 pm
the subject turns to average group differences?
Yes, the study of “average group differences” is some advanced stuff, you betcha. It’s like doing your own colonoscopy, first hand. “Average group differences”, forsooth!
What a fancy name for bigotry and prejudice. You know what they say: There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are “average group differences”!
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
I’m open to being convinced otherwise…
Bend over, Hector, my love.
Hector, I have alarming news for you. You better sit down. Nobody cares whether you think homosexuality is wrong, in fact, nobody, and that includes the world, cares whether you think about sex of any type. And it’s alarming that you think they or it does.
But don’t let me keep you from your job lecturing underage girls about sex.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
5) it violates the complementarity of male and female.
I dunno Hector, penises fit pretty well into rectums, male or female, so I’d say that part of your argument sucks.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Hector, In brief reply:
But since you asked, I believe homosexual acts are wrong for four reasons.1) they imply that gender is a matter of social construction, and not an innate and essential difference
I don’t see that implication at all. Certainly that’s not stated. I don’t believe it follows as a natural consequence.
2) they imply that our bodies are our own, and we can choose to use organs and functions as we please,
Who do our bodies belong to, if not ourselves? You’re getting pretty naked with that ‘women are cattle’ thing.
Implying again?
Finally: So what?
3) a homosexual relationship can never be open to biological procreation, whereas a heterosexual couple that uses contraception can still choose to have children down the road,
Well, some people are sterile or infertile. Are you arguing that a relationship with a sterile partner is morally inferior? If my wife is menopausal, is my continuing relationship with her morally inferior?
The larger question is: So what?
4) it implies that there is no absolute standard to which all healthy sexuality can conform, and we can make our own standards
“Implies”? So, it doesn’t say this outright. But you’re concerned about… inferences… implications… hypothetical nonsensical potentials?
I say it implies no such thing. I say that it does not follow necessarily. And I would say that it is both possible to establish standards of healthy sexuality which are not based in sexual orientation. Indeed, I would argue that sexual orientation is a misleading standard for healthy sexuality – is a straight rapist healthy? don’t think so.
5) it violates the complementarity of male and female.
How does it do that? Are you suggesting that if two men or women get it on, then other mens boy parts won’t fit into other women’s girl parts? Are you suggesting that if a man does it with another man, then those boy parts won’t fit into girl parts any more?
Because it seems to me that this is your argument, albeit I suspect you’re making it on a more rarified, theoretical, philosophical plane. But if that’s your argument, then you’d better make it convincing, cause otherwise, I have to say “bunk.”
I dunno Hector. For all your claims to rationality, your reasons, when we come right down to it, are unsupported, irrational and somewhat feverish. I’m certainly not persuaded by them. I’m not even moved to respect them.
Maybe it works for you, but all I see is windy and discredited superstition.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Because, Fred, by and large, they are meaningless. All humans are descended from a small group, perhaps no more than a small band, that lived 40,000 years ago. Most ‘races’ are merely local cosmetic variations, of only a few thousand years. We have less genetic diversity than any other mammal save cheetahs. We are literally all cousins to each other
About fifth cousins is the furthest we can possibly be from each other. And Thank You, Skeptic, that’s the first bit of sense I’ve read on the web today.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I really need to go work, so I’ll have to check out of this discussion till tomorrow.
Oh, please, Hector. Do you think we don’t know the sound of one hand thwapping?
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Sorry, Fred and Fred’s other racist sockpuppets: Guys like still wouldn’t get laid even if the Gor-novel fantasy world that apparently makes up so much of your mental life actually did exist. (Oh, and you can’t try enacting a “Save the Tiger” fantasy either. Cops throw you in jail for that sort of thing.)
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Skeptic,
“Because, Fred, by and large, they are meaningless.”
False. Average differences in IQ correlate strongly with different socioeconomic outcomes. It’s not a coincidence that the group with the lowest average IQ also ends up being the least educated and lowest earning group, on average.
“All humans are descended from a small group, perhaps no more than a small band, that lived 40,000 years ago. Most ‘races’ are merely local cosmetic variations, of only a few thousand years.”
Time for you to read up on the conclusions of the latest research, by two scientists committed to those “HIPSTER” ideas you claim to be committed to, The 10,000 Year Explosion.
“In terms of differences between groups, the range of variation within these groups exceeds the distinction between groups.”
This is an utterly pointless statement. It’s like saying that the range of variation in heights among men is greater than the average difference in heights between men and women. It’s true, but meaningless nonetheless, because it doesn’t refute the fact that there are significant average differences in height between men and women.
“The notion that there are significant hereditable differences in cognitive functioning between ‘races’ or ‘ethnic groups’ is simply unsustainable.”
That’s your wishful thinking talking, not empiricism or rationality, which suggest otherwise.
When it comes to IQ and group differences, you are as empirical and rational as Hector is; you’re both people of faith.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
When it comes to IQ and group differences, you are as empirical and rational as Hector is; you’re both people of faith
Exactly, Fred! Since we share the same bit of the Divine Nature with all other human beings, to denigrate other human beings is to denigrate God. You can go up against God if you want, but I prefer not to, and to see Him and honor Him in every man and woman I meet. It’s one of those “acts of faith” which has, in addition, many practical benefits.
But if you want to curse God and denigrate His creation, Man, you go right ahead. See what it gets you.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
It’s always good to hear from Amanda Marcotte and be reminding that conservatism doesn’t hold exclusive rights to all arrogant asses out there.
Mike
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Wow! I haven’t seen so much troll feeding in a while. I’m sure Hector and Fred are feeling pretty good about their pathetic selves right now after pissing off so many ‘hipsters’ and being the center of attention for nigh 200 comments. Whatever happened to ignoring trolls?
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
“Since we share the same bit of the Divine Nature with all other human beings, to denigrate other human beings…”
Acknowledging that there are differences, on average, between different groups isn’t denigrating them, it’s just acknowledging reality. You ought to try it sometime.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
It’s not a coincidence that the group with the lowest average IQ also ends up being the least educated and lowest earning group, on average.
See, all we have to do is push people off tall buildings, and sooner or later, they will start flying rather than die. So let’s get started!
On the other hand, none of the people pushed off building suffered a bit of harm, until they contacted the ground.
Which is all another way for Fred to say “That God loves Fred doesn’t satisfy me enough. He’s got to hate you before I really enjoy the situation”
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Okay, Fred, why don’t you tell us who the superior groups of human beings are. You’ve certainly made very free with the “group differences” which make them inferior; who are the superior ones? Please tell us.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Ferd says: Time for you to read up on the conclusions of the latest research, by two scientists committed to those “HIPSTER” ideas you claim to be committed to, The 10,000 Year Explosion.
I, too, am so tired of these “HIPSTER” ideas.
That is a fabulous book. Be sure to read John Derbyshire’s and Steve Sailer’s great reviews here:
http://the10000yearexplosion.com/
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Acknowledging that there are differences, on average, between different groups isn’t denigrating them, it’s just acknowledging reality
So God said “Gee, I’ll just short these Mexicans on brains, and I’ll just give these black people lots of muscles, but I’m still saving the brains for…”
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I will make you all my slaves and kajiras!
Kneel before Zod!
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Mooser,
I deal in facts. For the religious interpretation of them, see Hector.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
So I gather the “10,000 Year Explosion” is the latest wrinkle in the “Bell Curve”, huh?
Poor Hector! Poor Fred! So Superior, with such intelligence and morals, but constrained from spreading them by the constraints of their superior morality! What a quandry! If they stay all moral and intelligent, they won’t breed fast enough, but if the go all baby-daddy well, then, who are they? I mean, what becomes of their “group differences”? They’re shot to hell, and there they are in the muck with the young and pregnant.
Obviously, only one thing to do! We set Hector and Fred up in a nice temple with Doric columns and rich Corinthian leather, and a supply of virgins of proper genetic makeup, selected with an eye (and a tape measure) toward their “group differences” are first hectored by Hector about having children, and then quickly whicked over to the inner chamber, where Fred is waiting to make those “group differences” even greater.
It’s the only chance the human race has to survive! I mean, do you want to live in a world populated by people, or just human beings?
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
False. Average differences in IQ correlate strongly with different socioeconomic outcomes. It’s not a coincidence that the group with the lowest average IQ also ends up being the least educated and lowest earning group, on average.
You’re mistaking correlations for cause and effect. A hundred years ago, the Irish would have been on the bottom of the education, earning and IQ table. Are the Irish pulling up the bottom now? Nope. Are we to assume that the Irish did some fast evolving over the last century? Or are we to assume that a variety of factors, such as assimilation, education, enculturation, and wealth, levelled out the IQ discrepancy?
“All humans are descended from a small group, perhaps no more than a small band, that lived 40,000 years ago. Most ‘races’ are merely local cosmetic variations, of only a few thousand years.”
Time for you to read up on the conclusions of the latest research, by two scientists committed to those “HIPSTER” ideas you claim to be committed to, The 10,000 Year Explosion.
Interesting. If I can sort out their thesis, their argument is that the emergence of agriculture as a mode of life distinct from hunter/gathering or herding amounted to a form of natural selection which produced changes in the human species which would be more significant than climate based changes such as skin colour. I can see all sorts of problems with that.
But I don’t think it helps your case in any meaningful way. Europeans or ‘Whites’ are descended from central Asian nomads who swept down on the Roman Empires between 1500 and 2000 years ago, and would be latecomers to the agricultural game. Mexicans, on the other hand, are descendants of people who include latins and phoenicians (the most heavily agricultural and civilized people in their part of the old world), Aztecs and related tribes (also heavily agricultural). Mexicans should be more evolved and have higher IQ’s.
Unless your arguing that agriculture and organized societies produce backwards evolutionary pressure. But I don’t think you are.
“In terms of differences between groups, the range of variation within these groups exceeds the distinction between groups.”
This is an utterly pointless statement. It’s like saying that the range of variation in heights among men is greater than the average difference in heights between men and women. It’s true, but meaningless nonetheless, because it doesn’t refute the fact that there are significant average differences in height between men and women.
Except that as between men and women, there are actual meaningful differences in anatomy. Do you see where your argument is circular? You are arguing on the basis of averages as a criteria of difference between groups, but your definition of difference between groups includes your averages. You have no baseline distinction, as between men and women. Ergo, you go round and round in circles.
Look Fred, I can understand the superficial appeal of these notions to you. I felt that appeal myself. But I took the time to examine them carefully, and there’s just no ‘there’ there. It’s bunk. Give it up.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Well, I believe homosexual acts are wrong for four reasons also:
1) they imply that gender is a matter of social construction, and not an innate and essential difference
2) they imply that our bodies are our own, and we can choose to use organs and functions as we please,
3) a homosexual relationship can never be open to biological procreation, whereas a heterosexual couple that uses contraception can still choose to have children down the road,
4) it implies that there is no absolute standard to which all healthy sexuality can conform, and we can make our own standards
5) it violates the complementarity of male and female
6) an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope
7) nice red uniforms.
Whatever happened to ignoring trolls?
Ignoring trolls is so 2003. We’re takin’ this thread to 1000.
Sex and Israel really brings out the comments.
And if someone would just say “we are all Hezbollah porn now,” I’m sure we could get to 1000 by midnight tonight.
Oh, and “Name (required),” you won’t mind if we call you Jerry, will you?
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
I deal in facts.
And all of then very rare antiques! The bidding must go sky-high when you have a sale. After all, that kind of 19th century (and earlier!) stuff is getting rare.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Mooser says: Okay, Fred, why don’t you tell us who the superior groups of human beings are. You’ve certainly made very free with the “group differences” which make them inferior; who are the superior ones? Please tell us.
Why the Ashkenazi Jews, of course! According to Fred’s heroes, Cochran and Harpending!…
Thank God for the Sickle Cell!
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I deal in facts.
Well, to be a little more accurate: you deal in interpretation of facts. As does Jonah Goldberg.
Of course, with Jonah, he usually says something on the order of “I don’t know anything about Subject X – has anyone done any research on it, that they’d care to share with me?” Unfortunately, Subject X for Jonah could be just about anything in the entire world. Let’s hope that doesn’t apply to you, too.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I deal in facts. For the religious interpretation of them, see Hector.
Now I know where the “tag team” concept came from in big-time professional wrestling!
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Whatever happened to ignoring trolls?
We are all trolls now, but only one of us is Spartacus!
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
rich Corinthian leather
Hey! What did HE ever do to deserve being included in a ridiculous “discussion” like this.
De mortuis nil nisi bonum and all that
And if someone would just say “we are all Hezbollah porn now,” I’m sure we could get to 1000 by midnight tonight.
Hezbollah is SO last year. “People’s Front of Judea” is where it’s at, bucko.
And it should be “gay porn”, if you really want to peg the Wingnut-O-Meter.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Ever notice that people seem to be completely unaware of the things they reveal about themselves in their writing? I don’t know, but maybe it’s because people can’t turn away with a snort, roll their eyes, fall down laughing, or take a swing at you on the Internet. So nothing stops them as they insert the old wing-tip deeply in among the dentition.
“When I talk to young girls about sex….” Why doesn’t he just put a big “Kick Me, I really, really need it” sign on?
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:02 pm
As I recall, that was from the diaries of Margaret Mead – Bloom County Edition.
Seems apropos.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Hey! What did HE ever do to deserve being included in a ridiculous “discussion” like this.
A Ricardo Montalban reference is sure to push the thread to 10K comments.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Mooser -
Ah, I see. My apologies for missing your subtle purpose.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
So I gather the “10,000 Year Explosion” is the latest wrinkle in the “Bell Curve”, huh?
Again, as the other fella said, it’s really a matter of interpretation of “fact”.
Decent review of it in New Scientist.
And then there is this from Seed Magazine.
Be Fruitful and Multiply
What a coinky dink. Be fruit flies and multiples.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
On the “10,000 Year Explosion”, I’m sorry to see that what amounts to a potentially interesting idea seems to have been instantly hijacked by the same old tired bunch of white supremacists.
Unfortunately, in order to embrace their covert supremacist narrative, once again, they have to ignore some basic facts.
Here are some problems:
1) Humans live too darned long. Dogs become fertile and reproductive at 2 to 3 years of age. Humans between 15 and 20. One cannot identify inherited characteristics in a newborn pup, so you have to wait till the animal matures. This means that your breeding cycle for canines is 4 to 6 years, for humans its 30 to 40.
2) Intensive selection pressures can produce new breeds of dog within relatively short time frames of decades or centuries. However, humans are not and have never been subject to such conscious, consistent, ruthless, purpose driven eugenic selection. Instead we’ve got the simple old undirected natural selection. That opens up your time scale immensely, by a factor of tens or hundreds.
3) Natural selection only selects among variations in a population, and can select for or against mutations within that population. Ergo, the less variation within a population, the less natural selection has to work with. The more variation within a population, the more you will see changes brought about by natural selection.
4) The problem is that there’s just not a lot of variation in human populations. The overwhelming bulk of human genetic variation is in Africa. Europe and Asia were colonized mere tens of thousands of years ago. Australia and the Americas were colonized by small offshoot groups. The genetic pools of Europeans and Asians were relatively small, and the ones in Australia and Americas were tiny. Small genetic pools mean very little variation, relatively low mutation, and minimal pressures on natural selection.
5) Two factors throw a curve ball into the ‘agriculture as a force for natural selection’, argument. First, Agriculture, once it began, seems to have been independently invented several times in the old and new world. And it seems to have spread rapidly, displacing many hunter-gatherer societies. Very quickly, Agriculture became a dominant mode of life for most of the planet. Also, even within the context of agriculture, social and environmental change, population movements, were so rapid that its hard to presume any kind of consistent natural selection.
6) Finally, agriculture as a mechanism of natural selection, is hardly straightforward. It does not produce a ’superior’ human being. It might, arguably, produce a more disease resistant specimen. Or it might produce one that trades speed and adrenalin of plodding grudge work. It might produce more intelligence, or perhaps less. It might produce nothing more significant than a greater tolerance for malnutrition. The notion that agriculture might have driven natural selection is interesting and worthy…. but the evidence is … speculative, at best. Worth testing, but hardly to be assumed, and certainly not to be assumed as simple.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
I come back again, and there are over 200 comments on the thread.
Have we come to a synthesis of Hectorism and hipsterism? Reconciled difference with our shared humanity? Liberated women’s sexuality and moved men away from outdated patriarchal norms?
I assume so. Congrats, everyone!
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:32 pm
If you’re using sex to put your wife down and build yourself up, you’re the one who’s politicizing sex. How is it that anti-feminists can’t tell the difference between observing a phenomenon and creating a phenomenon? As I’ve said before, it’s like when I point at the ball and the dog stares at my finger.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:38 pm
I don’t really recall what “5 minute blowjob” thing the anti-feminist wank is talking about, but I have my suspicions. It’s amusing that I’m considered “anti-sex” when I like sex so damn much that I think it’s a shame how many men see it as a service performed for them by women. Women like sex, too! But they quit liking it after years of being strapped to a guy who thinks “sex” is when she sucks him off to keep him from bitching, but he never reciprocates, or only does so begrudgingly. Because I think women deserve their fair share of the sex, I’m considered “anti-sex”. It’s sort of how you can tell I hate ice cream because I dig in so much and think everyone should have a bite.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:38 pm
“Ever notice that people seem to be completely unaware of the things they reveal about themselves in their writing?”
I don’t know Mooser, do you notice it yourself?
Mike
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
“Because I think women deserve their fair share of the sex, I’m considered “anti-sex”.”
*Sarcasm On*
Amanda, your ability to examine your own beliefs and how other perceive them is truly staggering.
*Sarcasm Off*
Mike
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Hahhahahahahahahahaha. MBunge, because I don’t immediately decide that I want to get married and give up on orgasms for the rest of the life, while treating sex as a duty I have to perform to keep Mr. Grumpypants from whining about me to his friends doesn’t mean that I haven’t listened to and examined the advice. It didn’t take long for me to reject it, no, but it also didn’t take long for me to reject the advice to drop a brick on my foot. Doesn’t make me non-self-aware. It makes me smarter than a rock or a wingnut, which isn’t hard to do, but I do realize is threatening to a good deal of men.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:55 pm
I don’t know Mooser, do you notice it yourself?
In those matters, I defer, and gladly, to Prof. Berube. Which, I’m sure, he hasn’t been for a long time, if ever.
Amanda Marcotte, look, I am (entirely through my own foolishness, I will admit) married to a woman about ten years my juinor. At the present 56 to 47, the situation is becoming critical. I have enough problems as it is, but keeping that child off my lap really wrings my withers. I pray daily she never finds your website. I’m no superman.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
wow, what a bunch of prudes. and fred the racist and sexist. charmed.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Skeptic,
It’s amazing how you’ve managed to refute the research and conclusions of Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending in 10 minutes of sophistry. You really should go into evolutionary biology. The field could use someone to replace Stephen Jay Gould in defending liberal creationism.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:58 pm
“because I don’t immediately decide that I want to get married and give up on orgasms for the rest of the life, while treating sex as a duty I have to perform to keep Mr. Grumpypants from whining about me to his friends”
Amanda, I hadn’t seen that when I wrote my last post, and now that I have, I will see this computer ends up in the trash and my DSL cancelled before tommorrow. Are you trying to kill me?
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:02 pm
No Fred, not “every guy” uses porn. But guys who are addicted to it, need to believe that. So now we know.
Notorious – what exactly were you afraid of? Have YOU ever had sex with a male internet porn addict? Give it a try, then come back and talk. Until then, shut up.
And Fred again – trust me, I’m having better sex than you are. Definitely better than your wife is.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Have YOU ever had sex with a male internet porn addict?
Catherine, forgive my appalling niavete, but when doing that, are you, the male internet porn addict, and the computer all in the same room? Or is the distribution of resources different then I am imagining. Cause I’m sorry, but I just can’t see it. Okay, maybe with a wireless mouse…
Once again, over 200 comments and the only thing anybody has proved is that my life is ridiculously dull. And my wife is gonna leave me for a younger computer.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Catherine, you don’t know that his wife doesn’t have a boyfriend on the side. Or preferably a girlfriend.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:12 pm
LOL. No, no computer. You get to be able to tell the internet porn addicts. They are totally clueless about a woman’s body, and think it’s totally natural for a woman to come as soon as they throw them down, stick it in, and start going a hundred miles an hour. They really suck in bed, but interestingly, they think they’re great. That’s because in the videos the women love it. It’s very mechanical. The intercourse part is violent, again, just no foreplay, hard, fast, immediate.
They just suck, what else can I say?
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Catherine, you don’t know that his wife doesn’t have a boyfriend on the side. Or preferably a girlfriend.
Look, when I found out (about a year after our nuptials) that my wife had shot her first husband, my marital options became much more limited. It’s her way, or the highway to heaven.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Guys, there is no need to use the utterly debased H-word. If anything, just say they’re fucking. Or if you want to be SFW, “casual sex” or “one-night-stand” will do. Don’t contribute to the disease.
Other than iffy terminology (understatement of the millennium), Jessica is right on target in that those who attack the easy-going sex culture the most vehemently have a marked anti-woman agenda. But that doesn’t mean ALL people against this culture share the same wingnut ideas. For example, I am against it because it debases the intimacy of the act, erasing it of any sacredness. And let’s not forget the contribution to males continuing to see women as nothing more than sex objects.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Catherine: So that’s where all those laptops and i-pods come from! It’s obvious they don’t bother with any type of surge protection. And it’s the ones with the smallest hard drives and only 126MbRAM that are doing it, no wonder cell phones suck so much, and there are so many of them.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Catherine,
“No Fred, not “every guy” uses porn. But guys who are addicted to it, need to believe that. So now we know.”
Maybe not “every guy”, but the overwhelming majority view porn. There’s plenty of empirical data that suggest this (e.g., the traffic at porn websites, the ratings of porn on pay TV, etc.). The porn industry is bigger than the record industry in this country, and it was porn that drove the adoption of streaming video and other advances on the web.
“And Fred again – trust me, I’m having better sex than you are. Definitely better than your wife is.”
If it makes you feel better to believe that, more power to you. As for myself, I’ve never understood the motivation of people who brag about having great sex. If you’re fulfilled sexually, why would you care what anyone else thinks?
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
No wonder there’s so many viruses going around.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:21 pm
If you’re fulfilled sexually, why would you care what anyone else thinks?
Gosh, Fred, I never thought about it like that before! You are so wise.
On the other hand, why does it bother you if she wants to shout about it?
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:23 pm
“Maybe not “every guy”, but the overwhelming majority view porn.”
You look at a lot of porn, huh Fred?
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:23 pm
YOu know, in her comments section, several people did bring up the fact that this so-called hook up culture, (which is the same exact shit we were doing at that age, only we called it casual sex, so whatever), does create a pressure for young women to have sex when they might not really want to. And Jessica is not blind to this, she responded to it, agrees with much of it, so no one here is saying anything she isn’t aware of. She had a particular subject to address, and that doesn’t mean there aren’t other legit facets to it.
And I know that a lot of liberal men get off the bandwagon right there. If we’re bashing righties and their holier-than-thou bullshit, liberal men are there. Start talking about men in general, pressuring women into sex, often while they are under the influence of alcohol, and using the pro-sexual “freedom” for women as a mask for their habit of turning women into objects and things, and then you start to lose the “liberal man”.
I just finished “NIxon land” and one thing that gave me a cynical laugh was his description of hippy men asking hippy women “wanna fuck”? and if the girl said no, they were mocked “don’t like men?” Same as it ever was.
This is what will seperate a liberal male from an actual feminist man. You’ll find more of the former.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Fred, I never look at porn, myself. But that’s because I have a direct sight-line from my bedroom to the bedroom of the little twins next door. And they love to show off for me!
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Fred – why wouldn’t I want to brag about it? I stopped fucking cons ten years ago, and porn-users five years ago.
I’m having the best sex of my life.
And I know it bothers you, because men like you hate the idea of a feminist having hot, great, orgasmic sex. Every fucking time baby.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
People should be able to have consentual sex whenever they want, for any reason they want, as long as they aren’t creating a public health hazard (no love juice on the bus seat please). Anyone who disagrees is wrong.
If people want hookups and both (or ++) consent, where is the problem? If people feel pressured to do things they don’t want to, surely there are local groups of like-minded people they can associate with that won’t apply that kind of pressure.
For me, personally, sex is only fun when love is involved. Then again, I also don’t see the allure of certain fetishes. There are people who strongly disagree with my preferences, and they should be as free to pursue theirs (within the common sense consent bounds that I nevertheless have to make explicit for the dumbshit conservatives who will otherwise bring up rape) as I am to pursue mine.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
“this so-called hook up culture, does create a pressure for young women to have sex when they might not really want to.
And Thank God for that, cause I never could!
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:31 pm
“Because we’ve lived in the world and know his type very well. Plus, there’s a strong correlation between having anti-sex attitudes and not getting laid. It’s like the correlations between being a teetotaler and not drinking.”
Not sure I agree with that. If you follow the gay rights issue, it seems that the real anti-gay lobby is made up of closet homosexuals. They’re getting laid alright, but they’re ridden with guilt about it and taking it out on some other shmoes trying to get their lovers of 15+ years recognized as the next of kin.
By comparison, men who aren’t getting secretly laid by other men may not be especially gay-positive, but they mostly just don’t want to hear about it. In terms of the drinking analogy, the anti-sex lobby aren’t the ones who take no drugs at all; they’re the ones who smoke a pack a day and drink every weekend but think possession of marajuana should be illegal because that’s a gateway drug, dontcha know.
Also true of abortion. I’d wager any money you care to that the ones denouncing it from the heavens have either had one quietly or paid for one quietly. The “pro-lifers” who are just arguing that we’d be better off with fewer abortions all round are probably less likely to have actually had one.
If anything motivates the anti-sex lobby in general, I’d guess it’s a belief that sex ought to be “dirty” or “taboo”, not that they’re not getting any. What they’re opposed to seems to be not so much the fact that it is becoming more common, but the fact that it is becoming less of a taboo. I mean, a President of the United States was found to have gotten a blow job from an intern and didn’t even lose his job over it. What kind of a world is that to live in?
To put it another way, the issue is not that young women are having more sex than they used to; it’s that they are having as just as much as their grandmothers did, but aren’t in danger of being run out of town if anyone else finds out.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:32 pm
why wouldn’t I want to brag about it? I stopped fucking cons ten years ago, and porn-users five years ago
See what I mean? I never get a break!
If I walked through a woman’s prison with a fistful of pardons, they would all hold out for lethal injection. And I am totally against the death penalty!
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:36 pm
. Then again, I also don’t see the allure of certain fetishes.
Like my wife’s attraction to tired, worn out old men like me. But I don’t have to understand of it to appreciate it, do I?
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:38 pm
They’re getting laid alright, but they’re ridden with guilt
I guess all the bad feeling must be worth it for both of them.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:48 pm
What a fascinating thread! I wonder if we could get something like this going about paid prostitution. It has always existed as a hook-up culture for men and I haven’t read much about how the men engaged in that will end up crying into their beers when older. Neither have I seen much concern over the fate of the women who do sex work.
As to the argument far above (and unrelated to most of this thread) that the gender gap in wages is just five percent, well, that’s rubbish. See my series on the gender gap at echidne-of-the-snakes.com for more information on why that argument is wrong and what the correct argument might be.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Making my own little contribution to Comrade Bérubé’s Glorious Campaign to Let 1,000 Comments Bloom:
As usual the gays ruin it for everyone because while it is OK for the quarterback to fuck a cheerleader it is definitely not OK for him to fuck the halfback. And certainly not the coach.
I’m sorry, but I think the prudes have a point here. Having seen numerous documentary film treatments on the subject, I consider myself something of an expert here, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that the coach always fucks the quarterback–NEVER the reverse. It’s such a time-honored feature of locker room behavior that I can only conclude that it must be part of that Natural Order of Things that Hector has been enlightening us about.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:51 pm
I don’t really recall what “5 minute blowjob” thing the anti-feminist wank is talking about, but I have my suspicions. It’s amusing that I’m considered “anti-sex” when I like sex so damn much that I think it’s a shame how many men see it as a service performed for them by women. Women like sex, too! But they quit liking it after years of being strapped to a guy who thinks “sex” is when she sucks him off to keep him from bitching, but he never reciprocates, or only does so begrudgingly. Because I think women deserve their fair share of the sex, I’m considered “anti-sex”. It’s sort of how you can tell I hate ice cream because I dig in so much and think everyone should have a bite.
I am referring to your post, evaporated now in all your server meltdowns and switches, of the Five Minute Fix suggested by the book Babyproofing your marriage. That fix is that on occasion, women should consider giving their husbands a blowjob in the kitchen.
http://www.babyproofingyourmarriage.com/blog/?p=5
In that post, you basically took the position you state above. You decided blowjobs in the kitchen were all about submission and letting the husband masturbate on your face.
IIRC, you were roundly skewered in your comments, by loyal feminist pro-sex readers who begged to differ with you.
Do you remember that post now?
Amanda, you may like sex, but that doesn’t make you a pro-sex feminists. You politicize acts and judge them depending on if who the participants are, whether they are married, whether they are gay, regardless of the acts context within a consensual relationship.
Pro-sex feminists have been angry with you for years because of your anti-sex statements. Lesbian feminists are angry with you because of your bigotry. Feminists of color are angry with you too likewise.
Poorly read feminist apologizers like Berube and Yglesias luv ya, pander to ya, you are their token.
How can you tell? Well are you ever in 100% agreement with everything a friend says or do you call them on it?
How many times has Atrios, etc., said that Ezra or Matt were wrong. It’s rare, but it happens.
How many times have the men who shield you said you were wrong? In the meantime, women in your blogroll and other feminists call you out on your shit quite a bit. I’d say that’s a bit odd.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Listen, Name(required), (if that is your real name), She’s a complicated woman, and no one understands her but her mother. Can you dig it? Sure she’s a mean mother…Shut your mouth! But I’m just talking about Amanda. Right on!
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
I don’t really recall what “5 minute blowjob” thing the anti-feminist wank is talking about, but I have my suspicions. It’s amusing that I’m considered “anti-sex” when I like sex so damn much that I think it’s a shame how many men see it as a service performed for them by women. Women like sex, too! But they quit liking it after years of being strapped to a guy who thinks “sex” is when she sucks him off to keep him from bitching, but he never reciprocates, or only does so begrudgingly.
Listen, asshole, I don’t remember giving you permission to make my marriage the subject of this thread! So can we just give it a rest? Huh?
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Women like sex, too!
Where are these women who like sex with everyone but us?
We are two wild and crazy guys with these bulges in our tight pants! Now come the chicks!
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Women like sex, too!
Where are these women who like sex with everyone but us?
We are two wild and crazy guys with these bulges in our tight pants! Now come the chicks!
Let me guess! This thread is turning into a “Flight of the Conchords” video, right?
http://video.google.com/videosearch?sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4ADBS_enUS295US296&q=flight+of+the+conchords&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=ofGhSeawK4GEsQPEn73cCQ&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Name (required) … he’s stalkerriffic~!
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Professor Berube, all over teh Intertubes I read good things about you:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/books/review/16dona-list.html?pagewanted=print
he describes the challenges of respecting students’ varying views rather than encouraging them to parrot his own.
http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/liberal_thursday_ii/
Please, please, O spirits, let not my poor little book be crushed like a bug by sneering incomprehension.”
And yet, when people point to your own sneering at others, like Hector, who hold different beliefs than yours… Well, those people suck!
David Horowitz is a dipshit and his bills are nonsensical. But how does your sneering bullying on Saturday and Sunday translate into “the challenges of respecting students’ varying views rather than encouraging them to parrot his own” Monday through Friday?
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Fred is the ultimate proof that his hypothesis of superior IQ on the part of certain races is complete bullshit.
Did your remember to control for socio-economic status? First take a sampling of Ivy-League graduates of all ethnic backgrounds. Then do the same for a sample of rednecks, ghetto-children, Chinese peasants, and migrant workers.
Do you see the point I’m trying to make here?
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:24 pm
And yet, when people point to your own sneering at others, like Hector, who hold different beliefs than yours… Well, those people suck!
here we go with the civility crap again. And you and Hector do quite a good job of sneering at the opposition on your on. So what if he’s tenured? All the more reason to sneer at complete tools like you. He can’t get fired. You should be glad your only being ridiculed and sneered at. If you were being graded, you’d have been flunked by now. In the good old days, you’d be in the corner with a Dunce cap on.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Oh you poor sweet wimmenz, don’t worry your little heads trying to be amoral and selfish like us men! Your lives are so much better this way!
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Be careful, Catherine–I know people who became public enemy #1 for suggesting a link between alcohol and unwanted sexual outcomes in women.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Just once I wanna see a troll go hog wild and try to tear everyone and everything down. Just let their feelings out.
No, they pretend to have feelings and principles… how fuckin’ triresome.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Be careful, Catherine–I know people who became public enemy #1 for suggesting a link between alcohol and unwanted sexual outcomes in women.
Yeah, but that wasn’t a discussion about women fucking because they like it. That was a discussion about rape.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Catherine,
“And I know it bothers you, because men like you hate the idea of a feminist having hot, great, orgasmic sex. Every fucking time baby.”
I hate to break it to you, but it actually doesn’t bother me if you are enjoying having sex. Why would it? It’s supposed to be enjoyable. You should have orgasms every time you do it. I’m sorry that you had so much shitty sex before though. Let me clue you in on why it was shitty: not because your former sexual partners watched porn, but because they didn’t care about you or your pleasure. Pleasing a woman sexually isn’t that complicated; there are some pretty unsubtle cues to let a man know if he’s pleasing a woman or not.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Even Hitler had feelings and priciples.
Oh noes! I’ve invoked Godwin!
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:47 pm
I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that article was written in a spirit of humor, based only upon the three dozen or so times therein when it says it’s written in a spirit of humor.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:49 pm
I hate to break it to you, but it actually doesn’t bother me if you are enjoying having sex. Why would it? It’s supposed to be enjoyable. You should have orgasms every time you do it. I’m sorry that you had so much shitty sex before though. Let me clue you in on why it was shitty: not because your former sexual partners watched porn, but because they didn’t care about you or your pleasure. Pleasing a woman sexually isn’t that complicated; there are some pretty unsubtle cues to let a man know if he’s pleasing a woman or not.
Is this the free conservative dating site?
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:53 pm
I don’t sneer at Hector. I mock him. I mock Hector because he sneers.
Where I come from, it’s all fun and games when someone loses an eye.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Notorious PAT,
I’m gonna go out on a limb too and suggest that maybe Name (required) and all his kind don’t give a flying fuck about reality, the truth, or whether they are misrepresenting someone, and only want to cause some stupid drama, as a way of trying to fill the void where their personality should be.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
The proliferation of relationships with little permanence or emotional basis, centered around sex, is a problem. I don’t consider pointing that out to be anti-feminist.
But then, I’m not a feminist – despite believing women are equal to men. And I won’t adopt the label unless or until feminists’ top priorities stop being support of abortion and advocacy of promiscuity. Pay equality, legal equality worldwide, third-world economic development, those are the genuine concerns, things that actually improve people’s lives rather than furthering a social agenda.
Your quality of life – whether male or female – is not measured by the number of different people you have sex with.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Fred, shut the fuck up and go talk to your “wife”.
“Yeah, but that wasn’t a discussion about women fucking because they like it. That was a discussion about rape.”
Atheist, an entire world of ambiguity and conforming lies between those two experiences.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:21 pm
“The proliferation of relationships with little permanence or emotional basis, centered around sex, is a problem. I don’t consider pointing that out to be anti-feminist.”
A problem for whom?
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:21 pm
I know this was posted way up the thread, but I got here late, sorry… and my God, I can’t believe I’m even reading this.
1) I’m not sure what this even means.
2) Hate to break this to you, Hec, but our bodies ARE our own. Who the hell else’s would they be?
3) Aside from the obvious objection – do you mean that post menopausal couples should have to divorce? – my response to this is a big “so what?” Here in the 21st century, relationships aren’t necessarily about breeding.
4) Again, Hec, hate to break this to you – but we CAN make up whatever rules we want to regarding “healthy” sexuality… we’re not limited to the ones you happen to prefer
5) Oh noes! The Complementarity Police are going to be so annoyed! Really, this point is identical to 4), and makes no more sense.
Here’s the deal, Hec. If you prefer to stick by sexual rules developed thousands of years ago in the Middle East, and you can find partners who agree… then you all can go crazy. But you’ve got no business imposing your particular sexual preferences on those of us who don’t happen to be members of your sect.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:22 pm
I come not to sneer at Hector but to mock him.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:22 pm
“Is this the free conservative dating site?”
Shhh. Fred hasn’t figured out that his blow-up doll is faking orgasm yet.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
“The proliferation of relationships with little permanence or emotional basis, centered around sex, is a problem.
Don’t worry, dude. It’ll all slow down to a pace you can catch up to in your sixties.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Be careful, Catherine–I know people who became public enemy #1 for suggesting a link between alcohol and unwanted sexual outcomes in women.
Well, if anybody tries to tell me that pot will get them to take their clothes off, I will personally rear back and strike them upon the mazzard, regardless of age or sex.
Pot makes women self conscious, and they clasp their shirts for dear life, eat all the ice-cream, and giggle at you. And then they get “so tired” and have to go home. I say stick with the alchohol. results are garaunteed, if you can get enough into them, at the same time keeping enough outside of you. It gets complicated.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:38 pm
“The proliferation of relationships with little permanence or emotional basis, centered around sex, is a problem.”
No it’s not, if you just think of it as the step before you eliminate the permanace and emotional basis entirely. Just a little patience, and you’ll get through it.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:43 pm
. Pleasing a woman sexually isn’t that complicated; there are some pretty unsubtle cues to let a man know if he’s pleasing a woman or not.
Gosh, Fred, how did you learn all this stuff? You should write a book to help couples out. Say, you wouldn’t mind sharing some of your secret sex-knowledge with us, would you?
Cause none of us know a damn thing, huh?
How the fuck did you get to be so pretentious. I can see one thing. Any woman who hangs around you should never lack for laughs!
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:45 pm
The proliferation of relationships with little permanence or emotional basis, centered around sex, is a problem.
Once again, could we leave off my marriage? It’s none of your business, and how did you find all this stuff out?
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Shhh. Fred hasn’t figured out that his blow-up doll is faking orgasm yet.
I am so stealing that! Brilliant!
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Katherine,
I like your post above. I, also, could be sympathetic to ‘feminism’ if its top priorities weren’t advocatng promiscuity and the legalized butchery of abortion. If you want to talk about equal pay, legal equality, third world development, and birth control, I’m all for that. Hell, I used to do birth control talks to women’s groups in the Peace Corps. Unfortunately, feminism as practiced today _is_ about abortion and casual sex, and so I’m not a feminist.
Sean Peters, no our bodies aren’t our own, for “we were bought at a price”. (I can hear the Marcottes of the world saying OMG, that sounds like SLAVERY. Grow up, please.) Obedience to the moral law consists in fulfiling our natural tendencies and final ends as human beings. The final end of sexuality is in a particular context- love, fidelity, self-sacrifice and reproduction are part of that context. In fact I’m very liberal in a Christian context- I merely ask that some of these goods be present, married or not, and that the relationship be open to marriage and procreation down the road, not that they be in a procreative marriage _right now_. But a sexual liaison in which fidelity, love, self-sacrifice and reproduction are ruled out from the get-go (casual hookups without love, adulterous marriages without fidelity, and homosexual relationships without procreative potential) are, I think, immoral. Not the worst of sins by a long shot, but they are sins. Morality isn’t about freedom, autonomy, pleasure and choice: it’s about love, loyalty, virtue, and self-abnegation.
Just to clarify, I don’t endorse or agree with Fred’s racial speculations any more than with his defence of pornography. In Christ Jesus there is no white, black, Latino or Asian.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Catherine, absolutely granted.
What I’m just trying to point out is that when Notorious PAT made a comment about women and alcohol, the context was really different from the context now. And so, the topic of drunkenness and sex will be viewed differently.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:51 pm
And yet, when people point to your own sneering at others, like Hector, who hold different beliefs than yours… Well, those people suck!
Oh noes! My complete and total hypocrisy has been pwned by “Name (required)” one of whose real names is Jerry and whose obsessive style I recognize from my brief time as a Pandagonian, when I would log in to guest-post only to find him breathing heavily all over Amanda’s writing. Well, I’ve learned my lesson.
I promise never, never to snark again at people who show up on blogs to crow about the advice they give to women under 20 on how to handle their fertile young reproductive systems. Snark is truly an evil and corrosive force that is destroying today’s society today. Thank you for leading me to see the error of my ways, O anonymous commenter one of whose real names is Jerry.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Pleasing a woman sexually isn’t that complicated; there are some pretty unsubtle cues to let a man know if he’s pleasing a woman or not.
She puts down the whip? Or maybe loosens your ball-gag?
You notice that this time, she didn’t leave with all your credit cards? She finally remembers your name, and stops calling you “Hey you”? She doesn’t key your car on the way out of the house?
Or is it something you have to wire them up with electrodes to tell?
Yes sir, there’s Masters, there’s Johnson, there’s Kinsey, and towering above them all, there’s Fred, the ultimate woman-pleaser!
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:54 pm
“I, also, could be sympathetic to ‘feminism’”
Hector
Hector, I hate to break it to you, but the real question is “could feminism be sympathetic to you?”. And the answer is not just no, it’s Hell, No!
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:57 pm
. Hell, I used to do birth control talks to women’s groups in the Peace Corps.
But then he got hungry and ate the banana!
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:58 pm
But how does your sneering bullying on Saturday and Sunday translate into “the challenges of respecting students’ varying views rather than encouraging them to parrot his own” Monday through Friday?
Oops, forgot to add that my manner of dealing with anonymous and psuedonymous trolls on blogs is precisely the same as my manner of dealing with the students in my classes. Sorry about that! And you know what else? Liberals claim to be tolerant, but when they deal with white supremacists like Fred and homophobes like Hector, they reveal that they’re the truly intolerant ones, because they can’t tolerate intolerance. That’s why I used to be a liberal, but since 9/11, I’ve become outraged by tenured college professors.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Or pseudonymous trolls, as the case may be.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:01 pm
In Christ Jesus there is no white, black, Latino or Asian.
But nobody said He didn’t know a whore from a Madonna!
Hector, you will put in a good word for us with Him, won’t you.
O, BTW “Hector” Where the fuck did you get the idea you had the slightest right to judge any relationship but your own.
(And my wife tells me not to presume to heavily on that privilege, if I know what’s good for me)
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Hector, I think you are contributing to the moral degradation of the world through feminism. Every time you post, I admire lesbians more and more. Hell, you keep posting about sex, and I’ll become a lesbian myself. You make ma ashamed to be a heterosexual. I’m only a latent heterosexual, so it isn’t too bad.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Pleasing a woman sexually isn’t that complicated; there are some pretty unsubtle cues to let a man know if he’s pleasing a woman or not.
No, that hissing sound is just leaking air.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Mooser,
Let the adults talk for a while,
Catherine,
“Fred, shut the fuck up and go talk to your “wife”.”
I see I’ve touched a nerve.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Well Hector, no chance you’re gay. No way. You are the best straight man on the web!
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Mooser,
Let the adults talk for a while
As Putney Swope once said: “Shove it, clown!”
And didn’t he also say: “Your father was a horse’s ass!”
And he sure taught you a lot about wimmens, didn’t he Freddie!
Fred, after the one about your blow-up doll faking orgasm, the best thing to do is quietly sneak away to the sound of one hand thwapping.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:21 pm
I see I’ve touched a nerve.
Now if you could only find the right one! Try one of those marriage handbooks, maybe “Hill’s Manual”
Actually saying you pinched a nerve would be more accurate. You’re a one-man sciatica!
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Morality isn’t about freedom, autonomy, pleasure and choice: it’s about love, loyalty, virtue, and self-abnegation.
And alter boys, don’t forget those luscious, hot, angelic alter boys!
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:49 pm
I am here to promote promiscuity and profligate abortions; I heard this was the hipster place to go to.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:59 pm
I am here to promote promiscuity and profligate abortions; I heard this was the hipster place to go to.
It sure is! Just don’t tell hector or fred!
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:33 pm
“Because we’ve lived in the world and know his type very well. Plus, there’s a strong correlation between having anti-sex attitudes and not getting laid. It’s like the correlations between being a teetotaler and not drinking.”
Only if the person truly is “anti-sex”. If they’re simply opposed to certain kinds of sex (such as sex outside of marriage), then this isn’t necessarily true.
I strongly suspect that many people who have strong opinions in support of culturally conservative values concerning sex have generally negative ideas about sexuality and sex. But I don’t know that this is true and I certainly don’t know it’s true about a particular individual until he/she demonstrates is specifically.
The fact of the matter is that these sorts of personal attacks are ugly, whoever makes them. It’s ugly and wrong for conservatives to attack feminist women with the usual assertion that they must be ugly and can’t get a boyfriend, and it’s wrong for cultural liberals to attack cultural conservatives who denounce sex outside of marriage as men who don’t or can’t get laid. It always amazes me just how hypocritical people can be about being exquisitely sensitive to unwarranted personal attacks when they are the target and yet casually turn around and do the same to others (and rationalize having done so).
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Keith M Ellis, OK.
Though, personally, I like to attack people and don’t really give a shit when they attack me back. But whatever.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:38 pm
I don’t know why anyone actually engages with Hector on this issue or many others.
Maybe he’s earnest and well-intentioned. Maybe he’s dangerously bigoted and reactionary. Whatever he is, his views are unambiguously the product of an absolutist morality that, by definition, is outside the context of reason or secular justification. There is nothing that can be productively argued about with Hector, or people like Hector. He starts from very different assumptions than those who are arguing with him—there is absolutely nowhere the discussion can go except to frustration and anger.
I think he’s wrong and his beliefs, and people like him who hold these beliefs, cause a great deal of suffering and oppression in the world. He believes exactly the opposite. That’s all there is to say.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:45 pm
310 posts vs 148 on marijuana.
Sex beats drugs.
Whew! That’s a relief!
As for Hector, yeah, I agree – just shoot people like him in the head.
“there’s a strong correlation between having anti-sex attitudes and not getting laid.”
That doesn’t apply to me – I don’t get laid and I LOVE sex! I’d say there’s a strong correlation between not getting laid – read: desperate – and positive sex attitudes (read: horny).
For anti-sex types, it’s the other way around. Since they fear sex, they then hate it, then they don’t get laid – because why would a member of the opposite (or same) sex want sex with someone who hates sex? This applies to both males and females. You want to screw somebody who is good in bed. People who hate sex tend not to be, so it’s not worth the effort to even try.
Meanwhile, I get to meet Summer Glau next Sunday at Wondercon! So take that, Fred and Hector!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahah!!!
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Keith Ellis,
Actually, no. The whole concept of natural law reasoning is that it should be accessible, and compelling to people in the absence of any particular revelation. If you’ll notice, I have not quoted sacred scripture or religious concepts in this lengthy thread, with the exceptions of the one quote from Corinthians about being “bought at a price”. One doesn’t have to be a Christian to think that promiscuous f*cking is a bad thing.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Though, personally, I like to attack people and don’t really give a shit when they attack me back.
Ditto me. And it doesn’t matter what guys like Hector and Fred believe, if they indeed believe anything, which I seriously doubt. All I have to know is they are stupid, unbelievably pretentious little gits, with hang-ups, inhibitions and perversions hanging all over them like Spanish Moss, and I Hate Spanish Moss!
As soon as any guy starts telling me the advice he gives to women about sex, he’s fair game as far as I’m concerned. When I get pregnant, and bring a baby to term, get it born, and can nurse it, I’ll feel qualified to start giving advice to women, but not before. Until them all I’ve got to say is “Yes, dear, and could you please not hit me quite so hard, even though I deserve it?”
If Catherines brilliant line about them “not knowing their blow-up doll is faking orgasm” didn’t send them back to the closet, they got nothin comin, nothin.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:06 am
“This is what will separate a liberal male from an actual feminist man. You’ll find more of the former.”
Yes, and many other things, besides. Very few liberal men are non-sexist and still fewer are feminists.
However, as a legitimate feminist male, I find your comments to be indiscriminate, rife with reckless generalization, and filled with stereotyping verging on bigotry. You have a chip on your shoulder as a result of your own personal experience and you have draped it in what you pretend to others and yourself as a principled and rational political position.
The vibes I’m getting from you distressingly remind me of the vibes I get from “men’s rights” men who generalize about women and feminists, usually as the result of their own experiences and grievances related to divorce and family court.
Long before “Internet Porn” existed, most of the young men I knew, my peers, were clueless about having sex in ways that truly satisfied women. Even though studies showed that, a quarter century ago (when I was in my late teens), something like three-quarters of all young women were anorgasmic or at least frequently had great difficulty orgasming, most young men I knew believed that their partners regularly orgasmed. (The statistics are better than they were, but not by that much. Today, about 50% of young women are anorgasmic.)
Furthermore, filmed porn at that time was no less unreal and objectifying of women than so-called “Internet Porn” is today.
Surveys show that the overwhelming majority of men between the ages of, say, 15 and 50 regularly view and masturbate to porn even while in a relationship. I do. Unless you wish to claim that 85+% of all men in this age group are misogynist creeps who are terribly sex partners, then you need to back off from your generalization about men and porn.
There is a wide variety of porn available, particularly on the Internet, and not all of it is misogynist or dehumanizing of women. More importantly, men are no more blank slates that are simply programmed by the porn they watch than are women blank slates programmed by, say, the movies and television they watch (which generally contain just as regressive, sexist portrayals of women as porn…only more subtly).
Finally, you’re also wrong to generalize to all women from your own experience of what kind of sex you found satisfying. Women vary greatly in the kind of sex they enjoy; some of them actually do enjoy sex as depicted in “Internet Porn”. Not most, certainly. But there is a continuum from one extreme to the other and different women find their particular tastes distributed all across it.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:07 am
I’m sorry, but morality has nothing to do with love or loyalty. If anything, these qualities are antithetical to morality.
Morality, if it is to have a meaningful definition, would constitute a reasoned ethical code for the treatment of others. Loyalty would call for inconsistent treatment of friends and strangers. Love would call for subversion of morality altogether
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 am
Keith Ellis,
I seriously doubt it’s that high. I certainly don’t use porn, and neither do most men I know. I consider it inherently immoral and degrading to the integrity of the human person.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:15 am
“If you’ll notice, I have not quoted sacred scripture or religious concepts in this lengthy thread…”
Yes, but it’s clear from this thread and previous threads that your morality is an absolute morality determined by your religious beliefs. All your elaboration is post facto rationalization.
I’ve read Aquinas closely, I’m sorry to say, and it’s all old hat to me.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:18 am
Er, no, Mr. Ellis. I believed that casual hookups were wrong before I became a Christian. Many people believe that casual sex is wrong, without being Christians or otherwise religious.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:24 am
Glaivester (the 30-year-old virgin – by choice).
i.e. the choice of every woman who has met Glaivester.
No, by my choice – although I will cheerfuly admit that were I to choose to lose my virginity, I make no claims that I would not find myself becoming a virgin-not-by-choice.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:28 am
I just want to say “three cheers for porn.” I’m sorry, but its fashionable to slag porn.
Look, there are downsides to porn. Some of it is genuinely nasty and degrading. It objectifies sex. It dehumanises people. So does football, basketball, opera and stand up comedy.
But porn is also helping to proliferate and support a lot of very good ideas. That sex, no matter how meaningless, should be consensual. That sex is something women should enjoy, rather than simply submit to. Cunnilingus, which was simply appalling even a generation ago is now a normal and positive sexual practice. Porn teaches that there are more sexual positions to explore. That sex doesn’t have to be one simple thing – the missionary position with the lights out, but a succession of acts and actions, play and pleasure.
Yes. A lot of the men and women in porn are having empty sex. So what? A lot of them look better than the rest of us. So what? Arnold Shwarzenegger doesn’t actually kill real people in his movies.
Porn, like everything else in this society, is flawed and ambiguous, but its a good thing overall.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:33 am
Stop it! Stop it! Stop it!
I can’t take it anymore! You’re tearing me apart!
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:36 am
Why is casual sex wrong?
And in the scale of ‘wrong’, how does it compare to:
* Mass Murder
* Manslaughter
* Rape
* Kidnapping
* Armed Robbery
* Fraud
* Assault
* Eating Shellfish or Pork
* Predatory Mortgages
* False election promises
* Scamming reconstruction in New Orleans
* Election fraud
* Driving Drunk
* Phone pranks
* Drinking or taking drugs
* Drug addiction
* Burning a cross
* Skipping church
* Converting to Islam
* Being a torturer or concentration camp guard
* Cheating on your wife with someone you love more
* Cheating on your life with someone you don’t love as much
* Farting in church
* Overeating
* Being a workaholic
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:42 am
Glaivester (the 30-year-old virgin – by choice).
Glav, you should really read a book by John Barth called “The Sotweed Factor”. It deal extensivelt and in death with extended virginity, and Colonial America. And there is a two-page list of 18th Century synonyms for “whore”. How can you go wrong?
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:43 am
Casual sex is worse than feeding christians to the lions!
In fact, certain christians aren’t truly happy until they have some cross to climb up on, or some predator gnawing off their arms and legs.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:43 am
Er, no, Mr. Ellis. I believed that casual hookups were wrong before I became a Christian. Many people believe that casual sex is wrong, without being Christians or otherwise religious.
Just because the relationship lasts less than 24 hours, doesn’t make it casual. Now, my 20 year marriage? That’s casual. We’re very familiar with each-other, so we don’t get too excited about anything.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:44 am
We wear silver purity rings around our balls. That’s why we can still sing falsetto.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:46 am
In fact, certain christians aren’t truly happy until they have some cross to climb up on, or some predator gnawing off their arms and legs.
While they’re having sex? Well, you can hardly call that “casual”? The vet and carpentry bills alone preclude anything but taking it very seriously.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:52 am
The whole concept of natural law reasoning is that it should be accessible, and compelling to people in the absence of any particular revelation.
Oh yes, Abraham Lincoln talked about that. How did it go? “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but only Christians would dare try to fool all of the people all of the time, the machers
Take your “natural law” and shove it, clown. From what I’ve seen for 54 years, Christians specialise in Un-natural law.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:56 am
Er, no, Mr. Ellis. I believed that casual hookups were wrong before I became a Christian.
And if you look real hard, in the right light, you can see his stigmata, too.
Tell me Hector, how long did it take to get that beam out of your eye, so you could see the mote in mine? Did you go to an opthamologist, or just grab it with both hands and pull?
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 am
Skeptic, why didn’t you include “driving sport bikes way too fast, leaving no turn un-stoned” in your list? That’s almost as good as casual sex.
I guess that’s what all that “smooth Jazz” is about. It’s just casual sax.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:02 am
And of course, Hector would never wear Levi’s jeans. He hates casual slacks.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:41 am
Natural Law reasoning in its purest sense would be agnostic of any religious tradition, since any religion is derived and taught by its proponents.
Using natural law, one might come up with a basic set of moral frameworks – ie, the requirements necessary for a group of people to survive together. This would include prohibitions on killing, unauthorized taking of property, respecting personal boundaries, the free choice of sexual partners, the free choice of peers, etc.
Natural law would not prohibit gay sex or gay relationships, these exist in nature. Natural law would also not prohibit promiscuity by either males or females, these exist in nature. All are shown to be viable components of functioning social organisations.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 am
All right, on the list of morally wrong behaviours, how does casual sex rank against:
* Smooth jazz;
* Driving motorbikes way too fast;
* Leaving no stone unturned.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 am
The truth is that Hector is constantly denying the true nature of various human beings. And his protestations notwithstanding, we know where he is getting this from
His complete and utter fear of himself, which is only exceeded by his fear of women? Could that be it?
And we won’t even go into why he believes this “hook-up culture” really exists. Or why it is so necessary to him to believe that.
But it’s a pretty simple, open and shut case to me, as I have stated. As soon as a man says he has any sexual or moral advice to give to women, all he deserves is contempt.
In fact, if “natural law” tells us anything, it is that what Mr Hector wants to do, lecture underage girls about sex, is highly un-natural.
But I’m sure Father Hector wears silk hose all the time. He hates casual sox. And he eschews sloppy drunks, no casual sots for him! And he wants nothing to do with a disheveled turbans, he does not approve of casual Sikhs. And no hurried blow jobs. Casual sucks, never!
Oh, stop me if you have heard these before!
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:47 am
* Leaving no stone unturned.
It’s leave no turn un-stoned! And we need to find out exactly what denomination Hector belongs to. I won’t tolerate casual sects.
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:56 am
Jerry, you can keep changing your handle, but it’ll take years of intensive therapy before you’re not immediately identifiable to those familiar with your Marcotte obsession.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:35 am
@Hector
“The whole concept of natural law reasoning is that it should be accessible, and compelling to people in the absence of any particular revelation.”
True. But one of your points is that we don’t have ultimate claim to our own bodies. And that isn’t consistent with a secular humanist worldview. Indeed, it’s really consistent only with theism.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:52 am
That Mooser is certainly an amusing old codger. And I’m only one year younger than him. Hector is only in his late twenties, but listening to him is like hearing echoes from a vanished world — truly uncanny.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:21 am
LOL I think it’s fabulous how a woman can say something negative about porn and the men who watch it, come back the next day, and as sure as the sun has risen, porn fans will have spend hours writing tedious posts talking about how well-adjusted they are, and speculating on what MY problem is.
Darlings, I don’t have a problem! LOL
Love it though. Thanks.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:58 am
Re: And we need to find out exactly what denomination Hector belongs to.
Anglo-Catholic, of fairly conservative liturgical tastes.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:00 am
Well, I don’t assert any bona fides beyond my opinion, Catherine. Nor, in asserting my opinion, did I make any judgement of you.
I did not claim that there were no misogynous or unsavoury aspects to porn. One can search and find something repellent easily enough.
I certainly conceded the overall dehumanising aspects of porn which reduces human beings to literal stick figures, mere sexual actors in the sexual act. However, there my argument is that such dehumanisation of form and function, the erasure of identity in favour of narrow tasks and roles, is endemic to western, perhaps much of human civilisation.
I acknowledge that there are unrealistic aspects to porn, as there are to any representational media.
On the other hand, I’d ask you to acknowledge the changes in sexual practice engendered in whole or in part by porn. The depiction of cunnilingus as a wholesome sexual practice, as an important part of foreplay, or even an end in itself, has been a good thing. Attitudes to cunnilingus even a couple of generations ago were not so friendly, the act was illegal in many jurisdictions, and even where it was not, it was viewed popularly as a thing of disgust and mockery, a degradation for men. That’s just the historical facts.
Now if you’d like, we can parse Andrea Dworkin’s and Cathleen McKinnon’s theories endlessly. Or we can attempt to define pornography, or delineate some distinction between porn and erotica. But in the end, I think it all comes down to neutral grounds of personal taste.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:10 am
Re: And that isn’t consistent with a secular humanist worldview. Indeed, it’s really consistent only with theism.
Er, plenty of non-theists have held that you don’t “own” your own body in the sense that you own a piece of property- the Cuban communists being one example. See the comments that Fidel made after the suicide of Augusto Martinez Sanchez back in the 1960s. Indeed, one needs to ask whether the concept of human dignity is compatible with your body being owned by anyone (yourself included).
Skeptic, “Natural” in this context doesn’t mean “that which we observe in nature”, it means “that highest, final end to which what we observe in nature tends”. We observe both promiscuous behavior and monogamy in nature, and we can see that human beings have tendencies to either one. We could thus say that loving monogamy is the ideal and promiscuity is the defect, or we could say that promiscuity the ideal and loving monogamy the defect- either way one must be better than the other, because they certainly aren’t compatible with each other. Now I think it can be proven, by reason, that one of these worldviews is more coherent than the other. If this thread is still going in the afternoon (which it probably will, since you guys appear to like talking about sex), I’ll try to supply that argument. But I’ve got to run right now.
You guys appear to believe that liberalism has an absolute, transcendent value of its own. And that’s fine, as far as it goes- I think you’re wrong, but whatever. I would warn you, however, that your worldview is ultimately not just incorrect (in my view) but also self-contradictory. To undermine the concept of what is ‘natural’ and unchangeably right, and to argue that we have change morality and nature as we please, is to undermine the premises on which liberal society itself is built. I’ll comment on this in more detail if you like.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:32 am
Hector, oh child of 1949, I disagree, obviously. I offer a couple of definitions of ‘Natural Law’ as commonly understood and accepted:
“Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. …”
“set of principles which govern human interactions, which are built into the structure of the universe, as opposed to being imposed by human beings.”
In essence then, “natural law” as opposed to manmade laws or theologically conferred laws, amounts to identifying fundamental organizing behavioural principles held in common in the state of nature. I stretch it a bit, but its an acceptable stretch, when I refer to ‘natural law’ as describing or defining behaviours in social groups.
You, on the other hand, stretch it past breaking when you claim its the “highest, final end to which we observe in nature tends.”
And even there, you simply abandon your own effort at definition when you get into your discussion of monogamy and promiscuity and the arbitrary attempt to define one as a defect and the other as an ideal state. Does nature deal in ideals? Is that a relevant concept to apply to nature?
Hardly. You talk ‘natural law’ but you immediately import a series of non-natural imposed values and false dichotomies.
Your ‘proofs by reason’ in the few times we’ve gotten into them, have invariably devolved into muddy ramblings, circular logic, and arbitrary choices starting from unexamined principles which are really simply prejudices.
You have built a house out of pieces of sticks, bits of straw, strings, gum and spit. Well good for you. On the other hand, I’m not inclined to accept that its the Taj Mahal because you tell me it is, I’m certainly not inclined to live in so dubious an intellectual structure, and I’m not going to place reliance on your judgement of others.
And your archaic and sneering condescension as you denounce six centuries of western progress as ‘hipsterism’ is not well taken.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:33 am
ah, so we’ve all come to re-fight this one again, have we? are people really trying to claim that sexual mores haven’t changed since the 90s, let alone 60s? that’s a big stretch. yeah, we did some walking backwards during this past decade, in a lot of regards, when it comes to women’s health in particular, STDs are on the rise, as is teen pregnancy. these things require us to refocus on education, not the religious bullshit we’ve been stuck with during the Bush years.
but are things really just the same for women trying to have fulfilling sex lives now as in the 60s? I can’t imagine that is anywhere close to being true.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:50 am
and really, folks, people are still trying to re-fight the porn argument? still? there are really still people who think reactionary anti-porn fundamentalism is synonymous with feminism?
no, sorry everyone, but the porn war is over, and the haters lost, bad. porn is almost entirely and universally good when you have the right combination of ingredients such as; people who have signed legal contracts and know exactly what their rights are, what the health aspects of what they’re doing are, regular testing & proper use of contraception. ideally there should be a large, powerful sex-workers’ union which includes prostitutes, strippers and porn workers.
if you care about women and sexuality, work to make these things the norm. if you just care about moralizing and lecturing, realize that at this point in history, you’re doing so at the expense of actually working to make these things better for the women you so chivalrously want to protect! hehe.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:59 am
“porn is almost entirely and universally good when you have the right combination of ingredients”
Ha! I can imagine those words coming out of the mouth of a porn producer, but not any other intelligent person. It’s like saying cyanide is almost entirely and universally good when used in the right way. It’s technically true, but ignores the practical reality of the subject in a nearly clinically delusional way.
Mike
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:30 am
I hope I’m not the only one who appreciates the irony of Hector, who is convinced that “natural law” is happens to support his own obsessions views on social matters, scolding liberals about their insufficient fallibility.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:46 pm
By the time Jessica is in her late thirties and spending tens of thousands on fertility treatments so she can have the baby she finally realizes she wants (most likely as a single mother, since she will be unlikely to attract a marriageable man at that point), Manuela will have three daughters collecting WIC for their illegitimate kids.
Hey, Look! A fucktard!!
Oh, I’m sorry…did I just lower the level of the discourse?
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I’m sure there are some Mexican geniuses, and, on the whole, Mexicans tend to be pretty hard working. That doesn’t change the fact that they are, on average, not as intelligent as whites (who are, on average, not as intelligent as Northeast Asians).
First, where’s the data? I’ve spent time in Mexico, and known people who span the range of intelligence – there’s variation in all of the world.
Secondly, even *if* true (which I doubt), don’t you think it might have more to do with the fact that the IQ test is given in English, a foreign language, than with native intelligence? If you took an IQ test in Spanish I’m sure you’d come out looking pretty dang dumb.
And as for Fred, Hector, and the rest of you – who the heck are you to tell other people (women or otherwise) how to live their lives? Your principles are just that – yours. We don’t try to force our principles on you, please show us the same respect.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I’d wager any money you care to that the ones denouncing it from the heavens have either had one quietly or paid for one quietly.
Is there any evidence for this, or is this just something pro-choice activists take on faith?
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:27 pm
It’s a wager.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Skeptic,
Don’t be dumb. How do you expect to win the wager? Have you got reams of secret testimony by clinic workers about the names of pro-life intellectuals who frequent them? Or do you expect to win because no one can prove a negative?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:35 pm
“All I have to know is they are stupid, unbelievably pretentious little gits, with hang-ups, inhibitions and perversions hanging all over them like Spanish Moss”
Pot.
Kettle.
Black.
Mike
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:46 pm
By the way, if anyone ever asks you how and why conservatives have been able to use cultural issues as a wedge against liberals for the last 40 years, just direct them to this comment thread.
Mike
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:26 am
Very nice site! [url=http://yieopxa.com/yxyrqox/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:26 am
Very nice site! cheap viagra
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:26 am
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://yieopxa.com/yxyrqox/4.html
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:26 am
Very nice site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:32 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:44 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:30 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:04 am
nbzmcelro bzkpeina edlhivcoa ymhiap uftp qxkjptsl zuqrdv
April 9th, 2009 at 8:15 am
Very interesting site, Hope it will always be alive! viagra
April 10th, 2009 at 6:24 am
Very nice site!
April 10th, 2009 at 6:24 am
Very nice site! [url=http://apxoiey.com/aoxrxx/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]
April 10th, 2009 at 6:24 am
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://apxoiey.com/aoxrxx/4.html