Prisoners of Sex

[koshergrl]

"
I’ve written before, in the context of the abuse that female writers take online, about this poisoned stream’s potential origins. The Santa Barbara case hints at one such source — the tension between our culture’s official attitude toward sex on the one hand and our actual patterns of sexual and romantic life on the other.
The culture’s attitude is Hefnerism, basically, if less baldly chauvinistic than the original Playboy philosophy. Sexual fulfillment is treated as the source and summit of a life well lived, the thing without which nobody (from a carefree college student to a Cialis-taking senior) can be truly happy, enviable or free.
Meanwhile, social alternatives to sexual partnerships are disfavored or in decline: Virginity is for weirdos and losers, celibate life is either a form of unhealthy repression or a smoke screen for deviancy, the kind of intense friendships celebrated by past civilizations are associated with closeted homosexuality, and the steady shrinking of extended families has reduced many people’s access to the familial forms of platonic intimacy.
Yet as sex looms ever larger as an aspirational good, we also live in a society where more people are single and likely to remain so than in any previous era. And since single people have, on average, a lot less sex than the partnered and wedded, a growing number of Americans are statistically guaranteed to feel that they’re not living up to the culture’s standard of fulfillment, happiness and worth.
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

Advertisement​

This tension between sexual expectations and social reality is a potential problem for both sexes, but for a variety of reasons — social, cultural and biological — it’s more likely to produce toxic reactions in the male of the species. Such toxicity need not lead to murder (as it usually, mercifully, does not) to be a source of widespread misery, both for the men who wallow in it and the women unfortunate enough to be targets for their bile. "


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/opinion/sunday/douthat-prisoners-of-sex.html

 

[shart_attack]

It truly is one of the most sickening things to me, the sex slave trade.

Here's the quintessential link with the pertinent facts, koshergrl:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2196.html

 

[koshergrl]

Sex trade is bad too, and our slavish devotion to the idea of sex feeds into it.

 

[shart_attack]

Sex trade is bad too, and our slavish devotion to the idea of sex feeds into it.

Given our attitudes toward women, it kinda makes you wonder why Islam isn't more popular here, doesn't it?

But even so, I freely admit to loving a hot set of lonnnnnnnnnnnnnng legs.

Sorry if that makes me a chauvinist, in your view.

We will never let you Muzzies make our gorgeous American women wear frick'n burkas.

 

[koshergrl]

Er..I'm not a muslim.

Liking legs may or may not make you a chauvinist. I believe you pretty thoroughly missed the point of the article.

 

[September]

I find sex more liberating than restrictive

 

[shart_attack]

Er..I'm not a muslim.

I didn't say you are.

What I was talking about was that given that you perceive male chauvinism to be a stalwart American trait, it's a wonder that some say Sharia Law wouldn't work in the US, yes?

That's what I was saying.

Liking legs may or may not make you a chauvinist. I believe you pretty thoroughly missed the point of the article.

No, I don't believe I did.

I guess you didn't see the link I gave you.

 

[Esmeralda]

Er..I'm not a muslim.

Liking legs may or may not make you a chauvinist. I believe you pretty thoroughly missed the point of the article.

Liking legs doesn't make a man a chauvinist, but using the 'C' word does, which shart does do. Any man who uses that word, and uses it to verbally abuse a woman, is definitely a chauvinist. And, based on his posts in this thread, a hypocrite as well. A man who uses the 'C' word to verbally abuse a woman is no friend to women, on any level. It shows what he truly thinks of women.

 

[Esmeralda]

It truly is one of the most sickening things to me, the sex slave trade.

Here's the quintessential link with the pertinent facts, koshergrl:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2196.html

1) you don't have the quintessential answer to anything, 2) you know nothing about the Muslim world

There are decent men in every culture; in Muslim culture, decent Muslim men do not go around calling women the 'C' word. You are not a decent man, even by Muslim standards.

Using the 'C' word repeatedly, as well as the 'B' word (especially to a woman who has used no swear words): this is not something a non-Chauvinist does--this is something a misogynist does. This is a man who is no friend to women.

 

[Esmeralda]

"
I’ve written before, in the context of the abuse that female writers take online, about this poisoned stream’s potential origins. The Santa Barbara case hints at one such source — the tension between our culture’s official attitude toward sex on the one hand and our actual patterns of sexual and romantic life on the other.
The culture’s attitude is Hefnerism, basically, if less baldly chauvinistic than the original Playboy philosophy. Sexual fulfillment is treated as the source and summit of a life well lived, the thing without which nobody (from a carefree college student to a Cialis-taking senior) can be truly happy, enviable or free.
Meanwhile, social alternatives to sexual partnerships are disfavored or in decline: Virginity is for weirdos and losers, celibate life is either a form of unhealthy repression or a smoke screen for deviancy, the kind of intense friendships celebrated by past civilizations are associated with closeted homosexuality, and the steady shrinking of extended families has reduced many people’s access to the familial forms of platonic intimacy.
Yet as sex looms ever larger as an aspirational good, we also live in a society where more people are single and likely to remain so than in any previous era. And since single people have, on average, a lot less sex than the partnered and wedded, a growing number of Americans are statistically guaranteed to feel that they’re not living up to the culture’s standard of fulfillment, happiness and worth.
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

Advertisement​

This tension between sexual expectations and social reality is a potential problem for both sexes, but for a variety of reasons — social, cultural and biological — it’s more likely to produce toxic reactions in the male of the species. Such toxicity need not lead to murder (as it usually, mercifully, does not) to be a source of widespread misery, both for the men who wallow in it and the women unfortunate enough to be targets for their bile. "


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/opinion/sunday/douthat-prisoners-of-sex.html

I think there are some valid statements in the article, but I don't agree with it as a whole. Times have changed in that there are more single people in our culture than in past times, and people are adjusting to that. It isn't all bad though and I don't think it is causing pathology. 'The times they are a changing,' as they always are. We adapt. There always have been and always will be people who are problematic, who abuse the other sex either physically, mentally or verbally. There aren't necessarily more men who hate women than before, but there are more of those who feel free to express that hatred today than in past times, to do it openly, though they may think they are not showing their hatred of women. I don't think the changed times have created the sex prisoner issue, however.

 

[I.P.Freely]

The greatest freedom a woman can posses is the right to choose her destiny.

 

[I.P.Freely]

I find sex more liberating than restrictive

I concur because your point resonates with those who are sexually active

 

[I.P.Freely]

Er..I'm not a muslim.

Liking legs may or may not make you a chauvinist. I believe you pretty thoroughly missed the point of the article.

Liking legs doesn't make a man a chauvinist, but using the 'C' word does, which shart does do. Any man who uses that word, and uses it to verbally abuse a woman, is definitely a chauvinist. And, based on his posts in this thread, a hypocrite as well. A man who uses the 'C' word to verbally abuse a woman is no friend to women, on any level. It shows what he truly thinks of women.

I concur, I would also like to add that any man or woman who seek to remove the womens right of choice, is to coin your phrase "no friend to women on any level"

 

[koshergrl]

Shart: "Sorry if that makes me a chauvinist, in your view.

We will never let you Muzzies"

You were speaking to me.So yes, you did call me a Muzzie.

We have created a depraved culture where women are primarily sex objects. We've done it in the name of "choice" and "freedom"...when all it amounts to is exploitation and abuse of females.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Sharia law is openly accepted by many here. In the name of religion, many want to take basic freedoms and choices away from women

As it is, they are in favor of paying women less than men for the same job.

The hatred of women extends to children as well because underpaid women support the children of dead beat dads.

Many on the right would end food stamps and all other welfare that helps women and children.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[koshergrl]

Despite the progressive loons who are ineffectively trying to derail this thread and change the subject, this article is not about religion. It isn't about long legs, or whether or not sex is really fun. It's not about Sharia law.

What this article succinctly sums up is the fact that our society has embraced the demonization and ridicule of women who won't engage in promiscuous or experimental sex. Women are encouraged to engage in risky behavior and are expected to kill their children in order to do so. If they refuse to do this, then our society labels THEM as deviant.

This behavior leads to more poverty, single parent households, abuse and murder, where women and children are the particular victims.

A misogynistic society, in other words, that sees women as so much chattel, and children without even that dubious value (except as potential sex objects) Our society at once encourages women to lead a risky lifestyle, and advertises that those who aren't getting sex, and a lot of it, are somehow substandard.

Personified in Rodgers..a dweeb who was raised on a daily diet of sexual gratification and entitlement, whose father was generally absent in order to engage in his lifelong obsession...taking photographs of women's bare asses.

Raise your children as depraved animals..and they will act like depraved animals. As does the majority of our "progressive" society in this nation.

 

[September]

In the name of religion, many want to take basic freedoms and choices away from women

And in the name of the Christian/ Catholic religion, many want to take away basic freedoms and choices away from all humans.

 

[shart_attack]

"Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Conway Twitty:™"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2aeRg_yMSE]Conway Twitty, I See the Want To In Your Eye[/ame]

 

[Bush92]

Our culture got that way during the 1960's when the socialist began to hold great sway over our youth. There is nothing wrong with "traditional" cultural attitudes about men and women. Its still there, just not in larger urban populations, where people are so afraid to criticize someone for their disgusting behavior for fear of being called "INTOLERANT." Good. I like being INTOLERANT because there are some behaviors that need to be put in check. we maintain ourselves as a nation, as a culture, because of our traditional mores and values. Again this is why, during the 1960's, the Marxist-Socialist left in this nation wanted to infiltrate our university campuses and foment revolution. First step: destroy traditional values and mores regarding sexual behavior. Second step: take over one of the two major parties. They have accomplished the former and rapidly working on the latter.Oh, and for the lunatic that mentioned how Islam has not gotten a stronger hold here, when I hold the door for a lady at the store that doesn't make me the Taliban. When I go to church with my family and sit with culturally traditional American families, that doesn't make me Al Qaeda. After church when we go to a friends house and the wives have cooked a wonderful meal, that does not make the men sexist. (Kitchen is hers...grill is mine).

 

[koshergrl]

In the name of religion, many want to take basic freedoms and choices away from women

And in the name of the Christian/ Catholic religion, many want to take away basic freedoms and choices away from all humans.

How is this related to the article? you should start a thread about that, and I'll spank you thoroughly.

But this, alas, is not about that topic. This is about how progressives demonize women who won't put out, and raises their children on the supposition that women are supposed to put out...then act all shocked and bothered when kids, upon learning that women aren't vaginas on wheels, and lacking any meaningful guidance in their lives, go nuts and start shooting.


Would you care to address THAT topic?