Freedom comes from within.. the spinny bit..

It was International Women's Day on the weekend, which I totally blew off.. something to do with boozing.. shameful, I know. But some people do care about women.. especially our good friends the Catholics.. who, or at least some of whom weren't too drunk at the time to observe it. They tell us, that it's not the contraceptive pill, or working outside the home that liberated us.. but the washing machine:

"In the 20th century, what contributed most to the emancipation of western
women?" asked the editorial.
"The debate is still open. Some say it was the
pill, others the liberalisation of abortion, or being able to work outside the
home. Others go even further: the washing machine."

Ok, 2 major points about this. The first one is that there is some truth in it. The second point is, that it's utter bullshit.

There is truth in it because obvs. technology and all the gadgets it's brought us, has saved us all a lot of time, it's changed the world, the lives of people everywhere, it's changed the way we work and class systems and all that etc etc etc.

It's bullshit for a lot of reasons. Some women might spend less time doing housework, some might do more, but even if every single woman in the world spends less time on these things, if you control for the differences world wide that have come about because of technology, the differences are either nil, or are in reverse, eg the stereotypical 1950s higher standards of cleanliness that came about because of all of these things.. and if you don't take into consideration the way technological differences have changed our lives over all, well, you just can't compare it because life is just different. So there.. I mean, a middle class Western woman of the 1850s most likely did no, or little physical housework, certainly not more than we would today because she had servants.. people just did then, and we wouldn't consider those women more liberated than modern women because of the society they lived in. Just an example.

It's also bullshit for the reason that it obviously accepts that fact that women do and should do all the washing, which is a fucking copout, and the very antithesis of liberated. And when you compare the washing machine's impact on women's lives, with the ability and right to control her own fertility, and what the article calls "working outside the home" and what I'll call the right and opportunity to enter a wider variety of professions, then it's outrageous bullshit. The fertility thing is pretty much a no brainer, and I think it's clear why the Catholic Church brought this one up, and downplayed the huge benefits that the pill has brought women. I don't think you can point to any one thing that is the biggest liberator of women in the 20th century, but the pill would definitely be equal first, a position that the washing machine most certainly does not share.

Working, having careers, I consider that point as part of a larger idea that women are more than just wives and mothers, who are full human beings capable of doing much more, who are independent human beings who desrve full rights, ie feminism.. and if you compare all that's been done by feminists during that time well.. you can probably guess that the little old washing machine isn't faring well in this competition.

Oh goodness I've rambled on again.. but in short, I think that you can believe that the washing machine is the biggest thing that came out of the 20th century to liberate women, more than the right to vote, the right to abortion, to study, to travel unchaperoned in a lot of places etc etc, if you believe that women are, and are always going to be a wives and mothers, of as many children as god gives them, who's main job it is to take care of the washing, and by extension all the other stuff in the household.. a view that isn't surprising coming from a spokesperson for the Catholic Church, but not one that is in any way liberating.

And to finish off, as if I haven't said enough, the main thing in all this is. The people who get to decide what is liberating for women are people who are pro liberation for women, mostly women themselves who have lived it. You don't get a say if you're not pro women's liberation, and most definitely do not if you are actively, enthusiastically, against liberation for women. You know.. like, guess who...

And they get it wrong, again!

I'm not interested in discussing whether this new Vanity Fair cover, which parodies a cover from 3 years ago is funny, or an effective joke or not. I'm not interested in whether it mocks the beauty standards that women have to deal with, and the relative way that famous men are treated to the way famous women are. Not interested. What I want is skin.

First of all, the body suits. They are an abomiation, utterly horrid. These men should be nude. Completely naked, disrobed, in their birthday suits, starkers, have no clothes on! Get it! Jeez..

Oh, and when I say these men? No, the men in the photo are, how shall I say.. not prime physical specimens. I want men who are hot, with perfect lean but toned bodies, men who were plucked out from the masses for their naturally perfect physical forms and who then worked on them goddammit! I want to see evidence of pain, daily workouts, waxing, plucking, strict diet regimens, and then I want all the remaining imperfections to be airbrushed out. Imperfections! Ew.. I don't want to see those, they're like, ick!

And finally, I don't want any goofy faux sexy "isn't this funny, it's so ridiculous that we're acting like we're here to be objectified guffaw guffaw".. no. I want real sexy poses, like they mean it. I want a vacant "I'm here solely for your titilation and I accept and submit to it" looks. And then, when the photos receive a lot of attention, it will be because we like looking at hot naked men, and not in a "haha, isn't that weird and fish out of water like" bullshit. It will be accepted as the way it should be.

Then, and only then will I be satisfied. Work on it please.

Oh why me.. why do you make me read these things?

Oh the dilemma of being a genius who's too lazy to collect her complex thoughts and place them in a far reaching medium in a generally understood way. Add to that a heaping lack of self esteem (yes I get the irony) and you've got me. I would write something complex about Germaine Greer's recent claim that women just aren't as funny as men, but I won't. Or maybe by the end of this post there will be enough words involved to make it seem complex. At this point I don't know.

This is coming from the woman who's couple of minutes in Extras was about the funniest thing in the whole series, apart from Kate Winslet's appearance, which might say something about what I think of the idea she espouses (I believe that's the first time I've ever used that word in a blog, come to think of it, amazing, it's so the sort of word I'd use) that women aren't as.. etc etc etc.

The article has some points, though of course the overall point is bullshit. Ms Greer poo poos the idea that misogyny is the reason that there are less female comedians overall, which is rather ridiculous coming from someone who knows something about this "feminism" jazz. Pretty much anyone with a cursory understanding can realize that it is the reason, and it's pervasive enough to explain the disparity. She thinks it isn't that because women think men are funnier too, such a simplistic idea that it makes me wonder what she's been doing all these years. That women in a patriarchal society, which tells us that men are smarter, stronger, funnier, more important etc.. think what we've been think, same as the men in the same society do.. does not mean that society isn't that way. I hope that comes out the way I undestand it to mean.. I am rambling here, but anyone who's familiar with feminism 101, as we would expect Greer to be, should get it, even if I didn't say it very well.

I think there are a lot of reasons that fewer women go into comedy, or stay in comedy, or indeed are a success in comedy, including things like being more likely to be judged harshly for being a woman, and then having her "failure" seen to represent women comediens as a whole, not suggesting that everyone doesn't have a hard time in comedy, but it gets taken up a notch if you're a women, I reckon. And I'm not gonna provide reasons for it now, I'm just gonna reckon, I'd say more if it were the complex version, but this is a ramble.

There are some not completely bullshit points there, about the different ways men and women (stereotypically) interact, and why it makes men (seem to be to our society) funnier than women. There is some truth in it, but even then it's buying into the idea that a particular male centred form of comedy that men (seem to) prefer is the same as "comedy". It's all about stand up comedy and jokes with a punchline, and I like to think there's more to the world of hilarity than that shit. Of course, throwing this aburd claim into her article doesn't help her argument:

Women famously cannot learn jokes. If they try, they invariably bugger up the
punchline.

I mean, what the fuck? Actually, I take that back, I wouldn't know, I don't really know too many people who can tell jokes well, and if they do they're probably those annoying, unfunny people who think telling jokes makes you a funny guy. Newsflash: Jokes with a punchline are crap! See, I have a more finely tuned sense of humour than the brash loud alpha male who's the only one to laugh after every line he says. So there!

Not sure how to wrap this up. So I won't.

Plastic shopping bags have all the fun..

Once upon a time, I had a little series going on the blog about sex metaphors, in particular the ones that treat sex as something to be extracted from the female body, like the famous cow one. and various others brought to us by modern day abstinence pushers that compare us to flowers, houses, pots and of all absurd things sticky tape.

It's been a while, but I'm inspired to bring it back from it's slumber by Paris Hilton, who has something to say on the subject. This time, we're designer handbags.

“I’ve only ever done it with a couple of people. People make up stories, but mostly I just kiss. I think it’s important to play hard to get. Nobody wants the fake Prada bag - they want the brand new bag that no one can get and is the most expensive. If you give it up to a guy he won’t respect you. He’ll want you much more if he can’t have you.”

It doesn't work so well as an analogy, as noted here, what she's describing sounds more like a used bag, rather than a fake one, but I get it, designer bags are worth a lot and harder to get, therefore more desired. A woman who's higher quality (less used) and harder to get is more desired. Apparently. Also if you get a genuine designer bag for free, or for cheap because you just got lucky you'll value it less. And you won't respect it because.. just because.

It's not so surprising that this is coming from Paris Hilton. I don't really follow her much but I do know she's known as a big old whore and gets a lot of shit for it. She just wants to assure everyone, however clumsily, that's she's not like that, really. And it's sad, because no one will question the content of what she said, but will just laugh and say oh yes she is a slutty McSlut who sluts a lot! And then perhaps compare her to another inanimate receptacle for carrying stuff, but one that's cheap and worn out. It's already being said, you can see if you follow the first link.

And so the same old bullshit keeps being flung around. Even celebrities who make their name being sexy have to take pains to make sure that people know they don't act on it. Even women with more money than any man they've ever met see sex as something to be bartered for. What fucking year is this again?

Oh well.. one good thing about it is that I'm pretty sure I'll have plenty of more material for this series.

More of the same..

More on Dennis Prager's Put Out 4 Your Husbandz Bitchez... part II came out "literally" the second I finished writing about the first one, so I reckon it's about time I added to the pile on. In short, it's more of the same. At least I think it is, it doesn't really make that much sense to tell you the truth.

In this part he's focused on why women's moods don't matter, and why they should let her husband get it on in them regardless.. he's no lightweight this guy.. no, he gives us 8 reasons so he must be right. Summarised, those reasons are, 1. women want sex less, 2. sex is a job for women, 3. that's some hippy shit, 4. that's some feminazi shit, 5. people are on the bitchez side so the man is more important, 6. that's some hippy shit, 7. men have to get everything their own way before they'll do anything for you, 8. just shut up and put out.

I'd more into detail but there's too much of it, and I get the feeling I've been through this before.. I'll just give you this. Reason #1.

But for most women, for myriad reasons -- female nature, childhood trauma, not feeling sexy, being preoccupied with some problem, fatigue after a day with the children and/or other work, just not being interested -- there is little comparable to a man’s “out of nowhere,” and seemingly constant, desire for sex.

All reasons given to support his assertion that women like sex less than men, he's got evidence, he's right so he can then go to the next happy step and argue that this means that how a woman feels about this sex thing should be rendered meaningless.. the logic, it's genius.

It doesn't occur to him to perhaps suggest helping out with the kids, talking about it and getting o the bottom of what the problem is, if there even is a problem, backing the fuck off and giving her whatever support she needs in the case of a long held childhood trauma for fucks sake..

then there's always the possibility that she's not so into sex because it's not that great for her.. but let's be honest, the issue here isn't a woman's desire for sex. The goal is not to get her to want sex but to do it anyway. I guess it shows how much she loves you if she puts out even if she doesn't like it. Excuse me I need to go barf now.

Yes sir, you are a dick.

I've fallen out of the habit of commenting on stuff that's out there of late, but I came across this article that "literally" screamed out for mockery. It's been done by everyone by now, but I'm nothing if not a bandwagon jumper.. so here I go.

Dennis Prager is a conservative American dickheads who writes for Town Hall, a site for stuff written for and about conservative American dickheads, and this is his article.. excerpts shall commence..

It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood,
she need not have sex with her husband.

In non pretentious wanker speak, that means something like, it's a widely accepted idea in modern times that a woman has autonomy over her own body even when she's married. In general people who in any way resemble reasonable think this is a good thing, a very damn good thing in fact and a downright necessary thing, but as I said, this is a conservative dickhead, writing for a conservative dickhead site so needless to say he disagrees with "this axiom".

First, women need to recognize how a man understands a wife's refusal to
have sex with him: A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost by
her willingness to give her body to him. This is rarely the case for women. Few
women know their husband loves them because he gives her his body (the idea
sounds almost funny). This is, therefore, usually a revelation to a woman. Many
women think men's natures are similar to theirs, and this is so different from a
woman's nature, that few women know this about men unless told about it.

I don't know how many types of bullshit this is, I count about 5. One is the obviously being bullshit type of bullshit. A man needs sex to feel like he's loved? How about being told, verbally.. how about a woman shows her husband she loves him by staying married to him.. or acting like she's rather fond of him, which can be done in not directly sexual ways.. yeah, I'm a dumb woman and can't read "man" but most men are slightly more complex than that. There are times of course, when someone doesn't give off those "I love you" cues as much, due to stress, being tired and other things, which are things that most likely mess with the sex drive too.. in these situations, the best idea, not a genius one, is to ask about it, talk about it, find out what the problem is etc etc.

Oh and women couldn't possibly understand things from a male point of view, being that we never get to hear about it. We could never get the idea (true or not) that men only care about sex, think about sex, have sex on their minds all the time. And women never feel like shit, unloved, unattractive and ignored if their partner doesn't want sex with them.. we don't think like that, we aren't told by society that our worth and our lovableness comes from our sexual desirability.. so thank you Dennis, for telling us silly ladies how it is. Not!

And I love how the theory is "A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost by her willingness to give her body to him" as opposed to she wants to have sex with him. The husband doesn't fucking care if she finds him sexually desirable or not, just that she's willing to make the sacrifice and do her duty! Really fucking romantic.

The basic gist of the whole article is further detailing just why women should give it up all the time, women and men are different, they just are, he says so. Men are animals so should be panedered to unless it causes them great pain or whatever, women are just different and can't possibly understand. He acknowledges that sometimes the woman wants sex more, but that's different so he won't address it here, but don't be getting any ideas ladies that all this applies to you if you're wanting more sex. Then the disclaimer that this only applies to good men, and you should compromise a little bit on this issue, but not much. And there's this line.

Every man who is sexually faithful to his wife already engages in daily
heroic self-control.

*stops laughing*

fuck me, I didn't think even your average conservative dickhead would go so far as to actually say that. Well give the man a medal would ya.. he hasn't fucked around on his wife.. and she's not even super hot and almost the same age as him.. we're not worthy we're not worthy!!

Ok, that's all for that. But wait, this is only part I, part II is coming and he will explain in detail why mood should play little or no role in a woman's determining whether she has sex with her husband. I thought he already did that? Anyway it's pretty easy, her husband wants it when he wants it, and sometimes the wife might not be in the mood. Next!

Where the plucking bell is everybody!!!

I hope you all know, I am seriously allergic to those little Add a comment message I get at the bottom of a post, signifying that I have, as yet, zero comments. It makes me wonder if there' s any point in continuing...

anyway, I have been featured in 2 carnivals this week..

Carnival of the Godless at Light Remembered, and
Carnival of the Feminists at KitKat's Critique...

godless feminist that I am.

I'm truly honoured to be in not one, but two carnivals and welcome to anyone who's come here through them..

SAY SOMETHING GODDAMMIT!!!!

Second hand pots have more fun.

Time for another in my sex metaphors series. I have to thank Feministe for this one. It comes from a site, about the people in America who are teaching young people about sex by using the revolutionary new "kids, don't do it" method. Abstinence Only Education, In Their Own Words.

One example of wisdom from the site, which can be found in the WAIT Training, Workshop Manual, yes a real life textbook used in real life school.

“Men sexually are like microwaves and women sexually are like crockpots...a
woman is stimulated more by touch and romantic words. She is far more attracted
by a man's personality while a man is stimulated by sight. A man is usually less
discriminating about those to whom he is physically attracted.”

A crockpot. Nice. It fits in with the idea of woman as vessel, a passive object who exists to be filled, who then lovingly nurtures it's contents until the desired outcome is achieved. And if you're the kind of girl who finds herself attracted to someone and ready to "do it" too quickly, you're just some kind of ordinary crappy old pot.

A man is a microwave. You stick things in it, push the button and you're done in a minute. Hmm, not sure if that's what they were trying to say.. but if you're going to compare the two things..

That's 'Ms' Tape to you

Goodness! I've been a cow, I've been a house and a pretty pretty flower. And now I'm a piece of tape. At least according to Jennifer Waters, the Sex Lady.

The Sex Lady teaches abstinence to American schools and church groups. Now, if you're wondering what you can teach about abstinence that goes any further than saying, "kids, don't do it", well the answer is nothing at all. But you can have fun saying it. Ms Waters likes to demonstrate her message with her friend Miss Tape.

She slaps a piece of clear tape across Julian’s arm. He winces.
“It’s gonna hurt when I take it off,” the lanky boy protests.
“But it’s fine now, isn’t it?” Ms. Waters whips back.
The puzzled looks on 18 eighth-graders at Carrollton’s Arbor Creek Middle School
brighten. The Sex Lady has made her point: Bad relationships hurt.

Not letting the boys off the hook here at all. Good on you Sex Lady.

The Sex Lady tells Julian to break up with Miss Tape.
"I don't wanna,"
Julian screeches before obeying. He cradles his arm as he sits down.

Poor Julian has just been dumped by that hussy Miss Tape. And it hurts.

Ms. Waters shows Miss Tape to the class before calling up another boy, Spencer.
"We got some skin, Julian's hair," she says. "Spencer, did you get a good
look at Miss Tape?
"You bond with Miss Tape," she says, slapping the strip
onto Spencer's arm. "Everything Julian had has now been passed on to you."

That slut Miss Tape (her first name is probably Debbie) has just given Spencer the clap, which she got from Julian. Thanks a lot Julian!

Ms. Waters does this again with a third boy, Jonathan. This time, when they break up, the tape comes off pretty easy.
"What happened to the bond?" Ms. Waters asked the class.
"It didn't hurt as much," a girl replies.

Debbie tape has lost all her sticky by now, so she doesn't have the power to hurt the boys anymore, (unless she's slept with Julian and given everyone the clap) and is pretty useless as far as tape goes so she's fit only for Mr Rubbish Bin.

Moral of the story being. Girls are evil and want to cause you pain, so boys, only fuck the sluts, because breaking up with them doesn't hurt so much, and you get the fun of tossing them in the trash like they deserve. When you like a "nice" girl don't fuck her until you marry her. And if you give her the clap because you slept with Miss Tape who slept with Julian.. well, that's just tough.

Girls, you're an evil piece of tape. You have the power to hurt a man by ripping all his hair out by the roots, until you've had sex a couple of times that is. By then you've lost all your sticky, and therefore pretty useless as far as pieces of tape go, so you're worthy only for the bin.

How to fix a broken window

Time for post #3 in my ground breaking new series about Sex Metaphors. Today I'll be revisiting the one which actually inspired this whole thing. It's from this book which bemoans the fact that young women today are ruining their lives by screwing around instead of demanding a solid commitment from everyone they fuck. The quote, which is written in the form of a letter to mothers and daughters, goes like this:

Your body is your property. . . . Think about the first home you hope to
own. You wouldn't want someone to throw a rock through the front window, would
you?

No. I wouldn't want my body violently assaulted by someone, whether a stranger or otherwise. Thanks for allowing me the ownership of my own body by the way.. no thanks for deciding for me what equals a violation of my own property.

Yes, we know, there are women who slut around because they have a crave affection or attention, because their father didn't love them enough etc etc.. who are left feeling empty and used after such encounters, yes we know there are men who are shitheads, yes we know that women get pressured into things they don't want to do.... but that's now how it is for everyone.

Oh yes it is! Or so says our wise and all knowing author. You might think you're perfectly ok with the arrangement you have with your man friend, and in fact quite happy to be having sex without worrying about long term commitments, or you might be looking back on the days before you were in your current blissful relationship without any regret... but no! You're fooling yourself. You are distressed. You feel wretched. Stop telling me you're ok, I'm afraid your thoughts don't enter into it.. this is for the big people to decide.

If you sit here and let me tell you how terrible you really feel, and it's really quite unbecoming to let yourself be used as a human bouncing castle.. and eventually your distress will come out and you will feel shame. Then you will be cured.

Bare stems have all the fun..

#2 in my Sexual Metaphors series comes to us from the Abstinence Outlet people who's best selling produce is this Abstinence Rose Pin. Their message is.

You are like a beautiful rose. Each time you engage in premarital sex, a
precious petal is stripped away.

Don't leave your future husband holding a bare stem. Abstain.

So now you're a flower girls. I don't know if that's better or worse than a cow but anyway... Your petals are your sex. Each time you have sex you lose a petal. Once you lose all of your petals you become a bare stem. And the man who you're going to marry one day deserves better than that, because, well.. because.

Well, each time you have sex before you're married you lose a petal, somehow magically one you have continuously rejuvenating petals, which a husband is allowed to pluck to his heart's content, I'm presuming. As it says "each time you engage in premarital sex you lose a petal" then I suppose it doesn't matter whether you're a full on slut, or whether you just have one boyfriend you have sex with. And just how many times do you have to "engage" before you have no petals left? That rose in the picture looks like it's got about 8 petals, does that mean if you have sex with one man 8 times after being with him for years (but not married to him) you have no petals left? And what exactly happens when you're an empty stem? Are you unable to have sex? Is the sex less enjoyable for the husband/god who has the right to have a beautiful rose as a gift without being obligated to give you anything special? Or is it just that if you've had sex before marriage you're a dirty whore (the more sex/more fellows the dirtier and whorier you are) and that's icky, no man wants to be where another man's been? Anyone going to clear this up for me?

Free milk, come and get it! Hurry up before it dries up.

I mentioned not long ago that I might start a blog series on sex metaphors, or rather "sex as something extracted from the female body" metaphors. As I have nothing else to write about, I might as well start now.

I will begin with a classic. You may have heard this one before, it's in the form of a question, and it goes,

"Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"

To begin with I'll break the sentence down for you.

• The question "why" is addressed to you, the man, the subject, the individual for whom everything is for.


• Buy refers to getting married.


• The cow is the woman, the one that is to be owned. I'll be playing this part(I know I wanted to be a dog yesterday, but alas I cannot deny my true nature).


• Milk refers to sex, which is something that is extracted from the cow/woman.

I am now going to answer the question, and give some reasons, on just why you would buy me (the cow) when milk is so easy to get these days:

1. The status that you get by being a cow owner, you're considered more grown up, you're more respected, and you have, (and are given the opportunity to acquire more) dependants who respect and look up to you.
2. You may receive other benefits from me rather than just easy access to milk. I might be useful in keeping the lawn trimmed, or maybe you can use my manure as a fertilizer, etc.
3. It might be worth your while to just buy me instead of going out and buying milk every day.
4. You may find me a good companion, someone you can share your hopes and desires with, who understands you like nobody else can. I am someone special to you, who you want to spend your life with.

So there you go. Reasons even for the most selfish of you. Now, it's true that my opinion doesn't count here, but as this question is usually a rhetorical one used to scold us cows for squirting our milk all over the place willy nilly, I thought I'd address some of my own issues with the question.

1. I might enjoy the act of giving milk for it's own sake and find it pleasurable.
2. I might enjoy the act of giving milk with you specifically because I like you and am attracted to you.
3. I might find you a good companion, someone to share my hopes and desires with etc, but not feel the need to be officially bought for us to share our lives together.
4. I might find you a good companion, someone to share my hopes and desires with etc, but have a particular aversion to being bought either for personal reasons or because I don't believe in the institution of ownership.
5. I may have no interest in either giving you milk or being owned by you, get over it.
6. I might not want to give milk or be owned by any man, as I prefer to share my milk with other cows.

I think that's enough, though I'm sure you could find more reasons for both a man getting married when he can get it that easily, and women giving away their sex without demanding a ring first.

I wanna be a dog

More on the whole hookup culture thing that I recently wrote about. This guy gives us his opinion of it all, which is that men are horrible, women shouldn't try to be like them and ner ner you can't anyway.

It's pathetic that this is what is now deemed "progress" among the
feminists -- attempting to ape the most selfish, brutish behavior by men and
calling themselves enlightened and empowered for doing so.

As is typical, he just doesn't get it. He cannot conceive of the idea that people might have casual sex with someone they don't despise, but let's just pretend that it is true that a) all men are dogs who just want to use women for sex and throw them away, and b) there's no chance of this ever changing.

What the fuck is in it for women to be good then? Fuck that! If men are going to be like that, then you can be damn sure I'm going to be too. Why would I want to stay pure so I can be one of the good, virginal women who'll win one of these prizes as a husband one day? Or why would I want to be the kind of woman who has sex but cares deeply about every man she fucks so I can be truly miserable when I get treated like this?

No, I'll be as callous as they are if they're going to be like that. Fortunately I have a higher opinion of the human male than this person does. There are a couple of decent ones out there... Or so I've heard..

via Pandagon

My house ain't even got any windows...

I read proper newspapers sometimes, or at least read parts of articles linked by the blogs I read, and a recent one is basically about how young people today are behaving disgracefully, or at least how the young female people today are being disgraceful and "hooking up", having sex and not particularly fussed about that "love" thing. Anyway my basic take on it is that most likely there are still some young people who have and want relationships, some that are having sex for fun because they don't want to get involved right now, some that don't want to get involved until they meet someone who they really want to be involved with, and certainly some people who are living whichever way they are for fucked up reasons which has certainly never happened before this current destructive generation, but for now I'm going to take it easy and guess that civilization will continue to exist for a few more years.

The author, Laura Session Stepp has written a book titled, UNHOOKED, How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love, and Lose at Both which of course I haven't read, but I've read the review, and this is my favourite part:

In the final chapter, Stepp writes a letter to mothers and daughters, in
which she warns the girls: "Your body is your property.... Think about the
first home you hope to own. You wouldn't want someone to throw a rock through the front window, would you?"

I think I'm going to start a blog series on sex metaphors, that is "sex as something extracted from the female body" metaphors, because there are so many of them and they're so bloody bad. I'll give Ms Stepp some credit here, at least she considers women to be the owners of the property that is their body unlike some others, but that's all I'm giving her credit for. She seems very confused about the idea of casual sex between two willing participants. I think there are just some people who just can't seem to grasp the concept that sometimes women just want to fuck. It's an alien concept, and they think that if a woman has sex with someone before some magic time which signifies it's ok, (ranging from being married to having 2 dinners paid for you depending on who's talking) she's being used and abused. You couldn't possibly let her decide for herself that it's what she wants. No she must be lying, or confused, and every time she fucks without getting the ring or equivalent it's as bad as having the windows in your house broken, but with your body instead.

I have another house metaphor.

Your body is like your house right? You live alone in your house. One day you invite a friend over, you watch tv, have some beers, talk, listen to music a bit and have a really nice time. Your friend stays the night on the couch because they don't want to drive after drinking beer. The next day they go home, after helping you clean up a bit. Now how would you feel after that? Just how would you feel after having shared your "house" in that way?

Sounds awful. And then your mother comes over and rants at you for not being clean enough, and for letting people into your house to use it and disrespect it and almost forbids you from ever having anyone over again, it's for your own good. You tell her to fuck off because it's your house and you can do whatever you want there, and this is exactly the reason you moved out of home. She gets pissed off and leaves. You call about a week later and say sorry and you make up. But you get the idea.

What's good for the goose, is good for the... er... other goose.

They've done it! The people who brought us Father Daughter Purity Balls, have now come up with a male equivalent for young men and their mothers. Only this version is called and Integrity Ball, which does sound more manly.

And not a moment too soon. It's about time they expected chastity from boys as well. Surely if a girl keeps herself pure, swearing off sex until such time as she can get some guy to marry her, she deserves a shiny clean cock, unsullied by the extract of other woman, right? It's only fair.

Baker [ ] told them that while they might not believe it at the time, the
girl they may date in high school is probably not going to be the one they will
marry. “So you’re dating someone else’s future wife,” he told them. He also told
them that someone else may be dating their future wife.?”

Oh, silly me. Mustn't disappoint "someone" should we?

“If you knew somebody was with your future wife,” Baker asked them, “touching her in ways you wouldn’t like, pressuring her, how would that make you feel?”

Please think of the men! Some man might end up being married to that. But just in case the point hasn't been made clear enough, I'll let Jackie Detweiller, "an attractive 19-year-old young woman who is practicing abstinence" explain it more..

She told the tale of a person who had waited a long time to buy the car of
their dreams, but when the day arrived to drive it home, the dealer told them
that the steering had problems, that it had a lot of mileage on it, and had been
in a few wrecks.

Dear, the car analogy is a little bit old isn't it? Personally, as far as tired old metaphors go, I prefer the cow one...

How would you feel if you bought a cow, took it home from the shop and
found out it had been milked? You paid your own money for this cow,
and it had just given away milk like it was it's own to give!

Now, imagine that you met a cow who took it upon themselves to give you
their milk, and you went ahead and took it! Essentially you would be stealing
milk from another man. How would that make you feel, you milk stealer
you!

Moral of the story is, if you fuck a chick, make sure she's already a slut. Someone else already committed the property crime, and thus you are absolved.

Curtesy of others.

Sexual chaos makes the baby Jesus cry.

Are you part of the problem?

From One More Soul. I think they don't like sex too much. Or they don't like it unless it's done to make brand new souls for Jesus. I think this is supposed to scare the young sluts out there into good behaviour and quit undermining our civilization already, but I dunno, it almost makes me wistful for the old days before I became a born again virgin having non explicit web conversations with a man far away. Hmmm, tempting. Maybe I'll just start a punk band and call it Sexual Chaos. That should do for now.

Found via Feministing. I don't find this shit myself folks.

And here I thought it was all about orgasms..

I was browsing through my site stats earlier on, and came across someone looking up this,

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.

(Blush), I really didn't mean to destroy the family, honest. All I wanted was to have a good time. About those babies, I'm really really sorry, but the Dark Lord was insisting, and those prayers weren't helping any.

The real truth really comes out at the end of the quote. I mean why do you think we really started making such a ruckous way back about a 100 years of more ago? The vote? You think we wanna bother our pretty little heads with boring grownup stuff like that? Give me a break. It's all about the orgasms. I know, I'm sure there's a man out there somewhere who knows how to do it right, but until I meet him and he actually is interested in me, (unlikely as he'd be in rather high demand and very, very busy) I'm sticking with my side.

I won't be worrying my pretty little head about that.

I'm probably late for the party, due to being insufferably fashionable, but I was browsing the nets the other day and came across this quote by the rather wise Pat Robertson.

"Feminism is a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians"

And it got me thinking. I tried to stop as I wished to avoid the unbecoming wrinkles that were undoubtedly forming on my brow, but I couldn't help it. It sounded so enticing. I imagined myself in a coven, engaging in voluptuous acts with the ladies and drinking the blood of newborns. I am ashamed to say, I was tempted.

I luxuriously stretched out my long slim legs, utterly lost in fantasy, then it struck me. My perfectly smooth, hairless legs would be an affront to this society. I began to think I wouldn't belong in such a place. I would have to let the hair grow out dark and spiky, become surly and hateful, and be ugly.

And I realised how absurd my little dream had been. I was not ugly, and thus not one of them. For why would a pretty, feminine lady like myself have any use for such a radical concept? I put it out of my head and went back to dusting.

These so called "women" are bitter. They have been shunned by men all their lives, quite rightfully due to the unfortunate arrangements of their features, and rather unfairly take it out on men. They form unattractive, unsuitable for men's arousal, partnerships with women. They need to go out in the world and fend for themselves, making them hard and unfeminine. They resent all men and do everything they can to bring them down.

But I can get a man. A man who will take care of me, provide for me and give me the status of being Mrs, so long as I cook, keep the house respectable, orally pleasure him, and give him sons in the near future. I can even have a little job, as long as it doesn't take me away from my home duties or emasculate him by being more important or well paying than his.

He will protect me from being raped or beaten, by anybody else. So long as I'm faithful, obedient and agreeable, and am a comfort for him after a hard day at work.

I can be assured that he will always be there for me. Of course I must take care of myself, keep my figure, my skin and hair looking nice. If I age gracefully, he will just keep his younger woman on the side. I will keep my man forever,

So those "women's libbers" can keep their "rights" and their "education" and their "careers" and their "independence" and their "property" and their "equality" and their "interests" and their "self respect" and their "decisions" and their "opportunities" and their "lives". Who needs it.

If you want to get laid, read on.

This is a comment I made in response to a post about feminist stereotypes at Pandagon yesterday. It was completely ignored by the fine folk over there, but I though the rabble who hang out here might get a kick out of it.

To answer the question of if a man can be a feminist.

Yes, but in order to join the club he has to go through a de-nutting ceremony, which is exactly what it sounds like. This will take place on a stone slab surrounded by candles, and performed by the high priestess, who will of course be wearing a dark hooded robe, and will be surrounded by her sisters who will hand her the severing instruments while a mass is chanted, in a sort of latin/celtic/ancient greek language that nobody really understands.

He will then spend the next 6 months as a trainee, during which time he will be allowed in the compound only while wearing a pink robe and fluffy slippers and will be required to walk around dusting everything (the duster is also pink), and serving his lady masters while they sit around in dark suits, discussing the matters of the day and playing poker and smoking cigars.

After 6 months he becomes a full member, which means he occasionally gets to sit in on the discussions, but still do the cleaning and bring drinks to the women, though he doesn´t have to wear pink, unless he wants to.

How many people do you need for one of those?

What is a sex pyramid? I'm pretty sheltered, so I'd never heard of it until I was perusing Pandagon earlier on. It seems that it's something that this lady invented.

Unfortunately it's not as fun as it sounds, it was created out of a concern for the loose morals young people have today, and how parents these days are just not up to teaching their kids about sex in the proper way. A bit of her wisdom,

Sadly, too many(parents) aren't around, are otherwise engaged or are themselves products of a culture forged in the experimentation of the 1960s Woodstock Generation. Raised in an era awash in feminist efforts to promote the androgyny myth, many have bought into the ideology of male and female sexual equality. Others have bought into the credo that enshrines the negative consequences of sexual experimentation as an inescapable rite of passage.

The wisdom of Janet Shaw Crouse, concerned christian woman and mad mop lady. She's worried about the breakdown of marriage in our society, as we all well should be,

Marriage balances out the female's disadvantage by involving family and community. Families in enlightened societies said, historically, to unattached males: "You must agree to be faithful, to fulfill the obligations of fatherhood and make those commitments publicly before you have sex with our daughters." The marriage contract, then, was a public statement that protected not just women and children but the community, as well.

Men got married so they could fuck, and women earned the protection and security of a husband by giving it up. And everyone believed in god and everything was peachy. Unfortunately the feminists and liberals came along and ruined everything for us, so women like Janet have to come up with shit like this to save society.

Let me offer a simple, effective lesson in how parents can talk with their children about sex. Here is a "sex pyramid" similar to the familiar "food pyramid," which gives a hierarchy of balanced nutrition. The "sex pyramid" provides a "roadmap" for parents to talk about the hierarchy of elements in sexuality.

Ok, let's take a look.


Hmm. This seems to me like she was lying in bed, unable to sleep with her husband snoring like a pig and was thinking about sex, for some reason. She got onto thinking about her children and their burgeoning sexuality and how she was going to deal with that in this promiscuous world, and as her husband farted away she was reminded of how he stuffed his fat face at dinner tonight, and how he always did that, and suddenly it came to her, food pyramid, sex pyramid, food pyramid, I could make a sex pyramid just like the food pyramid, and use to to discuss sex and morals with the children, it's brilliant.

And the next day as she was enthusiastically telling this to the other concerned women she was so excited and so pleased with herself that they didn't have the heart to tell her, um, that's lame.

So it got on the website. I'm sure that plenty of parents will like it though because she thinks the "birds and the bees", that is the bit where you explain that a man puts his throbbing hard organ into the lady's wet inviting hole, should be given the least attention, so phew! To sum up the elements.

Values: What God tells you.
Relationships: Don't have sex until you're married.
Emotions: Boys only want one thing.
Consequences: Pregnancy, AIDS, drug addiction, death, should I go on?
Birds and Bees: Um, we don't really need to get into this one, you'll stumble through that once you're married.

I thought I'd make my own sex pyramid, serves absolutely no purpose, but it's more comparable to the food pyramid which Janet steals her idea from. Here it is:



Now let's go through all of those,

Missionary: Good old fashioned man on top penis in vagina sex, possibly within marriage for procreation, but not necesarily.
Naughty: P in V but with other positions, girl on top or doggy style, anything else.
Alternatives: Oral, anal, handjobs, non p in v stuff that everyone does.
Adventurous: When you get a little more interesting, gay sex, group sex, sex with toys, bdsm the slightly weirder stuff.
German*: Using sharp painful objects, icky bodily fluids, animals, penis eating, the really weird stuff.

So there you go. A simple way for parents to explain sexuality to their kids. I think it makes much more sense than Janet's morality tales.

Of course you have to realise that most people don't have a diet that's high in grains and vegetables.

*I use this joke only to draw attention to the preposterous stereotype that German people are into weird, sadistic sex, and I assure you that I don't hold this stereotype, indeed, some of my best friends are German.