. . . by encouraging emotional incest. Nice.

Um, guys? The way that the presence of a good, decent man in the household helps a teenage girl avoid risky behavior of any kind—whether it's related to drugs, food, sex, or cars—is by example, and by showering her with unconditional love—and his wife with respect, affection and erotic energy.

I know I'm not supposed to say it, but holding off entirely until marriage seems a bit dangerous to me. What if one gets married, and then discovers that there is a true sexual incompatability? That's a disaster—or a divorce—waiting to happen.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:13 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Ok, cool. 1. Not a problem for most Asian men then. Seeing our average schlong size is actually rather schlort (4", pretty much). See? Size does matter, and Small Is Beautiful! 2. Not all virgins use pr0n. I'm fairly certain my sister was against it, and her husband's not complaining... (by heaven, he's in his 40s!) 3. I dunno about you, Attila, but the rubbing the dickhead thing? Pure gold. I get all tingly shivers just thinking about it. 4. Em. OK. What I'm actually trying to say, Attila, is that these are issues that could potentially come up in any marriage regardless of *ahem* "experience". I mean, you wouldn't know (from the man's perspective) your wife's vagina was too damned tight until you went at it for the first time, for instance. Isn't it better to experiment *together*? Knowing that you will never be compared to anybody else because there *wasn't* anybody else. Knowing that your commitment to each other doesn't have an escape clause or a 'Plan B' built-in right from the start. Knowing that your spouse learnt how to please you from learning how to please *you* and no one else. Being secure in your sexual knowledge and experience within the holy bonds of matrimony. I think that outweighs anything you've thrown out at us so far. But of course, if you simply mean boinking your fiancee, or to-be bride in the changing room or the night before, well, that's a whole 'nother story and something I can fall in line with. That, or practicing on a relative. The closer the better. /never said I wasn't a perverted deviant. //Joking. Mostly. ///Ever seen my cousins? Some of them VERY hot hot hot! ////Especially the Eurasian ones. Holy crap!

Posted by: Gregory at September 10, 2008 11:55 PM (cjwF0)

2 Gregory: I love you. Forever.

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 11, 2008 12:40 AM (TpmQk)

3 Sexual incompatibility? In something as basic as "Insert Schlong A into Tw-er-Slot B"? Yes. It is a little more complex than it appears. Of course, not having experience in the matter, you're forgiven. In addition to LMA's nuggets of incompatibility, there's always the he's a 3 times a day guy, she's a once a month girl. And that equation can be quite reversable, and I think to most men that is a troubling prospect. A real nymphomanic isn't nearly as much fun as she might seem. And personally, I wouldn't bed virgin. Too much drama.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at September 11, 2008 07:58 AM (1hM1d)

4 The obvious problem with "wait till you're married" is lots of people getting into inappropriate marriages just so they can get some sex. Surely this used to happen a lot. Sexual compatability is largely about frequency--how often does he/she want it? Problem is, you can't judge this from before-marriage sex experience, because people change too much. Especially women--a woman at 25 and the same woman at 45 are almost two different species. However much she likes sex (and other fun stuff) at 25, there's a pretty good chance that by 45 she's going to be more into recreational shopping. It would be great if there was a good way to tell in advance.

Posted by: jeff at September 11, 2008 09:31 AM (SpkYG)

5 Past performance is not an indicator of future expectations. The complaints I've heard from my married friends--at least the one's that I've been close enough with to talk about such things-always have to do with misrepresentation in the years leading up to the marriage. "She confessed to me, after living together for two years, that she secretly thinks a lot about sex, more than any other woman she knows. So much more that she never told anyone, except me. She said that if she doesn't have sex three times a week, she doesn't feel right. Right after the honeymoon, I see things are different. She's always coming up with reasons not to have sex. I keep trying to get her to talk about it. After a few months, she tells me that she was just telling me what I wanted to hear. Plus, that makes her the better person--thinking of me and trying to make me happy. She launches in to her monthly cycle and how it leaves only a couple of days per month that she would even be interested in having sex. And how she was pissed at me in the last few months on those days. Now after five years we sometimes joke about getting lucky on New Year's Eve. On her or my birthday too, to keep from exaggerating. No joke." I've gotten similar stories from other men-- and one woman who I was close to at work for a few years before she got married. (She was newly engaged when I first met her). The day she got back from her honeymoon, I asked her how it went and she closed my door and told me it was a nightmare. When they got to the hotel, he announced that his mother and sisters had been giving him advice how to act during their engagement and that "It wasn't him. And that BS is going to stop NOW!"

Posted by: Darrell at September 11, 2008 02:19 PM (XOMZn)

6 Well, at 46 I've calmed down to the "nympho" level . . .

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 11, 2008 04:03 PM (TpmQk)

7 I think part of the point of these ceremonial pledges or pseudo-marriages between fathers and virginal daughters is that it defines sex as bad if done for pleasure. When done within marriage, to make babies, or solely to enhance emotional intimacy, it's then (barely) tolerable. I'm not knocking the intimacy -- in fact, I think that's the main thing -- but it shouldn't be ok for it not to be fun for the girl. It shouldn't be "normal" or virtuous for it not to be fun for the girl. And the girl shouldn't belong to her daddy quite so much. Ain't healthy! This patriarchal nonsense has to go! Such attitudes are also crippling for the men who buy into them. My husband was a virgin until we met; he was 23. And he never really did catch on. Too late, too shy, too uptight about the whole thing. So I had to kill him. I also see the far-religious-right talking about the terrible sin of "deliberate childlessness," which they regard as an offense against God (using birth control and also failing to produce new members of the faith) and as an offense against country (failing to produce new, hopefully white, citizens). Very disturbing! Very Handmaid's Tale. We are in creepy creepy times. And anyone who wants to reduce sex ed or limit access to birth control or even abortion (which I regard as a last resort, not a good option) is very very dangerous.

Posted by: Rin at September 12, 2008 07:00 AM (54frj)

8 I think a lot of Christians--a lot of Catholics, even--would say that sex is there partly to strengthen the marital bond, and that it was meant to involve pleasure. My understanding about the argument that childlessness can be an expression of selfishness is that it is harder for the values of Classical Liberalism to endure while the populations of those countries that know them best go down--and while the populations of areas/nations that do not believe in, e.g., separation of church and State--continue to go up. And I don't even know whether I think Western Europe has the same take on civil liberties that Americans do: without the Bill of Rights, and a belief that self-defense is a human right, it appears easy for some democracies to lose their way. I think we're really lucky to have the Bill of Rights to remind us that certain freedoms are foundational. And while I am nominally pro-choice, I cannot see equating birth control and abortion. Birth control empowers women and families to concentrate on fewer children and give them more advantages; lack of access to same can impoverish families, giving them too many mouths to feed with too little money. To suggest that abortion is somehow equivalent to birth control is . . . icky. That's ending a life, and nothing to fool around with: there are women who are scarred for life from being pressured into abortions. It's one thing to say "the procedure should be legal, as a fail-safe." It is another thing to elevate this into The Most Important Issue of the Day, and be unable to cooperate politically with those who see the issue differently.

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 12, 2008 12:16 PM (TpmQk)

9 "...how much control women have over their own bodies,..." Rin, I absolutely agree! In fact, I think this is (or should be) true for everyone! Every moment you live, until the moment you die, you should be able to dictate what you do (or others do) with your body and nobody else, unless you sign over power of attorney; man, woman, boy, girl, fetus, embryo, zygote... But never mind. Do you know that there are governmental forces at work now that are forcing us to eat healthful food? Stopping construction of fast food joints, banning transfats, all that sort of thing. What are your thoughts - after all, it's my body and I should be able to control what goes in as much as what comes out. Perhaps we can adapt the infamous 'Castle Doctrine' for the individual, rather than the property. It does seem to me weird that pro-abortion advocates are often anti-self-defence in other ways... I'm Chinese, and a minority in my own country. Can I be religionist and say I sure as heck don't need the Muslims outbreeding my kind? And anyway, if you had a bunch of people who spoke German, were Lutheran, wore German clothing, had completely German names and otherwise fitted into German society, for instance, I doubt most Germans would care if they had four heads and orange scales. It's not racist at all to discriminate against cultures and religions; only against race.

Posted by: Gregory at September 13, 2008 01:06 AM (1Pb4I)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I love the portrait, but scroll down. People have to play games about sex? I dunno. Life is short. I got this via McArdle, who has her own grotesqueries to relate from her friends' stories—male and female.

I am acquainted with an older man who, in marriage #3, no longer feels a need to fool around behind his wife's back. The reason? Well, it's probably a bit complex (wives #1 and #2 were interesting ladies), but I think in his 70s he's real hip to the demographic data: if something were to happen to his marriage, he wouldn't have to be alone if he didn't want to be. The male:female ratio among senior citizens is simply enormous.

Therefore, he's got nothing to prove any more.

I cannot imagine ever not being a flirt, and it's safe for me now because I'm married. My sister-in-law wore a wedding ring on a sojourn to the Middle East, though she was single. If I were to lose my husband I'd probably keep wearing the ring, because guys like me, and I don't believe in hanging out in a dark theatre without an "Exit" sign clearly visible.

Naw—I won't have to gain a bunch of weight to check out of the game, either. If A the H has a heart attack and checks out early, I keep the ring, watch my back even more than I do now, start carrying again, and stay single.

It isn't that I don't like men. I love men. But they now make detachable shower heads that pulse and vibrate and do all kinds of things. And no ego games.

I'm good at the games, but I have no aversion to being single, either, should I lose the love of my life.

If something happened to my husband, I'd be crushed. I might never get over it. But compared to the rest of the elderly sisterhood, I'd be sitting in the catbird seat.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:31 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

Especially at computer programming; everyone knows this.

Bad. Bad!

Via Insty, who seems to link that Helen chick a lot.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:33 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

If they really needed understanding and such, why would they have been born male?

Checkmate, Bay-bee!

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:56 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . takes on the male-bashers, once more:

Men may look aimless but underneath it all they actually have a purpose--to protect themselves from a society that considers men responsible for the welfare of women and children but offers them little or nothing in return. Who can blame them?

That said, it all depends on the man. And (in a heteronormative context, of course), the woman.

One thing that always disturbs me is when a woman tells her guy he should "be a man." What she is suggesting, in the ugliest possible way, is that he will be truer to his sexual identity--and therefore, to himself--if he only . . . well, does what she wants. If not, she will feel free to berate him for not meeting her idiosyncratic standards of masculinity. It is often tantamount to emotional blackmail, and it happens all the time. It's dirty pool, just as it's dirty pool for a man to say things he knows will elicit an emotional reaction from a woman, and then stand back with a puzzled--and slightly superior--look on his face, aghast at female "irrationality."

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

1) If you decide to take your own life, do so in a place where you will not be found by your mother, your father, your spouse, or your child. Unless you are sending a message, of course.

2) Prostitution should be legal.

I wonder what pushed this woman over the edge; I'm not necessarily buying the narrative that's being peddled by the media. But my points still stand.

Via Memeorandum.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:35 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

I forgot to link to the John Hawkins interview with Carol Platt-Liebau a few days ago, but here it is. Her book is entitled Prude: How the Sex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls (and America, Too!). The Anchoress discusses the book, quotes excerpts from the interview, and talks about what Platt-Liebau calls "do-me feminism."

I don't know exactly how to a take the ultra-pro-chastity lobby; they obviously have their points, but it's hard not to see their beliefs as part of the sexual double standard. I mean, I do get that the sexes aren't "equal" as regards sex, and never will be. After all—

- men don't get pregnant;
- men aren't as suceptible to STDs from women as women are to STDs from men;
- it is a simple matter for a woman to satisfy a man, and—relatively speaking—a challenge for a man to satisfy a woman;
- there really isn't much for a woman in casual sex. That is, there is even less for a woman in same than for a man.

On the other hand, I'm not too excited about the double standard, and the idea that woman are somehow "polluted" by sex in a way that men are not. There is that silly notion out there that a woman who has a lot of sex is a "slut," but that a man who is sexually weak is actually . . . strong. As I understand it, this idea was constructed by . . . oh, right. By men.

After all, men aren't "slutty." They are "virile."

I don't mind the fact that teenage girls are told that one might as well wait a bit for sex, just as one might wait a bit to tackle Russian novels. And the sex-saturated culture of the 1970s was downright abusive. What I don't like, however, is that one is very seldom told what a genuinely sober, thoughtful approach to long-term human sexuality is. Most SoCons seem more concerned with the notion of what it isn't.

It is as if one were told to avoid to the quicksand, but not how to ascend to the mountaintop. And the mountaintop is shrouded in mist, nearly invisible. Those who haven't seen it wave their hands and assure you that it's there. Those who have seen it simply tell you to "follow the signs." But the signs were destroyed by storms long ago; those of us who want to reach the peak are navigating by feeling around for moss on tree trunks, tracking the sun, and leaving Boy Scout-style landmarks for ourselves, so we'll know where we've already been.

There is no map; only a list of "must-nots." And a lot of second-hand testimony about long-term bliss that no one has actually seen, but everyone assures you exists.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 04:31 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 471 words, total size 3 kb.

Why am I reminded of the embargo on the word niggardly?

Thanks to Eric of Classical Values. I think.

I'm going to go get drunk now; it's after noon somewhere, right?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:25 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

This further reflects the fact that all men are rapists: they rape us with their minds, with their dicks, with their hands, with their political web sites—and, when we're lucky, with their tongues . . .

Oh, wait. I had to take a short break, but I'm back now.

Look: What matters more?—the fact that a lot of people, including me, originally associated AllahPundit with Hot Air? Or the fact that Michelle Malkin started that site, owns it, and recruits top talent thereto? This, ahem, girl owns two of the top-fifteen websites in the 'sphere,* and she's positioned to make a bundle—and keep her voice alive and strong—as New Media grows. Don't cry for her, or for any of us laboring in the field of political analysis/citizen journalism.

One is reminded of Thomas Sowell's Conquest and Cultures, one of my favorite books, in which he reminds us that around the turn of the last century the U.S. had a lot of immigrants who were Italian, and a lot who were Jewish. These people started a lot of businesses, and their families became very successful. As it happens, more of the Italians became tailors and clothing manufacturers/designers. More of the Jews went into cooking and food-related industries. Who knows why? It doesn't mean Jews didn't care for nice clothing, and it doesn't mean Italians didn't appreciate good food. It might reflect the fact that traditional Jewish diets are more restricted, so the need for kosher foodstuffs nurtured the delicatessens of my youth (at least, the ones that made it out here to L.A., after the trend began in New York a generation earlier).

Write what you like. Write what you know. Find a way to turn a buck. "Make five hundred a year by your wits." * *

UPDATE: Rachel Lucas has a nice takedown of the original premise. Well, she has a long, wordy takedown that was juicy enough for me to—eventually, after skimming around the edges—read the entire thing.

(Also, she has another cute doggie pic up, and since her birthday is on April 21, she's asking for cash gifts. Which you could give her, if you weren't all saving up your money to send to me in July. [Or you could use Darrell's approach, and send me stuff for my "Chrysler Birthday," which is May 5th. That's when I got the PT Cruiser last year, so all kinds of yummy stuff has been showing up this month. Of course, he's my most loyal stalker.])

* Using the N.Z. Bear Ecosystem, which I employ because The Bear himself is such a dish . . . men being, you know—only decoration to me.

* * Virginia Woolf, A Room of One's Own. From memory, so feel to fact-check my rather amazing ass on that one. As I recall, five hundred pounds a year was a comfortable living in England during "the long weekend" between the two World Wars.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:31 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 465 words, total size 4 kb.

Though why the State (state or Federal) is involved in marriage in this day and age is beyond me.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Still: this seems a bit brief for dual-participant session.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:08 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Whoever was responsible for the notion of intercourse normally taking upwards of twenty minutes scored a major propaganda coup. Since anybody challenging this figure has to rely mainly on personal experience, to disagree is to claim that one does not measure up. So nobody challenges something that may not be true. The real question is how often women are left hanging, so to speak, after the man is done.

Posted by: John at April 04, 2008 04:27 PM (q0qzQ)

2 What passes for science in some circles these days. What? You people got something in the microwave? Relax and enjoy every single second...until they turn into hours. Can't you think up a second and third act for your play?

Posted by: Darrell at April 04, 2008 06:11 PM (Jlw8J)

3 John--If you take care of the woman first, you won't have to worry . . .

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 05, 2008 12:17 PM (Hgnbj)

4 AG, yes, I know, if the lady I'm with is happy, then everyone's happy.

Posted by: John at April 05, 2008 05:22 PM (hdvAx)

5 Well, yes. [Actually, I meant that if you get the more challenging aspect of the project over with, conditions become right to achieve the more straightforward goals. But YMMV . . .]

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 05, 2008 05:44 PM (Hgnbj)

6 Wow, cool man, big thanks! http://xsncjxisfdcjx.com

Posted by: yjyvowlvxu at April 24, 2008 01:05 PM (OKGFw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

but I think it's interesting that men can now get pregnant.

Transgendered men, but . . . men nonetheless.

I mean, I know it's a rather challenging topic, and I do remember finding out that my ex-girlfriend was now cross-living, and IM'ing about this new development with a prominent blogger.

"Wait a minute," he asked. "If the disconnect is due to the person being 'mentally' the other gender, why couldn't simply change this person's brain chemistry? I mean, to be politically incorrect about it."

Well," I explained, "in many cases it isn't about the human brain. It's about genetic irregularities, and those are immutable. To my knowledge, one cannot change one's chromosomes. They are, after all, in every freakin' cell in our bodies."

"You know," he confided, "men don't like the idea that they might be dating a girl, and find out that she'd once been a man. It's just weird to us."

"Oh, okay," I responded. "In that case, we should outlaw gender-reassignment surgery, cross-living, and probably even cross-dressing. I didn't realize it was making you uncomfortable."

Okay: I didn't say that. I think I wrote: "interesting; gotta go. Working in the office tonight. Please link me soon, 'kay?"

Just think about it. This kind of thing is not very common, but it does happen. It worries me that we seem to be lumping it in with homosexuality. Truth be told, there is some overlap: I think people with a gender-disconnect often flee to the gay community (and its "agenda," which is bound in crocodile and contains a Mont Blanc pen), but I'm not sure that is how it would go if the mainstream were more accepting.

When, for example, did The Advocate become a "transgender" publication? And why do we use the designation LGBT all over the place? Furthermore, why are left-handed people excluded from that grouping? Are left-handed people not real "equals" in the LGBT community?

And why can't we simply give left-handed people drugs to make them right-handed? Not, you know, to be politically incorrect about it . . . but they make me uncomfortable. I mean, I give someone a document to sign, and suddenly they're angling the paper in the wrong direction. I don't like it.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:47 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 394 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Yes, I too find it interesting that someone born a biological female can get pregnant. Who knew?

Posted by: Darrell at March 27, 2008 07:50 AM (N5/7f)

2 "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked." I seem to recall reading that the uterus is itself not necessary for childbearing. Evidently a fertilized ovum, placed in the abdomen outside of the uterus, will develop a placenta and begin to develop. The chief advantage of the uterus is that it has an exit point already installed.

Posted by: John at March 27, 2008 08:55 AM (GEvnN)

3 The immune system may have something to say about that, irrespective of what's "possible". And Arnold Schwarzenegger movies. ("Junior")

Posted by: Darrell at March 27, 2008 09:42 AM (N5/7f)

4 I guess I just don't understand how a person can feel any particular gender at all. I mean, I was a tomboy, I like being a stay at home mom. I had a career, I like math. Should I be confused? I guess what makes me uncomfortable about it is that it seems very stereotypey if you think you like X so you can't be Y gender. Or is it different? I quite honestly don't know. I just know I was the ungirly girl, but I never thought, "Hey! I must really be a man inside!" Hmm.

Posted by: silvermine at March 27, 2008 12:31 PM (4gdyI)

5 Well, I certainly relate to that, inasmuch as I keep telling people that I must really be a 17-year-old male inside: after all, I like guns and trains, and I think about sex a lot (but I repeat myself . . .). And I have a streak of the engineer in me, mentally: it doesn't manifest itself in being good at math (quite the opposite, really), but in a desire to make things precise that cannot necessarily become precise, and in a sort of absent-minded disconnect from the world around me, from time to time. Do I really know any "girly girls"? I don't know anyone who can live up to the notion of being feminine all the time. I don't know anyone who wants to. But at the same time I'm not particularly feminine, I'm very, very female. So even if my brain is androgynous, I don't have any reason to suspect that my chromosomes are irregular. Plus, I have great breasts. I could see trimming them back a bit so I could run, but I wouldn't want to get rid of them entirely. (My mother, after her breast-reduction surgery: "Great start! When are we going to get the rest of it?")

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 27, 2008 01:26 PM (BYH4x)

6 Does it matter more who the person you're dating thinks s/he is, or who you experience him/her as? That is, when I dated a girl (oooh, a girl!), I had the experience of dating a girl. The fact that that person now says he was always a guy doesn't change the experience that I had. It may cast an interesting new light on that experience, but it doesn't change it so fundamentally that I now have to say I never dated a girl. Does it? But then again, what's most important, at least to me, is that that person then and this person now are smart, funny, eclectic, loud, supportive, and kooky. Do we really choose our partners based on their gender identity -- either the one they seem to be defined by or some secret one -- or on whether they're cool and groovy, kind and funny? The latter, I hope. Which is not to say that gender and genitals shouldn't matter. You like what you like. But what you like most should be a personality, character, worldview, sense of humor, and commitment to human decency. Oh, and good teeth. Definitely hold out for good teeth. I guess, deep down, I'm a teethist.

Posted by: Rin at March 27, 2008 01:36 PM (pzH6j)

7 Well, on my personal scorecard, Joe counts as having dated a girl. Definitely. He was on the other side of the line at the time, and he had (and has) all the juicy girl equipment. Though with a couple of other girls--even one who considered herself a hard-core dyke--I think more of the male part of my personality ascended. Just as when I had that fling with a male-to-female person, I experienced a sort of macho overprotectiveness that is difficult to explain, except that it's less vicious than feminine overprotectiveness. More reasoned, and less potentially violent. (When my maternal side is aroused, God help anyone who gets in the way of whomever I've decided I'm feeling overprotective toward.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 27, 2008 01:54 PM (BYH4x)

8 BTW, when we were teenagers my mother wondered if you and I might be involved, because we were so touch-feely. "No, no," I told her. "It isn't a sexual relationship; just really sensual."

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 27, 2008 01:55 PM (BYH4x)

9 Despite the fact that you were unspeakably gorgeous (and I miss your curls!) and brilliant and sexy. And you still are. I feel very fortunate to have been tucked under your protective girl-wing. I would not be where I am today without it; of that I'm sure.

Posted by: Rin at March 27, 2008 02:07 PM (pzH6j)

10 Hmm. I dunno. I suspect after what I am about to write I might find myself a couple of hundred feet away with a gigantic boot print somewhere on my back...side. Nevertheless. I disapprove of homosexuality. That's fine by me. I suspect I disapprove of homosexuals too. I'd go so far as to say that I viscerally have a problem with someone I know to be out and out. This part, not so great, but at this stage I'm not sure I can change. Which is somewhat of an issue, because when it comes to trannies, especially the really, really passable ones, well... anyways, let's just say my lower-body brain doesn't always agree with my skull-encased brain. First, the main point of the post. Has anyone read the Bicentennial Man? I swear, Isaac Asimov, atheist/agnostic that he is, must have just a apark of divine intervention, because that story carries with it everything you ever want to know about the SRS thingy today. Andrew Martin went to a whole lot of trouble, even to the extent of killing himself slowly, to be recognised as a Man. Rather, I should have said, R. Andrew went to a whole lot of trouble, even to the extent of destroying itself slowly, to have the World President declare it a Bicentennial Man. Even though it was not then, and would never be, a man. That is the long and short of it. You cannot assign so-called 'gender' roles and say that it's based on your deep feelings. We need objective reality to guide us, and if you can't shove your penis in a vagina and make babies, and you do not have XY chromosomal patterns, then your malehood and manhood is extremely suspect. Yes, I would say that if (if!) a woman can get her genes tweaked to grow herself a dick and balls (and hell, maybe the prostate), then she'd be a man (sort of the 'If your Aunt... she'd be your Uncle!" scenario). Pretty-boy kinda man, but a man. Similarly, if a man can tweak his genes to grow ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus etc, then he'd be a woman. Ugly - ass woman, maybe, but a woman. But if it's just cosmetic surgery and hormone therapy, forget it. You're a man or a woman till you die. Life sux, get over it. Now, having insulted quite a number of people, let me continue along those veins. Rin, You'd better believe a whole lotta people, male and female both, choose their long-term sex partners based on reproductive capacity. AFAIK, about 99% of the world's population. Or more. Sure, I'd hit Patricia Araujo (and I've admitted as much before), but like I said, that's my lower-body brain talking. If I invested actual processing cycles on mate selection, you bet your ass I'd go for a woman with actual ovaries. More to the point, personality can be grown and cultivated. Genitalia, not so much. In my more drunken moments, though, I always thought the best 'marriage' would involve a man, a woman, a tomboy and a trannie. Just for the hell of it. Menage a what???!!! And, just so you know, I was left-handed once. But thanks be to my parents, I have seen the light, and am now unequivocally right-handed. And I thank God for their guidance, because they increased my life expectancy by about 10 years or so. But you know why I'm not so bothered about lefty-handy folk? They're not trying to telll me that it's 'normal', they're not trying to force my kids to see if they're left- or right-handed, and they're most definitely not forcing companies to accommodate their strange and unusual practices. btw, it really was true, I was left-handed when I was young. My Mum had to tie my hand behind my back and force me to write with my right hand. I'm fine now. Honest. But I do more typing than writing. And to try to answer your facetious question seriously, or semi-seriously, Atilla, it would probably be much, much better for left-handed people if there really was a procedure that would turn them into right-handed people. Southpaws tend to die younger, because this world is adapted for right-handed folk. Not that I'd force them, but the option would be a good one.

Posted by: Gregory at March 28, 2008 01:35 AM (cjwF0)

11 Gregory: I agree with almost none of what you say. And yet I swoon before your honesty. Naturally, I alienate a lot of my true SoCon friends when I post on homosexuality and on TS issues, but I'm not planning on shutting up any time soon. Let me throw out the obligatory Koans: - is an infertile woman less of a woman? - is a man with a low sperm count less of a man? - may I see the studies that correlate life expectancy with left-handedness? (I'm curious about the methodology: as one might expect, 33-45% of my friends are left-handed, which has to be unusual.) - If you were to find out that no female-to-male transexuals had XX chromosomes, and no male-to-female transexuals had XY chromosomes, would that change your feelings about the matter? - Does the fact that the Bible says nothing about gender reassignment change your feelings about the matter? (Especially given that Scripture is so disapproving about homosexuality?)

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 28, 2008 01:17 PM (BYH4x)

12 Are Gregory's feelings about homosexuals genetic in origin?

Posted by: John at March 29, 2008 11:02 AM (DvFud)

13 And won't that be just great: yet another excuse we shouldn't strive to change - I can't help myself! 1. And 2. No. Assuming they had the correct chromosomal patterns. XX and XY, iow. 3. It's not the 'native' or 'raw' life expectancy. It's the fact that because our urban world is predominantly set up for righties (scissors, knives, for all I know guns, mice, etc etc etc), southpaws tend to die from related accidents more ofen. Of course, if you had Ned's Leftorium in your neighbourhood, maybe it won't be so bad. I'll try to dig out the source, if you're really ineterested. 4. Definitely. I'm a big believer in chromosomes. If the doc chopped your dick off (accidentally! it happens) and tried to make you a girl with your parents' agreement, and you want to reclaim your manhood, I say go for it! For that matter, if you're a hermaphrodite (as opposed to a pseudo-hermaphrodite), then go ahead and choose. Or not, I don't particularly care. 5. The Bible doesn't say much about hentai tentacle rape dickgirl anime either, but I'm sure it's not a good idea to watch it... Gosh, I musta srunk morere 'n I shuld...:hic>

Posted by: Gregory at March 30, 2008 09:53 PM (cjwF0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I generally agree with the good doctor on these issues: not only is there way too much male-bashing out there for my taste, but I'm sure there's a lot more than I actually see, because I self-select against it; I don't much care for sexism in either direction.

I'm not an authority on gender relations, since I haven't seen any healthy marriages up close in real life.

There are, of course, four leading men in my life: my father, who loves it when I pick on him, because what is bullying behavior from his wives is just cunning when it's his older daughter tearing him down (yes—I don't do it often any more; I know it isn't healthy); my older brother and real father figure, who withdraws from me, judges the hell out of me, and loves me secretly far more than he will ever let on; my husband, whom I tend to either cater to or take for granted—but love desperately, all the same (and if only that were enough to sustain a relationship—it's "necessary, but not sufficient"); and my best friend Count Linguist, who is often accused of being "gay-like" because he's a die-hard nonviolent intellectual—though he is as brutal verbally as any serial killer is in the blood-and-guts realm—and, oddly enough, he is the strongest person physically I've ever met, if one were simply measuring raw upper-body power.

All that said, I do think people need to let off steam, particularly when they feel dominated by their spouses—which, let's face it, everyone is. Marriage is never easy, and it certainly isn't for wimps.

But there is a point beyond which one shouldn't go. If you're blowing off steam, you can make a couple of pointed remarks about your spouse the way one might talk about upper management (or the Board of Directors, or the stockholders, or any "ball and chain") at a company for which you work, and at which you largely like to work: "God love 'em; they aren't perfect—much as I sometimes wish they were. I do, however, respect the good in what they are accomplishing."

There are certain things that are simply beyond the pale: suggesting that your husband or boyfriend isn't a "real man" (which, of course, he would be if he only did what you want him to do, all the damned time), suggesting he's a little boy for having any human emotions, or holding against him whatever intellectual limitations he might incur as a result of being male. (This is often combined with taking advantages of the areas wherein his brain provides benefits to the household or partnership: "You're so absent-minded, Honey; here's the map, by the way. You navigate." Not cricket, people.)

I wouldn't know about the last, precisely. My mapping and spatial relationship skills run, as withmy-anything-mathematical, to either very good, or very bad. (Like my parallel parking, or my restaurant arithmetic/tip calculations. I'm either on, or completely off.)

But between two people each person will always have strengths and weaknesses, and it's just as well to acknowledge one's weaknesses on those occasions when one is trumpeting one's strengths.

Otherwise, male or female, one risks turning into a monster.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:22 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 538 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Thank you. You would be surprised however at how much that is "beyond the pale" is routinely employed by some women when tempers flare.

Posted by: Desert Cat at March 14, 2008 10:27 PM (DIr0W)

2 The deal is, mutual respect. Even when we're yelling at each other. If I ever feel like we've actually gotten it right, I'll write a fuckin' book about it. I just wiii not talk down to him. (Though there's been some spirited discussion as to whether I once rolled my eyes when he said something so outrageous, I felt that it was beyond the pale. I didn't roll my eyes, though: I rolled my whole fucking head. Subtle distinction.) Like I said, one day I'll get it right. If it happens early enough, Book Deal! Later on, I just die with a smile on my face.

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 15, 2008 01:06 AM (hr1i5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I'd love to see some of them structured so that the genders are treated somewhat equally, and rights were actually weighed against responsibilities. It seems that mostly what we get are laws that either tilt toward men, or (more often these days) laws that tilt toward women.

Insty got me thinking about it. I remember having some sort of conversation with a male blogger once in which he mentioned the presumption of paternity within a marriage as an "anti-male" law. I told him I didn't see it that way: I perceive that as a protection for the husbands, who might otherwise have their children wrenched away from them in the event that their wives had had affairs.

He couldn't see my point: in fact, he seemed to regard fatherhood as a matter of contributing genetically to the formation of a child. No, no. That's not it, at all.

These matters shouldn't be defined strictly by biology, but by a parent's willingness to play a role in his or her child's life.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:31 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

Ace points out that there's plenty of overlap between what straight men like and what lesbians find attractive. No surprise there.

When I was in high school my best friend was a lesbian. After she came out in an alternative publication (althernative, that is, to the Santa Monica High newspaper), one male jock went up to her—someone she'd previously dismissed as an airhead—and suggested they "go out clitting sometime."

After that, of course, she knew he was an enlightened airhead.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 05:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

You're both right.

Everyone blows it in bed every now and then. That's as it should be.

But—ye gods!—I'm not sure I believe there are chicks out there who make some of these mistakes. I mean, who doesn't like to get titty-fucked, for example? And if you don't like bodily fluids on your bed, why on Earth did you let a man into it in the first place?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:49 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I mean, who doesn't like to get titty-fucked, for example? A-cups, perhaps?

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at December 04, 2006 05:55 AM (1hM1d)

2 "I mean, who doesn't like to get titty- fucked, for example?" For the record, me. I've noticed a lot of 20-somethings have no interests. Who's says there was a downside for the Left monopolizing the education of our kids?

Posted by: Darrell at December 04, 2006 09:30 AM (5B9wO)

3 I followed the link. It doesn't relate to your statement. But to your post and responces; I like A cups. I never cleanup the mess till the next day. Although I did have to make some quick repairs to a bed once. I never date a woman who washes her hands all the time and is worried about germs. You'll never get a blow job from them. I'll try almost anything once,... twice if I'm not sure about the first time.

Posted by: Jack at December 04, 2006 03:32 PM (Q+Yn+)

4 Whoops, I followed the second link, will have to go back to the first.

Posted by: Jack at December 04, 2006 03:33 PM (Q+Yn+)

5 I actually found many of the tips in that link useful. I wish women came with that list (personalized) as part of the dating scene. When I try to find out what they like they seem to all lock up and let their puritan side take over. It is like they like sex but think you should know what they like without being told. Communication is a two-way street.

Posted by: Jack at December 05, 2006 12:19 PM (FE8g+)

6 It is like they like sex but think you should know what they like without being told. Ummm...dude. Many of those same women expect you to know what they're thinking, how they're feeling, what they want, how to treat them all without them uttering a word. It's like we're supposed to have ESPN or something. I guess maybe ESPN2 will do, but I'm not sure...

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at December 05, 2006 03:34 PM (1hM1d)

7 The body fluids in bed issue is easily dealt with: Keep a clean towel by the bed, or *in* the bed, located where the fluids are likely to appear. When all is said and done, he wipes with one half, you wipe with the other, mess is gone.

Posted by: John at December 05, 2006 06:52 PM (Y60N+)

8 Oh. I thought that was strictly for sex when one is on the rag. I basically think any bed should have the following nearby: bottled water, reading lamps, lube, a couple of eyeshades for sleeping, fifteen million pillows in all shapes and sizes, chapstick, a variety of reading material, 2-5 alarm clocks, and at least one box of Kleenex.

Posted by: Attila Girl at December 06, 2006 01:01 AM (LEEsJ)

9 #13 reminds me of Monty Pythons Meaning of Life

Posted by: William Teach at December 06, 2006 01:00 PM (doAuV)

10 Attila girl; Why do I get the feeling that you are one of the few women that actually not only comunicates her needs,.... but demands them.

Posted by: Jack at December 06, 2006 01:03 PM (9Wyzj)

11 Well, no one else had it, so, had to create it http://soapbox.msn.com/video.aspx?vid=0a1c6ab6-a60a-41b3-bb85-91a7ca71bc15

Posted by: William Teach at December 06, 2006 01:38 PM (doAuV)

12

Posted by: Attila Girl at December 07, 2006 04:19 AM (LEEsJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Here you go. Make your wives happy.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:40 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

but I am one.

E.g.,

what lies behind the inability of the average human male to wipe down kitchen counters? Is it related to the inability of the average human male to stock a refrigerator adequately?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:02 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Is it related to the inability of the average human male to stock a refrigerator adequately? I object! My reefer is well stocked with several tasty selections from Samuel Adams, thankyouverymuch. Oh, wait...this is one of those define "adequately", isn't it?

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at October 24, 2006 02:48 PM (1hM1d)

2 Well, one is tempted to point out that most people--and some males--prefer that a refrigerator contain Actual Food.

Posted by: Attila Girl at October 24, 2006 03:35 PM (LEEsJ)

3 But pretzels don't need to be refrigerated.

Posted by: the Pirate at October 24, 2006 08:08 PM (MifjL)

4 Biology is destiny. Which is to say at least a sizeable minority of men would starve without a female presence in their life. Aand...they would have to move to a different cave every six months or so to escape the vermin.

Posted by: Desert Cat at October 24, 2006 08:16 PM (xdX36)

5 I always knew I wasn't average...TYVM!

Posted by: Darrell at October 24, 2006 09:53 PM (h4rVQ)

6 You're welcome, Darrell. I take it you are one of those rare creatures: a civilized male.

Posted by: Attila Girl at October 24, 2006 10:31 PM (LEEsJ)

7 Desert Cat: vermin is good eating. You didn't know that poor cavekeeping was actually a survival strategy, did ya? bring the prey to you, that's what I'm talking about! LMA: hey, I've got some fruit juice in my reefer, too. Gotta have something to mix the vodka and rum with. The fine Kentucky bourbon whisky is not in the reefer, however.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at October 25, 2006 04:54 AM (1hM1d)

8 It's a matter of what you did when you were growing up. I always thought as a kid that adults were supposed to know how to do everything. It also helped being forced to do everything, I now see in retrospect. We never had any "outsiders" come in to do any project around the house. My dad was a tool and die maker who did everything from major electrical work to auto repair to general household repairs--painting and carpentry, etc. My mom took care of all the rest and had my brother and I helping from the time we could run a vacuum cleaner. Our dad encouraged doing things ourselves. In fact, his general method of teaching was to act like we should already know what we are doing. Even if it was rebuilding the power mower engine at age 8. His only rule was to know how to use tools properly and respect the thousands that we had. He could always "undo" anything we did improperly though, even messing with the TV set. It also helped having family members that didn't fit into normal gender roles for skills. We had male bakers and restaurant chefs and most of the females had worked in factories during the war. I didn't know that everyone else wasn't reared the same until I was on my own. By the way, it doesn't give a male an advantage with women to do all these things well. Most women resent it. Especially when you are dating a woman with kids who ask you to cook. Or sew on a button. Smart women, of course, know they can get guys to do anything with effusive praise and kind words of encouragement. I know that makes us sound like the family dog, but somehow it always works. Some guys pretend not to be able to do things just so they can avoid doing them. Often women contribute to the problem by jumping on men, screaming that they are doing things wrong, until they never touch another cleaning rag or washing machine again. I dated a women in the 80's who was six feet tall and model beautiful(also a chemical engineer, lawyer, and new MBA)who had an obsession/compulsion with bathroom cleanliness. After I would finish with the bleach and other cleaning solutions, she would always re-do what I had already done. In this case, I didn't mind. She would remove all her clothes and scrub everything with a small brush and a Lysol solution on hands and knees. Afterward, she would pop in the shower, starting a vicious cycle! She would never tell me where this ritual came from, and frankly, it didn't matter. I am thinking about what you said about a woman's sexual organs being relatively hidden and it doesn't apply one bit in this case...Thanks for making me remember!

Posted by: Darrell at October 25, 2006 09:53 AM (UjNor)

9 Darrel, you speak truth. I was perfectly competent with the laundry machines in college. But somehow now I don't know what I'm doing. I throw in a load, she comes behind me to check on how I set the machine. Women, he speaks the truth. With good food, sex, and genuine, effusive praise you can make us do literally anything. If any of the above three are lacking, you've got a hard sell on your hands, and are probably ultimately destined to fail. IRADA, but who's going to gut and prepare the dang things? Atilla, women don't *really* want "civilized males" do they? I thought that was part of our appeal. Otherwise we're just a girlfriend with a penis.

Posted by: Desert Cat at October 25, 2006 05:59 PM (xdX36)

10 Probably depends on the girl, huh? I like 'em civilized, myself. In certain ways, anyway. Of course, that means they also have to put up with my wearing dirty smelly gardening clothes on every lucky day I can get that way. Although I can't remember if any one ever, one time, washed those smelly gardening clothes for me. Hmmmm. Must remember to quiz Walter. I know he's washed other laundry for me. He knows exactly how I want it, because he asked and learned. Of course, when you have all sorts of allergy issues, that makes a big difference. I used to wash his stuff too. And asked him how he preferred it washed and folded. He was the one who taught me this neat way to fold t-shirts like they do in stores. I could never figure it out before. The only one I didn't do was because I was just too sick - it was some way of folding his jeans or something I simply couldn't manage very well. He washes all his own clothes, these days. When he comes home. It makes up for every single one of the very, very many smelly laundry loads I've washed for guys. I love the hell out of him for it. And tell him so. Especially when I offer to do some for him and he adamantly refuses to let me. Because he's civilized. Even though, here and there, he still leaves socks on the floor sometimes.

Posted by: k at October 26, 2006 01:14 PM (lCUKc)

11 Oh! BUT! He does NOT wipe down the kitchen counters. He did once recently. Oh, yes, the effusive praise came out! Many smiley happy warm fuzzies for that good man!

Posted by: k at October 26, 2006 01:16 PM (lCUKc)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

. . . on the role of sex in marriage. Too conservative for my taste. Yet there are some kernels of truth in it.

Of course, every time I read one of these essays I get the impression that the author enjoys great sex with his or her spouse, and imagines that all couples would be in the same situation if they would only stop being silly. Once you've had a few girlfriends cry on your shoulder because things are awful and always have been, the issue doesn't look quite that simple.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:59 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Bah. If things are awful and always have been, why did you get married in the first place? Regardless, work to fix it, or give up and get out if that's your style. Whining about it is counter-productive.

Posted by: Kevin at September 06, 2006 08:47 AM (++0ve)

2 Saw a study somewhere that showed most women lose interest in sex with their husbands after about 3 years. They were either attracted to other men or more often just not interested at all. For men the interest level stayed the same. This wasn't my personal experience but does seem to be common. If that's the way things are then maybe people aren't set up for easily having happy exclusive sexual relationships like the writer seems to think.

Posted by: anon at September 06, 2006 11:32 AM (SpkYG)

3 Seems a bit harsh, Kevin...wouldn't it be normal for a person to agonize and to talk with friends before making a major life decision like "getting out"?"

Posted by: david foster at September 06, 2006 03:57 PM (/Z304)

4 I guess you're right David. It wasn't the 'things are awful' part that bothered me. It was the 'and always have been' part. She should have been agonizing and talking it over with friends before starting the relationship if things started out awful.

Posted by: Kevin at September 07, 2006 03:50 AM (++0ve)

5 Difficult, because somehow we've gotten to a "she" that seems to be a composite of a few of my female friends--whose circumstances are different from each other's. 1) Kevin, is sex everything in a relationship? Is there no chance that a relationship has worth even if the sex is sub-par? 2) Within the reasoning of the Evangelical Outpost essay, how would one know ahead of time about a sexual incompatibility? One would, until widowhood, only know one person sexually, and he/she would potentially bring a low level of sexual skill into the relationship. Mightn't this be a problem?

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 07, 2006 10:59 AM (LEEsJ)

6 My issue is with airy-fairy religious people who assume that if everyone has good intentions, the sex thing will magically work itself out. I just don't see that happening in the real world, and some of these people appear to be "coaching from some pretty comfortable sidelines." Hey. Just pick up the violin. If you're right with God and you love your spouse, you'll be able to play Vivaldi without any guidance whatsoever. How hard can it be? Love will conquer all.

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 07, 2006 11:02 AM (LEEsJ)

7 "1) Kevin, is sex everything in a relationship? Is there no chance that a relationship has worth even if the sex is sub-par?" I would not call it 'everything', but I would say it's a necessary ingredient, and the relationship is not workable without it. Much like the relationship would be unworkable with great sex, but you find your spouse uninteresting, or pursuing opposite goals than yours. Since your girlfriends were crying on your shoulder about it, I assume they agree with me on this. Being able to read between the lines (very often incorrectly), I'd say they considered this in the beginning of the relationship, and went ahead with it anyway for some other reason (money? security? lonely? money? love? money?). And... now they are whining to you about it. It just doesn't seem fair On your second point, I guess if you never had sex with someone else, you wouldn't know it's bad (if it is)? I doubt it comes up much though, since virgin marriages is more honoured in the breach than the observance.

Posted by: Kevin at September 09, 2006 11:33 PM (++0ve)

8 Kevin, you are a cynical man when it comes to women. Buy me a steak dinner and drinks one night, and I'll explain to you exactly why we aren't the greedy, grasping golddiggers you perceive us to be.

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 09, 2006 11:59 PM (LEEsJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

. . . that something is unacceptable, try to figure out why it is that you have such trouble accepting it.

I had a boyfriend who loved to use that word: everything I did, everything in the relationship, was unacceptable. Or, as he put it, "unacCEPtable."

Finally, Professor Fractal began to do impressions of him saying, "that's unacCEPtable. Our problems are insurMOUNTable. All the postulates I've been using up to this point are inapPLICable."

Posted by: Attila Girl at 05:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.