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.
1
The real problem with conservatives on the idea of sex is that they are still caught in the paradigm that sex is a necessary evil that is made tolerable by marriage. (Whereas liberals regard marriage as an unnecessary evil that is made tolerable by sex.)
The real truth is that the ideal sexual relationship is so supremely good that any departure from it is, by comparison, evil.
Posted by: John at April 28, 2008 05:18 AM (83c7O)
2
How about this as an approach to long-term sexuality:
Sex without love is empty.
And marriage is the ultimate expression of love.
Without love, sex becomes a selfish thing -- it's about my pleasure, not my partner's. Just about any partner would do, so what's wrong with "trading in" my partner for a more-attractive model? And so sex without love never forms long-term bonds, because everyone eventually gets older, and there are always young, hot twenty-somethings to pursue.
But when love -- genuine love, not lying and saying "I love you" just to get sex -- enters the picture, things change. Suddenly it's not about you, it's about your partner. What will please him or her? And intimacy enters the picture, too -- when you really care about someone, you want to spend time with them. Not to mention that there's almost nothing as personal and intimate as being naked, both physically and emotionally, with someone. And instead of sex being merely a means of physical pleasure, it becomes part and parcel of the glue that ties the relationship together.
So why do social conservatives (myself included) focus so much on marriage? Well, maybe it's because the ideal of marriage -- a lifelong commitment to the other person -- is the ultimate expression of love. Marriage, as it's supposed to be, says "I love you enough that I want to spend my whole life with you. I will not pursue any other woman (or man). I will make every effort to be there for you, meet your needs, and make you happy, not because some authority is telling me to, but because I love you and want the best for you. And I promise that I'll do this for the rest of your life -- or, if I die before you, for the rest of my life."
Now, we all know that many marriages fall far short of this ideal, sadly. Selfishness creeps in, or people lose sight of the long-term goal (lifelong commitment) and suddenly the screaming match over the latest credit card bill and how will we ever afford the kids' college in 15 years looms far larger in importance than the commitment you made at your wedding. But everything I've heard from happy older couples celebrating their 40th or 50th wedding anniversary says, "Sure there will be days when you feel like throwing in the towel. But if you let your commitment to the marriage outweigh your temporary feelings, and act with love towards your spouse even when you're not feeling the love right now, you'll find that the feelings of love return. Sure, maybe it'll take a few weeks or even a few months. But when you said 'As long as we both shall live' at the altar... did you really mean it? Then act on your commitment, and stick it out -- it's worth it in the long run."
That's not to say that every single person should stay in a bad marriage no matter what. If there's an abusive situation, for example, it probably isn't going to get better, and staying in the marriage isn't healthy. But for most marriages, where there isn't abuse but rather the strain and conflict of day-to-day life together -- for most marriages, sticking it out, and proving your love to your spouse by self-sacrificial actions (like getting up at 3:00 AM to change the baby so that your wife can have a few more hours of rest) works wonders for the long-term health of the marriage.
So there it is. That's the ideal that social conservatives are trying to hold up as the standard.
Posted by: Robin Munn at April 28, 2008 07:29 AM (Of2A3)
3
Hm. I'm still seeing through a glass, darkly. I understand that that is what life is all about. And I acknowledge that if it weren't so, it would be hellishly boring.
And I'm desperately in love with my husband.
But I feel terribly handicapped by the fact that I've never seen a functional, non-abusive long-term relationship up-close. I've seen this done badly, but almost never done well.
Of course, I recognize that no one ever purrs as loudly when they are happy as they yelp when they are in pain--so one is always going to hear more about the failures and speedbumps than about the successes.
But I still long for that roadmap.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 28, 2008 12:32 PM (Hgnbj)
4
Oooh, Attila Girl.
I know what you mean. Oh, boy, do I know what you mean.
My birth family was fairly non-functional. I was the younger of two boys. And I had no cousins that lived close. My greater family nearby were, well, kind of like the British royal family; frightfully polite, but never warm or loving.
I'm 47, and to this day, family dynamics baffle me. I have friends who are very loving, have five happy daughters, and I watch and marvel--but I have no idea how they do it.
Actually, I'm very lucky to have a wife who puts up with me and who tries hard to do the right thing. As do I. But I'd love that roadmap, too.
Posted by: Gordon at April 28, 2008 06:08 PM (52nKX)
1
Ok I can't keep watching...rolling on the floor here with tears squirting out...
Posted by: Desert Cat at April 18, 2008 08:46 AM (DIr0W)
2
Yeah: wasn't sure whether I should laugh, or puke.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 18, 2008 11:28 AM (Hgnbj)
3
The most amazing part is that no one reacted the few times it was mentioned that it was their right to vote. I know endless campaigns are bad, but. . .
Posted by: Darrell at April 18, 2008 03:05 PM (VtaKM)
Actually, It's Because the Game Is Rigged Against Female Political Bloggers.
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.
1
I might remind everyone that Debbie Schlussel is "family" and you don't have to attack her to defend Emily Zanotti, And Ms Schlussel? As "family," a person who I admire and respect, I think it's time to let this matter rest. Please.
Posted by: Darrell at April 16, 2008 08:26 PM (Wczvr)
I Guess Arnold Doesn't Want the Golden State on the Front Lines.
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.
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)
[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 . . .]
