September 24, 2007
my preference is your choice!
...the real world debate over women's sexual freedom doesn't even enter into Eric's radar. He mainly doesn't get why anyone on the right would want to control ability of men to purchase the opportunity to have a sexual experience involving a woman whose body is routed for his pleasure and not put to use for her own--his entire defense of a right wing view of sexual liberation is the male right to purchase and use pornography and the male right to use prostitutes. I'm serious --right after he gives the entire ownership of sex to the left, he follows it up with a semi-defining statement that made me jaw drop.Yes, regular readers know that a primary goal of this blog is to negate the sexual freedom of women by reducing them to warm and inviting holes. (Probably because I'm such an elitist egalitarian that I believe in treating both sexes equally.)How the hell did sex get put on the f--ing left?Sex=centerfolds. I've read a lot of sexist oinking pigs define sex in ways that obscure that women have desire, but I've never heard one that obscured that women have 3 dimensional bodies. He does extend his defense to prostitution and gay sex, but not gay people--he doesn't rouse himself to defend gay marriage or fight against discrimination, leaving room for horrible laws affecting gay people while allowing straight-identified people to enjoy same sex couplings, a la Larry Craig or the imaginary bisexual free spirits who hate legal abortion. But not a whiff of one of the most common manifestations of sexphobia in this country outside of homophobia--the anti-choice movement. It's almost as if women aren't rights-bearing people worth mentioning, just warm, inviting holes that could be available for purchase if it weren't for those damn anti-prostitution laws.
But I especially like the exciting choices I'm given in the comments section. There's this:
I can't even imagine what kind of sexual fantasies he has.And then there's this:
He'd rather get on his knees and beg for conservative c0ck, even if they beat him for it, than stand up for gay folks.Which of the above do I prefer?
I'd like to say I'm thinking it over! But alas, Amanda also says I can't think my way out of a paper bag! So I should plead guilty as charged, I guess.
(Parenthetically, the real problem with my post in this context is an audience related one. My primary disagreement was with those conservatives (a shrill minority in the GOP) who wage war on sex. I see this as not only being destructive of sexual freedom, but as giving fuel to the left. That a leading leftist blog would see the post as as a defense of the conservative war on sex and as an attack on women makes me wonder whether they might not be comfortable with what I'm really saying, which is that they're not only delighted with the conservative war on sex, but they're waging their own war against sexual freedom.)
However, I'm running into a problem pleading guilty as charged, because of the sexual confusion that can be created. I've tried to make it clear that I really don't think readers are interested in my sex life, nor am I interested in theirs. I even pointed that out in the very post for which I'm now under attack:
....I tend to leave my discussions of sex at the theoretical level. I'm not interested in turning my readers on or off, and this is not a sex blog. I'm not especially interested in reading about other people's sex lives, and I'm really not interested in having people read about mine.Well, I guess I was wrong, because I see clear evidence that people are very interested in my sex life. Otherwise, why would they speculate?
And what about my admitted sexual confusion? I'm at least as confused about sex as I am about everything else, and one of my big objections to the world has always been that people care about things that it is none of their business to care about -- in this case, the sex lives of others. Now, the usual stereotype (which I've complained about a lot) is that moral conservatives care too damned much about what other people do with their genitalia. Yet in this case, the antics of the commenters make it quite clear that concerns about other people's sexuality are not limited to the right wing.
Normally, I try not to avoid issues of concern to readers, but on the other hand I don't want to alienate anyone, and I don't want to break with my tradition of leaving my own sex life (or lack thereof) out of this blog. But still, there are these stubborn choices which confront me. What do I prefer? Am I
Or would I prefer to:
I'm just churning and churning here over the possibilities. As a longtime deadhead, I've always been friendly to hippie chicks, whether left wing or not, but because I hope they read this blog, I wouldn't want to alienate them by telling them that they "need" to have sex with me. Nor would I want to alienate my male readers (conservative, liberal, moderate, or libertarian) by begging to have sex with them. I might also ask "since when do the political opinions of intended sex partners matter?" but that would be a rhetorical question, for they matter very much to Amanda and her followers. Because as she says,
Smart girls don't f--k anti-choice boys.So I'm stumped. On top of that, I can't think my way out of a paper bag.
So I thought I should let you, the readers, decide.
Think it over carefully, though, because what you decide might have terrible consequences.
Please note that I hate to put my kind readers in a difficult position of forcing themselves to decide my preference for me. So, after much soul-searching, I finally managed to come up with with a third option for readers who might be as frustrated as I was with the first two choices. (This was not meant to offer my own opinion, but only to broaden the diversity of choice.)
This is all very troubling, as it touches on an unsettled question I asked when in my discussion of Amanda's claim that I am a sociopath, I asked:
Should I care more? Or should I care less?Well, if I can't think my way out of a paper bag, I probably can't care my way out of one either.
posted by Eric on 09.24.07 at 02:00 PM
Search the Site
Classics To Go
See more archives here
Old (Blogspot) archives
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational
No Biorobots For Japan
The Thorium Solution
Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera
This war of attrition is driving me bananas!
Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry?
Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression?
Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood