Previous post

6 Brazen Advocates of Slut Culture on the Pseudo-Feminist Left

Next post

6 Brazen Advocates of Slut Culture on the Pseudo-Feminist Left

Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:

Sluthood wasn’t always considered a virtue. Most normal, rational people look at sleeping around as something sad and wrong. It’s not healthy, physically or mentally, it can be damaging to a young girl’s reputation, and it can also be incredibly dangerous. Women that sleep around oftentimes end up feeling used and regret their choices when they get older and decide to settle down. Other women end up contracting STDs, which may or may not be treatable. For these reasons and more, being a slut is understandably looked down upon — it can be genuinely harmful. Today’s pseudo-feminists, however, have turned that common sense logic on its head.

Sluthood is now, unbelievably, looked at in their eyes as healthy and empowering. Sleeping with random men every night is not sleeping around, it’s “embracing your sexuality.” This attitude has trickled down into our everyday culture, and it’s had an effect on young girls. Almost two-thirds of teenagers who do have sex end up wishing they hadn’t. Teens who have sex early are more likely to be depressed or suicidal. And while femisogynists act as if birth control and condoms makes sex absolutely risk-free, the truth is not quite as clear. The emotional consequences are clear; physically, the truth is simply that condoms are not foolproof. Consider that 1 in 4 teenage girls now have an STD. And pregnancy can only reliably be prevented through abstinence, something teenage girls need to know, considering that teenage mothers are significantly more likely to live in poverty and rely on welfare.

Does any of this sound empowering? While the slut culture hits young girls the hardest, it’s unhealthy for everyone, regardless of age. See, for example, how rates of most STDs have climbed since 1997, with the exception of gonorrhea. Chlamydia is especially pervasive, being the most transmitted STD in the United States. It’s especially scary when you consider that approximately 1 in 4 men have chlamydia, but no symptoms, and only about 30% of women get any symptoms. Then there’s herpes, which is incurable. Currently, 1 out of 5 women have herpes.

Yes, encouraging people that sluthood is empowering and healthy is surely a great idea. It’s not irresponsible or potentially dangerous at all! You could only… end up depressed, suicidal, pregnant and single, or with a nasty (possibly incurable) STD. Femisogynists claim that all this means is that we need better sex education in our schools, because condoms are clearly foolproof, and as long as you use a condom, you’ll never ever get pregnant or contract an STD. The truth is not so comforting. Condoms are not foolproof, and perpetuating that myth doesn’t do anyone any favors, as the cold hard facts show. But the pseudo-feminists aren’t pointing these facts out to anyone when they encourage sluthood, are they? This part of it, the dark side, is all extremely hushed up, probably because if most people knew these facts and statistics they’d be terrified to sleep around with wild abandon. And that’s exactly why the femisogynists don’t mention this part of it.

When you think about it, and consider the facts, slut culture is not something we should be encouraging. But who are the people who are pushing this sluthood culture so fiercely? We’re about to discover 6 of the strongest advocates of sluthood culture in America.

Jaclyn Friedman

Example #1: My Sluthood, Myself

I had never thought of my self as a Casual Encounters kind of girl. I’d read them on occasion, sure, out of fascination, horror, horniness. I’d even, once in a long while, in lonely desperate moments, posted an ad, not with the intention of actually meeting anyone, but because sometimes knowing you have a bunch of bad options that you’re rejecting feels better than feeling like you have no options at all. And it was that exact state I found myself in one Friday night last fall, after having been blown apart yet again by some minor rejection that felt so huge it sent me to my bed. I hadn’t showered or shaved or left the house in days. And so, glass of wine in hand, wearing a robe and dirty sweatpants, I posted an ad just so I could watch the replies come in and feel like I had some kind of choice in the world. That somebody wanted me, even if they were gross and I’d never want them back.

… I’m telling you this because our policymakers would rather girls get sometimes-fatal diseases than be perceived as condoning sluthood. I’m telling you this because it’s important for everyone to understand: Sluthood isn’t a disease, or a wrong path, or a trend that’s ruining our youth. It isn’t just for detached, unemotional women who “f**k like men,” (as if that actually meant something), consequences be damned. It isn’t ever inevitable that sluthood should inspire violence or shame. Sluthood isn’t just a choice we should let women make because women should be free to make even “bad” choices. It’s a choice we should all have access to because it has the potential to be liberating. Healing. Soul-fulfilling.

And here, in Jaclyn Friedman’s words, we see firsthand that sluthood can be liberating and healing.

Reading her post, though, ends up being incredibly sad. Friedman, who bills herself as a “feminist evangelist,” pushes the myth that sluthood can be empowering, but she seems to be saying something different. She says herself that she wants to be loved, she wants to be wanted, and sleeping around with random men is not going to get her that love. A one-night stand gets you that temporary endorphin rush, but you ultimately end up feeling hollow again. So you look for that rush again, have another one night stand, and still feel empty. It’s a vicious cycle, a quick fix that leaves you wanting in the end.

While Jaclyn tries valiantly to prove that sleeping around is this wonderful, liberating, empowering experience, her words ring hollow because you can see right through them. She comes across as bitter and desperate, someone looking for love and validation in any way that she can get it, no matter how unhealthy it may be.

Yet for some reason, we’re supposed to want to emulate her? Why, so that other women can be as desperate and miserable as she is?

Hey, maybe that’s the whole point.

Tracy Clark-Flory

Example #2: In Defense of Casual Sex

I’m a 24-year-old member of the hookup generation — I’ve had roughly three times as many hookups as relationships — and, like innumerable 20-somethings before me, I’ve found that casual sex can be healthy and normal and lead to better adult relationships. I don’t exactly advocate picking up guys at frat parties and screwing atop the keg as the path to marital bliss. It’s just that hookup culture is not the radical extreme it is so frequently mischaracterized as in the media. There is sloppy stranger sex among people my age, sure, but sometimes hooking up is regular sex with a casual acquaintance; sometimes it’s innocent making out or casually dating or cuddling, and, oftentimes, it involves just one person at a time. In a sense it’s all very old-fashioned — there’s just a lot more unattached sex involved.

Like most 20-somethings, I’ve had online pornography and unregulated chat rooms at my fingertips since I hit puberty. But I also grew up during the Girl/Grrrl Power explosion, which taught me to demand respect, and play handball (and, later, hardball) with the boys. And it taught me that I didn’t need to cake myself in makeup or teeter along in foot-disfiguring heels — unless, of course, I wanted to.

… As far as I can tell, these choices don’t form a pattern, other than a refusal to really choose. I was like a college freshman filling out the Career Center’s job placement questionnaire, making an enthusiastic check mark next to every box; except, in my case, I was checking off men. Most of them were great; others led me on and made me cry. In a few cases, I felt used, but other times I felt like a user. [emphasis mine]

It’s interesting that Salon writer Tracy Clark-Flory speaks of sleeping around as some kind of warped way to gain respect. She later admits that she and other young women are often looking for something more permanent — but that after two or three hook-ups, the men they’ve been having casual sex with run when the idea of a more serious relationship is brought up.

Can she really not connect the dots there?

She admits that she was able to find an “emotionally available” man… after she stopped her wild adventure into sluthood. Gee, I wonder if that was just a coincidence!

Meanwhile, when she was sleeping around, she often “felt used, or like a user.” How does that demand respect? If she is being used, then she clearly isn’t being respected by the men she’s hooking up with; if she feels like a user, then she clearly doesn’t respect the men. Meanwhile, we’re supposed to believe that this somehow will lead to finding respect and empowerment, and eventually, a “healthy” relationship.

Just, you know, ignore her experiences of feeling used/like a user, and only finding a decent man when she found the will to restrain herself. It’ll be better for you.

Heather Corinna

Example #3: Her advice comes from the fact that Heather Corinna is ANNOYED

Heather Corinna, founder of Scarleteen, an “inclusive, healthy, and sex-positive sex ed resource for teens,” writes:

So, am I a slut? Sure, okay. I am untidy. I have had sex with more people than some people consider acceptable, and on the bell curve of what folks report with a lifetime number of partners, I have had more than most. Since I have routinely questioned both my own values and character for myself all my life as a regular practice, and try to keep flexible, I suppose it’s also true to say mine are both questionable and loose. When you tell me or others something that is true about myself, I’m not likely to get my feelings hurt or be offended, particularly when we’re talking about things that have been my choice, like my sex life.

… I have had my work or the credibility of my work impacted by my actual or perceived sexual behaviour. But I also tend to experience a weird kind of privilege in often having little privilege. I figure if it isn’t going to be one thing, it’ll be another, so I may as well just be who I am and put who I am on the table. Like Janis sang, freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.

Like Jaclyn, I have had times in my life when I have wanted an ongoing, intimate relationship and have not had one, though with me that’s rarely abstract. When I want one of those, it tends to be about wanting one with someone specific (or, let’s be frank: about wanting relationships where I can get some privilege and be spared some of the judgment we get while in other models). It’s fair to say I’ve usually been far more cautious about getting into romantic relationships than I have been about getting into bed with someone.

It’s interesting how in so many of these posts, the sluthood advocates themselves inadvertently end up proving just why sleeping around with wild abandon is not a good thing.

Earlier, I mentioned — and Corinna confirmed — that a girl’s reputation is likely to suffer based on her supposedly empowered sluthood. In Corinna’s case, she admitted herself that it’s affected her work. And this is one odd thing: femisogynists complain often about the “he’s a stud, she’s a slut” double standard. While the double standard is indeed abhorrent, it’s interesting that the “feminist” response is to engage even more in bad behavior like men do. Instead of trying to work to raise men up to a higher level, they seem to want to bring women down to a lower level.

And it doesn’t exactly speak well for your cause when an advocate for sluthood says that they’re more willing to screw a stranger than get into a committed relationship. It just further confirms the notion that sleeping around can be emotionally crippling.

Monica Shores

Example #4: 6 Reasons to Have Casual Sex

When most of us embark on a new relationship, we’re inundated with anxieties. We usually want to please the other person and we want them to think well of us, because we think highly of them and we want to make the connection last. Above all, we definitely don’t want to weird them out with our strange fantasies and turn-ons. We save that type of honesty for much later, when we feel safer. Many couples never share at all: lack of disclosure is the norm for married couples in a variety of ways, whether the issue is finances or hopes and dreams. In a 2001 poll, only 52% of male respondents and 62% of female respondents told their spouses about their sexual history.

There’s less at stake emotionally with a casual partner. This is the very target at which critics aim their arrows—how can women enjoy sex without an emotional connection?!—but this lack of investment can be freeing. It’s the same relative anonymity that causes some people to blurt out their deepest secrets to their hairdresser or a taxi driver. When we’re with someone who isn’t a fixture of our daily life, our egos relax enough to let a little authenticity come through. Rather than worrying about impressing the other person, you can be more assertive about what satisfies them in bed.

… But many men and women have had the sad experience of falling in love with someone who refuses to indulge in playful sex or whose preferences are entirely at odds with their partner’s.

The heart and the libido are by no means guaranteed to be compatible. (The New York Times recently reported that 15% of marriages were sexless, meaning the couple had not had sex in six months to a year. Casual sex bypasses this by concerning itself primarily with the libido, which is typically regarded as a source of shame and fear, but can yield its own profound and revelatory moments.

Shores, a writer for Ms. Magazine, Huffington Post, and Alternet, goes over the same old talking points: the prerequisite empowerment angle, the learning about your sexuality drivel, and claiming it will make you a better lover. What was most interesting to me, though, was the completely absurd claim that somehow, casual sex would be better sex than sex in a committed relationship … because your inhibitions are lowered, or something.

Reality, as usual, is quite different. Take The Case for Marriage, written by Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher. They found that not only do married couple have more sex than single men and women, but that they had better sex as well. This wasn’t a one-time anomaly, either. This has been proven time and time again, such as in this study which found similar results — that married couples have more and better sex.

While the sluthood advocates would of course claim that being with someone with no strings attached means your inhibitions will be lowered and there will be less anxiety — leading to better sex — when you think about it logically it makes no sense (like most of the arguments made in the push for sluthood). When you are in a committed, long-term relationship with someone, there’s obviously much less anxiety because you’ve been there and done that already with them. You also know what the other person likes and have a greater connection with that person.

But owning up to this would mean that sluthood advocates would have to admit that even sex is better in a relationship, along with virtually everything else.

Therese Shechter

Example #5: Dear Abby, Ever heard of contraception?

I’ll spare you having to read the whole the letter which is about a young woman who gets pregnant in high school, marries the father, has the baby, gives up an education at a prestigious university, basically feels she threw away her life. This cautionary Afterschool Special tale is, I guess, meant to impress upon TGITGS the utter irresponsibility of having sex with her boyfriend. See what happened to that other girl when she had sex??

OK. There are many reasons not to have sex, especially if it’s because of pressure from someone else. And lots of people have less than magical first times, although it does get a whole lot better. But Abby’s answer is right out of 1950s.

Dear, dear Abby: I hear there are things out there called contraceptives. I’m not exactly sure what they are since our school won’t teach us about them, and advice columns won’t talk about them either. But rumor has it that I can have sex and not get pregnant if I use them properly. Not only that, there are also some pretty good ways to protect me from STDs. Why are you keeping them a secret? When did you join the abstinence lobby?

If TGITGS loves and trusts her boyfriend and wants to see what all the
fuss is about sex-wise, the advice Abby should give is “If you’re going to have sex, protect yourself from pregnancy and STDs, so you don’t end up forced into a life, any life, you didn’t choose.”

This was documentary filmmaker Therese Schecter’s response to a Dear Abby column in which Abby gives a 17-year-old girl some rather sensible advice about wanting to lose her virginity to celebrate prom night : don’t do it! Abby shares a story from one of her readers of what the possible consequences of having sex as a teenager can be. The femisogynist, of course, completely blows it off. (This is the same woman making a documentary entitled How To Lose Your Virginity.)

See, to the pseudo-feminists, having sex is A-OK as long as you don’t get pregnant. STDs are icky, but a baby is even worse. It’s yet another example of the faulty advice that having sex is perfectly safe and healthy as long as you use contraceptives … because condoms and birth control are foolproof and all. If you’re going to have sex, you absolutely should use protection, but giving girls the idea that it makes you absolutely safe is just not true. There’s always the chance that protection will fail, and that’s even if you do everything right. People also make mistakes in using contraceptives, which makes the chances of them failing even greater. But you won’t hear the femisogynists mention that in their rush to promise that sex will be hunky-dory as long as you just slap on a condom.

Then there’s the ridiculous premise that a 17-year-old virgin should give it up to her more experienced boyfriend, just because he wants to and because it’s prom night.

Yeah, I bet she’ll feel really empowered after that.

Jessica Valenti

Example #6: The Purity Myth

Some of you may already know that I’m working on a book about this culture of purity and chastity, and how it’s America’s obsession with virginity, not Girls Gone Wild and hooking up, that’s f***ing young women up.

Considering all we’ve discussed concerning the risks of sluthood — emotional consequences, pregnancy, STDs — I’d imagine we could agree that encouraging girls to sleep around and engage in the “Girls Gone Wild” culture is much more harmful than encouraging them to exercise some restraint when it comes to sex.

Yet Feministing founder Jessica Valenti and her pro-sluthood ilk proclaim the exact opposite, all the while saying that they have the best interests of women at heart.

The idea that we should teach girls, from a young age, that they should just do whatever makes them feel good in the moment is a ridiculous — and harmful — one. Whether a girl has sex before marriage or not isn’t the issue. The issue is that we shouldn’t be telling girls that Samantha from “Sex and the City” is a role model, and that having sex with no restraint whatsoever is no big deal.

And while Valenti argues that sex shouldn’t have any bearing on a girl’s self esteem, it doesn’t mean that it won’t, or that it’s “a culture of abstinence” making her feel bad. How would a 14-year-old girl’s self esteem suffer if she went to the doctor and found out she had herpes, a disease she had to live with for the rest of her life? Or if a 16-year-old lost her virginity to her boyfriend, who then promptly dumped her? Or if a 26-year-old had to explain to her husband that she’s had twice as many sexual partners as her age? I’d imagine in any of these scenarios that she wouldn’t feel all that confident and empowered. It doesn’t help girls or women to act as if these things shouldn’t or don’t matter. It’s misguided and harmful.

But you won’t hear Jessica Valenti, or her fellow advocates of sluthood, ever own up to that.

Written by

48 Comments
  • Trixie says:

    You don’t get pregnant and/or std’s from being a “slut”, you get them from NOT PRACTICING SAFE SEX.

    Pretty basic stuff. Kind of messes up most of your arguments.

    • Cas says:

      You’re right. Condoms never, ever fail. There’s no such thing as condoms tearing or just plain not working (what was that about being only 97% effective again… ?). Same thing with the pill too. That never, ever fails through human error or, again, the off chance that you just still accidentally get pregnant. Because, you know, birth control’s not 100% effective or anything, but why tell people there’s still a chance you could get pregnant or contract an STD even when you use “safe sex”?

  • Trixie says:

    You’re right. Nothing is 100% safe. Including MARRIAGE!

  • liberal because i do not tolerate being lied to and used says:

    This reeks OF typical right-wing fear-mongering dribble. I’d much rather support these “sluts” for their bravery and DOWNRIGHT HONESTY THAT IS COMPLETELY BASED ON FACTS, not to mention for their own humanness in their life’s path. I know of many teens who frequent the Scarleteen website because they are fed up with the lies their abstinence teachers are teaching them in the schools. True, there’s a bit of sex-obsessiveness re: these girls, but I’d much rather hang around with them than with the gun-toting boring anti-freedom you and your ilk will stop at nothing to get to the unreal world that you want it to be, that will never, ever be. The less obsessed we are about sex, whether we do it all the time or you don’t do it at all, the better off WE WILL ALL BE AND WE WILL SURVIVE AS A SPECIES.

    FEMINISM = FREEDOM FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS TO LIVE THEIR LIVES AS THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE AND AWAY FROM THE INFLUENCE OF YOU COWARDLY PEOPLE SHOVING YOUR ANTI-HUMANITY DRIBBLE ONTO US. MY BODY IS MY PRIVACY, NOT THE OBJECT OF YOUR PERVERSIVE GAZES AND IT IS NOT THE SOCIALISM LIES YOU MAKE THEM OUT TO BE. TRUTH, IT IS NOT. GO READ THE FEMINIST BIBLE THAT IS BITCH: FEMINIST RESPONSE TO POP CULTURE. YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING FROM THAT.

    RESISTANCE TO RIGHT WING FACISM = TRUTH TO POWER!!!

  • Bob says:

    @ Trixie

    Even assuming condoms are perfect, and that every teen who uses them does so perfectly, there’s still gonorrhea of the throat, mouth herpes, UTI’s, and genital warts.

    Additionally, about half the arugments had to do with the girls’ self esteem and long-term happiness. So, let’s assume that all STD’s and unwanted pregnancies are magically prevented. Still doesn’t do much for the people out there who feel used later, or are too young to know when they’re being played. Still doesn’t do much for the girls who discover that guys stop wanting to marry them after they’ve had more than X number of partners – that’s a preference, by the way, that guys are perfectly entitled to. If all the former sluts are such prizes, isn’t it great that the prizes aren’t going to end up with such judgmental guys? Wouldn’t want them to end up in unhappy marriages, after all.

  • 1989 Called, It Wants Its Myths Back says:

    You do know no one has used the term “safe sex” BUT cultural conservatives since the 90’s, right?

    You also know that no one who has had any decent sex education tends to claim effectiveness rates higher for contraceptives or STI barriers than those methods have been proven in studies to have?

    Maybe you didn’t know. Now you do. You’re welcome.

  • Dave C says:

    @Trixie..

    You can wrap up all you want, you can still contract herpes through the ‘slappage’ of intercourse.

  • Harmonica says:

    The lady who says being a slut is okay is mostly likely a slut herself, or is a hippo and wants to be one.

    Women can never justify sluthood. Ever. Its socially and biologically wrong.

  • Chris in NC says:

    This reminds me of that old sex ed movie in school. Where they showed the “easy” girl and said that no one wanted her because she was a slut. All the guys in the class laughed and said, “yeah, right”. Please. You keep saying slut like it’s a bad thing. If the world was too tired from too much sluttiness there’d be no energy for wars!

  • Pete says:

    Came in from Roissy in DC. I consider myself neither a “conservative” nor a “liberal”.

    I find it very interesting, and more than a little ironic, that the column is all about “liberal” sluts. Meanwhile, along the right hand side of the page, there are 5 pictures of Cassy, all showing off her cleavage. What was that about chastity again?

  • Harmonica says:

    I think Chris proves why there should be MORE wars.

  • Brendan says:

    No-one ever said men don’t love sluts for casual sex. Men don’t like to commit to sluts for obvious reasons. That’s the difference. If a slut is only ever interested in casual sex, then Game on! Most men have no problem with sluts as long as the sluts themselves are comfortable with being in the “slut” box — which, ironically, most are not. Isn’t that just a bitch?

  • Yawwwwwn says:

    Abstinence prevents pregnancy and STDs, sure. But there is no evidence that abstinence education prevents sex. The message these six women convey — and the message that you want to undermine — is that women should demand respect, regardless of what choices they make with their sex lives.

    What would you say to a person who never drove anywhere because she couldn’t guarantee with 100% certainty that she wouldn’t die in a car wreck? What would you say if I argued that nobody should ever have sex, even within marriage, because you cannot be 100% sure that your partner is being faithful? What would you say to someone who never ate out for fear of getting food poisoning?

    You would rightly tell us all that we’re being idiots. Every positive experience in life carries with it some element of risk. In fact, in most other areas of life, conservatives argue that we do too much to protect people from the potential consequences of their actions. Don’t make food safety regulations too burdensome. Don’t force people to buy health insurance. Don’t set up a socialist retirement system to come to the aid of those who didn’t have the foresight to save enough on their own. Don’t protect workers from exploitative workplace conditions.

    People need to be toughened up. People only learn by making mistakes. In every area of life, these are the rules you propose.

    Not for sex, though. With sex, anything outside a very narrow range of behavior must be shunned. The risks are just too great. Somebody might get hurt, or end up missing the life she wanted. Therefore we must do everything within our power to *increase* the negative consequences of sex. Disparage condom usage so that people will fear. Make contraception and abortion services as unavailable as possible. Don’t give young girls an anti-cancer vaccine. Demand that society shame and ostracize “the sluts”. All this has one goal, and it’s not to protect women; rather, it’s so that those terrible, shameful people face the full consequences of their terrible, shameful behavior.

    I suspect that some of this stems from a simple fear that other people might be having more fun than you are.

  • Gorbachev says:

    Sluttiness isn’t attractive in women.

    Ever.

    Women who deny this will be very surprised come marriage day.

    Nobody respects it. No-one.

    Not other women; not any men; men who say they do are usually only saying it out of quest for approval. Ask them when you get them slightly inebriated.

    And this is why the hard-core feminists scream so loudly. They have to. They need to scream to drown out the voice in their own heads.

    And the fact that no amount of politically-correct enforced reeducation is going to change the overall social view; it’s hard-wired into the human brain. All societies practice this kind of unfair, double-standard judgmentalism. There are none that don’t.

    So:

    This merely explains why women who advocate for this kind of vapid lifestyle need to scream so loudly and assault and attack their opponents so fiercely, using brazen insults and accusing them of treachery and assault (“Leave our bodies alone!”).

    It doesn’t help ameliorate their very obvious pain at being judged socially – the only thing they can do is reject society themselves as obviously morally inferior, because acceptance for this sort of lifestyle is unlikely to materialize.

    No – every person they tell their sordid, slutty stories to will judge them the same way; this will always be true, even decades from now, when they’re older.

    It will jade them, radically hurt them on the dating market (because men have two standards: One for who they’ll sleep with, one for who they’ll mate with – and the first is way, way bigger than the second and on this score they’ll judge harshly later on – believe it).

    The wailing and caterwauling and self-righteous justification will come out hard, … but there’s only one solution for them:

    Convince as many young women to slut it up as much as humanly possible; rack up the numbers and sleep with as many men as humanly possible. This way, they’ll have poisoned the well sufficiently that no women in their generation will be trustworthy or chaste enough, and this will mean that men will have to endure their slutty ways.

    But young women don’t want to do this, as polls show; the reaction to this kind of talk is severe, often from, unsurprisingly, women–

    And the fiercest and most numerous reactionaries to this kind of lifestyle aren’t men (Men get to fuck as much as they want without any hint of the remotest idea of responsibility – what man would want to fight that? Fuck the whores and then marry someone safe and chaste- this is the conscious plan for lots of 20-30 year-old guys, whether feminists want to admit it or not).

    No, the fiercest and most numerous opponents are other women.

    As always, the radicals face the gravest and most serious opposition from their own number.

    Men, frankly, don’t have much to say about it except – Awesome, Funland here we come, bring on the Easy Girls.

    When it comes time to GF up or get a LTR, though – those girls will be utterly shocked as the same men who were fucking them yesterday turn up their noses.

    Now, the caterwauling will start again. So I’ll sign off at this point.

    But: Later on, when the noise dies down and you’re in the quiet of your own space and are deliberating and pondering, consider this and the loss that you face with the men judging you and you being angry at them for it – the same men who are fucking you now without the slightest thought of consequences or who you are.

    And then ponder what it all meant, and whether or not it was wise.

    I think you’ll find that a very large number of women in these shoes will be uncomfortable. But, alas, we all know it —

    A least consciously, all of the blame will be laid squarely at the feet of Society or Morality or Men or Those Reactionary Bitches or whoever.

    The capacity for self-reflection and personal honesty seems to be lost. It will still be true when these women are 45, single and alone with fewer and dwindling prospects and no children; and they’ll be telling themselves their stories and convincing themselves that it’s much better this way and they’re much happier as a result.

    So: Parents, if you want your children to have any shot at happiness — keep them away from these women. Their poison is wonderfully tasty but the long-term effects will be surprisingly noxious.

    let’s not have this debate now.

    Let’s pause, and then continue it in 20 years.

    Then we can see.

  • Nergal says:

    “While the double standard is indeed abhorrent”

    “While the double standard is indeed NON-EXISTENT”.

    There you go, fixed that for ya.The reason it is not a double standard is because men and women are not the same. We don’t expect the same behavior from fish that we do from dogs,do we?

    I’d be positively frightened if my fish tried to fetch my slippers and it would be abusive to take him out of his tank and let him flop around on the carpet until he learns to do so. It is much the same with women. In order to have sex,men must exercise an extreme form of self-control, it amounts to a lot of grooming,preening and personal presentation that most men are simply not used to. It requires a lot of EFFORT. Similarly, for a woman NOT to have sex, it ALSO requires a lot of personal effort. In both examples, self-sacrifice and self-control are admired. Hence, the standard is DIFFERENT for each sex, but in both cases, the same object is admired, self-control. Ergo, THERE IS NO “double-standard”, it is the SAME standard applied differently to each sex, because each sex is different.

    “FEMINISM = FREEDOM FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS TO LIVE THEIR LIVES AS THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE AND AWAY FROM THE INFLUENCE OF YOU COWARDLY PEOPLE SHOVING YOUR ANTI-HUMANITY DRIBBLE ONTO US. MY BODY IS MY PRIVACY, NOT THE OBJECT OF YOUR PERVERSIVE GAZES AND IT IS NOT THE SOCIALISM LIES YOU MAKE THEM OUT TO BE. TRUTH,”

    Feminism= Fat old broads who can’t get laid by anything with a dick except the family dog, and they’re bored because he only does one position carping on men because they aren’t interested in a foray into beastiality themselves.

    Also, if your titties are hanging out, you’ve forfeited your right to privacy. You should be thankful that you’re about 1000 times less likely to go to jail for whipping out your funbags than I am if I pull my penis out in public and keep your yap shut before you lose that “right”. Also, “perversive” is not a word. It is either “perverse” or “pervasive”, but you are an idiot, and I can see how, with the entire internet at your fingertips, you wouldn’t know how to look up your words before you try speaking like an adult.

    Feminism isn’t about any “freedom”.

    “No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

    One of the original founders of the feminist movement said that. Feminism is about REMOVING freedoms, not granting them.

  • Nergal says:

    “RESISTANCE TO RIGHT WING FACISM = TRUTH TO POWER!!!”

    This is just darling. I nearly died laughing. Did you miss the last election,hun? There’s a black liberal in the white house who grants governmental positions to possibly pedophilic gay liberals and admitted marxist socialists,it is resistance to socialism and ecoterrorism that is “truth to power” now. Right wingers control neither the house nor the presidency, if they are “power” then I am Abraham Lincoln.

    I can’t say I agree with conservatives 100%, but at least they are consistent with their message “Worship Jesus, no sex before marriage,marriage is one man and one woman, and get a job”.

    Liberals are constantly redefining the meaning of “is” in order to avoid extending their high-minded “freedom of choice” to heterosexual white males while at the same time bemoaning sexism,racism, and discrimination based on sexual preference.Between being discriminated against because of my pigmentation and sexual organs, which I can’t change, and being discriminated against because of my socio-economic position ( which I possibly could change),I’ll pick the latter.

    Oh, and fuck feminism and the bicycle it rode in on.

    Just felt I needed to drive that last point home.

  • Jay says:

    The logic of some of these girls would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic: The way to get a loving, committed relationship is to engage in random, casual sex. Um, right. That’s like saying that the way to become a great genius is to watch cartoons.

    Yes Chris, the slutty girls are very popular with the boys … when they want some cheap and easy sex. But they’re not the girls that the boys want to marry and devote their lives to. Or to put it another way, they are girls that a guy wants when he wants to TAKE. They are not the girls that a guy suppose for a moment that he will GIVE something to.

  • Yawwwwwn says:

    @Jay: The logic may seem backwards to you, but the simple, documented fact is that many long-term, committed relationships do start out as hook-ups.

    http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2010/august/081910paik_relationships.html

    Your attitude towards women — the one that says “if a woman gives me something without demanding payment in advance, I’m going to take it and run” — is classless, vulgar, and yes, pretty common among men. It’s especially common among men who idolize sexual exclusivity among women, and those who consider sex a way to “take” from a woman, rather than treating it as a mutually beneficial encounter between two fellow human beings.

    Jay, I know it’s difficult, but please realize that you don’t get to speak for everyone. I respect many of the “sluts” I know, even the ones I’m not sleeping with, even the ones who choose not to sleep with me. They are direct and honest about what they want, they treat their partners with respect and demand respect in return, and they have an adventurous streak that extends far beyond the bedroom.

    More to the point, they’re not the fragile, hothouse flowers that y’all here seem to want to pretend. They make mistakes about who they put their trust in, they sometimes get emotionally attached to people who only pretend to return that affection (something that happens mostly because of people with attitudes like yours). But these experiences don’t destroy them. They hurt for a while, then they dust themselves off and move forward, wiser and more experienced.

    I’m not saying that “sluttiness” is inherently superior to the prudishness you espouse, or saying that these traits are universal or unique to promiscuous women. What I *am* saying is that when you conflate your personal opinion and attitudes with the universal opinions of all mankind, you’re well on your way to saying something ridiculous.

  • Yawwwwwn says:

    Nergal sez: “I can’t say I agree with conservatives 100%, but at least they are consistent with their message “Worship Jesus, no sex before marriage,marriage is one man and one woman, and get a job”.”

    “Worship Jesus” unless you’re courting the Jewish vote or reading from Atlas Shrugged.

    “No sex before marriage” unless you’re Bristol Palin or Christine O’Donnell or Nikki Haley, in which case we will close ranks and say, “Eh, so what if she did? Doesn’t prove anything about anything. It especially doesn’t show that our ‘no sex before marriage, monogamy after marriage’ construct is imperfect or in need of questioning. Democrats are perverts!”

    “Marriage is one man and one woman” but hey, some of my best friends are queers oops I mean homosexuals. I ain’t biased, just standing up for all that’s right and decent and above all I do not hate gays because I see something in them that I dare not acknowledge in myself.

    “Get a job.” We will encourage you to get said jobs not by creating high-paying jobs, funding job training programs, or fighting for worker’s rights, but by ensuring that unemployment is so miserable and degrading an experience that you’ll gladly take any job, no matter how awful. We wouldn’t want you to feel entitled to decent wages or fair treatment or anything, because that’s borderline socialism.

  • Yawwwwwn says:

    Nergal sez: “Also, “perversive” is not a word. It is either “perverse” or “pervasive”, but you are an idiot, and I can see how, with the entire internet at your fingertips, you wouldn’t know how to look up your words before you try speaking like an adult.”

    I’d like to refudiate this. She’s coining words, just like Shakespeare!

  • Mary says:

    “Instead of trying to work to raise men up to a higher level, they seem to want to bring women down to a lower level.”

    The crux of the whole issue. Feminism today seems to be all about being allowed to ‘act like men’ and that ‘men are animals’ therefore, we should be allowed to act like animals. Men get to sleep around and use women, why can’t we? (Caveat: if I’m wrong and this isn’t what feminists are aiming for, they’re sending the wrong messages.)

    But I’ve always thought that’s ridiculous. I’m better than an animal. And why should I be happy about using someone, no matter what gratification I get from him? Instead, I should demand that men don’t use me, or any other woman.

    There always have been, and will always be, women who sleep around. Okay. They’re none of my business. But those same women have no business with me either. I have the right to say to my children “don’t listen to the women who tell you sleeping around is all it’s cracked up to be.” Just like these women have the right to say, “sleeping around is the best thing ever.” One of us is wrong. But with my philosophy, the mistake of not having enough sexual partners isn’t ever going to come back and bite me. But the mistake of having too many very well could.

    So here we get into the risk issue another commenter said. You’re right. It is a risk. Here are the risks: Either don’t have sex with a lot of people, and risk not having a lot of sexual experience later in life. OR, have sex with lots of people using multiple forms of protection, and still increase your risk of stds, pregnancies, depression, and other emotional stresses. It’s up to each individual to make the choice. But the fact is that people with more sexual partners are taking greater risks. Are people who smoke three packs of cigarettes/day taking greater risks than people who smoke one cigarette/month? Are people who get drunk every night taking greater risks than people who have a small drink rarely? Are people who spend all their money on frivolities every month taking greater risks than people who save up and are able to buy a home or otherwise improve their quality of living?

  • K(yle) says:

    the message that you want to undermine — is that women should demand respect, regardless of what choices they make with their sex lives.

    You can demand all you want, but generally people will know you by your deeds.

    I’m skeptical that these self-admitted sluts among the ‘sex positive’ feminist movement aren’t themselves deluded and brainwashed by an artifact of the ‘Patriarchy’. They seem completely steeped in the mainstream thoughts on female sexuality, in particular that young, hormone rich, fertile young women aren’t nearly insatiably horny. That, among both men and women, such appetites have a range where there is indeed too much of a good thing. That preaching not abstinence speficially but a general ideal of delay of gratification and the capacity for self-privation for the fulfillment of longer term goals.

    Not to mention the obvious that it takes two to Tango. Another posited the situation where the 17yo sleeps with her more experienced boyfriend only to have him leave afterward.

    Common female nightmare fuel. What about the inverse? She just wants to experiment, and afterward he falls in love? In addition to attempting to build a culture of instant gratification as an ideal, are we also encouraging a morality where we simply use people for that immediate gratification. I know it is par for the course among Feminists to completely ignore that there is a man involved in these relationships, but ultimately all of these things feed back into ‘the system’ in other ways. We are to be users of people in sexual, interpersonal matters, but altruitic towards humanity abroad? I think not.

    I have to wonder if these women are actually sexually inhibited in some way and aren’t just addicted to the thrill of ‘confronting the fear’ and accomplishing some kind of goal in yet another sex act; or are just non-neurotypical in the libido department or some other facet of female sexuality. The perspective seems to be decidedly abnormal in comparison to other ‘base appetites’.

    I mean, perhaps I could understand the PoV if it were more holistic. Be selfish in all things. Eat what, and as much as you want and generally have no longterm care for your health. Or finances, or education or anything that is stifling you or ensnaring you. Be untrammeled. Fuck when it delights you, or for that matter as an exchange of services if it gets you something. Be cruelly violent and generally predatory for the same reasons.

    Of course, I think one of the core issues not only in feminism but in Western thought in general is the idea that our minds float in an ether disconected from physical reality and our nature as animals. Ultimately, not having sex when you feel it suits you, is sometimes a chore. However often completely a chore is rewarding in its own way that is more fulfilling than that fulfillment provided by engaging in impulsive behavior. This inclination towards having purpose and accomplishing goals.

    I’d also contest that promiscuous men are praised. In general they are not, and the ‘studs’ that these women fixate on are not well liked by men with less sexual success. However, these are the men that most women do indeed want so not only are they noticed out of proportion to more typical examples of the male population, but they are also protected by women. So it’s not really men praising their kindred

    On the matter of STDs and safe sex, I’ve travelled in ‘Player’ circles and the general atmosphere was that ‘If you walk in the rain, you are going to get wet’. STDs are common enough that if you are at that right tail of the bell curve in number of partners expect to have caught something, basically. That is what promiscuous men preach to other men desiring such sexual success. It will get downplayed, but not really denied. This isn’t how I see ‘sex positive feminists’ portraying the meat market. There is indeed an underhanded message that all is safe and good and fun. The truth of the matter is that women are more likely to suffer from STDs than men, namely from the bioligical realities of penetrative sex and that women tend to be attracted to sexually successful men. So the risk isn’t only not non-existant but it is actually higher for women.

    On a final note, not all cultures are as sexually inhibited as North America, and even in those more liberated cultures a typical person isn’t reaching the partner counts anywhere near that right tail of the bell curve. What we are seeing isn’t an endorsement to conform to instincts unfettered by a Patriarchical straight-jacket but to literally gorge oneself. That isn’t liberation, but another kind of straight-jacket. It is also something that will almost always be looked down upon. Most of Western society is pretty much of the pro-Alcohol, anti-Inebriation stance. Engaging in both cultural norms and baseline human behavior is either acceptable or good, but gorging oneself is always looked down upon. Obese, drunken, ignorant, uncouth, poor sluts with never be at the height of anything, or accepted with loving praise by society; and none of these qualities individually will ever be so either. In certain social niches maybe, but outside of that walled off reality, no.

  • Jack Arthur says:

    It’s easy to understand.

    These women have coopted their gift of sexuality into their ego’s vain search for validation and pleasure.

    All that this makes people ‘better’ at is trading their integrity for orgasms and disrespecting the unknown beauty of life inside us which is the true source of validation and goodness.

    It makes people favour ‘philia’ over ‘eros’ (lists over love): they know best and they will continually try to recreate their good memories until they die nonetheless.

    The biological manifestation of this will be infertility, as people lose the ability to immerse their minds in the rhythms of their own body’s procreative drive.

  • And while Valenti argues that sex shouldn’t have any bearing on a girl’s self esteem, it doesn’t mean that it won’t, or that it’s “a culture of abstinence” making her feel bad. How would a 14-year-old girl’s self esteem suffer if she went to the doctor and found out she had herpes, a disease she had to live with for the rest of her life? Or if a 16-year-old lost her virginity to her boyfriend, who then promptly dumped her?

    In a “culture of abstinence” as you define it, people would be a) more likely to contract STDs, and b) would feel guiltier about it, since they didn’t live up to the ideal of abstinence. Also, if people weren’t as obsessed with virginity as you think they should be, then the 16-year-old wouldn’t feel particularly bad about being dumped after losing her virginity, because virginity would mean nothing to her. It wouldn’t be intimately connected to her sense of self-worth any more than a man’s virginity is connected to his sense of self-worth.

    Or if a 26-year-old had to explain to her husband that she’s had twice as many sexual partners as her age? I’d imagine in any of these scenarios that she wouldn’t feel all that confident and empowered. It doesn’t help girls or women to act as if these things shouldn’t or don’t matter. It’s misguided and harmful.

    If Valenti got her way, the 26 year old woman with 52 sexual partners would feel no more ashamed of herself than a 26 year old man with 52 sexual partners. You’re the one shaming her.

    But you won’t hear Jessica Valenti, or her fellow advocates of sluthood, ever own up to that.

  • You might be surprised to learn that I’m actually on the same side of this issue as you are. But these arguments are absolutely terrible.

    Instead of emphasizing “virginity,” you should emphasize not having sex when you don’t want to be a parent. And you shouldn’t see people who do as victims.

  • Yawwwwwn says:

    @JackArthur: Please explain — without simply assuming that your moral predilections are the basis of all that is good, right, and beautiful about the human experience — how sex entails a loss of integrity, or how certain forms of consensual sexual behavior are inherently corrupting.

  • Geoff-UK says:

    Whores.

  • Nergal says:

    “I’d like to refudiate this. She’s coining words, just like Shakespeare!”

    In this simple sentence, you’ve given me all the ammunition I need to tell others not to listen to you. You are simply arguing for the sake of being contrarian, and your shoddy arguments reflect this fact.

    She isn’t “coining words” anymore than Dr Seuss was, or I am,if I were to cut a chili fart.

    She is an illiterate imbecile who is incapable of using the proper words to describe her “thoughts”. Excusing a hare-brained, barely sentient, argumentative fool only breeds more of the same. I prize excellence, not mediocrity. I will not join you in lauding an idiot for being illiterate.

    As far as all your other points, I needn’t bother with them. They are transparently wrong-headed and infantile.

    You and I both know that the men can’t be the scoundrels you paint them as, because we both know that it is WOMEN who control the terms of courtship, and more likely than not, these women explicitly asked to be treated in the fashion you are describing.

    t wldn’t srprs m. 40% f wmn hv sxl fntss bt bng rpd.

  • Nergal says:

    As far as all your other points go, I needn’t bother with them.*

  • Awesome post, Cassy!

    Let me add a few thoughts:

    Sluts like Jacly and Jessica need to act as if they are normal, because they are trying to free-ride on the reputations of women with self-restraint (for whom sex is also about love). Men don’t take whores home to meet their parents, and honestly stop bothering with them after their mid-twenties. These women are heavily invested in not becoming the dating equivalent of the toy you’ve outgrown, so they do their best to act like all healthy women do this.

    Trust this. I cannot count the number of times that I’ve discussed my own personal conduct in relationships – no condemnation nor mention of anyone else at all – and had slutty women HOWL. “You’re repressed!” “Do you think that we’re bad if we don’t live up to your ideals?” “WAAAAHHH!”

    The downside to nice women – aside from the chastity-shaming from psychologically-deficient sluts – is that men start to get sluts and nice girls confused, in that they want nice girls to act like sluts. (Yes, it only takes one slut to ruin a man. Thanks for nothing, Miss Sexual Empowerment.)

    As a final thought: I wonder what Jessica Valenti’s husband will think on their tenth anniversary, when he goes to make love to her, thinking it’s all special, when he realises a) that she’s been fucking since age 14 and sees no moral nor emotional dimension to the act, and b) that she fervently advocates for the right of women to kill their babies when they are the same developmental age as her daughter when she was born. That, my friends, is why sluts are more likely to get divorced.

  • drowningpuppies says:

    Always amazing that the women talking about sexual freedom and feminism seem to look like the last girl in a bar at closing time.

  • LS says:

    If these women think that sluttiness is okay in their own minds, what do they care what anyone else thinks? They protest toomuch.

  • Yawwwwwn says:

    Nergal writes: “She is an illiterate imbecile who is incapable of using the proper words to describe her “thoughts”. Excusing a hare-brained, barely sentient, argumentative fool only breeds more of the same. I prize excellence, not mediocrity. I will not join you in lauding an idiot for being illiterate.”

    Wait, now I’m confused. Are we talking about poster #4 or Sarah Palin?

    I didn’t mean to encourage poor literacy, but I did mean to point out the glaring double-standard. If you feel so syntactically sanctimonious that you can dismiss an entire person from the realm of public discourse based on one inadvertent portmandeau, don’t whine when folks on the other side return the favor.

  • Yawwwwwn says:

    @LS: If you actually think about the womens’ situation, you could easily answer your own question. No human being lives in a social vacuum where they can be oblivious to the opinions of others. When they speak out about the decisions they’ve made, they invite both fair criticisms and malicious slanders. They are judged and found wanting by people whose only basis for condemnation is the teachings of a pre-scientific religion.

    Judging by this thread alone, those condemnations are harsh:

    From the article itself (rather tame):

    “Most normal, rational people look at sleeping around as something sad and wrong. It’s not healthy, physically or mentally, it can be damaging to a young girl’s reputation, and it can also be incredibly dangerous.”

    “She comes across as bitter and desperate, someone looking for love and validation in any way that she can get it, no matter how unhealthy it may be.”

    From the comments (wow):

    “The lady who says being a slut is okay is mostly likely a slut herself, or is a hippo and wants to be one.”

    “Sluttiness isn’t attractive in women. Ever. […] Nobody respects it. No-one.”

    “No – every person they tell their sordid, slutty stories to will judge them the same way; this will always be true, even decades from now, when they’re older.”

    “Parents, if you want your children to have any shot at happiness — keep them away from these women.”

    “Feminism= Fat old broads who can’t get laid by anything with a dick except the family dog…”

    “These women have coopted their gift of sexuality into their ego’s vain search for validation and pleasure. […] The biological manifestation of this will be infertility…”

    “Whores.”

    [That thing Nergal said, which rightfully got disemvowelled.]

    “Men don’t take whores home to meet their parents, and honestly stop bothering with them after their mid-twenties.”

    “I wonder what Jessica Valenti’s husband will think on their tenth anniversary, when he goes to make love to her, thinking it’s all special, when he realises […] that she’s been fucking since age 14 and sees no moral nor emotional dimension to the act…”

    They have a right — even a responsibility — to speak up in their own defense.

    It’s not just a matter of peer pressure. There are workplace and even legal ramifications to “anti-slut biases.” People can get fired, lose business contracts, even get their kids taken away from them for engaging in recreational sex. It doesn’t matter how safe, sane, consensual they are or whether their hobby is actually a positive or a negative in their lives or the lives of their partners.

    There is little difference — from an outsider’s perspective — between someone who protests their innocence because they know they’re guilty, and one who protests their innocence because others call them guilty. By your rules, anyone who speaks in their own defense is automatically convicted.

  • Cassi says:

    Cassy, you’re right with the whole “100% safe sex is no sex” argument, and parents should pull their heads out of their asses and start telling their kids to not do anything stupid that might ruin their lives, but if you’re going to be this conservative and a chastity Nazi, then wouldn’t you consider it inappropriate to post pictures of yourself in a bikini on the Internet? Just a thought. . .

  • Yawn: care to explain how there are legal ramifications for sleeping around, such as being fired? Presumably, you’re not talking about sex between a manager and a supervised employee (with the attendant huge risks for a sexual harassment lawsuit or for quid pro quo promotions), nor about the harm to children from a woman bringing a boyfriend into the picture (children are nine times as likely to be assaulted by a mother’s boyfriend than by their own fathers).

    FACT – i.e. verifiable, statistical fact – there are consequences to sleeping around – consequences to oneself and to others. Far from being unfairly oppressed, sluts do an outsize amount of damage to society, for which they receive only words of rebuke in return. Apparently, the rebukes for harming other people are too much for their gentle systems, thus necessitating (according to you) that we stop condemning their selfish, destructive behaviour.

  • Nergal says:

    “They are judged and found wanting by people whose only basis for condemnation is the teachings of a pre-scientific religion.”

    Actually, I practice a religion that was involved in the creation of many scientific concepts,disciplines,and apparatus.

    My condemnation is visceral,not based on religious dogma.

    [That thing Nergal said, which rightfully got disemvowelled.]

    Wouldn’t want people to hear the truth,too ugly.

    See me, I’m not reacting to anything based on Victorian moral standards, quite the opposite. I like to get right down in the filth of human perversion and wallow around in it. I take great personal joy in knowing that 90% of the people around me are sadistic, selfish,depraved perverts, and that half of them think a benevolent God is going to welcome their worthless deviant soul into his arms. I laugh about it. It’s one of the reasons I get up in the morning.

    You can criticize me, you can silence me, you can ridicule me,you can even shut your ears and eyes and hum the Jeopardy theme song to avoid the truth, but it’s there, and it isn’t going away.

    The truth is there, like an ugly festering boil, it repulses and disgusts us because it makes us see our own imperfection in stark contrast. That’s why they crucified Jesus, shot MLK jr., persecuted Gandhi.

    So,as you can see,my judgments are impersonal. My statements, mere observations of fact. I have no loyalty to either Christianity nor conservatism except insofar as they are the opposite of the dominant paradigm,at the moment, and promoting them serves to counterbalance the power concentrated in the hands of those who wield it over me now. If Christianity or conservatism ever become the dominant social message again, I will oppose them fervently, likely with improved versions of the arguments some here have made against me,and just as passionately. If I cannot be free of the insanity of this society, the best I can do is limit its power over me,and I am becoming increasingly efficient at the latter.

    My advice? If you are likely to be ashamed of your actions, then don’t do it. Otherwise, go for the gusto. More power to you. But don’t go slut it up and then come crying to me because you don’t want to lie in the bed that you have made for yourself. I will have none of it.

    No one is above the consequences of their actions. Every action sets in motion a train of these consequences, many of them seemingly unrelated to the original action. You blow your nose on a Kleenex tissue and somewhere someone else blows their brains out because your money funded a commercial that amounted to the last straw in a lifetime of misery for them. This is unavoidable. A victim of this type of consequence, I may have some sympathy for.

    I will shed no tears for someone who ignores conventional wisdom regarding stoves and burns their hand, when it was so glaringly OBVIOUS what the result would be. On the contrary, I celebrate it, because either the idiot will learn from his/her mistake or it will be one less idiot when they eventually burn themselves to death. I hope for the former, but knowing what I know, I bet on the latter.

  • Jennifer says:

    These stories are all so sad because they sound so very familiar. I remember making excuses for my own behavior. I said it was fun and liberating. In reality, I was giving up something precious for the fleeting idea that I was in control of my own sexuality. I wasn’t. they used me; I used them. It was empty and ultimately very damaging to me. My heart breaks for these women swimming in such deep denial. I know the real pain that they are trying to hide. You can see it in the thinly veiled desire for something meaningful.
    I don’t believe it is limited to women either. Men who throw away intimacy for a bit of carnal pleasure sell themselves short too. If we really want equality, we should ask that the culture elevate men to better behavior rather than lower ourselves.

  • Jenny Weber says:

    GREAT research and excellent article, Cassy. If only people would embrace sexual integrity once more. The problem is, the left is so afraid of doing anything that even slightly resembles morality with its (HORRORS) “religious” overtones, they break out in a rash and rush out to prove they’re “above” all that. Someday they’ll be viewing the issues from far below, I’m afraid. But first they have to live a life of self-imposed shame and degradation.

  • Andy says:

    Here we go again with another post on a political board about sex. They all seem to go in the same direction.

    If you are a conservative Christian who fell short of God’s ideal to save sex unbtil marriage, the liberals will say that you are a complete hypocrate who has no business saying ANY kind of sexual behavior is wrong.

    If you are a conservative Christian who did save it until marriage, the liberals will say you are butt ugly, socially retarded, or secretly gay.

    But to all my fellow Christians out there, just remember that very few these “slut-apologists” believe in God, or at least a God powerful enough to forgive sin. If they do believe in God, its usually just some vague spiritual force. Not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The fact that God can forgive sexual sins is lost on these people, therefore they will go to great lengths to prove there is nothing wrong with premiscuous sex, despite the obvious hurt is causes people. Blaming the “culture of abstinance” for a primiscuous girls low self-esteem is like blaming the pain from disease on the doctor who diagnosed you. And what is this “culture of abstinance”? When I was in high school, the only kids “obsessed with viginity” were quiet religious kids who were nobodies on the social ladder. All the “popular kids” were the ones having sex. I’ve heard this is true even at some Christian schools. And if sex is making these girls happy, why should they care what the “prudy old right-wingers” think. I doubt there’s any young conservatives losing sleep over the fact that Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama might not approve of them.

    I had sex before I was married. I drove drunk a few times. I said horrible things to my parents while I was leaving under their roof. All those things were wrong. I admit that I sinned greatly against God. But the answer to sin is repentance, trusting that through Jesus’ sacrafice on the cross, he paid the price for your sins. Someone who does not believe in Jesus has no choice, but to live in denial of the fact they are sinful.

    If someone goes outside in the winter without a coat and catches pneumonia, would he be a hypocrite to encourage others to wear coats after he suffered from it. Even if he himself didn’t get sick, what if he saw others suffer for their mistakes.

    Promiscuous sex is ruining our society. I’ve seen the destruction of several young families because either the husband or wife found monogamy too boring after a premiscous single life. It could be hard for someone to acknowlege that are living the wrong lifestyle, but God is forgiving and people can change. You don’t have to marry as a virgin to take sexual purity seriously.

  • Andy says:

    Also, condoning the immoral actions of women is NOT the same respecting women. I’m always seeing statements like “women should demand respect, regardless of what choices they make with their sex lives” or “men need to respect a women right to choose”. True respect for women is encouraging a women to be morally virtuous.

  • Nergal says:

    “If we really want equality, we should ask that the culture elevate men to better behavior rather than lower ourselves.”

    WRONG.

    Let’s examine this statement more closely,shall we? What is being said here?

    (A)MEN are failing to measure up

    (B)There is something wrong with the way MEN are behaving

    (C) MEN’S behavior should be changed

    Point A: What standard are you using to measure the behavior of men when you say “…we should ask that the culture elevate men to better behavior rather than lower ourselves.”

    You aren’t measuring men’s behavior against WOMEN’S by any chance,are you? What’s next, “We should ask that the culture teach men to pick out better prom dresses to wear and to more closely follow celebrity gossip”? You cannot measure men and women by the same behavioral rules, because men and women ARE NOT THE SAME. I seriously wonder if you ladies, in the style of Winston Smith from 1984,who saw five fingers when four were held up, have been conditioned to see a penis when you look at your nether regions in the mirror.

    Guess what? A penis isn’t the only thing you lack that men possess, you also lack the same interests and proclivities men have, on average, and vice versa we lack yours.

    Point B: How did this opinion begin? Well, in the late 60’s women got pissed off about men sleeping around and then decided that they would also sleep around, because for some reason, when women look in the mirror they see a penis that isn’t there. Now, 40 years after THAT failed experiment, you decide you will try to change MEN into WOMEN instead of WOMEN into MEN. I can save you another 40 years of failure and tell you right now that it won’t work.

    Of course, all this ignores the fact that it is men’s sexually libertine nature that is responsible for the human race’s continued existence. We are lucky that we live in the times we do, if men had been practicing your sick androgynous lifestyle when the Black Plague struck, killing hundreds of thousands of people, human beings might be extinct today.

    Point C: As has been outlined already, men have behaved like this forever. This behavior keeps our species alive,hence it is both natural and good. It IS proper behavior,for men. Get the hell over yourselves women, the laws of nature do not bend for man or woman. You people act like you hate your own genitalia and wish you were men, it’s disgusting and pathetic.

    Women cannot be men, men cannot be women. Men don’t WANT to be women. A lot of women are screwed up in the head enough to think that means we have a better deal,but the truth is that we don’t like the idea of wanting to be women because it is a gross,and de facto homosexual,proposition. Most men are not homosexual,most women are bisexual, which is why they don’t see anything wrong with what is essentially psychological abuse. You are trying to force a square peg into a round hole, or a healthy heterosexual male into the role of a psychologically-damaged de facto homosexual.PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE. It’s like giving your child a puppy for Christmas and then making the child watch as you shoot the puppy in the face and laugh about it. QUIT TRYING TO FIX WHAT ISN’T BROKEN, BEFORE YOU BREAK IT.

  • Andy says:

    Wow Nergal,

    So expecting men to not cheat on thier wives/girlfriends is “trying to change women into men”

    I actually find your statement rather amusing. It proves Feminists really have to start considering Christian sexual morality a good thing. Christian sexual morality as outlined by Paul in the book of Corithians completely attacked the “double standard” mentality found in all other societies, as infidelity in both women and men was equally condemned. I believe that Nergals view will become more and more accepted in the West as Christinity loses influence. These feminists got to be careful what they wish for when the attack traditional conservative Christian values.

  • Andy says:

    Whoa. I meant “trying to change men into women”

  • Cylar says:

    Andy – Spot on, dead-on accurate. Well spoken. I wish everyone here could see and understand the truth of what you’re speaking.

    Sadly, many can’t deal with the ramifications of that, and so they choose to deny the obvious.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead