Previous post
Next post
When you sleep around a lot, and don’t think twice about giving yourself to someone, usually something bad happens. You start to look at it like Margaret Cho does. (Caution for language and… disturbing content.)
Having sex with a man you live with is prostitution. How lovely. This video is just disturbing on so many levels!
The prostitution schtick we hear from so many feminists is tiring, to say the absolute least. For me, it’s more revolting and disturbing. The thing is, the women who are most likely to look at consensual sex as prostitution are the ones who probably don’t look at it as something sacred. They’re the ones who idolize Sex and the City, who think that women should sleep around like men do, who have dozens of notches on their belts and don’t think they should be ashamed. They’re the ones who don’t realize that sex is something that brings you closer to someone, that is beautiful and emotional and so much more than a physical act. And the more they have sex, the more they hate themselves for doing it, and the more they hate sex.
This video brought to mind a post that my friend Melissa Clouthier wrote about sex:
Sex is not just to make babies. Sex is not just for physical pleasure. Sex is a sacred gift between two people.
Here’s an irony that I’ve noticed: the women who put out the most seem to like sex the least. You read that right. Because sex matters so little to them, they use sex as a tool to get a man to like them or they use sex to have physical touch or they use sex for attention. The point is, they use sex. And then, when there is no more use for sex, they stop giving it up. That’s right. They don’t like it or value it that much anyway. They give it to anyone and everyone. And, imagine their eventual husband’s shock when it stops being given. “But we had so much sex before we got married!” Uh huh. I have a newsflash. She didn’t like it then, either. She was using sex to use you. And, it worked.
No one values anything that comes cheap. Why do men and women give away the gift of their body and soul as if it is worth nothing?
Sexual intercourse is more than a physical coupling. It is a powerful union, a special gift. DNA is exchanged during sex. Both people are literally changed by the experience. And this is awesome. When someone has multiple partners, gives the gift too soon and to a stranger even, a barrier goes up emotionally. How can it not? A person has to divest himself of emotional vulnerability in an act that succeeds based on making oneself vulnerable. Long term, I believe that this behavior is incredibly damaging to the heart and spirit of a person. The emotional distance becomes a habit. This is not so easy to turn off once in a loving, committed relationship.
This is what I thought of when I watched Margaret Cho do her bit about sex with her ex-boyfriend. I felt like there was such desperation there… such sadness and fear and anger and vulnerability. Her bit seemed to show me that she was absolutely desperate to find some way to connect to this man, and when she couldn’t, she lashed out. She shut herself down, she pushed him away, and she was angry at him for making her have to do that. To her, men are the enemy.
There was one good bit in that video. When she spoke about the ability of women to give birth, to give life, I thought she was spot-on. I don’t have any children, but I’ve seen a child being born — my sister. I was in the delivery room with my parents. I watched my sister take her first breath. And it was incredible. I wasn’t even the woman delivering her, but it was just such an incredible, moving, emotional moment. Margaret was hitting the nail on the head… and then she went and ruined it with her crass comedy.
I saw this video at Feministing, and the response was saddening. Of course, all of these “feminists” were lauding Margaret and agreeing with her point of view. A few of them said they wanted to make out with her, because she’s so “amazing”.
Really? I didn’t crack a smile once during that video. It wasn’t even that I didn’t like what she was saying, but she just wasn’t funny. Not even a little bit. And she just seems to come across as someone who is very bitter, angry, and desperate for emotional intimacy. But, like I said, when you cheapen sex, there is no emotional intimacy.
It’s sad when you see people who use sex as a means of getting what they want, of manipulation, rather than appreciating it for what it is. And it seems like that’s exactly the kind of person Margaret is – hell, she spelled it out for us. She calls it prostitution “for very low wages” and talks about how bad the sex is. How can you possibly enjoy it, though, if you can’t surrender yourself fully to it?
Cassy, you are wise beyond your years. Every time I’m reminded again of your birth date, I feel all dirty inside.
But I really have to admire you for knowing what you’re talking about. Yes, Cho and her Cho-wannabes, are such sad sacks that I scarcely know where to start with them. And yet I know what they’re all about…they’re all about projection.
They spread their legs too quickly — and it’s the fault of us guys.
They are the very picture of why the feminist movement failed. They illustrate the class of woman who has been forced, over the last forty years or so, to choose her own “life partner” — and would be far happier if her old man did it for her.
This confession she made eight minutes into it…that is one of the most exquisitely sad things I’ve ever seen.
CaptDMO says: (Ms. Cho) was hitting the nail on the head… and then she went and ruined it with her crass comedy routine.
You must have “taken it out of context(tm)”
And please note, at Fem……., it’s pronounced “she’s so amazing(tm)” as in: short for “she’s so awesome(tm)”
I’m pleased that the xth wave of radical feminists has at least grown out of the “all hetrosexual intercourse is rape of the woman” to “all hetrosexual intercourse with contraception is prostitution”.
Ironically, I think The Pope would admire the direction.
CaptDMO says: Alas, not a misquote above. I attempted to snidely “strike” (nonexistent function here?)the word comedy and replace with routine.
Humble apologies.
petrita1 says: That was Margaret’s venting after the break-up stint. She sounds like she was bitter about the ending of the relationship and wanted to exaggerate the disappointment. Notice how she used stereotypical things to compare as ‘payment’ sexual activity. Opening jars, taking out the garbage, etc. It sounds like she wanted to get married and he didn’t want to. She felt unappreciated. Her style seems to have changed, too.
I remember seeing photos of her in metro sexual style in the past. It was almost her trademark. Now, she appears more girly, like she wants to be seen as a woman. Getting out of a bad relationship, wanting to get married and have a baby, and using the comedy forum as a place to vent. People were laughing because they felt for her and have been there at one time or another. This is Margaret laughing at her pain, so I would take this isolated performance as a reflex for just “some” women. There’s nothing wrong with her at all, she’s just being human and vulnerable.
steve says: Cassy:
I understand and agree with the main thrust of your argument, however let me add this.
I have come to believe and understand that having or engaging in sex for any other reason than the enjoyment of sex is prostitution. One can have many levels of prostitution some so high and cultured that they are stratospheric in class but in the end are still prostitution. Marriages that use sex to snare or maintain a marriage are forms of prostitution. Sex for marital duty is also a form of prostitution. I have a hard line; have sex because you want to have sex not because of ANYTHING you may get in exchange for it. On the other hand you can live with certain occasional high forms of prostitution just be clear with yourself as to what you are doing, and why.
Also if you don’t like sex or it is a chore do not pretend it is not, be honest. Intimate politeness does not hide the truth but rather when properly used either lubricates it so it will go down easier or schedules it for the right moment.
Also if one engages in marital or other high forms of prostitution if you are honest you should treat it like any other contract.
I provide X service for Y result. Modern Feminism, I have seen often will promise X service for Y result, and then believe that breaking the implied contract is a moral sanctified right.
I believe this is one of the basic underlying differences between Liberals and Conservatives. Conservatives keep their contractual obligations whereas Liberals seek ways to claim moral justification in getting the benifit then ignoring the contractual obligation and then calling any attempt to collect (regardless of how civilzed or polite) a form of rape. To make this easier they lay the groundwork of arguing all heterosexual intimate contact is a form of rape.
I would like to here your thoughts on this.
Steve
Scott Jacobs says: sounds like she wanted to get married and he didn’t want to.
Guy really dodged a bullet there, didn’t he…
Steve, I just wanna say this: If you feel as though you are doing X to get sex from you SO, you’re doing it wrong.
I don’t buy things for girlfriends, take them to dinner, spend time with them, do things for them, just so they will have sex with me. I do them because I care about them.
The day you start viewing that exchange as “banking up for sex” is the day you need to end the relationship, because you’re not acting out of caring, you’re acting out of sense of indebtedness.
To suggest that there’s some sort of contractual status to sex in marriage is to utterly cheapen the union.
COnsidering you utterly negate Cassy’s point, I find it unlikely you actually agreed with her on anything she said.
Cassy,
While you are 100% correct in your observations here, I kept thinking to myself that Margaret Cho is simply unworthy of your time.
steved says: Scott
I can see why you would think that. However the economic exchange angle was the second point and I was trying to get at the idea of honest trade. I wholeheartedly agree with you that marriage should not be economic in nature but we live in an imperfect world and many relationships are not the model of romantic purity at all times.
What is horrible is when an implied contract is offered and then the terms of the contract are assumed to be null and void only after services have been recieved. ie: the implication of make me happy and you will earn my love and attention. This may not apply to your relationship but observe many out there and you will see the signs of these principles at work.
You stated “To suggest that there’s some sort of contractual status to sex in marriage is to utterly cheapen the union”
This is for those who still are able to understand that this cheapens the union, many are not. Even some ideologically sound conservatives cannot grasp this.
So in short you are correct in the second point but missed my frist point.
Steve
Bob says: She is not funny. I pity the poor fool who was living her and I would bet 100 bucks it was not like that at all. She needs to come out of the Closet.
I don’t normally comment here, but would like to respond to Steve’s thoughtful comment:
I have come to believe and understand that having or engaging in sex for any other reason than the enjoyment of sex is prostitution.
I don’t believe this is always true, and I hope I can make my case intelligently and clearly enough.
Outside of a committed relationship (marriage), I can see your point. In that situation, where there is no intention to build a lifelong relation, there must instead be an expectation of a short-term payoff: either mutual short-term pleasure, or, otherwise, one partner is giving pleasure in trade for another kind of short-term payback.
But if a couple is working on building an expected lifelong relationship, I think there can be *many* things one might do — which one does not immediately anticipate enjoying — but which might be done to build and strengthen the relationship. A woman might have sex with her husband when she’s not really interested in it — but simply might do so for him. Likewise, a man might hold or otherwise act romantic or emotionally intimate towards his wife even when he has no such natural inclination, and is only “simulating” romance.
(And sometimes, the real thing follows afterwards anyway.)
By doing so, she is no more being a prostitute than he is being a gigolo. They’re both doing something selflessly for the other (in the short term) — and yet also doing something which will most like also benefit themselves (and possibly their whole family) in the long term.
Just a thought.
Steve says: Tim
Thanks for the reply.
I can see where you would arrive at that conclusion. I welcome your comments let me explain my take on this.
The real world is meesy and trashes many elegant theories. I was using economic theory to explain human action but as usual when applied to the open ended real world it gets messy. Love can infiltrate and blow away perfect economic theory but the basic principle can remain.
When comparing sex in a committed relationship that is not desire balanced you are still engaging in an economic behaviour. Instead of common prostitution fee for service you have a long term investment or retirement account strategy.
You are building up a nest egg of good will and accomadation that can be returned or drawn upon. That this may result in deepening of love is like having your stock split or winning the lottery.
So yes this is not a simple purchase but in my opinion is still covered by the theory of economic behavior.
Steve
Don Carl says: Cho has NEVER been funny. For Pete’s sake, before she “came out” the one bit she stretched into a career was: “I am asian, ha ha ha” When that soured she came out with “I am a lesbian, ha ha ha” and it’s idiot brother: “I am an asian lesbian, ha ha ha” What exactly is supposed to be funny about either?
This idiot woman got a sitcom based on her “I’m asian, ha ha ha” bit.
If that doesn’t tell you Hollywood is stupid, nothing will.
francesca says: I couldn’t agree with you more! You read my mind.
You’re cool.
15 Comments