Boybashing in Abstinence Education (Part I)
December 18th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Lead Feministing blogger Jessica Valenti, author of Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman's Guide to Why Feminism Matters, criticizes Abstinence Education in her recent blog post Abstinence-only Education: What we're missing. She makes some valid points, but what most interested me was her citing a 2004 Ms. Magazine article called Virgin Territory--Ms. goes to an abstinence conference and learns that it pays to be chaste. According to the article:
"Your body is a wrapped lollipop.
"When you have sex with a man, he unwraps your lollipop and sucks on it.
"It may feel great at the time, but, unfortunately, when he’s done with you, all you have left for your next partner is a poorly wrapped, saliva-fouled sucker.
"These words were actually uttered by Darren Washington, an abstinence educator, at the Eighth Annual Abstinence Clearinghouse Conference, an informational three-day trade show for abstinence educators, anti-abortion pregnancy care centers and medical professionals.
"Washington was giving examples of how to teach abstinence. He then called up volunteers from the audience and used an actual lollipop to help deliver the metaphor."
In other words, females are pure and good, until they're defiled and ruined by filthy males and their base, animal desires. What a nice message for my teenage son--and yours. And it's not the feminists who are pushing this stuff--it's conservatives.
"));
19 queries. 0.376 seconds.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Glenn, this is hardly new. Christianity, Islam, Judaism; they've been teaching this stuff for years. Ever heard of the immaculate conception. It was immaculate because Mary's womb was not abhored by a man.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I'm getting really damn sick of all the "they-have-a-point" blog postings that laud our detractors, and often excoriate and frame our supporters. Why not just remain silent, for crying out loud? Does "they-have-a-point"-ism somehow translate into higher credibility for our side? For your side?
December 18th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
John, you cannot judge something said by the person who said it. If so, you could argue vegetarianism is bad because Hitler did it.
He is criticising and prasing where necessary. And doing a much better job of being fair than you seem to be.
Leave your pride at the door and try and look at things with an open mind, please.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Feminists are guilty for remaining silent about male suffering, particularly historically and in other countries. Do not make the same mistake as doing what we criticise them for.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
While not disagreeing with the notion that abstinence is the best policy, the idea that girls are pure and wholesome and males are motivated by lust and agrression is not a feminist notion. That has been around from the beginning of time. Men do have a heightened sex drive, which actually the feminists deny -- and thank goodness men do or humanity might have become extinct a long time ago. Young woman sometimes do feel pressured to have sex to keep their boyfriends happy, and boys on the whole want to have sex more than girls. The radical feminists would deny that because, of course, to them the sexes are equal. I would not read more than that into the lollipop analogy.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
I eniterly agree with the judge. I might also point out that this analogy seems to suggest to girls to keep themselves pure for their husbands. Not a very femenist opinion, though I will keep that analogy in mind for when my little girl gets to be that age.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I'd like to go one step further on your point callum. Yes there are feminists that remain silent about male suffering but an even bigger issue are the radical feminists that try to alter the definition of suffering (like what they done with the term sexism) so that it only applies in a situation of male against female.
For lack of a better term examples like that and this lollipop analogy are attempts at brainwashing people into believing that every male alive is only be just nice enough to a girl to get under her dress (check out what Jeff Fecke says about such Nice Guys). Yes there are misogynistic men out there that will dog women in such manner and I agree that it is a good idea to warn your girls about them but what I'm seeing/reading in most of these forms of "eduaction" is basically "girl is pure and delicate and boy is foul and and lustful." But never any warning to young boys about being mindful of young girls that are promiscuous (you know the type that, "sleeps with whole ______ team).
If you're going to educate then don't try to cherry pick in a attempt to plant the seeds of your own propaganda.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Does "they-have-a-point"-ism somehow translate into higher credibility for our side?
I think it has a great point to it. First, it's good to know and understand what your opponent is doing and saying, and doing and saying about you. So it's good that Glenn reads these people. Second we all acknowledge that MRA/FRA has a pretty bad reputation, so people that visit here, or call up Glenn for an interview, will often come in with a bias that we're all jerks. The "They have a point" posts is a clear distinguishing mark between anyone that looks at Glenn's site and Jill/Jessica/Amanda/Melissa/Salon's... site. And when read further it becomes clear that Glenn is being fair and reasonable in his arguments and often times, they are not.
That said, now maybe it's just me, but I find the lollipop sucking metaphor oddly reversed and could lead to an unfortunate accident if there is confusion between lollipops and tootsie pops.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
..I don't think teaching a little modesty to young girls is a bad thing!!
I think it's better than the new hooker, feminist, raunch culture that the modern gender feminist is promoting!!
Have we not all here experienced the most nasty, vulgar mouthed women we have ever heard, come from the raunchy, ranks of the modern gender feminist.
feminist raunch culture and complete abstinance until marraige..... are the two polar extremes.
When society embraces either of the extremes it can logically be viewed as bi-polar!!
December 18th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Regarding the Fecke column, that's his classic column which he creates using a word process and search and replace.
The problem with that particular column, and all the ones going around this weekend based on that CL ad, is that the critics of the CL ad don't understand or don't acknowledge that the ad is a response to a question that women explicitly post on CL all of the time.
Or so I'm told since I don't need CL myself of course.
But I am told that if you look at the CL w4m ads in virtually any city, at least once or twice during the day you can find a woman explicitly asking in her ad, "what happened to all the nice guys", and "looking for a nice guy." If you read those posts often enough, the one ad that is being critiqued takes on a different context.
In the meantime, Fecke will continue his own nice guy behavior on Shakesville, using fathers as his foil. "Tsk, tsk ladies, those bad fathers, they are sooo bad, I Jeff Fecke, am so sensitive."
December 18th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
It seems like the lollipop add uses the sucker analogy in reference to the reality of the sexual process. The female is a receptor. The geometry is clearly set up like that. As a receptor, all sorts of things can get received, and are better received by females than males.
It is an old idea, left over from the day when the only way to stop the spread of VD was abstinence, and the only form of birth control was abstinence.
But it is not clearly, to me, a way of thinking that is isolated to females. I have always felt an aversion to cheap easy sex, always feeling that I would be unclean somehow if I allowed it.
I am not sure that the point could not have been made equally well in gender neutral tones. Geometrically, it might be better if the lollipop was male and the sucker was female..I dunno....:)
Maybe it was taylored to the audience of Ms Mag, or maybe it was too graphic with the genders reversed.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I totally agree with Glenn on this. And yes, it's mostly conservatives pushing this form of anti-male garbage. They do it in different ways than feminists do.
I'll add, though, that teaching kids about abstinence without also teaching them about condoms is very irresponsible. Kids are going to have sex even if we scream about abstinence till we're blue in the face, because when they reach a certain age they have needs and they're human. We can pretend otherwise but it's just a reality no matter how "innocent" and obedient people like to think their kids are. By comparison, I think parents who show their kids that they can drink or smoke pot responsibly will raise better kids, on average, than those who unrealistically teach their kids to never ever ever try such terrible things. Kids eventually grow old enough and many will start to see how unreasonable that is. But if they learn that these things can be done responsbly, now they've learned something reasonable. Same with abstinecne versus safe sex. I know very few kids in my time, either male or female, who believed in the abstincence garbage they heard from adults. It's a human need and nobody wants to listen to a hypocrit (they know their parents do it). But safe sex is a whole other story. It's not uncool for teens to talk to other teens about doing it safely. It's ridiculous, however, for teens to tell each other to avoid sex so their bodies won't be sucked like a lolipop. They recognize that as adult BS. They're not as dumb as we think they are.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Hmmm. I'm a little torn on this one. I want to agree with Glenn on this, and to a point I do. But there is a deeper point here about the disappearance of standards that is packaged in the oh-so-common language of misandry - that being, if nothing means anything, nothing means anything. If all those partners someone has had were for kicks, you tell me this is for love - but Im getting the same thing they got, except I get bitched at about the toilet seats and birthdays, then get sued for divorce and child support? I guess what Im trying to say is while I don't see anything wrong with imbuing young people with the idea that sex is a more profound activity than going shopping and should be undertaken with thought and a degree of respect for its meaning as well as its consequences, the old "those dirty nasty boys just wanna put their p-word in your v-word and thats all they want, and you princesses are far above their base, carnal desires" is a bit infuriating. This is particularly true when bouncing for 2 years ina concert hall gave me plenty of opportunity to watch these little princesses in action, and it rarely appeared to me like they were victims in their behavior. Victims of their own behavior? Often. Victims in their behavior? Not so much.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
It reminds me of the misandrist Bill O'Reilly when he interviews two people he identifies as feminists on a gender issue, especially if involves a woman's behavior.
Mike
December 18th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
"Victims of their own behavior? Often. Victims in their behavior? Not so much."
Yep. I know women who "work it" in bars better than any man I known. Yet they're "victims." Plz.
I don't even agree that they're victims of their "own" behavior. I don't believe they're victims at all. People make choices about their sex lives. Period. I don't see anything wrong with people who have frequent, unattached sex, whether male or female. They choose to have it that way, just as others choose it in other ways. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with either one. I think male sexuality is, on average, naturally promiscuous, and to put that down is to oppress male sexuality, just as we do with female sexuality. It's mostly anti-male reacto types who oppose promiscuity. They don't want me to do it because it's something naturally male, and they don't want women to do it because that gives men something the bigots don't want me to have. So then they turn to the religious right for "common ground" to support their anti-porn, anti-sex, anti-male fanaticism.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Mike, why is Bill O'Reilly a misandrist? He calls himself a traditionalist. What is the basis for characterizing him as a man hater?
December 18th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Why are we so surprised that conservatives treat men as badly as liberals? The sin isn't in the politics one holds, but the culture we are all brought up in, the very air we breathe.
My grandfather was brought up in a very conservative way, with conservative manners (you know, back in the days when men owned women as property). Whenever a woman entered a room in a social situation, he would stand up - all the gentlemen of his generation were taught to do just this. To act in exactly the same manner as a sub-ordinate in the military, a servant in Victorian times, or a slave in the presence of his master.
Time we ditched the confusion over politics. What we're facing is a caste system. What else could you call it when assault of one caste by a member of the other is strictest taboo, but the reverse is fine? When men are jailed and executed for crimes that, if committed by a woman, are explained away and excused? When raising one's voice to a woman is a criminal act, and a concerted attempt is being made to criminalise even looking at them for too long?
Wake up gentlemen!
December 18th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Feminists contradict themselves constantly. At one point feminism was all for women's sexual expression. Now we see women against sexual expression.
There is only one thing consistent about feminism. If it gains them an advantage great. If it hurts or demeans men--even better.
The really amazing thing is that they can have it both ways at the same time.
Once again the only viable option for men is to opt out. Don't have sex with them at all. Rub one off if you're feeling the need. It's a lot safer, cheaper, and ultimately will give you less heartbreak.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Callum said: Feminists are guilty for remaining silent about male suffering, particularly historically and in other countries. Do not make the same mistake as doing what we criticise them for.
I'm not going to reward people who hate me by being nice to them. I believe in equality. I have a right to treat women the way they treat me.
Anything less is collaborating with the enemy.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
I have a completely different take on "nice guys' and "bad boys".
Guys who learn how to seduce women by learning their secrets and wants can have sex with lots of women. Why should they take pains to respect women or form a lasting relationship with the one they have? They are like kids who's parents have spoiled them by giving him every toy he could ever want and so he spends his time destroying, abusing the toys and then discards them. Women aren't attracted to selfish men. Men are selfish because they can attract women.
Nice guys haven't figured it all out yet. They are confused about what women want. They think they want a guy who respects them and is polite and gentlemanly and that is true. But they also want a guy who is undeterred. Can create attraction in a woman by appealing to her baser instincts. Women like men (from a biological standpoint. Politics is another thing entirely). And a man who can push the right buttons is the man she wants.
The problem arises when these nice guys try to be gentlemanly and polite before they've inspired attraction. Instead of women liking them they find they are doormats instead. Women (most) don't like doormats. They are repulsed by them and they discard them. From an evolutionary standpoint a man who is a doormat is weak. Weak men can't provide or protect.
The irony here is that the women's movement has created so much power for women that all men invariably become doormats. Our legal rights and or societal expectations are greatly limited. Without that balance of power women don't respect men and sooner or later will probably dump them.
Hence we have the 50% divorce rate with 70% of all divorces filed by women.
Once again the lesson for men is don't participate.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Rob Case, you raise an excellent point. Standing back and allowing women to exit the elevator first. Standing up when a woman joins the table. Removing hats for the national anthem at sporting events while they can keep theirs on. Never hit a lady no matter what. Making sure THEY survive the Titanic's sinking while the men perished a horrible death -- simply because they made the mistake of being born male. All crap -- sorry, folks, but none of this nonsense was invented by the feminists. These gender stereotypes have been around forever and ever, because historically men have looked upon women as grown children. You think men have it bad now compared to women? Huh! Tell that to my great-grandfather in the mill, risking his life for peanuts while his wife stayed home. No, we just trade one set of problems for the next because we're too busy being in charge, thinking we're all powerful, so we put up with everyone's crap.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Marc A.,
I appreciate your perspective, and I agree with you. But the schizophrenia femnists have shown to sexuality give me cause to wonder if that is the best`philosophy to adopt. As jean Valjean pointed out, the only thing consistent in feminist positions is their determination to gain advantage, preferably at mens expense. So in the sexual arena, we see feminists carrying out their stated desire to destroy the family in general, (marriage in particular) in order to "rebuild societal constructs" of marriage and family. On the one hand, they say sex with men is dirty, "eroticizing ones own oppression," that men don't deserve women, that all sex is rape because the slave cannot consent to the master in a patriarchal society. Then at another time, and another place, they say that casual sex with no strings attached is "liberating" for women, the sign of a true feminist, in control of and comfortable with her own sexuality - this has manifested itself in the campus "hook up" culture, which has burgeoned to the cheers and whistles of feminists. They keep up that drumbeat until a situation presents itself in which the victim role is more advantageous, then they go back to the first assertion, and so on and so forth.
Do women and girls get hurt, sometimes irreparably, by a movement that encourages them to abandon all responsibility for their actions? Certainly, which begs the question "Who cares? let them have it their own way, feed'em equality till they choke." The answer is, I care, and I think we all should - feminists certainly don't. Every ruined life, every damaged girl is one more "womyns studies" candidate, one more welfare recipient, one more Lifetime sob-a-drama. Feminists don't mind because their movement is undeniably rooted in cultural Marxism, and every victim of it (male or female) is just one more egg in their pungent little omelet. And that is precisely why I think we should care - because every victim is one step closer to the stated goal - the destruction of the family in general, marriage in particular, in order to "reconstruct concepts of masculinity and femininity."
So, yeah bro, if a womans wants to have sex and you do to, I'd never say you dont have every right to do it, or even that you are wrong to do it. But I think we should keep in mind that when these little - well, trollops, most of them - are doing their best Paris Hilton impersonation in the bars, its ultimately us who pay the price and don't think feminists dont know it - thats the whole idea.
Anyway, thats how I see it. Just felt like writing tonight. Cheers.
"
December 18th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Good post, Glenn. Valenti is on the mark here. I know several such books by abstinence cheerleaders that push the anti-male party line -- as if guys are the only ones who want sex. I won't mention names because I don't wanna give any of these conservative hacks free publicity.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Callum said: Feminists are guilty for remaining silent about male suffering, particularly historically and in other countries. Do not make the same mistake as doing what we criticise them for.
Feminists may be guilty, but were they mistaken, and what good does criticising them do?
Judging by their successes - almost absolute victory over men - it seems to me that we should be learning from them, not rejecting their tactics outright.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Rob, thats a damn good point.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Judge said: These gender stereotypes have been around forever and ever, because historically men have looked upon women as grown children. You think men have it bad now compared to women? Huh! Tell that to my great-grandfather in the mill, risking his life for peanuts while his wife stayed home. No, we just trade one set of problems for the next because we're too busy being in charge, thinking we're all powerful, so we put up with everyone's crap.
FINALLY you are seeing my point. Why do we defer to them? Because that is what patriarchy has told us to do. Now they say patriarchy is bad and yet we still do it because they expect us too.
STOP DOING IT! Treat them like you would treat any man who did the things they do. Then see how much they like their so-called equality.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
From Jean:
FINALLY you are seeing my point. Why do we defer to them? Because that is what patriarchy has told us to do. Now they say patriarchy is bad and yet we still do it because they expect us too.
STOP DOING IT! Treat them like you would treat any man who did the things they do. Then see how much they like their so-called equality.
YES!!! If left to their own devices radical feminists will cherry pick what they like about the patriarchy and dump the rest a misogynistic bull. Which is why they will ferociously attach any point that contradicts their assertion that men hold all the cards. (I would very much like to know why a woman got less time for shooting her husband in the back while sleep got less time that a man that facilitated dog fighting)
Like Carlos Mencia said, "Women don't want to be treated like men in the workplace. They want to be treated like women and paid like men."
December 19th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Alot of conservatives are secretly sex crazy. Every lollipop has a stiff hard stick to keep your hands from getting sticky. As much as I admire Wilhelm Reich, I've found that alot of chi is lost in sex. I've also found that Ms magazine sucks.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:00 am
Both the political right & left use misandry as a daily factor in their thinking. Dehumanizing males is now the way to get things done in all political stances. The cost ...
Do you know what scares me?
Eventually the men and the women who care will strike back and a lot of people will get hurt. I've got grand-kids who are innocent and THEY are among the ones who will get hurt for this generation's hatred of innocent males.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
The socially conservative christian right and the socially conservative soccor mom left are equally to blame when it comes to villifying teenage boys. It all stems from the idea that girls are naturally pure and good. While boys on the other hand are just manipulative perverts that only want one thing.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
It's crap like this that is poisoning relationships between men and women. Women are definitely no different that men are when it comes to the capacity for evil, but they tend to much more sneaky and conniving about it than men are. What this message does is lets women and girls off the hook for their bad behavior and shifts the blame onto men and boys. One more reason for men and boys to turn their backs upon the opposite sex, because one false accusation is all it takes to lose your reputation, freedom and livelihood.
December 20th, 2007 at 8:28 am
I'm for abstinence but it is a fact that people pushing abstinence frequently also push a view that is anti-male, seeing males as lusty dogs and females as their sexual victims. From women who were strongly anti-feminist and traditional I've heard the following comments: "Guys don't get serious," "Most guys will just get you into trouble," "He was a typical, beastly man," etc. Traditionalists are likely to warn of boy's selfish sexual desires and unlikely to comment on the desires of girls except in the context of romantic love. I remember reading that a book oriented toward traditionalists wrote about how most teenaged boys masturbate and didn't say a word about girls masturbating. The movie "Marnie," made before the 1970s and the feminist movement, showed a mother poisoning her daughter against men so the daughter would be "decent." The mother was also a religious woman who sharply said, "We don't talk smart about the Bible in this house, missy."
The truth is that there is often a link between anti-male sentiment and traditional sexual mores and it is wrong to ignore that link.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:59 am
That is a good point Denise, and one I had never before considered. I will give it some thought, and I am sure revise/and refine my views accordingly. However (keeping in mind I haven't yet given that thought), I must appreciate the premise, at least, of traditional sexual mores. First let me say I am not a christian and furthermore, in the years prior to my marriage to a wonderful woman I rather appreciated the feminists considerable efforts to convince women that "they can have sex like a man can and don't deserve stigma for it - You Go Girl!"
But to the degree that traditionalists seek to "warn" young women that they face far greater potential consequences as a result of casual and promiscous sexual activity than men do, I think they are on pretty solid philosophical ground. This excerpt is hardly a good example of what I mean - this is "boys are icky" writ large - but it will be great leap forward when those risks are acknowledged and taught as a result of biology, not patriarchy. These are things young women should begin considering at the onest of puberty and not stop considering.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
. "every damaged girl is one more "womyns studies" candidate, one more welfare recipient, one more Lifetime sob-a-drama"
Thanks WolfMac. You make some good points.
One would think the feminists would be screaming for girls (grrrlz) everywhere to save themselves for the honeymoon -- oops but that would mean "giving" themselves to a man.
Sadly our culture never questions the accepted notion of casual sex/dating sex .
Puzzling to me that folks are so dtermined to be different and stand out from the crowd , to be their own person etc etc, yet casually sharing their body in the most private,most intimate way, is just another "thing" that we do.
Of all the handwringing about self-esteem, power, stopping AIDS, poverty
access to free birth control etc, one would think the feminists would be champions of abstinence which is a "Pass Go" card to all of the above.
I saw a non-traditional woman in West Africa wearing a shirt that read:
"Abstain. You've a lot to gain . "
December 20th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
WolfmanMac Says: That is a good point Denise, and one I had never before considered. I will give it some thought, and I am sure revise/and refine my views accordingly.
(Denise) I'm glad I've been able to influence you. It is a good point indeed. People preaching chastity can often make it seem, especially to a young person, that members of the other sex are threats to that chastity and therefore their natural enemies. If pregnancy is the worst disaster that can befall a young women, doesn't it seem to follow that boys and young men -- the impregNATORS -- are the people of whom she must be wary? It might also seem natural to those trying to warn her away from sexual activity that a way to do that is to inculcate hostility toward males. As I pointed out, many of the most anti-male remarks I've heard have been from those preaching chastity.
It can also go the other way. Augusta Gein, mother of the notorious Ed Gein who served as the model for "Psycho," wanted to raise her boys to be different from those other "beastly" men. She pounded fear of, and hostility toward, women in them.
WolfmanMac: However (keeping in mind I haven't yet given that thought), I must appreciate the premise, at least, of traditional sexual mores. First let me say I am not a christian and furthermore, in the years prior to my marriage to a wonderful woman I rather appreciated the feminists considerable efforts to convince women that "they can have sex like a man can and don't deserve stigma for it - You Go Girl!"
But to the degree that traditionalists seek to "warn" young women that they face far greater potential consequences as a result of casual and promiscous sexual activity than men do, I think they are on pretty solid philosophical ground. This excerpt is hardly a good example of what I mean - this is "boys are icky" writ large - but it will be great leap forward when those risks are acknowledged and taught as a result of biology, not patriarchy. These are things young women should begin considering at the onest of puberty and not stop considering.
(Denise) There is no question that partnered sex carries extreme costs for females that it does not for males. (I say "partnered sex" because I don't think masturbation is any riskier for ladies that for gentlemen.) These costs are good reasons to avoid partnered sexual activity.
At the same time, boys can be taught to avoid partnered sexual activity either because they are good people who don't want to IMPOSE such costs on girls or because they wish to avoid those costs that can result for them such as child support, a cost that carries the potential for imprisonment.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Another thing vexes me.
Feminist seem to share common sentiment that abhorrs chastity .
I have found catty comments about virgins, chastity, abstinence on femme blogs.
WHY?
I do not understand their hatred of chaste girls or women. What is wrong with a chick just saying 'I will save myself' , 'I will protect my integrity' ?
Maybe one of their tribe will send a reply.
Maybe, it is simply , "Misery loves company" .
December 21st, 2007 at 5:38 am
constant Says:
December 20th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Another thing vexes me.
Feminist seem to share common sentiment that abhorrs chastity .
I have found catty comments about virgins, chastity, abstinence on femme blogs.
WHY?
I do not understand their hatred of chaste girls or women. What is wrong with a chick just saying 'I will save myself' , 'I will protect my integrity' ?
(Denise) Catty comments about virgins and chastity by feminists is born of feminist confusion. Many of the people who advocate chastity also advocate women's "submission" or "subservience" to men. This is in itself somewhat misleading as there are many important instances within traditional behavior in which men are "subservient" to women whether in small things -- opening doors for us -- or in large -- sinking with the Titanic so we can live. However, the fact that so many pro-abstinence people preach a female submissive or subservient message leads some feminists to believe that chastity and abstinence are necessarily tied to traditional sex roles. In fact, people could reject traditional sex roles in some respects while embracing abstinence and/or chastity for both genders. Women who choose to abstain from sex may do so for reasons that have nothing to do with subservience. It can be a very empowering choice.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:22 am
The visual says it all: Woman's smug, morally superior face in the foreground, man's dejected, morally inferior face in the background. Symbols are a lot more powerfull than words.
BTW - Judge Rufus Peckham is absolutely right. Chivalry is nonsense. I only give up my seat for the elderly, the disabled, or visibly pregnant women. Healthy women can stand or go find another seat, thank you very much. Listening to a woman crow about her 'strength and independence' only to have her expect you to hold doors open for her and pay her dinner checks is ridiculous. I gave that up - and regained my self-respect - a long time ago.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Feminist aversion to abstinence is a symptom of their mental and moral perversion. First of all, anyone who believes in feminist dogma is nuts to begin with. You know that all feminists are liars. They have no moral compass whatsoever. You simply cannot expect a feminist to think logically. In the 50's if a woman slept around they called her a bimbo. Today if a woman sleeps around they call her empowered. What a load of crap.Feminists hate abstinence because they have no constraint or self control.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:36 am
[...] Boybashing in Abstinence Education (Part I), I criticized abstinence educator Darren Washington who, at the Eighth Annual Abstinence [...]