As stated in the previous blog article on Rush Limabuh, it can be argued that MOST modern women have "gotten in touch with their innnder slut".
Is it not part of the "liberation" of women that women can be just as sexually active as men? Have we not supposedly eliminated the "double standard", where we belie ve than ONLY "sluts" actauly enjoy sex (as a woman)? Is it not almost one of the supposedly DEFINING things of teh modern woman that she is just as much a "sexual being" as a man, with sexual "needs" and teh right to express them?
Thus, by the old standards (almost by definition), are not MOST women now "sluts"? Now, the word has no objective meaning. Especially for the modern woman, the word is nothing more than a meangless insult. But does this not come close to the 1950s meaning: "Having non-marital sexual intercourse with two or more di=different men not your husband"? Remember, when last I checked (although many churches and clergymaen pretty much ignore it), MOST Christian religions still have the OFFICIAL position that no-marital sex is a SIN.
As usual, the purpose of this blog headline--deliberately a little misleading--is NOT to insult women (although this blog has never been afraid to do that, despite dire warnings from people likemy brother). The purpose of this article is to ask whether women have not conceded DEFEAT to men by adopting the same standards as men.
Remember the old "double standard"? Under that "standard", there was nothing wrong with a MAN being sexual active outside marriage. Even adultery, while not actually "appproved", was sort of winked at FOR A MAN (so long as it was a "one-night stand" merely taking care of a man's "needs", as when he was away from home). Meanwhile, a WOMAN who had sex outside of marriage was called a "slut".
Problem: How did women get out of this "double standard"? Did they force men to adoopt THEIR sandard? Nope. They deluded themselves that this standard of "woman's purity" was FORCED upon them by MEN, and that that it wsa a matter of "freedom" for women to be just as sexually promiscuous as men. Why should women not have the "right" to seek PLEASURE outside of marriage, just like men, wihthout worring about marriage or "commitment"?
Ah, there is the rub. My older daughter, as radicallly feminist as they come (although a little sneaky about it, unlike the 'in-your-face feminism of my younger daughter), assures mme that a woman NEVER has sex with a man just for the sake of having sex. She implies, or maybe states directly, that this is not true of men. I think my daughter is not QUITE right in her assertion, but is she not stating what is sTILL "conventional wisdom"? Does not our society acknowledge, in almost every aspect, that "relationships" are MORE IMORTANT to women than to men? I think so. Yet, women have UNDERMINED what is supposedly imprtant to them by adopting the "standard" of MEN that sex is nothing more than recreatioin/entertainment (totally separate from "love").
Let's looka at it another way. Havew women "shown men" by proving that they can be just as much a "sexual being" as men? In other words, have men OBJECTED to this particular change in the "double standard" (where women can be just as sexually active as men--free of the unreasonable "restrictions" imposed by MEN)? Not really. Men are getting what they WANT, and what my older daughter says women do NOT want. Sex has become little more than a recreational sport for both men and women, with no "commitment" on either side.
Forget how bad this is for society and for children. Forget that more than 40-% of births in this country are ow "illegitimate". Is this what women REALLY WANT? My older daughter--femist though she is--would deny that this is what women really want. Is it what men REALLY WANT? Here the answer MAY be "YES". Sure, there are men like me who lament the "good old days", when "good girls didn't". Men may be rightly SCARED of the modern woman (who terrifies me to death, but so did the non-modern woman). Still, do men really WANT girls and women to demand marriage as a "price" of sexual faovrs? I doubt it. Oh, there may be a FEW men out there who still want to MARRY a "virgin" (at least a woman who was a virgin before meeting her mate). But, be real. Do you really see any evidence thqat men are losing sleep over this? Most of them are too busy trying to have sex with the NEXT girl/woman they meet. Certainly, tis is the best of al possible worlds for SEXUAL PREWDATORS (referring not just to rapists, but men who are simply trying to get sex from women using any lie and deception they can).
No. Women in general have UNDERMINED what is supposedly important to them (real "relationships") in the name of being "fee" of the restrictions society formerly placed upon them--in the name, in other words, of sexaul pleasure and the "Playboy Philosophy". There is a REASON it is called the "PlayBOY Philosophy". Does Hugh Hefner really mind--or did he when he was oung enough to realy take advantage of it---that women thave "thrown off' their former "restrictions"? Not that I can see. Men MAY feel this slight feeling of "loss" that women are not what they once were. But I would say that MOST men think they are in the best of all sexual worlds, and only worry about SCORING tomorrow (until, almost as an arbitrary thing, they decide they want to marry, if they ever come to that decision, at which time it hardly bothers them that there are few "virgins" around to marry).
You can see that I am indeed willing to travel where even Rush Limbaugh fears to go. Rush Limbuagh merely insulted ONE woman, really as a matter of political partisanshiip. I am willing to indict ALL WOMANKIND, as undermining what is important to them by being stupid. LYou can see why my brother thinks that womn may ALL, jointly, decide to "take me out' at any time--ruining my sexual fantasy (the only kind of sex available to me, even in these days of the odern woman) by telling me to RUN if Angelina Jolie shows up at my door demanding sex. You can see why my older daughter would like for me to take my only female friend, Sylvia, to my older daughter's wedding (scheduled for September 8--poor sap, referring to the luckless man she is marrying). My older daughte is DESPERATE to PRETEND that her father is "normal". You would think it would be enough for her that her father is the sanest, most intelligent man around--intelligent enough to see women for what they are. But, sad to say, that is not enough for my daughter. She is not PROUD, as she should be, that her father is one of the few men intelligent enough to be DEATHLY AFRAID of women!!!!!!! (My youinger daughter, by the way, says "that boat has already sailed"--talking aoubt the WHOLE WORLD realizing I am "not normal", no matter what myu older daughter manages to do to try to cover it up.)
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Now my brother would tell you that is an ASSET for this article. He would tell ou that te only thing that MAY save me is if women CANNOT READ (don't have the patience to try to read) this article because of the typing mistakes.