Just say “no” campaign – for men

Posted by: ST on July 28, 2007 at 1:22 am

Longtime readers know that issues related to feminism and feminists are near and dear to ol’ ST’s heart, so I never pass up an opportunity to discuss them when the situation permits itself, and today was no exception.

Earlier, I was at a political forum I visit semi-frequently, and noticed that my friend Dunk (who sometimes posts here) had started a thread there in the non-political folder about the TV show Sex and the City, and how it was going from cable primetime to the big screen. Somehow, after several gents in the thread talked about which S&TC gal they had the hots for, the topic segued into talking about the values (or lack thereof) that the show appears to promote. Dunk made the following comment:

Men have been admired by other men if they play around while women doing the same have been labeled as sluts. I have instinctively found that double standard to be hypocritical.

To which I responded:

I think it’s hypocritical, too, which is why I advocate that we treat such men as we would the women who act that way, rather than lower the bar and expect women to be no better.

That’s the short version of a post I wrote on this very topic last August, which included a a paraphrasing of the typical conversations I’ve had with ultra-rad feminists:

Feminist: “I think it’s outrageous the way men can get away with having multiple sex partners [note from ST: not at the same time!], but when women do the same, they’re considered ‘loose’, and frowned upon.”

Sister Toldjah: “So what are you saying? That you think it should be encouraged that men refrain from having multiple sex partners so the standard for men and women on that issue might one day be the same?”

F: “No.”

ST: “What do you mean, then?

F: “What I mean is that I want to feel like I can have multiple sex partners, come in and talk about it at my work on Monday amongst the gals, and not have the guys nearby look at me like I’m loose.”

ST: (perplexed) “So you’re saying you want the standards for women to be lowered?”

F: (blinks) “Uhhm, well – no. I just want to be able to sleep with who I want, when I want, be able to talk about it, and be treated just like men are when they brag about it.”

ST: “In other words, your answer to my prior question was ‘yes, I do want our standards lowered.'”

F: (becoming agitated) “No, that is not what I’m saying. I just want the playing field leveled.”

ST: “Yes, you’re saying you want it lowered to be on the same level we have for any male who is promiscuous.”

F: (huffs) “You’re putting words in my mouth.”

ST: (chuckling internally) “Nope – just following what you’re saying to its logical conclusion.”

F: “How’s that?”

ST: “By saying, in terms of sexual encounters, you want women to be treated in the same way men who have lots of casual sex are. Do you think that standard we hold for men on promiscuity is a high one or a low one?”

F: (no answer)

ST: “That’s what I thought. Instead of setting the standard higher for men, you want to lower it for women. Sorry, but if being ‘liberated’ equates to being able to go in to work on Monday to brag about how many sexual partners you had over the weekend, count me out.”

Dunk, being a man, is obviously not a feminist, so I kept that in mind today when we were talking, because he was talking to me from a man’s perspective which would obviously be different. His approach is more of the ‘live and let live’ variety. Not only that – and I hope this won’t sound chauvenistic – but I’ve heard other men say similar things in the past, which makes sense, because there are plenty of guys out there who would of course like for a woman to be very much sexually liberated … probably not the woman they want to marry, but definitely the woman they meet at a club, or wherever.

Anyway, so I was thinking about this issue some today, and how instead of society encouraging women to just act like ‘one of the boys’ when it comes to sex, that it should encourage a higher standard for men. My idea went along the lines of this type of campaign message:

You see a beautiful, sleek, red car [insert your car of choice here] in the posters and ads, with a man looking at it admiringly. He stops to wipe off a tiny smudge on the hood that no one would notice but him. He gets in the driver’s side, sits in it for a few minutes smelling the soft leather interior, turns on the radio to something rockin’, and cranks the engine. He’s ready to take off. About that time, he gets a knock on his window. Agitated, he pushes the button that lowers the window and sees a stranger standing next to the car, eyes wide in awe. “Hey man,” he drawls. “How about letting me take a spin in your cool wheels?” Highly offended, the driver says a few choice words, pushes the button that rolls the window back up, and takes off, wondering why the hell some guy he doesn’t even know would dare to ask him to borrow his beautiful car. “I won’t let just anybody drive this thing,” he mutters, patting the steering wheel as if it’s the shoulder of a human being.

The slogan at the end of the ad or at the bottom of the poster would read: “Treat your body just like you would your car: Don’t let just anyone take it for a spin.”

Well, whadda ya think? ;) I know, I know – I used the shameless car stereotype, but you know if I were writing about a woman’s favorite hobbies, I’d have to include the one about shopping …

In all seriousness and frankness, I know this wouldn’t work but I think it’s a hell of a lot better idea than what feminist groups like NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and rad feminists in general promote, which is nothing more than the 60s approach to sex: “if it feels good do it – and don’t worry about the consequences.”

Or better yet, how about a return to a culture where yes, women have sexual freedom, but they aren’t encouraged to flaunt it but instead respect their bodies and don’t just share it with anyone because they can. I grow really tired of the feminist movement’s emphasis on how women don’t have to be in a committed relationship to be fulfilled, which takes me to a great piece written today by Mona Charen on this very topic:

Consider the “hook-up” scene on college campuses (and many high schools). Under the new dispensation, with Ludacris providing the soundtrack, young women are expected to have casual sex with no strings attached. Some girls consent to be “friends with benefits” for their male friends. Magazines like Cosmo and Seventeen, cultural bellwethers, advise young women to “keep your heart under wraps.” The very worst thing a woman can do, apparently, is to express a desire for some sort of emotional connection or (gasp) commitment from her sexual partner. That amounts to being “boring and clingy,” declare the magazines.

Scarleteen offers a “sex readiness checklist” for young girls to help them gauge whether they should plunge into the fun. Among the items: “I see a doctor regularly,” and “I have a birth control budget of $50 per month.” The emotional readiness a girl should demonstrate is “I can separate love from sex.” Shalit notes, “Those who can separate love from sex are mature, like jaded adults. They are ready to embark on a lifetime of meaningless encounters.”

In fact, [book author Wendy] Shalit argues, all of this advice and deprogramming aimed at women is necessary because women do not by nature thrive on casual, meaningless sexual encounters. They crave emotional intimacy and fidelity — desires the women’s magazines are at pains to quash in the name of maturity. Psychiatrist Dr. Paul McHugh describes the vast numbers of young women who consult him asking for Prozac because they have sex with lots of different men, all of whom say they’re “not ready” for marriage. “‘But there’s nothing the matter with you,’ I tell them; ‘what’s the matter with the world? Let me help you find a way of not hopping into bed with all these guys right off the bat . . .'”

As Charen noted, women’s magazines promote the casual sex lifestyle in the name of ‘maturity’ for women, but as I’ve said before, there’s nothing mature – nor responsible – about sharing your body with someone just because you feel like ‘hooking up.’ It takes more maturity, and a more responsible person, whether they be a man or a woman, to say, “No thanks” rather than, “Cool! Your place or mine?”

Our ‘progressive’ culture promotes this type of self-esteem destroying behavior for both sexes, but more so on women than men since men have traditionally been known as the more sexually aggressive since – well, the beginning of time – thus these ‘progressives,’ including large numbers of uber-fems, have vigorously sought to promote a guilt-free lifestyle of casual sex with a de-emphasis on parenthood and/or the two parent family, a lifestyle that women are not hardwired for. Also, society’s demand for ‘instant gratification,’ whether it be for swinging through a Wendy’s drive-thru for a burger in the evening rather than coming home and cooking something more savory or getting your ‘groove on’ with the person you just met at a friend’s party rather than finding long term fulfillment – emotionally and sexually – in a serious, committed relationship, is another contributor to the moral decline we witness more and more each day.

Another thing I’ve said at this blog in the past bears repeating: Ultimately, it’s up to the gal whether or not the sex happens. Unless a woman is raped, she is the one who usually decides in the typical relationship, because it’s usually the male who is the aggressor. If the woman says no, he is supposed to (and will, unless he’s a jerk) comply and back off. But if she sends the signal that it’s ok, it’s showtime.

This, however, doesn’t let men off the hook completely. To all the single gents out there who are just meeting up for the first time with a gal you’re interested in: Treat your body just like you would your car: Don’t let just anyone take it for a spin. You’ll respect yourself – and her – more, in the morning.

On a related note about Sex and the City, I wrote this post in that same thread, about an episode I happened to catch on TBS not too log ago:

I remember flipping channels not too long ago and stopping on an episode of S&TC just out of curiosity, because two of the characters were in a clinic. One of them was waiting to have an abortion, while the other one was there to provide ‘moral support’ to the distraught friend who was there for the woman. It struck me as odd that the woman was so distraught, considering that she looked at the baby as an inconvienience, which is why she was aborting it. After all, if someone really is looking a fetus as an inconvienience rather than a human life, what’s there to get all emotional about, right?

The next scene after the commercial cut to all of the S&TC women in the apartment of one of the women, and there were flowers around, food being delivered, etc, in apparent show of sympathy and support to the woman who had been at the clinic to have the abortion (although I don’t know why there was sympathy involved if the baby wasn’t actually considered a baby, but anyway) – all the women gathered around the woman who had gone to the clinic to have the abortion, when she announced she didn’t have the abortion, that instead she wanted to keep the baby. All of a sudden, in the matter of an hour or so, that “inconvienience” became a baby. Of course, the writers didn’t explore this aspect, because it wouldn’t fit in with the show’s feminist mindset of ‘free choice.’

Ok, I’m rambling now. G’nite! |-)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Common Sense Political Thought trackbacked with Are we more than the friction of our genitals?
  • 22 Responses to “Just say “no” campaign – for men”

    Comments

    1. Dunk says:

      Hi ST,

      Enjoying your blog, but I`m on your feminist opponent`s side this time.

      How are members of either sex “lowering themselves” if they`re only doing what comes naturally?

      As long as neither party is cheating on a loved one, no one is “lowering themselves.”

      Nothing can replace the natural high of being truly in love, but for some that emotion is more difficult to come by than for others. Sometimes people become single for years at a time for various reasons which I`m not inclined to get into right now. Celibacy for such unusually long periods is psychologically debilitating…and in my opinion, unnatural. Humans are sexual creatures.

      In my opinion, most singles become involved in short relationships rather than one night stands. It`s all right to move on after a few weeks or months if a strong connection isn`t present.

      The only sluts are those who don`t respect their sex partners. The term is otherwise offensive. They`re only lonely people who are doing what they perceive they must do in their quest for happiness, or at the very least, fulfilling their natural desires.

      Quite the liberal concept for an otherwise conservative guy huh? I`ll loan my car to Angelina Jolie any time.

    2. forest hunter says:

      Dunksan: I think you’ve mangled some assumptions and tread into time tested water.

      You start with a presumptive base that says,

      As long as neither party is cheating on a loved one, no one is “lowering themselves.”

      From what I glean, it’s not about cheating on a loved one at all. While we agree on certain basic concepts, the premise of this post as I saw it states clearly that it’s not about the length of time between one and the next relationship. That would lend itself to prowess of a different genre.

      When I see all inclusive statements like,

      The only sluts are those who don`t respect their sex partners.

      it indicates to me a limited version of what balance should be. *Only* means what it says but I would beg to differ.

      They`re only lonely people who are doing what they perceive they must do in their quest for happiness, or at the very least, fulfilling their natural desires.

      If one were to take the *Well, it’s only a natural urge that requires fulfillment” argument as standard base for every action/reaction, how many traitors embedded in our very government would’ve already been hanged for their actions and words.

      This is why emotions ought never be the tipping motivation. We are animals but evolution has granted us certain power that supersedes our carbon base form. We have gone far beyond the seventh century in that aspect.

      Man sluts and women sluts have always been on the face of the earth, likely they will continue. Justified homicide and homicide-the result is the same for the deceased, but managing/controlling the language requires a different motivation.

    3. Steve Skubinna says:

      I’ve never liked the “but it’s natural” argument regarding sex. Maybe it’s natural for me to kill competitors for food, shelter, and women, too. But I don’t do that. Just wait until the Mad Max post apocalyptic future arrives. I’ve got arms and ammo, so you metrosexuals out there are done for. I will take your fancy cars and your women! BwahahaHAHA!

      Trying to separate sex from emotional attachment is not a new gambit, despite boomers’ placid conviction that they alone have discovered or invented everything of interest in the modern world. What also is not new is the sad failure every time the attempt is made. It seems that people want to link the emotional attachment to the sex act. For one thing, considering the investment in time and energy a woman has to put into bearing, and then raising a child, it’s in her interests to be picky about who fathers the child, and to do what she can to maximize the chances that he’ll stick around to help raise it as well.

      Maybe that’s “natural” too. But hedonists have always argued against self discipline. Sex doesn’t have to cause babies, and for their purposes it’s best if it doesn’t. Which is of course the rationale behind Playboy’s long standing and contemptably cynical support for “women’s rights.” In the Playboy universe, a true gentleman pays for his girlfriend’s abortion.

    4. Baklava says:

      Dunk without perspective asked, “How are members of either sex “lowering themselves” if they`re only doing what comes naturally?

      If what comes naturally for me is murdering then I guess that is not a lower standard if I practice what comes naturally for me…

      Dunk wrote, “They`re only lonely people who are doing what they perceive they must do in their quest for happiness, or at the very least, fulfilling their natural desires.

      ahem. Doing what they perceive… because they haven’t learned from others or from the education system or from the media that hard work, accomplishment, building an awesome relationship, and giving are all ways of achieving great happiness.

      Immediate gratification is fun for the moment but can be highly disappointing and lead to regret for the other partner who was interested in building a relationship that it seems you know nothing about Dunk.

    5. Neil says:

      “Dunk without perspective”

      -From the folks who compare sex with murder…

    6. Baklava says:

      Neil actually probably believes I equate or compare sex with murder. It would then be fruitless for me to point out that I didn’t and that would be patently ridiculous.

      Your reading comprehension skills need more than fine tuning Neil. Get back on point if you can.

    7. stackja says:

      ST
      The song Girls Just Want To Have Fun was written by Robert Hazard, who recorded his version of the song in 1979. In 1983 Cyndi Lauper changed the lyrics slightly to allow it to be performed by a female and Hazzard approved the minor changes.
      “When the working day is done, Oh,girls, They wanna have fu-un, Oh,girls, Just wanna have…”
      Man or woman, freedom.

    8. Neil says:

      Nope I don’t believe you equate the two, though I do think you believe both are baaaaaad.

      I also believe you nearly always insult people who disagree with you.

    9. Steve Skubinna says:

      Do you actually read these comments before opening up a big can of ad hominen, Neil?

      Oh, strike that – I’m sure you’ll claim that your insulting post was not actually insulting.

    10. Baklava says:

      Neil,

      errrrr yes, Promiscuity is baaaaad.

      That is the point here.

      You wrote, “I also believe you nearly always insult people who disagree with you

      Maybe… But is it maybe that the people who disagree with me are making false accusations, attacking and inserting false arguments (never stated by myself) as you did?

      If you feel insulted about the fact that I pointed out that you inserted an argument that I never stated, or about the fact that I pointed out your reading comprehension wasn’t up to par – I’m sorry and I hope you don’t do it again. :)>-

    11. Neil says:

      Maybe… But is it maybe that the people who disagree with me are making false accusations, attacking and inserting false arguments (never stated by myself) as you did?

      Would you care to point out where Dunk did that, before you started insulting him?

    12. Severian says:

      errrrr yes, Promiscuity is baaaaad.

      I just love the “if it feels good do it” mentality that would erase whatever differences there are between humans and animals.

      Hey, food tastes GOOD. Let’s eat everything we want to. But gluttony leads to obesity and health problems.

      Hey, sex feels GOOD, let’s screw ourselves silly. But promiscuous sex leads to sexually transmitted diseases, cervical cancers, and a cheapening of the intimate bond between men and women that makes both devalue the other and leads (or stems from) problems achieving true intimacy and emotional attachment with another person. But hey, it feels GOOD.

      Instead of attempting to guide and encourage the human race to live up to standards of behavior more advanced than a dog in heat, liberals again want to encourage animalistic behavior and think that’s good.

    13. Do you actually read these comments before opening up a big can of ad hominen, Neil?

      I know Neil from the same forum I post with Dunk at and for him to be acting as Dunk’s savior on this blog is a joke, because at the forum he’s usually the one going ad hominem and insulting Dunk.

      Neil knows Dunk doesn’t need any help defending himself. His main beef is what people are saying about sexual promiscuity and he’s using ‘defending Dunk’ as a smokescreen for taking people to task whose opinions he doesn’t like. Not only that, but I look for him to soon insert some type of comment that will completely take this thread off topic, one that he probably doesn’t even believe in but will post just to get a rise out of everyone else. That’s another Neil tactic: post something provacactive that you really don’t believe in, just to get everyone going. My advice is just to ignore it. That’s what I do at the forum.

    14. Would you care to point out where Dunk did that, before you started insulting him?

      He didn’t accuse Dunk of doing that. He accused YOU of doing that.

      Remember this, Neil: Laura’s got a lot more patience in dealing with how you act on the forum than I will here. I think it’d be a good idea for you to start arguing for or against the merits of what I said in my original post, because that’s why I started this thread, not for you to personally go after everyone in it rather than making substantive arguments one way or the other.

    15. Great White Rat says:

      Dunk, I think you’ve missed most of the point of ST’s comments.

      Humans are sexual creatures.

      So are rabbits, chickens, and elephant seals. But one of the great things that separates man from animals is self-control. Now I understand that modern marketing campaigns make it difficult to avoid falling into the ‘get-it-now’ trap, but there are certain areas where it’s important to do so, and this is one of them. Yielding to the urge for instant gratification is a sign of immaturity.

      In my opinion, most singles become involved in short relationships rather than one night stands. It`s all right to move on after a few weeks or months if a strong connection isn`t present….The only sluts are those who don`t respect their sex partners.

      If I understand you right, you’re saying a “relationship” of, say, two weeks is different from a one-night stand. A few weeks is hardly enough time to call anything a “relationship” – it’s not possible to know someone well enough in that time – so what you’re describing basically is jumping into bed with the same person for a couple of weeks and then moving on if the sex isn’t good enough after two or three tumbles. That’s not any different from a one-night stand, sorry. And please tell us how that behavior is respectful. Part of true respect is valuing the other person more than your own lust.

      I noticed that while you have a theory about what is psychologically debilitating, you don’t seem to have considered the psychological effects on the partners one would be shuttling in and out, not to mention the medical risks of the promiscuous lifestyle.

      A final thought: presumably, someone who lives this lifestyle would be married someday. That should entail something special, something more than the series of liaisons you’ve described. But after handing it out so readily, so often, what’s left to give the spouse that you haven’t given elsewhere?

      An interesting topic…please consider what ST has said. It’s meant to be constructive, not as a rap on you.

    16. Neil says:

      I think it’d be a good idea for you to start arguing for or against the merits of what I said in my original post, because that’s why I started this thread, not for you to personally go after everyone in it rather than making substantive arguments one way or the other.

      I think Dunk already did an excellent job. I just didn’t see the need for
      Dunk without perspective
      and
      building a relationship that it seems you know nothing about Dunk

    17. Save it, Neil. If you really cared about personal attacks on Dunk then you wouldn’t do it at the forum. You’re doing exactly what I explained to others you have done at the forum in the past. You haven’t added anything to this thread whatsoever and as a result, your participation in it is now over, which shouldn’t be a problem for you considering you’ve made clear your ‘point’ already.

    18. Lorica says:

      Quite the liberal concept for an otherwise conservative guy huh? I`ll loan my car to Angelina Jolie any time.

      /shiver I wouldn’t let Angelina Jolie put gas in my car, let alone check the tires. That woman scares me. In this world of STD’s that kill, your liberal concept is not very bright. – Lorica

    19. Severian says:

      Even if you throw out the chance of pregnancy (even though no method of contraception is 100% effective, and if you understand things like Bernoulli’s theorem in statistics the higher the number of “trials” the higher the chance of pregnancy), and throw out the possibility of disease (again, not trivial) there are still the emotional and social costs. Think about the people you know who treat sex this casually, and think nothing about picking up and dropping sex partners so freely. Do they seem to have the kind of emotional maturity or development that will let them develop true love and a long term loving, nurturing relationship? The people I have known who are like that have never managed it. And deep down, the thing most people need is such a relationship. Eventually everyone gets old, passions fade, and love and respect for your spouse or partner is the only thing you often have going for you. If your partner is the type to drop and move on that easily, how much support do you think you’ll get when you are sick or old or such? Nada. But then I think the typical liberal attitude is, hey, who needs family when you’ve got the government to take care of you.

    20. Lorica says:

      Ok Now that I have had a chance to read everything. I agree with much of what Dear Sis wrote. As an example 10 years ago I was in a Business Law class, and the topic of prostitution came up for discussion. All the liberal women, married and single, said “it is a woman’s body, she should be able to do with it what she wants”. To which I replied, “Fine let’s legalize prostitution, but we get rid of divorce for adultery”. Every woman instantly changed her tune. I then explained that you cannot have a girl working her way thru college by selling her body and expect men not to want them. No matter who is the man. It is just idiotic thinking. There are always consequences to promiscutity. You can’t expect part of the society to stay true to their “loved ones” and another part tossing sex around like so much meat.

      I would also like to agree with the majority of all over posters on the side of temperance. Man was created to be monogamous, we are not rabbits, as GWR says. Monogamy is found in all higher evolved creatures, Killer whales, Eagles, Humans. All creatures of admiration, not disdain. If man were to place honor above all base desires, celebacy is acheivable, and has it’s own rewards. As I have said before, virginity is the only gift you can give once, why waste it on someone who doesn’t really care about you. People who believe that promiscuity has it’s own advantages, are usually people who are emotionally devoid, and don’t understand the joys of being in real love. Look at Sis’ picture, look into her eyes, and tell me that you would enjoy the pain in her eyes when you tell her she is nothing more than a one night stand. Sorry, but that is more than I as a man could take. /Hugs Dear Sis. :)

      People who believe that promiscuity is a good thing, also scratch their heads at teen suicide, and the divorce rate. No matter what you believe, You can never seperate emotions from the act of making love. You might think so, but eventually your emotions will catch up to you, and at that time there will be the devil to pay. Don’t think so, then why do we have so many people taking mood altering drugs in this society??? – Lorica

    21. Tony says:

      This, however, doesn’t let men off the hook completely. To all the single gents out there who are just meeting up for the first time with a gal you’re interested in: Treat your body just like you would your car: Don’t let just anyone take it for a spin. You’ll respect yourself – and her – more, in the morning.

      Yup. Make sure you get her to completely read your owner’s manual and understand all the quirks of the vehicle before you let her put her hand on your shifter. :d.

      Better yet, don’t give her the keys until she buys the car.