Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
The War on Sex
twitch sigil
The religious right has decided that it's time to tackle sex as the next great Prohibition project. Homosexuality isn't enough for them anymore, they want the next bigger prize at the faire. They want to change the "moral landscape" so that only babymaking sex is considered appropriate. (And, of course, remember how writers like Dan Savage kept warning "straights" that the religious right would be going after straight sex as soon as their assault on homosexuality started gaining ground—if this gains ground, they'll go after the next big "moral" prize. I'd bet freedom of religion would be next, myself.)

Aside from the assault on freedom of conscience and practice (or lack thereof) of religion, the mentality behind this is frightening. The following quote comes from a Washington Post article, "Cupid's Broken Arrow". The theme of the article is that men not being able to get it up with women who are sexually liberal is somehow women's fault and problem. The author doesn't seem to be able to conceive of the possibility that perhaps a man who needs "his" woman to be weak and wilting has a problem in his own dysfunctional thought patterns. Here's the quote:
Such images [of erectile disfunction and impotence] disturb because sexual performance is still, in the minds of many males, the sign of authority and dominance, perhaps the last such symbol in a society slogging its way toward gender equality.
Ignoring the jab at gender equality in there for now, can anyone spot the connection to rape in there? Anyone? Yes, you in the front-row. Exactly: investing power in the act of wielding a phallus is exactly the kind of fucked-up thinking that leads seemingly upstanding and sane members of the male gender to inflict the horror of rape on women. This is the bullshit that lies behind the confused and indignant retorts of "but he's such a nice boy and would never do that!" in some cases when charges of rape are laid. This kind of thinking, as much as the religious right promotes a culture that fosters it out of a desire for greater "morality", is wholly immoral by their own definition. (The religious right sure knows how to do social engineering, but they seem to miss the part where your solutions have to actually achieve the goal you set out for and you can't just hope that you've guessed right.)

Some scripture quote about logs and eyes and slivers comes to mind here. Fix your own damned heads first, moralistas.

(The Washington Post article came to me via "Mouthy broads destroy the Holy Phallus…..or do they?" at the Pandagon blog. It's an interesting analysis beyond this one point that struck me so.)

  • 1
Of course the attack on straits is already comming with stories like this one...

Town won't let unmarried parents live together

Although I think that stories like this are (or should be) used in the assault of all thses dumb ass laws. Explaining to people that yes, that law they said was just to oppress gay folk affects strait people too.

It's all absolutely insane in my opinion. I don't know what they're trying to gain by cracking down on premarital sex. I mean, even back when premarital sex was a huge no-no in roughly every society around the world things like rape and adultary were absolutely rampant. And I refuse to believe that they have been "gaining ground" at all on the whole homosexuality thing.

I really have nothing important or meaninful to say... I can't really form my thoughts into anything coherant right now. But I agree with you 100% Kynnin about the psychology of such a statement. His way of thinking is the sort of thing that really really frustrates me.

"Oh the poor modern male, their ability to dominate and control is being threatened..."

I do love you, y'know. :)

Hrm. Excise that quote and the article reads a bit more respectably, as a pretty decent study of why younger guys might have trouble with sex. Also, the bits about how women are apparently throwing themslves at guys to have sex with them - less "Whore of Bablyon because of gender equality and the sexual revolution" and more "Some guys might not be comfotrable with a girl who puts out on the first date."

Really, we had the sexual revolution. Are some guys so afraid of forward girls that they'd rather blame their own insecurity on them?

  • 1