<p>That’s amazing, conyat, because I can’t even listen to Limbaugh during the day. Oh, better add that he’s not on at night here? Or maybe you think I have a direct transmitter into my head from Limbaugh/O’Reilly/Coulter as some others here do? No radio necessary? As I’ve said before, if I were caught listening to Limbaugh at my place of employment I’d probably be fired on the spot. </p>
<p>As for the feminist debate: count me out with this crew.</p>
<p>Oops: just to clarify: I don’t read transcripts of his show, or have it put on my ipod, since I don’t have an ipod and am clueless technically anyway. Let’s see: is it all covered? Doesn’t matter–you and others here will figure out some way that Limbaugh has infiltrated my brain.</p>
<p>Come to think of it, according to you, I unquestioningly take my marching orders not only from my church, but also from Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Coulter. I am a shell of a human being with no brain of my own.</p>
<p>I never realized what an inferior specimen of a human being I was until I began posting here.</p>
<p>You’re right, SS, I make no distinction in that I expect responsible, respectful, caring behavior from both men and women, and I believe that both are equally capable of it. </p>
<p>Is it really so hard for you to apologize for trying to paint all the posters here who were icked out by the Purity Ball as “humanist/atheist/agnostic”?</p>
<p>(not that there’s anything wrong with those things, of course, but it’s inaccurate, and in context, appeared meant to be offensive)</p>
I expect the same, garland. But I believe strongly that bad behavior has a more devastating effect on women than men. That opinion is considered heresy in feminist circles.</p>
<p>“I don’t think the word “abstinence” elicits any outrage, but the father promising to “cover his daughter in the area of purity” and daughter pledging herself as a “gift” on her wedding night makes me want to vomit.”</p>
<p>I don’t think feminists deny that men can do tremendous harm to women. What I think they object to is assumption that women are too foolish, weak, easily-led, etc., to weigh the risks for themselves, so they have to let men make those decisions for them.</p>
<p>“I’m not switching, mini. Hormones are powerful little buggers. Their role in sex is multifaceted --getting the body ready for it, enabling it to perform, and impacting one’s psyche long after the fact. Not something I feel 14 year olds are ready for. And not something for college kids to take lightly, either.”</p>
<p>So when did you switch from science to “feeling”?</p>
<p>"In a chandelier-lit ballroom overlooking the Rocky Mountains one recent evening, some hundred couples feast on herb-crusted chicken and julienned vegetables. The men look dapper in tuxedos; their dates are resplendent in floor-length gowns, long white gloves and tiaras framing twirly, ornate updos. Seated at a table with four couples, I watch as the gray-haired man next to me reaches into his breast pocket, pulls out a small satin box and flips it open to check out a gold ring he</p>
Aren’t you a bit old to need sex ed lectures, mini? Sex involves quite a bit of both science and feelings. The study of brain physiology is finding new connections between the two all the time.</p>
<p>
Conyat, you seem to think there have been posters on this thread who would disagree with this. Nobody has. </p>
<p>garland, we’ll just have to disagree about Glamour & feminism. I still contend that the “sex has no consequences” ideal is a feminist construct & that Glamour & similar magazines promote that.</p>
So much double speak…or as in the old days, ‘speaking with forked tongue’ (i.e. in two directions). </p>
<p>“that men can do tremendous harm to women” is hardly a powerful or edifying stance to take. Certainly, anyone can do tremendous harm to anyone; it must be that in our ‘egalitarian view’ women and men possess a natural and equal ability to harm either gender, as it pleases them. You don’t get to pick and chose when <em>total</em> and natural equality is a stake.</p>
<p>The point here has more to do with the unequally distributed effects of the harm that men (women) do. As it turns out, men do not get impregnated, neither do they suffer from STD’s to the same ill extent as the finer sex. What’s more —a little heresy here, sorry— it is my experience that men do not suffer the same emotional-bends, or fall-out, as do women, in matters of sex or sexual relationships…though I am sure there is a metro-sexual, somewhere, GQ in hand, working out his <em>feminine</em>-side even as we speak.</p>
<p>There is a swishiness to the cultural affects and effects of feminism. </p>
<p>Hugh Heffner considers himself a feminist in his own “liberating” way as he liberates women from the confines of conservative moral principals and clothes; as does the misandric Susan Brownmiller in her man-hating, castrating way. To be sure these pioneers are both, in their current incarnations, the spawn of high-stepping feminism as is most of our culture today—sans purity balls (Mel Brooks could do something with this, I’m sure). </p>
<p>Actually, I have no real problem with feminism beyond its gutting of great literature and college English/literature departments. </p>
<p>I say rave on Hugh and Susan! …and their fellow travelers in this thread.</p>
<p>Well, it’s hard to imagine how one could be a fellow traveler of both Hugh and Susan; even you, “DPX” would have a hard time pulling that one off. I’m hardpressed to find anyone here who has espoused any point of view anywhere near either of your muses.</p>
<p>However, I must say, your elisions (and allusions) are impressive.</p>
actually, I should think it is quite easy: a simple obsession with all things <em>sexual</em> would pretty much suffice; whether such thoughts or activities end in pleasure or pain is really beside the point–as in this thread generally.</p>
<p>And I would be less than a lady if I did not note your excellent use of “elisions” in the above: your literary stock is rising, garland.</p>