On Is It The Duty of Every Enlightened Female To Put Out?
MissaA: Bustillos is not arguing against casual sex. She's arguing in favor of courtship. Courtship followed by sex. Courtship not as a precursor to a relationship that people don't want, but as a way of making the sex more pleasurable. The rest of what you're saying is projection.
She's also saying that ideological coercion, whether on the part of the patriarchy or on the part of feminist theory, is probably a lousy reason to have sex. So the way to respond to this tellingly would be to actually articulate what she's missing about the performance model of sexuality, not to misconstrue what she's saying.
I used Playboy After Dark as an example of the "sexual revolution" of the 1960's, not as an example of "female liberation." That show was able to be on tv in the late 60's because the society had become more open about sexual matters. But my whole point was that this kind of "sexual revolution" was not accompanied by an enlightened view of women in any way, shape or form. It was clearly exploitative.
So I'm not really having a problem.
0
On Is It The Duty of Every Enlightened Female To Put Out?
I love the response to this article. Anyone who has read Bustillos before knows that she draws on a rich life experience and says exactly what she wants to say, without deferring to favored theories. In this case, the result seems to have been that pretty much everyone was offended. So I guess she's the final star of Sex Offender Week.
I can't find any negative judgment in the article against men or women, and certainly not for their sexuality. Bustillos really seems to be advocating for better sex, not less of it. Ultimately, the message seems to be: Don't be persuaded by hype into doing something you don't want to. Especially in the name of liberation.
An example of this kind of creepy liberation can be found by going to youtube and looking at old episodes of "Playboy After Dark" -- totally worth doing by the way, if only to watch Harry Nillson perform on one episode. But the particular 1960's version of the sexual revolution radiating from that show consists of sleazy geezers sliming around girls who are presumably on the pill. It's pretty much a non-stop gross-out. Cui bono? It's pretty obvious.
So if the new rhetoric is coming from a different direction (pro-sex feminism, and more power to it), the real object of the article seems to be to say: Yeah, but don't it if you don't want to. If you want something different, hold out for it.
Sure, as a gay man, my entire sex life has been reduced by this article to an endless round of trouser shucking. So what? I thought that line was pretty funny. Which reminds me, it's probably about time for me to go out on the prowl. Talk to me, Tiger!
0
On In Praise of Five Cigarettes a Day
"Smoking smells BAD" relative to what? Smoking smells GOOD compared to lots of things I smell in the city. My co-workers burn microwave popcorn in an enclosed environment on a regular basis and nobody gets self-righteous on them. They complain, but that shrill righteousness that attaches itself to the virulent anti-smoker is entirely absent. My personal take on this is that the campaign against smoking is a place where people who may be nice in other areas of their lives allow themselves to be complete assholes. Just a thought.
0
On Is It The Duty of Every Enlightened Female To Put Out?
Brad, replace that "My Good Old Desk":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shVTtFqJb4U