Saturday, March 14, 2009

Blue Balls For Sale!

I remember the first time I went to a strip club. It was magical. I was mesmerized. Scantily clad, beautiful women were all over the place. And, they were friendly. The smell of sensual sugar filled the air. Over priced alcohol was within arms reach. The music sucked. Is it too much to ask for some rock and roll with the nudity? I mean real rock and roll, not some 80’s decalcification of ZZ Top. Yes, I get it. The girl’s got legs. I would certainly hope so. Otherwise the song would have been called She’s Got a Wheelchair. But, I’m ruining the strip club fantasy mood. Sorry.

Before long, one of the hot babes asked me if I would like a dance. Not knowing the nomenclature at the time I re-posed the question and asked her if she wanted to dance with me. A friend clued me in as to what she was proposing. I accepted her offer for a dance. She took me to a semi-private room where other women were writhing on other patrons. She sat me on a cushy couch and stood in front of me. I felt a little shy at first (after all, it had been a while since I attended an orgy) – until she started rhythmically rubbing on me to the beat of plastic thumping bile resounding in the background. I forgot about the other couples in the room and focused all of my attention on her, on her excessively made over eyes, on her glittery skin, on her tickling locks of hair on my face, on her compound bouquet of lavender and cigarettes, on her naked boobies. She moved me. She was selfless. Her only concern was my satisfaction. She let me know this when I tried to return the favor by touching her, too, and she drove her fake nails into my neck. I was falling in lust. My nether regions commandeered of all my senses as they prepared to go into action, especially after my siren took to the grinding. Right when I was about to pass the point of no return - she stopped. She stood and put her hand out. So, I shook it. She asked for twenty dollars. What!? Are we done? That’s it? Twenty dollars for what?

“Twenty dollars for the lap dance, sport.”

But I wasn’t done. I’ve got some unresolved issues here, honey!!!

“Plus tip.”

Dumbfounded with mouth agape, I gave her thirty dollars. She grabbed my hand, helped me up and walked me back to the bar area where my friends waited with despicable grins. Before we parted ways, I stopped her and asked her, “So, let me get this straight. I just paid you thirty bucks to give me blue balls?”

“I never thought of it that way. I guess you’re right. You’re so funny. Bye-bye, sweetie.”

I wondered what she would have done to me for a hundred bucks - tap dance on my crotch and jam her boa up my ass?

40 comments:

p.lorenz127@comcast.net said...

TL, I know i have not read one of your blogs in a while, but that was friggin funny stuff. pat

Anonymous said...

"tap dance on my crotch and jam her boa up my ass"

Dude! You're into some weird shit.

How appropriate, my verification word is "strap".

del said...

So what brought on this fit of nostalgia? I'm thinking there's a part 2 (amongst other things) coming up.

Sod said...

I'm thinking the only blue thing that night was the laundry detergent you used to clean your shorts, Mr. Quickshooter.

Andrea Dworkin said...

Women do not believe that men believe what pornography says about women. But men do. From the worst to the best of them, they do.

Neil said...

Alright, alright, don't get uncool and heavy

Neil said...

Oh no...I'm being hassled in the street by a chick

Andrea Dworkin said...

I want to talk to you about equality, what equality is and what it means. It isn't just an idea. It's not some insipid word that ends up being bullshit. It doesn't have anything at all to do with all those statements like: "Oh, that happens to men too." I name an abuse and I hear: "Oh, it happens to men too." That is not the equality we are struggling for. We could change our strategy and say: well, okay, we want equality; we'll stick something up the ass of a man every three minutes.

You've never heard that from the feminist movement, because for us equality has real dignity and importance--it's not some dumb word that can be twisted and made to look stupid as if it had no real meaning.

As a way of practicing equality, some vague idea about giving up power is useless. Some men have vague thoughts about a future in which men are going to give up power or an individual man is going to give up some kind of privilege that he has. That is not what equality means either.

Equality is a practice. It is an action. It is a way of life. It is a social practice. It is an economic practice. It is a sexual practice. It can't exist in a vacuum. You can't have it in your home if, when the people leave the home, he is in a world of his supremacy based on the existence of his cock and she is in a world of humiliation and degradation because she is perceived to be inferior and because her sexuality is a curse.

This is not to say that the attempt to practice equality in the home doesn't matter. It matters, but it is not enough. If you love equality, if you believe in it, if it is the way you want to live--not just men and women together in a home, but men and men together in a home and women and women together in a home--if equality is what you want and what you care about, then you have to fight for the institutions that will make it socially real.

Andrea Dworkin said...

It is not just a matter of your attitude. You can't think it and make it exist. You can't try sometimes, when it works to your advantage, and throw it out the rest of the time. Equality is a discipline. It is a way of life. It is a political necessity to create equality in institutions. And another thing about equality is that it cannot coexist with rape. It cannot. And it cannot coexist with pornography or with prostitution or with the economic degradation of women on any level, in any way. It cannot coexist, because implicit in all those things is the inferiority of women.

yanni said...

There's just one word to describe that argument - tight.

Anonymous said...

There is also one other word: irrelevant.

Scogeoof said...

Do the Rubkids read Rubdaddy's blog?

Moist Rub said...

Only as a punishment for not eating their vegetables.

HR said...

I'm actually kind of interested why it is "irrelevant". I think Dworkin fell into a trap putting so much value on sex, but I can see her point (sorry Andrea--I know it must be great trouble to come back from the dead to read and comment on Moist's blog...) I was reading Magnus Hirshfeld recently, and this quote struck me: "Therefore, if we take them together, we find that the sexually oppressed groups in our society actually constitute an overwhelming majority of the population.

This insight alone should give us serious pause. Indeed, it raises some fundamental and very disturbing questions. For instance: Why would a society first create and then maintain sexual standards that are sure to be violated by most of its members? In other words, why would the majority of any population choose to oppress itself? Or, to give a concrete illustration, why do the American people cling to sex laws that would put virtually everyone behind bars if they were truly enforced? Why would a whole nation want to define itself as a nation of sex criminals? Why do we have this desperate need to feel guilty? What is behind this general urge to be punished?"

Thanks Magnus.

Moist Rub said...

Let me clear the air here a little bit. Since I wrote the blog, I can't help but feel partially responsible.

Strip clubs have nothing to do with sex. Their only purpose is to exploit the male human's innocent urge to love for the lurid financial gain of the female human.

As a man, I am truly offended and horrified.

HR said...

So be the hero and save her from herself be refusing to enter her establishment.

Not to poop on you further, MR, but how about we humanize the stripper for a moment and say its your daughter in a club shaking her boobies at some old guy in pleated dockers.

Moist Rub said...

Not to poop on you, either, HR, but what if we humanize the male patron, too, and say it is your son who has become a slithering fool wasting his money on a cheap thrill hoping it fills some emotional/physical hole in his pathetic life.

Is that the kind of person you raised? The stripper is not the person I raised.

To me, both parties in the lap dance interaction are equally reprehensible, or honorable, depending on your slant.

HR said...

Fully intending to crap on your parade, Moist, By patronizing strippers, you're saying that the stripper's (who is a human being)value is as a sexual object. You're saying by your actions that that is an acceptable role for women and acceptable for men to treat them thusly. Your daughter is a female human being. So you are saying it is appropriate for men to objectify your daughter. We're not the only ones raising our kids, Moist. We've got society to deal with, and society is saying to your daughter (and mine) that she is an object and to my son (and yours) that it is right to objectify women or that violence and domination is a part of being a male, whether they have emotional holes or not. Which is what that whole "equality in practice" thing is about.

And preemptively to Neil: "The only true currency in this bankrupt world... is what you share with someone else when you're uncool."

Moist Rub said...

I’m saying nothing of the sort. You are not crapping on my parade, because it is not my parade. The whole point of my story was to show how stupid I believe strip clubs are, and that’s it. Apparently, I did not make that clear - at least not clear enough to compete with your well developed focus on what you feel is inequality between the sexes.

But, I AM saying this: those men who choose to objectify women as sexual play toys at strip clubs are no different than those women who choose to objectify men as dollar signs. Do you actually think that stripper gives a fuck about who that sleazy old guy actually is, or how deplorable he is to be reducing himself to have subjected himself to this type of debasing amusement? Why doesn’t she save him from himself? They are objectifying each other. And this dance goes well beyond the strip club.

What I deem acceptable in my life has no bearing on what two other adults choose to do with theirs (assuming they are not breaking the law or are not directly impeding my right to live as I choose under the law).

I’m not saying it is appropriate for men to objectify my daughter or anybody else’s daughter. In that same manner, I don’t think it’s appropriate for women to objectify my son as a sperm sample or a wallet or an emotional sounding board or a beefcake or a mindless slave or whatever else they need from him that is beyond his human beingness. But, as you might be able to tell by my level of authority in this world, most people don’t give a crap what I feel is appropriate. The world is full of inappropriateness, and it’s not limited to men disrespecting women. My job as a parent is to teach my children self-respect, which is the foundation for respecting others, and prepare them for this world so they don’t end up suffering from the inappropriateness that will be heaved upon them. You may be able to change the world for our kids, but I can’t.

HR said...

Actually, it is your parade. Because there exists a culture of sexual violence against women (by men). And men say, Oh, I'm against that! but ignore the culture that promotes that violence. So, when you're at the point where you're walking in fear down the street afraid that someone woman is going to grab your ass or take your wallet or steal your sperm, THEN you can say there's no difference in the stripper and the guy paying her. But I don't think that's a big worry for any man. That's what Dworkin's saying about inequality. (Dworkin, you're a troublemaker...) I googled that quote and its from a speech, if you read it, kind of makes sense.
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIIE.html

Moist Rub said...

Actually, it is not my parade, unless you also want to make it my parade for all the wars in the world, child abuse, theft, battery, murder, drug addiction, corporate chicanery, oppression and whatever else our lovely culture apparently promotes, because I’m letting those go, too. The sub-culture that promotes the existence of strip clubs may not be the same sub-culture that promotes male violence against women. There is definitely some overlap between those two cultures on the Venn Diagram, but I’m pretty sure the drive behind the men who want to have naked women rub on them has a different source than the one behind the men who look to harm women. Unless that source is something so basic in the make up of men that the only solution would be to wipe them out entirely, because something that ingrained would not respond to reason or punishment.

Do you have proof of this connection, or is this just scripture written by Ms. Dworkin? We need actual proof, otherwise we are taking crap shoots inside a black box. Sure, you can make some multi-level correlations, but I’m pretty sure we can do that with just about any two phenomena, if enough thought is put to it. But actions based on thought alone don’t solve problems unless we can prove a direct and identifiable cause and effect. You may think it’s the culture’s fault and some evidence may point in that direction, but if it is not the actual cause, then the behavior will only reappear after all the strip clubs are shut down and the porno is destroyed. Without proof, how do we know that the cause is the culture (or mind set) or if the two sub-cultures are just different manifestations of the same impulse – one social, one anti-social, or if they are merely coincidental with similar attributes? (I’m not saying it is any one of those, just proposing possibilities.) It may behoove us to look back to the Venn Diagram and try to figure out the difference between each sub-group and try to find a solution there, instead of acting on a generalization.

Personally, I don’t care if there are strip clubs or not. But, I will not be held responsible for the male assholes of the world just because I happen to have a penis, no matter how much you think I should. And if the truth is that the same culture that promotes strip clubs also promotes violence against women, maybe the women should stop working there. Or, are they allowing the men to have all the control and are just waiting to be fired because of the culture?

HR said...

You don't think the men who like to have women rubbing on them in strip clubs aren't harming women? Why not let you daughter be a stripper then, if you don't think it is harmful for her in some way?

Not a dead, angry, lesbian, hippie said...

A strip club is a place where men (who have the innocent urge to love) gather to become aroused together. That seems really gay.

The female strippers are as much to blame as the male patrons, though, most of them are either molestation victims trying to work out their "demons" or are drug addicts trying to get their next fix. Anyway you look at it, it's a messed up culture disguised as harmless entertainment.

Moist Rub said...

I have no clue if it's harmful to the women or not. It may be to some, not to others. Some women may actually enjoy it. Maybe you should ask them to find out instead of just assuming. If it is harmful to them, have your congressperson introduce a bill to outlaw it. Isn't that how our culture protects its citizens? Or is it up to me, some dumbass blogger, to save the world?

The question is, if stripping is harmful, why are these women doing it? Or are they not responsible for their own welfare?

I would prefer that my daughter not become a stripper because I think she has more to offer this world and to herself. But if that is her choice as an adult, there is really nothing I can do about it, and I will love her nonetheless.

HR said...

Oh, you win. I was just being contrary. The actual answer is that Dworkin put too much emphasis on sex--its almost as if she gave weight to a religious and historical view of what role a woman should have by having such a problem with sex. (Sorry again, Andy.) I actually think there isn't anything wrong with sex. I don't think sex is a form of aggression. I think women should be sex workers if they WANT to. I think its crappy that sexual women are stigmatized. Sex work, in my opinion should be legalized so there's less of a chance that women will actually be hurt. I think ol' Magnus was right that we have some pretty fucked up (HAHA!) ideas about sex. I find it pretty interesting that a country like Japan who has very sexually violent video games and porn has apparently fewer rapes than our own society. Some will say rape is underreported there because of the patriarchy that exists there. I don't know about that.

Ultimately, there's no way that I can support the legal position of anti-porn which is all about law protecting virtue instead of law protecting choice. Thanks for playing, Moist. I was having a nervy day and you helped take my mind off of it.

Cherry said...

Hey, I'm just trying to pay my way through school.

Anonymous said...

The sexual tension between HR and Moist is oddly intriguing. But I digress. The only real question here is, where in the hell did Moist get 30 bucks?

guy in the pleated dockers said...

He blew me for it.

Slippery Vinnie said...

HR, you don't need to be religious to think the sexual degradation of women is wrong. Nor does being against the sexual degradation of women mean that you think all sex is bad.

Your intense, burning hatred of anyone of faith is clouding your ability to comprehend simple logic.

HR said...

Aw, you're just being kind--my burning hatred of faith didn't have anything to do with my clouded logic. That was probably due to the alcohol. Be that as it may be, either your belief in my hatred-of-people-of-faith (hereafter known as HOPOF), got you cloudy or you've been drinking too--because you didn't read what I actually said.

I did not say that you need to be religious to think that the degradation of women is wrong. In fact, I am not religious and I believe that the sexual degradation of women is wrong. I did say that women should be able to choose if they want to work in strip clubs or sell their bodies for sex. If you can sell your intelligence, or you can sell your sense of humor, or sell your blood, or your sperm or your eggs, then why not sex?

"Degradation" is a tricky term. Because one woman may think it is degrading when a guy whistles at her on the street, and another may say, "Oh, cool; I'm glad I look hot." One woman may say, "I can make some good cash sleeping with congressmen." And another may say, "I find it reprehensible to be paid for sex." Oh, and the same goes for men (though we tend not to worry about them). If that Chippendale guy wants flop his naked banana about and women want to pay to see that, alrighty, knock yourselves out. Or cock yourselves out. Whatever.

Also, I didn't say that thinking sexual degradation of women is wrong means you think all against sex. What I said was, "Dworkin put too much emphasis on sex--its almost as if she gave weight to a religious and historical view of what role a woman should have by having such a problem with sex. (Sorry again, Andy.)" Which is to say, I think Dworkin had a problem with sex and that made her arguments askew. She even wrote a book about it called Intercourse. I think she made sexual mountains out of molehills by her emphasis that the foundation of sex was conquest, violation, and ownership. I personally, prefer the idea that sex is just one thing people can do together. They can talk together. They can drink together. They can feed each other. We are mammasl. Mammals have sex. Yet we tend to get really jazzed up about sex and load it with all this extra stuff. Why? I don't know. I don't think it is particularly logical.

So SV, my supposed HOPOF, isn't really the point. But thanks.

Slippery Vinnie said...

You can deny your "supposed" hatred of religious faith all you want but in truth, it permeates all of your writing both here and on their message board. You inject your political views into any topic whether it's relevant to the conversation or not. At the message board, you've bullied and belittled people who attempt to express their spiritual beliefs, calling them "insane". Your problem with what Ms. Dworkin said seems to be that it "gave weight to a religious view" and not because you disagreed much with the premise.

People are not merely mammals. Yes, we have sex, though, human sex is much more complicated than the act of small brained animals getting it on or trying to mount a tree, table leg or human leg, whatever it takes, because they are in heat. Other mammals are equipped with only simple logic - feel horny, need to hump something. We have emotions and the ability to reason. We fall in love. Sex can be just something we do or it can be an intense, intimate connection between two people who care for one another. If one human spouse cheats on the other, there will be feelings of great hurt, betrayal, abandonment and anger. If after getting busy with one female dog, the male dog wanders over to the next yard and bangs a second female dog, the first couldn't care less. That's the difference.

If you don't think that sex can also be used as a form of aggression, why don't you ask any rape victim if she thinks the objective of her rapist's action was to physically scare, dominate and humiliate her or if he was just trying to be neighborly like any good mammal?

I don't know that Japan, with their sexually violent media, has fewer rapes than here. I've heard that it's commonplace for men to grope women on subways and buses over there and it's just accepted as normal behavior.

Lastly, I'll address your thought about law protecting virtue instead of law protecting choice. Are you saying that anything should be legal if someone wants and chooses to do it? That sounds like anarchy to me. Societies come together and decide what they deem as acceptable and unacceptable behavior to them as a collective. Should all forms of sex be legal in your estimation? What about incest? Who is society to say that a parent who is sexually attracted to his/her child (minor or adult) should refrain from acting upon it? Who is society to tell siblings what they can and can't do with each other? What about sex with children? After all, in that line of thinking, banning pedophilia is only a restriction of an unjust society forcing their skewed morality on the pedophile, isn't it? If sex is nothing more than something that mammals do with each other, then why not have sex with said child as you would talk with him, feed her, drink with him? NAMBLA would agree with you on this one. I mean, who do we think we are to disallow the members of the North American Man Boy Love Association to inculcate young boys into their sexual persuasion? They would say that man/boy sex is a natural desire that's found within ancient cultures. What awful, righteous, moralistic bastards we are to deny them their sexual outlets!

Look, if you don't want to believe in a spiritual god or instead have your form of religion be government or radical environmental activism, or whatever, that's up to you. I've said what I want to say. You can respond or not but I think I'm done. Take it easy.

Slippery Vinnie said...

Correction:

I thought you meant that sex could never be used as aggression and not that Dworkin believed that all sex was an act of aggression. Please disregard my paragraph discussing that point. Sorry about that. I'm a little behind on my reading of irate lesbian authors with sexually and physically abusive backgrounds.

HR said...

Since you know me from the board, you know I'm going to answer you. I'm the italics.

You can deny your "supposed" hatred of religious faith all you want but in truth, it permeates all of your writing both here and on their message board. You inject your political views into any topic whether it's relevant to the conversation or not.

Wow. I think you may be the only one who ever reads anything I write over there.

Hatred is pretty strong. I won't claim hatred. Certainly not burning hatred. Definitely not intense burning hatred (I'm way too lazy). And in no way do I hate anyone of religious faith, which is what you pinned on me the first time. Now I WILL unabashedly claim to be a strong opponent of the illogical.

I'm sad that you have missed my recent posts on the interesting places people hide drugs and the McSurf-and-Turf, which are pleasantly free from political views.


At the message board, you've bullied and belittled people who attempt to express their spiritual beliefs, calling them "insane".

I apologize sincerely to anyone who has felt bullied or belittled. That was never my intention. Even for the clearly insane. I find a lot of clarity by arguing things. I figure people argue back because they find clarity too. I've never forced anyone to argue with me. On this particular blog I've argued Dworkin's point, I've argued against Dworkin, I've argued against Moist, I've argued against you. And I've done a lot of thinking, which I love. It bugged you enough to say something, which is great. I wish you'd have said something on the message board too, instead of getting all bottled up. It's a message board; that's what you do there.

Your problem with what Ms. Dworkin said seems to be that it "gave weight to a religious view" and not because you disagreed much with the premise.

Uh, no. You still haven't read what I said. My problem with Dworkin's idea is that it can be hostile to women who are sexual and like to be sexual. What I said was, "she gave weight to a religious and historical view of what role a woman should have...." I don't like her idea that women's inferiority is so deeply ingrained that women need to be protected because they can't even grasp how it is effecting them sexually. In effect, they are unable to actually consent to sex. (Interestingly, it is also an argument that has been made against right-to-die --that there are certain members of society, like women, who, from the weight of history and other factors, feel they are worth less and therefore are more likely to kill themselves--basically they aren't able to give real consent to their action because it is too clouded by how they have been defined by others.) If you do like that idea, I'm happy to hear why. But really, I think you've just gone bonkers because I said the word "religious." I also said the word historical. Thank god the Civil War reinactors haven't jumped on me too. Though now that I think about it, its kind of arousing.

People are not merely mammals. Yes, we have sex, though, human sex is much more complicated than the act of small brained animals getting it on or trying to mount a tree, table leg or human leg, whatever it takes, because they are in heat. Other mammals are equipped with only simple logic - feel horny, need to hump something.

You've obviously never seen a teenaged boy humping an ottoman.

We have emotions and the ability to reason. We fall in love. Sex can be just something we do or it can be an intense, intimate connection between two people who care for one another. If one human spouse cheats on the other, there will be feelings of great hurt, betrayal, abandonment and anger. If after getting busy with one female dog, the male dog wanders over to the next yard and bangs a second female dog, the first couldn't care less. That's the difference.

I think there are enough animal behaviorists who think animals have emotions and the ability to reason to make me say we're not so special there. So human sex is sometimes special because sometimes is associated with love? Ok. So what? I'm not sure where that idea is taking us.

If you don't think that sex can also be used as a form of aggression, why don't you ask any rape victim if she thinks the objective of her rapist's action was to physically scare, dominate and humiliate her or if he was just trying to be neighborly like any good mammal?

Read what I said again.

I don't know that Japan, with their sexually violent media, has fewer rapes than here. I've heard that it's commonplace for men to grope women on subways and buses over there and it's just accepted as normal behavior.

Where is it not?

Lastly, I'll address your thought about law protecting virtue instead of law protecting choice. Are you saying that anything should be legal if someone wants and chooses to do it?

No, I'm not saying that. Think about the US First Amendment which protects free speech. It protects your choice to say what you want, even if its not very nice. It is not about legislating virtue. It does not try to make you be good by saying you can't say mean stuff which might make others feel bad.

That sounds like anarchy to me. Societies come together and decide what they deem as acceptable and unacceptable behavior to them as a collective. Should all forms of sex be legal in your estimation?

I'm trying to imagine ALL forms of sex. I think so. IF both parties are of legal age to consent and have freely consented.

What about incest?

Here's something wacky: most animals have an incest taboo, so I'm thinking it may not really have anything to do with the fact that humans aren't merely mammals who feel love sometimes associated with sex. So if it's not some great moral virtue that humans thought of, I'm going to have to go with that its an evolutionary thing--because incest can crap up genetic diversity leading to infant death, retardation, or other health problems.

So let's look at it logically. (The following is stolen from Jonathan Haidt.) Let's say a brother and a sister of legal consenting age decide freely that they want to have sex together. They love each other and its something they want to share. They take precautions so the sister does not get pregnant and they keep it secret so their family and society will not know. Is there any *logical reason that it should be a problem?


Who is society to say that a parent who is sexually attracted to his/her child (minor or adult) should refrain from acting upon it?

Minors can't give consent. Adults, see above.

Who is society to tell siblings what they can and can't do with each other?

I don't know. Consenting adult siblings having sex shouldn't be a problem for society.

What about sex with children?

Children cannot give consent.

After all, in that line of thinking, banning pedophilia is only a restriction of an unjust society forcing their skewed morality on the pedophile, isn't it? If sex is nothing more than something that mammals do with each other, then why not have sex with said child as you would talk with him, feed her, drink with him? NAMBLA would agree with you on this one. I mean, who do we think we are to disallow the members of the North American Man Boy Love Association to inculcate young boys into their sexual persuasion? They would say that man/boy sex is a natural desire that's found within ancient cultures. What awful, righteous, moralistic bastards we are to deny them their sexual outlets!

YES! YES! That's exactly what I was talking about that you've still not grasped. --"Natural desire that's found within ancient cultures." I'm saying that what was done in history should at some point not have any bearing on what's going on now (just like you are saying right there!) (HUGS!) Again, Dworkin argued that women have ingrained in them the role that women have played throughout history--including the idea that they are supposed to be acted upon sexually and that it is so ingrained, they are unable not to think of themselves any other way. For example, I may think that I like to be spanked, but really, I don't-- I couldn't possibly--I just think I do because that's the role that is ingrained in me by history. And strongly influential factors like religion. And folk-tales and fairy tales. And television. I'm saying that if find that idea kind of crippling to me as a woman. I'm saying that it gives those ideas a credibility they don't deserve: At some point we have to say that's no longer relevant.

Look, if you don't want to believe in a spiritual god or instead have your form of religion be government or radical environmental activism, or whatever, that's up to you. I've said what I want to say. You can respond or not but I think I'm done. Take it easy.

You've obviously got things to say. Introduce yourself and jump in on the message board. It's really about anything anyone cares enough to write down. If you don't want it to be a message board with long rambling thoughts about feminism or god, writing something on there you do want it to be about. Have you seen the topics over there? Hockey, David Hasselhoff, Dreams, Music. Work. The arts.

Sorry about that. I'm a little behind on my reading of irate lesbian authors with sexually and physically abusive backgrounds.

Really. What an odd thing to say.

Anonymous said...

Hey HR, thanks for sucking all of the fun out of the comment section.

guy in the flat front khakis said...

like it was a real barrel of monkeys before all this...

Slippery Vinnie said...

Amazing. You've failed to understand everything I've said. For someone who praises logical thought, you do have tremendous trouble following it. Instead of reiterating it all, I will again express some points. Try to keep up.

No, I've never seen a teenage boy hump an ottoman, but then I don't watch underage masturbatory porn like you do. Yeah, teenage boys do a lot of stupid things. Still, it doesn't mean that the human race's emotional and rational capabilities aren't far, far greater than the primitive levels of the rest of the animal kingdom. And if you can't understand that, then you are not nearly as intelligent as you believe yourself to be.

You totally missed the point regarding law protecting virtue vs. law protecting choice. The only reason children can't consent to sex in our society is because that law is contingent upon the morality of our society. Age of sexual consent differs all around the world. In other words, the ONLY reason a child can't consent to sex here is because our sense of morality (or virtue) finds it unacceptable. If law protects choice instead of society's idea of what is moral, then the age of sexual consent can be lowered if not eliminated all together. Thus, my previous writing : After all, in that line of thinking, banning pedophilia is only a restriction of an unjust society forcing their skewed morality on the pedophile, isn't it? If sex is nothing more than something that mammals do with each other, then why not have sex with said child as you would talk with him, feed her, drink with him?

Sorry about that. I'm a little behind on my reading of irate lesbian authors with sexually and physically abusive backgrounds.

This one should be easy enough for you - a simple a + b = c equation.

a) The fact that Dworkin survived the mental and emotional trauma of sexual abuse as a child.

Got that? Now add that to

b) Dworkin survived the mental and emotional trauma of a physically abusive, heterosexual marriage.

The sum of a + b =

c) Dworkin left the heterosexual world to be a lesbian. An understandably angry lesbian, who felt such unforgiveness and resentment from the horrific events she experienced that it negatively colored her view of the world - especially when it came to men.

Knowing her background and how it affected her psyche is key to understanding her writings. Her ever-present anger and resentment from the abuse she suffered explains why Dworkin found all sex to be an act of aggression. It's not an odd comment at all. I honestly thought that someone who's familiar with Dworkin's work would've picked up on that. Sorry. I overestimated your knowledge.

I tried to put this as simply and clearly as I could. If you still don't understand me, please don't respond again. I cannot take the inane misinterpretations of my words anymore. I imagine, though, you will.

keysunset said...

Interesting discussion, HR, Slippery, and Andrea.

Thanks for keeping it interesting 'round here!

Hey, and even on topic!

guy in the pleated kilt said...

i disagree - what does humping an ottoman have to do with strip clubs?

here ya go vinnie -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k98bRUOb4g

Cheese said...

I don't understand anything anyone is saying. Why is Vinnie so mad at HR? And why is he insulting her and not her arguments?

Wine said...

I'm with Cheese. The personal attacks are pretty uncool.