WorldNetDaily Hates Sex Now, Too

Conservative blog WorldNetDaily caught flak last week for printing a post by Pat Buchanan, reviving the old anti-Semitic meme that Jews exercise power out of proportion to their numbers:

If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats. Is this the Democrats’ idea of diversity?

If we focus on Buchanan’s post, though, we risk forgetting that everything on WND is entirely insane — like this post, on the 50th anniversary of The Pill, excoriating women for having sex. Apparently, that women want or enjoy sex makes them no better than an animal:

I’ve seen the argument that sex is a natural part of human nature and to deny our urges is stupid and old-fashioned. “Why is sex made to be this big, sacred thing?” asks an Irish reader commenting on Welch’s article. “It’s completely natural, and if people want to sleep around that’s their business. Also, blaming the Pill is stupid. People had sex before contraception was invented, and what has it got to do with marriage anyway?”

Sure, go ahead and rut like an animal, sweetie. I hope it makes you feel empowered.

Are feminists telling me they can’t control themselves? That, like our cow in heat, they are mindlessly controlled by hormones? That they are incapable of keeping their pants on and therefore need artificial methods to allow them to advance their careers between sessions of mindless rutting? This is empowerment?

This could be forgiven as a general exhortation that we of both genders behave ourselves, and restrain our sexual impulses out of some paleo-conservative, neo-Platonic desire to focus on intellectual pursuits, like watching Glenn Beck, or reading WorldNetDaily. But male promiscuousness is generally forgiven, or expected, as the columnist acknowledges, and regardless, isn’t affected by the Pill. It’s women who benefit from medical advances such as the Pill, and women alone whose desires are cast as blameworthy and inhuman. This isn’t “standing athwart history”; it’s trying to roll back the clock to a time when the female orgasm was an unspoken horror, and women submitted to, rather than participated in, their partner’s sexual desires. Those days are behind us, and we, men, women, and couples, are better for it. If feminism, equality, and modernity are to have any meaning, they must mean that we stop blaming women for their own humanity.

Advertisements

14 comments

  1. While WND used some really crude language which garbled their point, it’s still a sound one. I believe there was a comment made here not too long ago that to deny abortion to women is to ask them to supress their sexuality. It makes it sound as though asking women to exercise discretion in their sexual habits is some kind of cruel punishment. That’s the impulse that WND is complaining about.

    1. oneiroi · ·

      I personally think that making your own decision on when and with who to have sex, is the ultimate human rational choice over animal behavior. It’s not the having sex all the time with everyone is empowering, it’s the ability to discern when/who/for what reason they have sex.

      I don’t think this article is trying to tell women to be discrete at all, if this was someone simply saying, I think people should wait until they’re married, they could make that argument (which they don’t), and the author instead simply says that all women (and only women)are immoral sluts since the invention of the pill. Is such a gross and insulting generalization.

      1. It’s not just about who one chooses to have sex with, it’s also how one chooses to have sex. The Pill reduced one of the consequences of casual sex which made casual sex all the more common. Abortion also aided this lack of consequence. Previously women were less willing to engage in casual sex because the consequence was going to be much harder to deal with if they barely knew the guy. So what is the downside to frequent and casual sex now? A tarnished reputation? Hardly a real problem in our current culture.

      2. oneiroi · ·

        Men have no real downside for having sex, apart from having a tarnished reputation.

        Yet, I wouldn’t say that it makes Men immoral people that sleep around. That would be a dumb rash conclusion, as is this woman’s article.

        Men have a decision to make, on who they want to have sex with and if they are moral in the situation, just as women now have the same ability to decide. The stance of calling all women who are on the pill sluts and animals is degrading for no real purpose, and it’s assuming a lot. And I don’t see a reason to call for a restriction of a woman’s ability to decide what to do with their life, out of someone elses moral code.

        Without religion, without child bearing consequences, we don’t suddenly live in a moral vacuum in an anarchical society. People still are human beings who decide for themselves what moral structures their life has http://www.slate.com/id/2250706

        1. I think you’re missing my point. What I am saying is that the Pill and abortion remove two major reasons why women would wisely limit their sexual behavior. I’m not suggesting abstinence before marriage but maybe I AM suggesting sex be more than a casual encounter after a quick conversation at a bar.

          1. I just disagree with your point. The removal of consequences for frequent casual sex is in my mind a good thing. Frequent casual sex makes people happy, therefore it makes life better, and therefore I call it a positive good. Removing obstacles to it is a good thing. The fewer limits on sexual behavior, the better I believe.

      3. oneiroi · ·

        I know you weren’t making that argument, I said I wish the lady who wrote the column would have staked out an argument instead of just belittling everyone on the pill.

        And I’m saying, is that pill hasn’t destroyed the morality and meaning in sex. Sex isn’t viewed today as it was in the 1900’s certainly, but not destroyed. But I wouldn’t hold the 1900’s as an ideal way of looking at sex either.

        I’m sure that since we’ve begun taking child bearing out of the equation, some people have cheapened sex. Yet on the other hand, other people have deepened it’s emotional impact, because it’s not simply tied to the fear or issues of child bearing, but about the two people involved.

        I feel like even in a roundabout way implying, “I wish women still had to gamble at having a baby, so we could keep a woman’s leg’s closed”…is sexist? wrong? controlling? Let’s let the person decide how they’ll view sex.

        1. “I feel like even in a roundabout way implying, “I wish women still had to gamble at having a baby, so we could keep a woman’s leg’s closed”…is sexist? wrong? controlling? Let’s let the person decide how they’ll view sex.”

          I disagree. I just think that we have removed personal responsibility from the equation and this affects attitudes towards sex.

  2. That woman has a serious fixation on cows.

  3. Fornication is a positive good.

    That’s all I have to say about that.

  4. Considering the remaining 67% of the SC justices are Catholic, it doesn’t seem like Buchanan really has that much to complain about.

    1. He’s one of the far too many people who will never have a problem with white, male, christians being overrepresented.

    2. Well, the point is not so much that they’re Christian, but rather that they’re all Catholic, and there isn’t a single Protestant Justice remaining now that Stevens retired.

      You can practically hear entire generations of Know-Nothingers spinning in their graves.

  5. […] WorldNetDaily Hates Sex Now, Too […]

%d bloggers like this: