I recently wrote and posted the best craig’s list personals ad ever. How do I know it was the best ever? Well, because about 100 women told me so.

Here is a typical response:

“Wow I have to say I’m a little old for you (48) and probably not your type but you should get a response from every woman in (XX city)! Yours is definitely the most fun and funniest post I have ever seen on Craig’s List, usually, they are sick and disgusting but yours was amazing! You must have funny oozing out of every pore on your body . . . anyway just wanted to say I wish you luck and am sure you will have no trouble finding a great girl!”

This post is a great example of typical female psychology. If a guy is funny, and he posts a funny ad online, then he should get laid like a rug, and married, and kids, and wealthy. Everything will be OK as long as you are a really, really, funny and amazing guy.

Well, I am a really, really funny and amazing guy. And you know what? The world doesn’t work that way.

This is how the world works:

  1. If a woman is looking for love online, either browsing personal ads or answering craig’s list personal ads, she is defective in one of the following ways: addict. overweight. ugly. angry. mean. single mom. deeply conflicted. low self-esteem. shitty job. no career. no ambition. wants kids. wants financial support. trying to cheat on husband. etc. etc. etc.
  2. The really hot, quality girls are either married, or in “monogamous” relationships. The scare quotes around “monogamous” just mean that they might slip up and sleep with a friend or a random dude in a bar if the mood strikes. Nobody finds out or if they do, they’re forgiven.
  3. The really hot, quality girls spend all their days in a corporate environment (since men and women are equal now) and then go home to their bore-friends who fuck them in pretty much the same way  all the time. (I know this because I’ve been one of those bore-friends).
  4. The really hot, quality girls might go out on a ‘girls ‘night’ but then it’s all about drinking and dancing and looking hot and only occasionally, in a very rare instance, letting themselves get fucked. So-called ‘players’ or player wannabes will spend 90% of their effort trying to find or manufacture those instances when an otherwise ‘claimed’ woman will open her legs for just one night.
  5. The really hot, quality girls are therefore SEQUESTERED away from any really hot, quality guys who may be single.
  6. The really hot, quality girls who are SOMEHOW STILL SINGLE are therefore free to sigh, “where are all the GOOD guys?” Simple because they have constructed (or rather, allowed society to construct for them) a CLOISTER around their lives so they have ALMOST NO CHANCE of meeting a decent guy outside of an alcohol-soaked dance club where they won’t remember anything anyway.
  7. The way for an awesome, funny, intelligent guy like me is NOT TO POST PERSONALS, but to go out to an alcohol-soaked dance club, insult women, insult men, and generally act like an arrogant douche-canoe until a girl is amused enough to let me drag her back to my car / apartment where I will proceed to pound her like a cheap steak, an event that will go down in her personal history as ‘the best night of passion of my life’ due to her filling in all the awkward gaps caused by alcoholic memory erasure with scenes from her favorite romance novel, but which will expose ABSOLUTELY NONE of my best qualities, and therefore lead to no number exchange, no further conversation, no personal expansion, no authentic encounter, no mutuality, no connection, and nothing, in other words, worth doing at all.

If you’re a hot, funny, attractive, intelligent single guy, and you don’t live in NYC, LA, SFO, or (maybe) Chicago, the best thing you can do is either A) move to one of the aforementioned places and join the rest of the human dating race, or B) slit your wrists right now.

Because the online thing doesn’t work.

Redefining Seduction Reviewed

February 26, 2007

I don’t remember how I came across the website Redefining Seduction — all I knew was that, as a an avid student of human mating behavior and researcher of all the latest dating and mating theories, I had to read the book of the same name.

The draw was obvious. This book, co-written by writers and activists Donna Sheehan and Paul Reffell, promises to produce “The Joyous New Women’s Movement that Men will Love Too!”

Knowing from personal experience how difficult it is to write anything that pleases both men and women, I was interested from this angle — and also because the book promised to, among other quotes from the website:

Picking up from Darwin’s theory of Sexual Selection, Redefining Seduction is an audacious and evocative look at male and female sexuality and the mating game. The premise of women as being in the evolutionary driver’s seat will undoubtedly have huge implications for generations to come.

The premise of women being in the driver’s seat, eh? Well, obviously I can agree with that idea, to a point: I do believe women happen to be the “choosers” of their sexual partners, in one way or another, although this generalization often has limits.

But I was very curious what others had to say, especially others who billed themselves as “evolutionary behaviorists” who had plowed 5 years of research into this book.

Redefining Seduction as Scholarship
I sprung for the $10 e-book version and read it in a few days. It is a small book, at barely 100 pages (including the epilogue), and honestly, I was a bit surprised at how little new information was presented in it.

The authors claim to have spent 5 years researching the book, but honestly, I did not see evidence of 5 years’ worth of original research. The “notes” section that supports their in-text assertion has barely 20 citations.

Obviously, this depth of research did not convince me. I myself have written 100+ page research papers in under three weeks with works cited sections stretching to over 100 citations.

So how does this book stand up as a scholarly work? Not very well.

As a Seduction Manual for Women
Some of the highest praise I can give the authors of Redefining Seduction is that, in their Notes section, they say of the perennial female-seduction guide The Rules: “prolongs the myth that women can beat up on men emotionally and expect to get away with it.”

As great as that is, and as much as this book wants to break paradigms of female behavior, the only real support it offers for the efficacy of its new methods is the success of the two author’s relationships: the book opens with the story of how Donna Sheehan “seduced” Paul Reffell, and returns repeatedly to their relationship over the course of the 100-page book.

Women take great pleasure and comfort in social rapport with other women, and the feeling of solidarity that comes from reading another woman’s story — but if a woman doesn’t identify instantly and closely with Doona (who seems to be the primary and only author, despite Paul’s name being on the cover), she’s sunk.

The book doesn’t even feature the multitude of compared women’s stories that books such as He’s Just Not That Into You do.

As practical guides go, the book does suggest some really basic moves (such as “make him comfortable” and “say positive things” and “touch him lightly”) but does not present a comprehensive “system” or method that is very different or new at all.

In fact, the farthest it goes is saying “keep your eyes open for men, and start chatting them up wherever you see them, take the initiative.” That’s it. That’s pretty much Redefining Seduction in a nutshell.

So, as a seduction manual, I would say this book falls pretty short as well.

It may remind a few women that they are living in the 21st century and there is more leeway for them to take some initiative, but beyond that it really doesn’t advance knowledge or open any new doors.

Devilish Details
Even more shocking, I found this book flat-out got it wrong in key places.

It says men will share the “minutiae” of their relationship lives at the first provocation: which seems a clear case of projection (women do this often, but I haven’t met a single man who does).

In the “Sex” section, it says that “so-called vaginal orgasms result from the stimulation of the clitoris.”

Wrong.

It also says “the clitoris is the center of the climax.”

Wrong again.

Then it goes on to compare orgasm to winning the lottery, and attributing a woman who has an orgasm on first intercourse with a new partner as “lucky”.

What a blatant perpetuation of not only feminist tropes, but plain old downright bad anatomy!

At one point, it leaps to the hasty generalization that “men with dogs have given up on finding a woman.” Uh, actually, the majority of single men I know who have dogs have them because they know that dogs give them opportunities to meet women.

At another point in the Sex chapter, they cite a study that says fully 37% of women wanted men to wait between one and three months before trying to initiate sex.

I couldn’t help thinking, are these women over 65 years old, or what? I don’t know ANY population of women in the U.S., except maybe evangelical Christian virgins, who would want a man to wait that long to try to initiate sex.

The book further mis-characterizes men as indiscriminate breeders — “seed sprayers” — who are incapable of empathy, kindness, or making a good decision on who to sleep or partner with. This is one of the book’s greatest weaknesses, since it is not only sexist and shortsighted, but also misandrist.

Getting It Right
The book does have a few high points, where it gets the analysis of women and men right.

It says at one point that all men “want a woman who is attractive to him and others in some way, a woman who ‘resonates’.”

It DOES warn against blaming men for their actions, which is good, to a point — but on the other hand, it applies this standard of blamelessness to men in other odd situations, such as after a date (“It’s not his fault if he doesn’t call you back.”) Applying this logic to women is what leads to frustrating flakey hate-inspiring modern women, so while I am grateful to see a woman applying these same moral standards to men, I am still concerned that they exist at all — personal responsibility is a good thing.

And finally, it does advocate women be more outgoing and friendly, and not so fearful (of the ever-present threat of “rape”, right?), saying, in a great passage:

Our personal fortress in which most women, especially urbanites, hide in fear of strangers…it’s the closest a woman can come to feeling how it is for most men at all times when they are in public. These defenses are all products of…..[a]….mindset that has created the suspicious and fearful atmosphere that tyrants thrive on.

And, to it’s credit, the book does advocate safe sex.

Save your Money
At $10, I figured I couldn’t possibly waste money on this book, but I was very nearly proved wrong. The authors seem to think they can effect global change with this 100-page polemic against helpless “masked” males: here’s a snippet from the blog that accompanies the book:

Men are designed for focusing on the job at hand, creating stuff, destroying stuff and spraying seed wherever they can. Women are designed for seeing the whole picture, creating connections and creating life from raw seed. Men are not designed to choose their mates. This according to Charles Darwin and his Sexual Selection theory (read the book!).

Actually, Darwin never said men are hapless seed-sprayers incapable of choosing a mate. That’s an extrapolation that the authors have used to put words in his mouth.

Men are designed to display their best traits. Women are designed to select their mates. So, guys, that’s why so many of you have been rejected so many times when you made the first move.

No, guys get rejected because they don’t understand how to approach women in the right way, a way that will appeal to the woman.

And it’s partly why so many marriages end in divorce. Male-initiated marriages are more likely to end in divorce than female-initiated marriages. Google it sometime.

This is because women, when they initiate marriages, initiate marriages with limp-wristed Beta males who are already whipped prior to the “proposal” and are essentially the woman’s domestic and economic servant for the rest of their naturally born days.

Men don’t divorce the woman who proposed to them because the woman won’t give them permission to.

But wait, they’re just getting warmed up:

Now it’s time for women to use their biological seductive power to reclaim their true role as the civilizers of men. Women are the drivers of evolution, through their mate choices, their child-rearing, their ability to understand the bigger picture and thereby the consequences of their, and their mates’, actions. Women are the only hope for steering men away from their path to certain destruction.

Not only is this again returning to the misandristic sexist trope of “men aren’t as mentally capable as women” but it’s saying tha, in effect, women are superior, and would make better political leaders, and can single-handedly bring about a ‘taming’ of the violence of human (whoops, male) nature and save the day.

Well, let’s look at some female political leaders. Janet Reno (remember Elian Gonzales?) Condoleeza Rice. Need I say Margaret Thatcher? Right, I think women make swell political leaders.

Sorry, I don’t buy this sexist trope, and neither should you: humanity suffers because of humanity, not because of men — there are good men as well as bad, and good women as well as bad. Setting it up as a battle between evil men and good, nurturing women is completely counterproductive, given that in reality it is a battle between GOOD men and GOOD women against EVIL men and EVIL women.

And thus concludes my book review. I can’t write another word about this thing: and I cannot recommend this slim manual (I won’t call it a “book”) to anyone.

In the city I currently live in, there is a shortage of Alpha males.

Most of the men in this city are laid back, relaxed, many are effeminate or downright metro. There is a large and openly out gay population.

This is a major metropolitan area, and it is a very liberal, progressive city in a Blue state — the sort of metropolitan area Republican Presidents fear to tread in.

Although it has vibrant local art, music, food and wine scenes and is additionally very high-tech, the men here still leave something to be desired; the nature of the city and the area itself seems to draws effete men to it; and the men here who do play at being “alpha” do so in a churlish, frat-boy way. There are very, very, few of what I would call “natural alphas” that are over 27, single, attractive,  and not douchebags or assholes in some other way.

The women here, on the other hand, are VERY dominant.

Going along with the openly gay community is an open and vocal lesbian community. Women are seen walking openly hand-in-hand down the street while nearby male couple do the same thing. Openly lesbian women are appointed to prestigious teaching positions at local universities.

And that’s what cued me in; a lesbian University professor I once had who, way back then, challenged my assertion that Good Sex ought to involve Emotion.

“I can have sex just based on physical attraction,” she said. “I don’t think emotions have to come into it. And I’m a lot older than you, I think I have a little more experience.” She said this in the context of an undergraduate class in Women’s Studies.

Different place, different time, different woman, same message: I can have sex just like a man.

– I can objectify the targets of my desire;

– I can see them as nothing more than living, breathing sex-toys;

– I can fuck them without regard to their emotional lives;

– I can use them and cast them aside, and move on to the next.

Just like a man can.

And I am free to develop that masculine dominance exactly in proportion to how scarce actual masculine dominance is around here.

By now, I’ve heard this refrain from many women — all of them “dominant” women who were either openly lesbian or strongly bisexual. None of them particularly effeminate — many of them embracing traditionally masculine characteristics — short hair, androgynous clothing, male sex roles, and so forth.

None of them I considered particularly attractive.

What I’m developing here is a social theory that dominant women spring up in the absence of dominant men, and take on their sexual roles.

Or, put another way, assertive, masculine (butch) women are a product of submissive men.

When assertive, masculine, Alpha males are in short supply, women take up the natural slack and expand to fill the power-gap left by those men: they get jobs like them, harass and harangue like them, dress like them,  and try to fuck like them.

This would never happen in a region with a healthy supply of dominant, masculine males: Texas, for instance. A woman who wanted to be dominant would not only not venture to go there (because she’d get laughed right out of her butch attitude) but also, women born in those areas are LESS LIKELY to get the idea that they need or want to develop dominant, traditionally-masculine traits — they see dominant men around them, they understand the power of femininity, and they don’t see any reason to change the status quo.

To further test this theory, I have examined (in fine detail) some women from the vast rural areas outside the dense urban center.

These women are, to a one, more feminine, more attractive, and more interested in and responsive to a dominant,  man.

So now you know. Female dominance is adaptive; female submission is natural.

What the hell is this country coming to?

In a report done in early September of 2005, Ed Bradly of CBS News’s 60 Minutes reports on the country’s current “abstinence-only” sex education, and the fact that almost $1 billion dollars worth of federal funding (that’s YOUR tax dollars, folks) have gone into a faith-based educational black hole that actually teaches today’s youngsters that condoms are ineffective and unsafe.

You can watch the report in its entirety over at One Good Move. It’s a real eye-opener. The full transcript is here.

Some of the highlights:

Amy and Rick will be taking their virginity pledge at a music and light sex-education show called Silver Ring Thing. In the last few years, Silver Ring Thing has received more than $1 million in federal and state subsidies. Its aim is to encourage young people to put on a ring and promise to abstain from sex until marriage.

You really need to see these “Silver Ring Thing” shows to believe them. Imagine a nightclub for kids, only with bad Christian rock and a Christian youth minister haranguing kids about the dangers of condoms — and little skits about how BAD sex is unless done in the context of marriage.

Hitler-youth-rally-esque gatherings like the Silver Ring Thing are the reason I’ve been seeing all these “promise rings” popping up on younger women in the past 5 years. We’ll return to those promise rings in a moment.

[Denny] Pattyn [Christian youth minister and founder of Silver Ring Thing] doesn’t just preach the virtues of sexual abstinence. His show is full of negative messages about condoms – messages warning that condoms won’t protect kids from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases…

“My own daughter, my 16-year-old daughter, tells me she’s going to be sexually active. I would not tell her to use a condom,” says Pattyn, “I don’t think it’ll protect her. It won’t protect her heart. It won’t protect her emotional life. And it’s not going to protect her. I don’t want her to get out there and think that she’s going to be protected using a condom.”

Wow, that’s great, Minister Pattyn, and you know what, you’re absolutely right — because you taught your sweet little 16-year-old daughter that, last night I fucked her raw and she contracted HIV from my gold-plated big-swinging Player Dick (which incidentally has been places you don’t even want to imagine).

You’re right. A condom didn’t protect her. I wasn’t wearing one. She said she didn’t believe in them.

Now she’ll have to deal with the social stigma and health issues of having an STD for the rest of her life.

How do you feel about not telling her to use a condom now?

Columbia University’s Peter Bearman co-authored the most comprehensive study ever done on adolescent health and sexuality. He says, “Sex education doesn’t cause all these negative outcomes. What causes these negative outcomes is kids who are having sex and aren’t protecting themselves.”

It was a $45-million project, funded by 17 separate federal agencies. Bearman’s investigators interviewed more than 20,000 young people about virginity pledge programs — and there was some good news.

“Pledging will help them delay sex for, say, 18 months — a year and a half….The downside is that, when they have sex, pledgers are one-third less likely to use condoms at first sex,”

And that is exactly why predatory men like me just LOVE this whole Promise Ring movement — we get an entire new crop of fresh-faced, ripe young girls who have “saved themselves”; they think they’ve been saving themselves for marriage, but as it turns out, they’ve been saving themselves for US.

So when we seduce one of these Promise-Ring sporting chicklets, we can be pretty sure that, if we hit them at the right time,

A) they are probably relatively free of STDs, compared to women with some sexual experience
and
B) they will not ask us to use a condom.

Our protection from disease is virtually guaranteed by their increased abstinence, and their protection from *our* potential diseases, that we may have acquired from a lifestyle of promiscuous unprotected sex, is virtually nil.

In other words — spending $1 billion in public funds to generate a new crop of 1 million fresh-faced virgins that don’t believe in using condoms? Hell yeah! Now that’s what I call government!

There’s another little ancillary side-benefit:

“Adolescents who take virginity pledges – who remain virgins, that is, who don’t have vaginal sex, who technically remain virgins, are much more likely to have oral and anal sex,” says Bearman.

As social commentator Bill Maher remarked famously, Abstinence Pledges Make You Horny.

Based on those interviews with more than 20,000 young people who took virginity pledges, Bearman found that 88 percent of them broke their pledge and had sex before marriage.

And, not only are they highly likely to break their Promise, but they are ALSO likely not to tell anyone about it:

“They’ve taken a public pledge to remain a virgin until marriage. The sex that they have is much more likely to be hidden,” says Bearman. “It’s likely to be hidden from their parents. It’s likely to be hidden from their peers.”

Wow. Just wow.

So let me get this straight:

  1. Promise girls are actually going to have sex 88% of the time
  2. Promise girls are more likely than other girls to be open to having oral or anal sex prior to finally having intercourse
  3. Promise girls are highly unlikely to tell ANYBODY about #1 or #2

I honestly cannot think of a better set of characteristics for a young female population that is perfectly positioned to be seduced and taken advantage of by older, wiser and more sexually experienced men.

The Silver Ring Thing and other abstinence-only sex education programs not only virtually guarantees that its students will eventually have sex, it also virtually guarantees they will have MORE TYPES OF SEX in the process, and be secretive about the whole thing!

I thank you, Bush administration. From the bottom of my heart.

Political rationale for these faith-based abstinence-only programs is a little weak in the “brains” department, though:

Claude Allen is President Bush’s domestic policy adviser and point man on abstinence-only education: “If I were to say to that same group of kids, you know what, don’t drink and drive, but if you do drink and drive, make sure you wear your seatbelt.”

Worst. Analogy. Ever.

Driving a 2-ton piece of metal at speeds up to 70 mph while under the influence of a central nervous system suppressant is a little bit different than letting you boyfriend stick his pee-pee in your hoohah.

You could kill someone while drinking and driving, regardless of whether your seatbelt is buckled: I don’t think you run the risk of killing anyone as a direct result of having sex with a condom.

Plus, I bet Claude Allen lets his partner slip on a condom before railing him in the ass. Just a guess.

-=-=-=-=-=
Final Note

As it happens, I have a personal connection to this story:

On my bedside table, right next to my alarm clock, is a glass bowl. Inside are all the Promise Rings I’ve taken off “pledgers” over the years.

It’s better than notches on the bedpost.

My Beef with Feminism

February 11, 2007

There is a contradiction living at the heart of modern-day feminism; a contradiction that most feminists refuse to acknowledge or discuss.

The contradiction concerns two assertions within feminism that cannot co-exist logically, but are both asserted as fundamental to the movement.

Until these assertions are resolved by mainstream feminism, I, and many others like me, simply cannot take the movement seriously.

Which brings me to the second of what will be a two-part critique; that feminism, as currently conceived, is a political philosophy based on an appeal to emotions, rather than to logic or morality — and that formulation must change before the movement rises to the prominence and regard it enjoyed prior to the Second Wave.

But let’s take it one thing at a time.

The Competing Feminist Assertions

1) Men and women are equal; and therefore ought to be treated as equals with respect to jobs, opportunities, wages and earnings, fashion, sexual expectations, and every other sphere of life. So far, so good: this is a basic statement of desire for “equal treatment” or enlightened egalitarianism. In fact, let’s call it the “egalitarian assertion“. It is often trotted out as feminism’s chief assertion of moral superiority. It allows feminists to start with the principle that the entire feminist movement is all about reducing the oppression of The Patriarchy and making the playing field entirely level for both men and women.

2) Women’s values are different from, and superior to, men’s values. The presumption is that the world would be BETTER OFF if more women were in charge. This is what you are hearing when you hear women attack the “Patriarchy”: a.k.a. the male-dominated world, which is painted as petty, calculating, emotionless, aggressive, power-obsessed, life-denying, and basically responsible for all the evil in the world. The assumption is that the Patriarchy must be pulled down, destroyed, abolished, so that the communitarian, affiliative nature of women can replace it with a beautiful, benign Matriarchy.

And herein lies the first contradiction. If the egalitarian assertion is right, and men and women are equal in intellect and moral standing, why would the Matriarchy be any different than the Patriarchy it seeks to supplant?

Notice that this second pillar of feminism, which we should call the female superiority argument, is a strong affirmation of sexism — which feminism purports to fight against).

Some Examples

The contradictions generated by these two competing ideas are infinite; but let’s take just a few examples, from the realms of business, social conduct, sexual conduct, and politics. Just watch as feminists lay down the female superiority argument in the same breath as the egalitarian assertion:

Business
“Women don’t earn as much as men; that’s wrong, because they can be just as good as a man at any business. In fact businesses wouldn’t pollute or exploit their workers as much if women were in charge, because women are actually MORE caring than men.”

That doesn’t sound like a philosophy of equality to me. It sounds like the flip side of “Patriarchy”.

Society
“Women can be just as good as men at fighting in the military or boxing, so they should be allowed to do those things. To say otherwise is sexist. At the same time, women need to be protected from male violence in the home and on the street.”

First comes the assertion that women can fight just as well as men; so keeping them out of the military is sexist and oppressive. Then comes the assertion that men are MORE violent than women, and actually, women need to be PROTECTED from this form of oppression. So which is it?

In the above example, the same woman will also say, when presented with video evidence of a woman beating up a man on the street, “He shouldn’t press charges; he probably wasn’t even hurt. Men are tougher than women.” So a man hitting a woman is illegal, because men are tougher than women; but women can fight as infantrymen alongside men, because men aren’t tougher than women. Madness!

Sex
“Vibrators and dildos are sexual liberation and expression for women; but pornography is demeaning and a hazard to women, so we should criminalize it.”

So masturbation is OK for women but not OK for men? “Men should just use their imaginations, like we do”. Women should just use their fingers, like WE do. Both vibrators and pornography are masturbation aids; to treat them unequally is sexism.

Politics
“Women and men are equal; there should be an equal number of women holding political office around the world, because women are better at dealing with people, and more caring, anyway. If we had a woman President we would have fewer wars.”

Self-explanatory. Women are just as good as men at holding political office; no, they’re actually BETTER. If the latter is true, why don’t feminists just come out and say they think women should run the world? Of course some do, and completely miss the irony of their shouting and marching for “equality”, not realizing that what they want is not actually called “equality” but “DOMINATION”.

How can it be said that men and women are EQUAL in all respects, and then go on and try to hand men (via “the Patriarchy”) an UNEQUAL share of the responsibility for the evils of the world?

Either men and women are different, and ought to be treated differently by society — or they are NOT different, and ought to be treated exactly the same, and held to the same standards.

Feminism can’t seem to make up its mind.

But it is for damn sure that it is not politically, ideologically, or intellectually honest to cite differences when doing so would advance the cause of feminism, and dismiss them in all other cases.

Equality versus Difference

I want to be clear on the issues here: I believe in equality, and I think feminism is a fine philosophy, as long as it remains about promoting equality.

I believe in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, where it is written, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal…”

That is to say that we, as a human race, ought to work together in order to form a more perfect global union, each contributing the best of what our individual talents and intellect offer to the shared goal of the greatest good for the greatest number.

Notice I did not say that people were undifferentiated. On the contrary, I happen to believe — because the evidence is right in front of my face, all day, ever day — that people are very different. Everyone is born with different skills, abilities, limitations, handicaps, and strengths: nature and nurture, their genes and their environment, are to individual people as length and height are to a field — the total person or the area of the field are incomprehensible without considering the interactive and often reciprocal effect of the both on the one.

Plenty of people make the mistake of saying that a belief in equality must also mean a belief that people are the SAME. That is absolutely not so. People are different, but they are all equal inasmuch as they are all composed of biological material, immersed in a social context, and possessing an intellectual capability (though the latter is frequently under-utilized).

People are not the same; but they ought to be treated fairly.

Bill Maher of Politically Incorrect with a classic work of political and sexual satire that bears repeating as often as we can repeat it:

NEW RULE

Abstinence pledges make you horny. In a setback for the morals/values crowd, a new eight-year study just released reveals that American teenagers who take virginity pledges wind up with just as many STD’s as the other kids. But that’s not all. “Taking the pledge” also makes a teenage girl six times more likely to perform oral sex, and four times more likely to allow anal. Which leads me to an important question: where were these pledges when I was in high school?

So, seriously, when I was a teenager, the only kids having anal intercourse, were the ones who missed. My idea of lubrication was oiling my bike chain. If I had known I could have been getting porn-star sex the same year I took Algebra 2 – simply by joining up with the Christian right – I’d have been so down with Jesus, they would have had to pry me out of the pew.

And, let me tell you, there is a lot worse things than teenagers having sex. Namely, teenagers not having sex. Here is something you’ll never hear: “That suicide bomber blew himself up because he was having too much sex. Sex, sex, sex, nonstop, all that crazy Arab ever had was sex, and look what happened.” But among the puritans here of the 21st century, the less said to kids about sex, the better. Because people who talk about peepees are “potty-mouths.”

And so, armed with limited knowledge and believing that regular, vaginal intercourse to be either immaculate or filthy dirty – these kids did with their pledge what everybody does with contracts. They found loopholes. Two of them, to be exact.

Is there any greater irony than the fact that the Christian right actually got their precious little adolescent daughters to say to their freshly-scrubbed boyfriends, “Please, I want to remain pure for my wedding night, so only in the ass… And then I’ll blow you, I promise.” Well, at least these kids are really thinking outside the box.

I can’t for the life of me find the video clip to go along with this transcript; if anyone else has a link, please email it to me: andrew.ekud at (gmail) dot (com).