Nice girls do NOT like it. Nor do good girls. Only those other kind.

It’s always been okay for the boys  . . . but us? Well, we’re supposed to endure sex, as our grandmothers (for younger women, your great-grandmothers) were taught. And we are never supposed to enjoy it.

But we did. And we do. And there is the outrage, there is why we must be punished. For if all this business, this shaming, is anything recognizable, it is punishment.

Doonesbury notices and, of course, gets banned. The truth must never be spoken.

 

 

50 responses to “Nice girls do NOT like it. Nor do good girls. Only those other kind.

  1. Well, we’re supposed to endure sex, as our grandmothers (for younger women, your great-grandmothers) were taught. And we are never supposed to enjoy it.

    Who doesn’t want women to enjoy it? The more you enjoy it, the more you do it. The more you do it, the more the good!

    Doonesbury notices and, of course, gets banned. The truth must never be spoken.

    Did you notice gas went up today? And Obama’s numbers went down? On the economy, on the deficit and on the price of gas? Hell, Gallop has unemployment going UP?

    Doonesbury didn’t so much notice anything.

    Like

    • Check out some social history from the Victorian Era (not so long ago really) and let me assure you that such attitudes persisted up until I was a young woman. If women (the lord god forbid!!) enjoyed it, they were absoutely not supposed to acknowledge that. Many of my friends’ mothers told them that when they got married, there were “certain’ things their husbands would want to do and they must cooperate even if they didn’t like it. This was common particularly among Catholics and WASPs.

      Believe it or not pino, it was real. The women’s movement in the 70’s began to change all that. But many men today still resent the changes, still resent women stepping out of their ‘places’ and it’s weird as hell to see it coming back into the open.

      (By the way, most of the girls in my high school did not know how sex worked. )

      Like

      • If women (the lord god forbid!!) enjoyed it, they were absoutely not supposed to acknowledge that.

        I don’t know one single man who thinks the woman shouldn’t enjoy sex. Literally, not one. I know several who don’t care if the woman climaxes, but that’s different.

        Many of my friends’ mothers told them that when they got married, there were “certain’ things their husbands would want to do and they must cooperate even if they didn’t like it.

        This is different.

        In the first case you are describing something that the woman enjoys but has been told she shouldn’t. The second case is something that doesn’t enjoy, in fact may not want to have happen, but is TOLD to do.

        As I described earlier, the first doesn’t exist. I assure you that full throated approval during sex is WAY more exciting than a whispy, “Oh my!”. The second is more akin to rape.

        What’s the price of gasoline?

        Like

        • [In the first case you are describing something that the woman enjoys but has been told she shouldn’t. The second case is something that doesn’t enjoy, in fact may not want to have happen, but is TOLD to do.]

          Both were preposterous of course, but both were also true. Neither of those misguided social attitudes meant that women did not in fact enjoy sex, only that they weren’t supposed to.

          Gas? Going up and that’s a good thing.

          Like

  2. @pino
    Well, the Pope does say that women should enjoy sex, but God forbid women would enjoy it any other way than the way he tells them to.

    Like

    • And what the Pope says is it’s okay to enjoy – only in marriage and only for procreation. (By the way, I haven’t seen any encyclicals from a Pope saying priests aren’t supposed to molest boys . . . have I missed it?)

      And hey Bear, welcome!

      Like

    • Well, the Pope does say that women should enjoy sex, but God forbid women would enjoy it any other way than the way he tells them to.

      Drop a dime when you understand the difference between the Pope and the middle aged male legislator.

      Like

      • I’ll drop my dime when Rick Santorum does. Let me be explicit here: middle aged male legislators use faith to justify controlling women’s sexuality. Whether it is the Pope, Senator Santorum, Ted Haggard or some Pentecostal televangelist; there are thousands of men trying to tell women how and to what degree they should enjoy sex.

        Like

        • [there are thousands of men trying to tell women how and to what degree they should enjoy sex.]

          Always have bear, always have. And they’re trying to do it again, but this time they’re fighting a losing fight, one they will lose.

          Like

        • Let me be explicit here: middle aged male legislators use faith to justify controlling women’s sexuality.

          In what manner are they controlling a woman’s sexuality?

          Are they dictating who she sleeps with, who she can’t? When? When she can’t? Do they put limits on the number of kids? Or mandate that she HAVE kids?

          Like

  3. I wonder what that middle-aged male legislator is going to do.

    Like

  4. Hmmmm…Positing that society might benefit from its taking the painful step of cutting the ghettos loose from all aid and comfort and letting nature take its course therein would result in many, many people shaming you – or worse – but actually going in to some “doctor’s” office to kill your unborn child should NOT result in shame? Ahhh, Liberals Values…

    Like

    • Re-phrase Jonoolan? I’m not quite getting your point. Honest.

      Like

      • OK. It was a moral comparison and commentary on belief systems of Conservatives and Liberals as they regard shaming and shameful behavior set in the metaphors of race and abortion.

        The Left attacks anyone who suggests that we, as a country, stop providing subsistence to the ghettos and let them survive or fail on their own. Note, that is just failing to provide aid, not actively killing.

        Contrariwise, the Left whines about women being potentially shamed for actually killing their own unborn children.

        I chose the contrast between race and abortion because the only thing the Left has that is even close to a real argument in favor of abortion is that the unborn aren’t people – and that was the same argument that the Slave States used back in the day.

        [Insert “Babies” or “Niggers”] Ain’t people, so it’s OK to kill ’em.

        Some things are worthy of shame, Moe.

        Like

        • I think I see the point you’re trying to make, but I think it’s false. The issue is as much about the woman as about the fetus. It’s even more about government intrusion. A fetus is not a ‘baby’, a woman is not only a womb. And the woman’s decision – made alone, or with her husband or with her doctor or with her clerggy or with all of them – doens’t need Rep. Dumbf**k (R-some state in the South) to butt his nose in. To the extent it’s a moral decision, again, that is of course relative. One can take the matter up with their pastor or their yoga master. Your religion’s sin is not mine. It’s only your judgement.

          Like

          • A fetus is not a ‘baby’, a woman is not only a womb.

            What is the literal difference between a child 1 minute after birth and that same child 1 minute before birth?

            Repeat.

            Like

            • One minute before birth it is a baby, not a fetus. Most abortions happen in the first 8 weeks – there is no baby at 8 weeks.

              Always left out is that no laws have ever stopped aboritons. All they do is chase them underground into a criminal world, where man women die. Women have chosen aboriton for various reasons for as long as we’ve been human. Laws don’t stop such an ingraied human behavior.

              So those legislators can just butt out.

              Like

          • A fetus is not a ‘baby’ and a ‘Negro’ is not a human – same argument, different times with different attitudes and science.

            Today, a lot of people claim a fetus is not a baby and can cite science to support that position. In the 18th and 19th centuries a lot – almost all, actually – people claimed Blacks weren’t humans and could cite science to support that position.

            And we all know just how far the Northern politicians butted their noses into that situation, to the dirge of approximately 600,000 casualties.

            Like

            • [A fetus is not a ‘baby’ and a ‘Negro’ is not a human – same argument, different times with different attitudes and science.]

              That’s such a reach jonolan that my jaw is still hanging open (yucky image, sorry) – so do plants have feelings? Aren’t animals sentient feeling creatures. Should, once we realize this down the way, stop eating them?

              Like

              • No, Moe; it’s not a reach. pre-late 19th century / early 20th century science – yes, science and generally accepted such in that time – held that Blacks weren’t fully human. Even Lincoln stated that they evil of slavery was that it prevented Blacks from possibly evolving into to true people.

                As for the animals – there’s close to billion people worldwide who already feel that way. On what side of history they or we will end up is still quite in doubt if we think in terms of centuries.

                Like

        • The Left attacks anyone who suggests that we, as a country, stop providing subsistence to the ghettos and let them survive or fail on their own.

          Well, its nice to see an unabashed liberturdian spewing dudely wisdom on a thread about abortion. What a lovely statement for the return to the city state and feudalism. The middle ages is calling for your argument, they want it back.

          The Left attacks anyone who suggests that we, as a country, stop providing subsistence to the ghettos and let them survive or fail on their own. Note, that is just failing to provide aid, not actively killing.

          Wow, the frack you, I’ve got mine argument. What an amazing fix for society, its so damn simple it doesn’t seem like its based in reality. The amazing amount of stupid involved in this argument is breath-taking.

          Civilized, enlightened, society is notion that all people have equal rightsand should be treated more or less equally by the state. Creating a society where the people are valued and not allowed to crater economically and socially via the redistribution of wealth, makes for a better more productive society overall.

          Contrariwise, the Left whines about women being potentially shamed for actually killing their own unborn children.

          No, actually the Left ‘whines’ about women being treated as less than fully autonomous human beings. The people who happen to possess a uterus should have the rights to all that goes on inside of their bodies. Women are not broodmares, nor do they deserve the shameful bullshite that is being perpetrated on them for medically invalid reasons.

          I chose the contrast between race and abortion…[…]

          Because must enjoy making absurd comparisons.

          Racism and Abortion are related in the way that the dominant paradigms of society are used to strip segments of people of their status as full human beings in society. White privilege (and other factors) in the case of racism and Patriarchy in the case of women and abortion. But I’m guess you don’t see these relations as both sets of these implicit rules happen to benefit you, and thus with the ‘F-you I’ve got mine’ liberturdian mentality, things are A-OKAY.

          [Insert “Babies” or “Niggers”] Ain’t people, so it’s OK to kill ‘em.

          Some things are worthy of shame, Moe.

          Arguments like the above are most shame worthy. Ascribing person-hood to fetuses and then comparing them to the egregious abuses of racism and slavery is indeed quite beyond the pale.

          Like

          • And this “person” makes my point for me exceedingly well. 😉

            Like

            • Which point would that be Jonolan? I am curious as to which part of the concept of female autonomy you find disagreeable.

              Like

              • You and your infantile Leftist diatribe, laced as it was with senseless insults, proved every point I made about the Left’s attitude and false equivalencies – and failure to be able to understand the the real equivalencies – that I made.

                Your follow-on reply, off point as it was, drove the point home even more.

                Like

                • You and your infantile Leftist diatribe, laced as it was with senseless insults, proved every point I made

                  Did I? Shall we check and see? This is just one point, we can do them all if you’d like.

                  1. J – The Left attacks anyone who suggests that we, as a country, stop providing subsistence to the ghettos and let them survive or fail on their own.

                  Arb – Well, its nice to see an unabashed liberturdian spewing dudely wisdom on a thread about abortion. What a lovely statement for the return to the city state and feudalism. The middle ages is calling for your argument, they want it back.

                  Strictly focusing on the argument, with my comments on the intellectual bankruptcy of libertarian ethos aside; you propose the following, given the most charitable interpretation I can come up with.

                  1. Poor people (Ghetto dwellers, so to speak) because of the socioeconomic situation they currently inhabit should not be supported by the government and the taxes collected.
                  2. Once stripped of government supports the “ghettos’ and the men, women and children that inhabit them should be left on their own with only the social darwinistic imperative of survival.
                  C. So, once the dust settles only the strong will be left and then they can properly join the rest of society as useful productive members.

                  To properly refute an argument one must show how either one of the premises is incorrect or show how the conclusion cannot be drawn from the premises stated.

                  Premise one is fairly abhorrent, but certainly not the worst of the lot, so starting with second premise, as by your argument lets examine what is wrong with what it says: If you are poor and a burden on the rest of society then society should cut its loses and leave you, essentially to die. Please let me know if I am misinterpreting your statement when you say:

                  as a country, stop providing subsistence to the ghettos and let them survive or fail on their own.

                  So then, if you are poor you should have your rights as per the Constitution, stripped from you until you can become a productive member of society again, if you are not summarily murdered in the darwinian process of “survive[ing] or fail[ing]” on their own.

                  If you recall, I did say that this particular idea represented a throwback to feudal times where there was little in the way of rights and liberties for the majority of the population and most of the people were looked upon as being an indentured,expendable workforce for the super-rich/royalty of the time. I’ll just restate what I said so we’re clear on what I’m talking about –

                  Arb:What a lovely statement for the return to the city state and feudalism. The middle ages is calling for your argument, they want it back.

                  The above is a more succinct reply than this one, but raises the same fundamental objection. It would seem that you argue that the Enlightenment, the rise of the city state et cetera, has been a “bad thing” as the state of affairs you would seem to endorse is positively Feudal in nature.

                  I would propose that returning to a Feudal society would not be best interests of the majority of society, as serfdom tends to make life, as Hobbes describes, “Nasty, brutish and short.”

                  Also, those ghettos tend to be populated by people of colour and other minorities, so the policy you seem to endorse seems laced with a fair amount of racism. Of course, I could be misinterpreting what you said –

                  as a country, stop providing subsistence to the ghettos and let them survive or fail on their own.

                  But somehow, I doubt it. So indeed, if this is not what you meant, please illuminate me and provide an argument that does not entail a return to feudalism and the implicit racism associated with such a model.

                  Like

          • Bah, not enough coffee or time for proof reading. Apologies for the clunky comment. *sigh*

            Like

  5. Ms. Holland,

    I think your post that men do not want women to enjoy sex is just funny as hell . Ask most married men and it is the women who control the sex life. They only hope the women enjoy it because it is the only hope they got unless they want to cheat . Again your meanderings might have been valid in your friends mothers time, but I really doubt it . They do not reflect reality. I bet this is even more true among the college crowd . Victorian 🙂

    Like

    • Alan, they don’t relect today’s reality of course (except for a particular subgroup of men for whom the atittude is alive and well). But those sentiments were very common when I was young.

      Like

  6. Ms. Holland,

    ” A fetus is not a ‘baby’, ”

    I don’t know, the pictures I’ve seen of aborted fetuses look like dead babies to me . 50% of those are girls. Higher in countries where they pay dowries. And who hates women ?

    Like

    • Higher in countries where they pay dowries. And who hates women ?

      Higher yet in countries that limit population growth.

      Like

    • Well, you saw some pictures . . . I guess thaat decides the matter.

      Like

      • They look like babies to me, Moe – just smaller, since these were fairly early kills (culls?).

        Like

        • Those are are actually pictures of still-borns and abortions performed during (or right before) labor to save the life of the mother. Almost no one has an abortion during the third trimester. The ones that are done are mostly medically necessary. Your “baby” is pretty much a blob of goo during the first couple months of pregnancy.

          Like

          • Not sure you’re right about a couple of those images, given the scale.

            As for “blob of goo” – at 8-10 weeks past conception development includes:

            — The fetus is about 1.5 inches in size.
            — The fingers and toes have completely separated.
            — The taste buds are starting to develop.
            — Baby has tooth buds, the beginning of the complete set of 20 milk teeth.
            — Baby can swallow and stick out his or her tongue.
            — Whole body except tongue is sensitive to touch.
            — Cartilage now calcifying to become bone.
            — If it is a boy, the testicles are starting to produce testosterone

            That’s all a “bit more” than a “blob of goo.”

            Like

            • Well, the dismembered state of the ones that are indicate a hastily performed third trimester abortion (so, a possible medical termination). The one on the top left looks still-born since there is no visible umbilical cord, which, as you can see from the other pictures, is not typical. In the end you are right, I am only making an educated guess at the circumstances. If I’m not mistaken, you posted these images; I would hope that you would actually know their source. For the record, there are many reasons that abortion is a tragedy, be we should really understand what kind of situation we are discussing before throwing around emotional pictures and making claims.
              Here are some pictures of first trimester abortions:
              http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/index.htm

              Like

              • Bear – thanks for bringing htose pix and some sanity to these claims about personhood. One can look at embryos of other species and they look just like those pictures.

                But we should examine whether they’re going to be born to corporations; if so, perhaps they are persons.

                Like

  7. Just a question of fact, isn’t abortion in fact legally prohibited in the last trimester in many if not most states? Hence babies one minute from birth are protected as a person.

    Like

    • Not exactly. If killing the child is deemed medically necessary, it’s allowed – and they’ve expanded “medically necessary” to include “undue psychological stress” on the mother. That’s what finally got Tiller killed.

      Like

      • If one beleives that the fetus is a person, then why do a majority of pro-lifers think it’s okay to make an exception for rape or incest. How can that make a difference if it’s a person being ‘murdered’.?

        Like

        • Fair point, Moe, and one I’ve made myself since I don’t believe in that exception – with the caveat even then that, in the case of incest, tests should run to try to determine if there are severe genetic abnormalities.

          Like

          • jonolan, that caveat brings on another matter; one hears charges that abortions are ‘culls’. Something Rick Santorum is saying frequently. After all, severe genetic abnormalities occur every day. They’re hardly confined to pregnancies that result from incest.

            Like

            • Yep, and that’s why my views on what should be allowed are stricter than my personal views on the matter. Who chooses and by what criteria?

              Pelosi and others in the government have already said that abortion was critical to limiting the population of the poor in order to save the government money, so the idea of culling has already gone beyond medical criteria.

              Others are sex screening fetuses and aborting unwanted genders, mostly girls – yes, in the US.

              And it goes on.

              Like

              • [Others are sex screening fetuses and aborting unwanted genders, mostly girls – yes, in the US.]

                That kind of bothers me too although I’ve not yet fully formed why. .

                Been meaning to point out that I have been using fetus and embryo interchangably which may be confusing..I am not cavalier about third trimester abortions – I do see a difference between the blastocyst, the embryo and the 6th or 7th month fetus.

                By the way, I keep hearing that Pelosi said “said that abortion was critical to limiting the population of the poor in order to save the government money” but I’ve have never seen a reference. Certainly never heard it myself. Unless you’re referring to the fact that we often disdain how Chrsitians love the fetus but don’t appear to want much to do with the child once born.

                Like

                • The requested reference: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Story?id=6725512&page=2#.T2SgQXmri9s

                  This only specifically mentions contraception, but she’s made similar, broader – “family planning” – statements during the Stupak debate of ObamaCare.

                  Her general belief seems to be that population of the poor need to be contained because the government can’t support them, which in an odd twist on my own, and most Conservatives’, views of the matter.

                  Like

                • Jonolan, she is clearly replying ot a question about economic impact of making contraception more accessible. And she makes the obvious point that were more women to limit family size, especially when housing and feeding the children will fall to the state, that would have a direct effect on our costs. Preventing unwanted unaffordabvle pregnancies is the responsible path. It’s just common sense. And it makes economic sense for the larger society.

                  But as Arb said above, for us it really comes down to female autonomy. A pregnancy in my body is part of my body. My body, my decision what to do with it.

                  Like

      • That’s what finally got Tiller killed.

        Actually, some religiously deluded ‘pro-life’ nut-job murdered Tiller in cold blood.

        His crime, allowing women the right to control what goes on in their bodies.

        Like

  8. Ms. Holland,
    ” And she makes the obvious point that were more women to limit family size, especially when housing and feeding the children will fall to the state, that would have a direct effect on our costs. ”

    Are you sure that you want to use that line of argument to support abortion ? I can use that same exact logic to justify stopping illegal immigration, euthanizing the elderly, and allowing parents to legally murder their excess number of small children .

    Like

  9. Pingback: Something new is in the air. My sisters are waking up. | Whatever Works

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s