- Tracie Egan and Moe Tkackik *SHUDDER*
In the comment section of my recent post about the psychology of STD transmission, reader Ex New Yorker pointed out that over at Jezebel the conversation looks very different:
Go to jezebel.com
Type “herpes” in the search box.
And you’ll see tons of threads where the message is the “herpes isn’t the problem, it’s the stigma associated with”. And if anyone admits to not wanting have to deal with such a disease, or any of the other complications of other STD’s, you’ll get thrashed for “slut shaming” or “everyone has it anyway, so shut up!”
I hadn’t ever heard this, and my first instinct was to respond:
The women at Jezebel who have it want you to shut up because it is in their best interests if the infection rate in the population is 100%. They are actually working to promote the spread of herpes. Which is unconscionable.
Immediately I felt guilty – I mean, let’s face it, that’s quite an accusation! Before deleting my comment, though, I decided to look around and see what I could find out, only to learn that my statement didn’t go far enough.
The women who write about sex for Jezebel are cynical, damaged, repellent. And they want you to be the same way.
Maureen “Moe” Tkacik is a feminist journalist perhaps best known for her response when asked why she hadn’t reported her date rape during a 2008 TV interview. She was a guest on the show of Lizz Winstead, co-creator of The Daily Show, along with her Jezebel compadre Tracie Egan, who went by the pen name “Slut Machine.” Lizz Winstead wrote a piece for HuffPo about it, saying:
They do not understand the influence they have over the women who read them, nor do they accept any responsibility as role models for young women who are coming of age searching for lifestyles to emulate.
Quelle disastre!
Here are the statements that troubled the host:
Moe: I guess, I like, regret being date raped.
Moe: I guess third guy, I ever had sex with, date raped me, and I got very mad at him, but I wasn’t gonna fucking like turn him in to the police and fucking go through shit.
Lizz interrupts: Why not, you see that’s the problem, why not, I am just curious?
Moe: Because it was a load of trouble and I had better things to do, like drinking more.
Women like this are anathema to me. Jezebel has a huge readership, and I view writers like Moe Tkacik as toxic. (She has since left the mag.) They have every right to speak their minds, but when women graphically depict their sexual experiences, the question of motivation is unavoidable. Why do women like Moe and Tracie want you to know all about their promiscuity?
Because they want to convert you to Slut Machines.
But why?
Because they don’t want to be sluts alone.
Why not?
Because they are miserable and riddled with disease.
How do you know?
It can easily be gleaned from their writings.
So what are you saying? What do they want?
They want for you to have an STD too. They want all the young women in NY, and eventually the whole country to have STDs, because then they won’t be slut shamed anymore. If sluts ruled the world, then they could shame virgins instead (they’re already trying). If every woman has genital herpes, whoo hoo! Sisterhood! If every woman has HPV and compromised fertility, YES! Everyone can sing the “no baby blues” together at 40! Women can keep each other company in oncology offices as they await treatment for their cervical cancer.
Do you think I’m being ridiculous? Overreacting?
Here’s a statement by Moe revering her own coverage of the financial crisis:
If any of you guys use the pullout method, but you read you know, anything I wrote about Ben Bernanke, or you know, what ever, at least y’ll go to the grave with your syphilis, slightly informed, that’s all I care about.
Furthermore Moe Tkacik has written to defend sex without condoms. She took particular exception to an NPR story Sex Without a Condom is the New Engagement Ring, which described how young people in relationships don’t want to stop using condoms until they know they’re in love. She shares the transcript of her IM session with friend and New York Magazine blogger Jessica Pressler:
JezebelMoe: I think New Yorkers don’t use condoms because they all already have STDs and know they’re not that big a deal.
JPRESS: It’s true. Herpes, specifically. And also HPV. Everyone I know has HPV. And people who say they don’t totally have it, they just don’t know it yet. They have it worse than anyone.
In her article taking NPR to task, she refers to the “increasingly popular practice at of condomless sex by some of us on this blog,” saying:
Here is the irrefutable: it feels awesome.
Maybe that is because I have only really engaged in bareback sex with the types of dudes who don’t fear HPV and whose diseases I don’t particularly fear, because the worst thing I can think of about most of them is the ensuing lifetime of awkward conversations, and the worst thing about that is that awkward conversations summon memories, and summoning bad memories every time you’re about to fuck a new person is no way to live, but, if you can smile and say (hypothetically!) “Hey, just so you know, I have [insert STD here], but I got them from this really hilarious guy who is still one of my best friends, so it was kind of worth it,” before you do it with a new person, it’s almost nice.
Like: oh yeah, that was a good time… it was a good time because we didn’t use condoms, and when you don’t use condoms you’re actually really touching one another everywhere, without any barriers separating the nerve endings and slowing that whole ripply domino effect thing that happens when you’re fucking someone you know you won’t regret getting all sweaty and deep breathy and worked up over.
Despite apparently wanting to f*ck all of New York without a condom, Moe Tkacik is a woman that no man with a clean bill of health would want to touch. She lives in a world where STDs are less bothersome than a common cold, where everyone shares their most intimate bodily fluids without concern.
What Moe Tkacik isn’t telling you is that the sex-positive, bareback world of sex offers a grim future, at least by my standards. A future of illness and infertility, and a sharply reduced number of interested partners. She wants you to join her. It’s her only hope.
O, that way madness lies; let me shun that;
No more of that.
King Lear
Related posts:
{ 105 comments… read them below or add one }
You are what you read.
I'm all for being open minded and trying to understand the perspectives of other people. But not everyone is interested in a respectful, intellectual discussion. A lot of writers just saturate their writing with an attitude, hoping you'll absorb it by osmosis. There's no appeal to logic, just repeated assertions and emotional charges. Eventually your brain absorbs this attitude, and you accept their values without any critical thinking.
This is the formula Jezebel, Roissy, Glen Beck, ect use. Be careful.
GudEnuf, what worries me is that a pretty large number of women are indeed absorbing these perspectives by osmosis. The idea that one isn't welcome in the comment threads if one speaks out against herpes really says it all. It's like a huge decision tree – and people like the reader who wrote to me and share their status with everyone they date are a dead end for STDs. It's women like these at Jezebel, and elsewhere, who are producing this explosion in transmission.
Good advice – you've cited three pretty horrifying sources there.
http://www.rooshv.com/my-unsafe-sex-rationalization-list
If you want to paint all feminists with a broad brush, you should do the same with the PUAs.
It's time like these that I love my very well informed friends who allow me to live in a bubble where girls are intelligent human beings.
My recent post I blame the pepper grinder for the recent discovery that my boyfriend can be a douchebag.
I love the "they look upper-middle-class so can't possibly have an STD" line of thinking. All those edgy art students who flock to New York and adopt the alt look and lifestyle? Upper Middle Class. This who's most feeling the pressure to be edgy, I think. Upper middles.
OOOH that Roosh site has my blood boiling especially about the idea that Latinas have more STD's. On what planet? My boyfriend's brother's wife is from Mexico. She got her citizenship. She is about my age.
Every time I'm over there she goes on a rant about American girls not being virgins until marriage and when are the two of us going to get married? I have heard from others that Mexican women do not necessarily engage in casual sex. I think that Roosh list was to rile people up, but you cannot judge who engages in casual sex by color or socioeconomic status.
Not trying to sound oppositional here Susan, but when will you be changing the name of your blog to "Hooking Up Isn't Smart"?
I never thought I'd get to the point where college girls give me the heebie jeebies but you've sold me on that over the last couple of days.
My recent post Sexy Move: Lose Control aka The Barbaric Yawp
I remember that Roosh post – what strikes me about it is the sheer stupidity. I mean, the reasons he gives are ridiculous – and he's one of the guys who boasts about "rawdogging" – he is clearly infected already! Why that woman who shall not be named had unprotected sex with him on a bus just boggles my mind. For the record, Roissy has also offered a similar inane line of reasoning. I would venture to say that nearly all of the women that PUAs find in bars and score with quickly are at high risk for an STD, no matter how clean they hook or how good they smell.
I would agree that this brand of sex-positive feminism is to women what Dark Game is to men. Both groups scorn those who choose a different lifestyle. I've written about Alpha Asshats before to condemn their practices as well, and I regularly express my concern about their effect on impressionable young men. However, I find this brand of opinion particularly pernicious, as it promotes dangerous sex practices for women.
I will agree that there may be some feminists who would not be pleased with Moe, Tracie et al. Unfortunately, they have no online voice, and so can not easily fight the good fight.
Yes, sorry to be the bearer of bad news :-/
Haha, Snowdrop if you don't want to get riled up with boiling blood I would suggest not going to that blog again. If you're curious about him, I wrote a post about him called Beauty and the Beast. Check it out – he is truly gag-inducing.
Athol, sorry, I know it gets ugly here sometimes. Actually, hooking up is inevitable, and I accept that. There is no dating that starts with a date. At all. Hooking up is the pathway to all relationships. FWIW, hooking up can mean kissing. Despite the guys' condemnation of Frannie Boyle spending her freshman year at Vanderbilt making out with different people, that's mild mannered in my spectrum. Yes, there are plenty of girls who don't do even that, but the hookup culture predominates. I am really trying to provide information and support so that young people (and old ones!) can make good decisions.
Great post, Susan, and a very courageous post too. I think that you are correct about the reasons why these feminists want other women to have the same STDs, though I think that we should mention that they are not all so benign. I recall hearing from gay men many years ago that AIDS was really a social construct.
Implied in your title is one other point: I think that some feminists not only want to destigmatize certain STDs by promoting activities that will ensure that they are not alone in having them, but I also think that they are really trying to recruit young women to become feminists.
If a young woman hooks up and feels ashamed feminists are going to tell her that the shame means that she is still suffering from patriarchal repression of her sexuality, and that if she becomes a feminist and liberates her sexuality she will not feel the shame. Thus, where shame seems to be saying that she made a mistake, some feminists seem to be saying that the shame means she has not done it enough.
This is all rather gruesome, but you are quite correct to see the message as a means of indoctrinating young women, at the expense of their sexuality and their future happiness.
And given the effect that some of these STDs have on fertility, these women belong to a group that will have difficulty perpetuating itself by reproduction. Thus, they need to recruit followers…
My recent post A Woman in a Man's World
Stuart, I think the first post of yours I ever read was about the nature of shame – it was very powerful. I think you're exactly right about recruiting women and indoctrinating them in this way. And I agree that the need to assuage the shame is often met by inuring oneself to it by engaging in more denigrating behavior. It's like when we eat spicy food – in the short-term, the only solution is to eat more spicy food to stop the pain, and that gets quite addictive. I think these unhealthy attitudes about sex can also be addictive, particularly when no matter what you do or how you feel about it, you know that you can pop up online and find not only support but praise for your behavior.
That video clip of the notorious interview is painful to watch because the women are drunk and pathetic. I do not care what they say – their appearance, manner, posture alone are enough to communicate their misery. It's just so sordid, and it must be fought. It's too late for some women, but many more need to hear the message now. Sexual empowerment with a stranger is a lie.
I think I remember hearing about this incident with that girl Moe. she must've been wasted or high when she did that interview, because I find it difficult to believe that she really could be that daft.
Then again, not a lot surprises me anymore.
I've also read Jezebel quite a bit as well. in fact, I've come to understand their foolishness so well that I no longer take them very seriously. Same with Feministing to an extent.
What's sadder still is the fact that girls like these aren't even all that rare among the current generation, and they're everywhere in places like New York.
I disagree. Moe Tkacik and Tracie Egan are quite typical of 4th wave feminists. The sex-positive branch of feminism is all that's really available to a young woman in college today. In Women's Studies departments, you can still find plenty of man-hating 3rd wave types, but very few young women will identify with them. In fact, this infighting among feminists is well known:
On the recent "Boobquake" movement: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opin…
On the question of whether feminism is relevant any longer: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-walker/femi…
Indeed, the Center for American Progress has declared that the goals of feminism have already been met.
And why Jezebel is bad for women: http://news.bitchbuzz.com/why-im-fing-bored-with-…
The feminist blogging community is entirely under the age of 35. TRex members of NOW or NARAL show up occasionally to voice support for Nancy Pelosi. They're grandmas.
Mainstream feminism is sex-positive, it's about getting off in the most shocking ways possible. That is what is has come to. Fewer than 10% of college women describe themselves as feminist. As far as they are concerned, feminists are those really creepy women who come to campus during Sex Week and give a BDSM demonstration, or hold a Career Fair for Ivy League undergrads who hope to become sex workers.
Whoa, Culture Importer, why is it wrong for Athlone, or any young man to want to get laid? It sounds to me like the most natural thing in the world. How did he throw ethics to the wind? Athlone was polite and chivalrous, even in his unsuccessful attempts. In fact, a woman literally dragged him into an empty room at Animal House and took off her shirt. From what I've read, she's the one with questionable ethics.
Athlone's drinking heavily when he got to college may not have been a smart move – he has said as much. However, he never harmed anyone, so it's really his decision and his business. His behavior is hardly unusual – the vast majority of freshman arrive in campus ready to go crazy in their first months away from home. Colleges gave up being in loco parentis 20 years ago, a big factor in the creation of hookup culture. Kids are under enormous peer pressure to "fit in." What normal college kid doesn't want that?
Seriously, your judgment here seems excessively harsh.
No there is not. I wrote a post about this: Why Do Feminists Find Abstinence Intolerable?
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2009/06/23/hookingu…
The problem is that sex-positive feminism gets 9% of the women, but 90% of the media's attention, or at least it has for years. More recently, a couple of feminists have questioned the value of casual sex and written about it, hence the "backlash" meme in the mainstream media.
The difference between Athlone and Moe is that Athlone wants to get drunk and laid. Moe wants YOU to get drunk and laid, preferably without protection.
What I find disheartening is that these "feminists" (and yes, I use quotes) focus more on being sluts than uplifting the living standards of women in the third world whose very lives are threatened, and then saying, "look at us! Isn't this FUN?? Wheeeeee!" Such shallowness makes me sick. I define myself as a feminist, but I define it as someone who will fight for the rights of the truly subjugated women–women in India who are victims of "sati," or the practice of widow immolation. Women in Africa still subjected to female genital circumcision. Women HERE, who are made to feel guilty about using contraception because the Catholic Church defines it as a sin. Victims of rape and abuse. This is feminism as I know it, as I believe in. Not these idiots who would preach that unprotected sex is a right all women should enjoy, and if you're not enjoying it that way, you're NOT a feminist. I don't know what happened to the American branch of feminism, but the women here who are in feminist organizations I know aren't even thinking of getting laid–they're too busy fighting for other women's rights via social activism. I for one I don't think all goals of feminism have been met in the US, considering it was only last year that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was passed. There is still so much work to be done–combating sex trafficking of young women and children, for one–that I find it just unbelievable morons like these get air time spouting their nonsense when there are truly worthwhile causes feminists should be expending their energies on.
What gets to me is the attitude of these women that speaking out against our own damaging practices makes us the enemy of the cause somehow. It's as if, in the quest for equality, they HAVE to do the bad as well as the good that the opposite gender does, just to prove they can do it, too. These women aren't feminists by a long shot. They're just loudmouthed idiots whose definition of equality boils down to infecting everyone else. I find it offensive that they are even labeled as "feminists." They aren't furthering women's rights at all–what they're espousing is toxic selfishness.
ATS, I couldn't agree more. Here in the U.S. feminism has become another exercise in narcissism. We're either gazing at our own navels or lasciviously checking out someone else's. I understand why the Women's Movement focused on conditions in this country – what should be happening now is turning our attention to human rights elsewhere. Honestly, we've become a bunch of spoiled brats. It really is a toxic level of selfishness.
What’s most concerning to me about herpes is the damage it can do to a newborn if the mother has an episode at birth. For adults, STD’s are treatable – mostly – but for babies, they can kill. Herpes can cause blindness and a host of other horible things if the child is exposed to it at birth. A friend of mine had an untreated staph infection at birth and it destroyed her daughter’s immune system and caused both her blindness and eventual death at 18 months.
Why anyone would say that you should just get herpes and get it over with so you can have a good time is beyond me. Maybe I should contract leprosy so I can stop spending money on skin lotion. Yeah.
Haha, it really is good to inject some humor here, thanks. All the talk of STDs can get kind of overwhelming.
That is a terrible story about your friend – I'm so sorry, I can't even imagine that. I think childbirth can be managed with herpes – I don't know if it's changed since I had a baby, but I believe that if you have a lesion they do a C-section. In any case, with it being so common, there are bound to be a lot of women confronting this problem.
To me the glibness is truly shocking – how could such a thing be held up as the only "cool" way to be? Hence my accusation/post title.
I had no idea it was this bad. Virgin men like myself will be the biggest victims of this in a way. For all of the women who refuse sex to avoid herpes, at leas there are men who will have sex with them. Eventually they will have sex with the right/wrong guy and they too will have herpes. Virgin men like myself are “immune” after a fasion. No woman wants to have sex with us so we are “immune” to STDs. These feminists can’t get us so I expect major abuse and other crap from them as well as others who will blame us virgin men for their predicament.
On my blog I wrote about how in the future suspected virgin men will have their pants pulled down by non-virgins to look for herpes warts similar to how suspected Jewish men had their pants pulled down to see if they were cirumcised and thus definitely Jewish. I wrote that part serious, part attention getter and discussion generator for my blog. I didn’t think I would get this type of confirmation of my ideas within a day.
There’s also the option of 5th wave feminism. The kind of feminism that can be described as, “I’m not a feminist but…”
It doesn’t matter if they’re saying they’re not a feminist.
Susan, you are wrong that "feminists want you to get herpes". These 2 alcoholics DO NOT REPRESENT FEMINISM AS A WHOLE IN THE LEAST!.
You are also wrong that there is no online voice for women/feminists who oppose their views. The very woman who interviewed them opposed their views, and EVERYONE who commented on that site.
Their attitudes are not mainstream.
"What's sadder still is the fact that girls like these aren't even all that rare among the current generation, and they're everywhere in places like New York. "
And you Althone, are aspiring to become the male version of them. That's why, quite frankly, I have no sympathy for self-proclaimed, so-called "nice guys" like yourself who, despite being raised properly and having ethics in place, CONSCIOUSLY OPT to throw those ethics to the wind once they hit college just so they can GET LAID. You admitted yourself yourself you started drinking like a fiend once you hit college in order to "fit in".
So what's the difference between you and Moe????
Wow. The chutzpuh of some guys never ceases to amaze me.
Throughout history women who wanted to carve their own path in life often opted for celibacy because marriage, relationships and sexuality represented a type of bondage for them. Most religions are patriarchal, but even then, many women found freedom from this sort of bondage through religion.
Is there such thing as a "celibate feminist" anymore?
"Mainstream feminism is sex-positive, it's about getting off in the most shocking ways possible. That is what is has come to. Fewer than 10% of college women describe themselves as feminist. As far as they are concerned, feminists are those really creepy women who come to campus during Sex Week and give a BDSM demonstration, or hold a Career Fair for Ivy League undergrads who hope to become sex workers. "
Well then, if as little as 9% of college women identify with the type of Feminism that Moe and Tracie represent, why the scare? There's nothing to worry about.
Regarding Athlone, I'm simply pointing out that his criticising of Moe for the same behaviours he is trying to emulate (getting drunk and getting laid) is hypocritical.
Well, feminists would have to offer something to capture the imagination of young women, to get them to add in that "but." You're right that it doesn't matter what people say, only what they do. Women having casual sex aren't doing it for feminism, but they are dealing with a sexual marketplace that feminism created. Feminism is about activism and change, and the women committed to that are 40+ for the most part.
Posting on behalf of VJ here, who is the second person to report difficulties with leaving a comment today:
Yep, More of the loveliness here, (and it's Not about the Sex!): http://drugsrus.wordpress.com/2008/02/22/slut-mac…
And yes, that's now "Senior Writer:Tracie Egan Morrissey" for Jezebel. So like it or not? In some circles, this is what the 'youth' of today have to look up to, if not for instruction, a way of being a well employed 'cool writer chica' in the big city. And yeah, the dysfunction does not stop just with the sex or drugs either. She still writes like crap too! Geez… Cheers, 'VJ'
More commentary on the incident here:http://www.buzzfeed.com/peggy/the-girls-of-jezebe…
Posting for screwtape, who's also having difficulty leaving a comment:
"I would venture to say that nearly all of the women that PUAs find in bars and score with quickly are at high risk for an STD, no matter how clean they hook or how good they smell."
Well, I imagine even clean, pleasant smelling hookers are at a higher risk for STDs… or was that a Freudian Slip there Susan
"Feminism is about activism and change, and the women committed to that are 40+ for the most part. "
I think that is absolutely wrong. There is a strong, vibrant young community of people fighting for change and equality under the age of forty. To quote the views of the minority does not justify to label everyone to have the same idea or desires. Does the existence of a black supremist group mean that all black people believe they're better than whites?
When did becoming a slut become equated with being a feminist? I do think it's an outrage that the term has been shanghai'd by these caricatures who feel that sleeping around is a badge of grrrrrl power. The most ardent feminist I know is a former law school classmate of mine who now works as a consultant for UNIFEM who just came back from Jakarta after providing them with her expertise as they draft their own Magna Carta for Women's Rights. And yet she would be horrified at the notion of casually sleeping around, because for her the sexual act is something special to be shared with someone who means something to you. For her, as well as for me, the notion of feminism is ensuring that women achieve dignity, equal rights and self-respect. Things that Tkacik or Egan wouldn't recognize even if it hit them square in the face.
Well I am…. but not intentionally.
" It's as if, in the quest for equality, they HAVE to do the bad as well as the good that the opposite gender does, just to prove they can do it, too. "
I agree. But in fairness to Jezebel, I feel that they do do both. I don't read the other sites except Salon occasionally. However, Jezebel does do both. There's a lot of affirming support for women in other nations. Moe and the other one in that interview did come in for a great amount of criticism–I forget what site I saw the criticism on. If I could remember I'd post it.
But I agree, I think a lot of it is "Why should the guys get away with a double standard?" Also, I think they are trying to change men. I don't see that happening in my lifetime, not to the extent they hope. I do feel that men are changing in some great ways, but the double standard part will take longer to change. As for me, it's my life, and I don't have time for more heartbreak in the hope that men's double standard will change in my lifetime. So I take the (in my opinion ) much good Jezebel offers and criticize the efforts to change the double standard by outdoing men at their game.
@Culture Importer because the reply function isn't working for me right now.
"And you Althone, are aspiring to become the male version of them."
I don't think so.
"That's why, quite frankly, I have no sympathy for self-proclaimed, so-called "nice guys" like yourself"
Most women(especially feminists) don't. I could care less at this point.
"who, despite being raised properly and having ethics in place, CONSCIOUSLY OPT to throw those ethics to the wind once they hit college just so they can GET LAID."
I was raised properly in a conservative environment. Then I was thrown into a very different one. Then I found that I stood out like a sore thumb and was genuinely miserable because of it. I spent my first semester in college doing nothing differently, and continued to fail. I'm not a homosexual or an asexual, so naturally my lack of success with females bugged me. Instead of stewing in misery and hating myself and/or women, I tried to change. I realized I could not because it isn't who I am, but I took a shot. College provided the best opportunity to do so.
What's so unethical about that? I went and learned more about the scene the vast majority of my peers participate in and left it less bitter and a lot wiser than I was when I first got here. If I'd abstained and just remained bitter and pissed off about it you'd probably still dislike me anyway for being "passive aggressive" or whatever you lot want to call it.
"You admitted yourself yourself you started drinking like a fiend once you hit college in order to "fit in"."
I'll get to this later.
"So what's the difference between you and Moe???? "
Umm…
1. Herpes isn't ok with me. Moe doesn't think its a big deal.
2. I brought protection with me every time I went out. Moe doesn't seem to like condoms and promotes unsafe sex.
3. I don't have the capability to hook up consistently and treat the sex like its no big deal. This scenario here in which she says "“Hey, just so you know, I have [insert STD here], but I got them from this really hilarious guy who is still one of my best friends, so it was kind of worth it,”?
I can't do that. I am committment oriented, which makes it extremely difficult for me to screw around as consistently as she does, never mind get used to sharing STDs as if they were old relationship presents.
4. I'm 18 and inexperienced. I went into the whole thing thinking that, because 90% of social interaction on my campus goes on in frat houses, I had to drink and act "alpha" in order to get a girlfriend(which was my ultimate goal, actually).
One semester was enough for me to learn that this was a false assumption-I'm not likely to find a quality relationship in the basement of a frat house. For Moe, on the other hand, this is her lifestyle, and has been so since she was younger than me. You're comparing an entirely inexperienced 18 year old beta to a self proclaimed "slut machine".
Susan already said this, but the difference between me and this girl is fairly obvious.
"Regarding Athlone, I'm simply pointing out that his criticising of Moe for the same behaviours he is trying to emulate (getting drunk and getting laid) is hypocritical."
I'm not pointing her out because she drinks and wants to have sex and neither is anyone else. I'm pointing her out because she's ok with the spread of STDs, actively discourages safe sex and calls herself a slut machine. She takes casual sex to an extreme that is unsettling to say the least.
Oh, one more thing. You said this:
"You admitted yourself you started drinking like a fiend once you hit college in order to "fit in".
So what's the difference between you and Moe????"
Then said this:
"Their attitudes are not mainstream."
Because I admitted to drinking in college, you somehow find justification to compare me to this girl and insist that I must have large amounts of "chutzpah" to see myself as anything different. You don't consider the fact that your criteria(drinking in college) would paint the vast majority of my male peers with the same brush(thus making it very much mainstream). Most guys on campus go out on weekends and drink, and try to find female company when they can. This is a well known fact.
You then insist that "their attitudes"(read: people like Moe) are not mainstream or common. But you say I'm like Moe…and the behavior you use to justify that claim(that I drank) is pretty common and mainstream.
Interesting argument you have there.
SUSAN WALSH SAID:
Because they don’t want to be sluts alone.
—–
Hmm, a very powerful observation. In essence you are saying that deep down, ultimately, although they dismiss it with sneers, the women you mention are ashamed or feel a stigma, despite the brave, brazen face they put on it. What better sway then to alleviate and soften the sting by dragging other young women down alongside them? If all are sluts, then I won't feel so bad. A damming indictment indeed and I think true.
What would be interesting is to look at the IQs of these women. They do not appear to be dumb, but smart people. The promiscuous and affluent Monica Lewinsky if I recall was no dummy, having graduated from the well regarded Lewis and Clark College. HBD types are always singing the virtues of high IQ. But don't these women prove that high IQ is no path to virtue? That rather it can be associated with the deepest corruption? It was high IQ Germans after all that brought us the Holocaust. Eastern Europeans have higher IQs on the average than people in sub-Saharan Africa, but have the world's leading rate of child killing (to use a bit of inflamatory language) – Russians kills 2 babies in the womb for every live birth for example. Gays are another example. Some hold that there is some evidence that gays post higher IQs on the average than straights. (James Weinrich, (1976). Human Reproductive Strategy. HARVARD UNIVERSITY DISSERTATION. p. 203-05) But if so, who is in the forefront of the destructive redefinition of traditional marriage but higher IQ gays?
Again, the pattern keeps repeating itself. Higher IQ are not at all associated with more virtuous or more moral outcomes, or indeed even more common sense outcomes. Hence these high IQ 30-somethings are delivering sexual decadence and disease to a new generation of younger girls- hardly a way to build a positive society.
Haha! Oh yeah, lots of women can relate to that. Better no sex that the kind that gives you a major emo hangover.
Women HERE, who are made to feel guilty about using contraception because the Catholic Church defines it as a sin.
Well, but that is an issue for the Catholic Church to decide – it doesn't have much to do with feminism per se. What I mean is that there are plenty of Christian churches, including very conservative evangelical fundamentalist ones, who do not object to contraceptive use in the context of, say, marriage. The Catholics have their own view, which they are well entitled to have as a matter of religious freedom. Wouldn't the feminist thing to do be, using the independence they have, to opt for another church if one disagrees with the Vatican position on contraception? I know the arguments against doing that, but frankly given the wide diversity of religious communities available in the US, I just don't understand the feminists who are thinking that they are going to use the same methods the feminists did to change the law and culture in the US and be effective in changing the Vatican's mind about contraception. It really is odd to see it listed as a main contemporary feminist issue. If people don't like the Catholic position on contraception and think that the Vatican is wrong, you can either dissent from it and remain in the Church (which is seemingly what most American Catholics seem to do) or find a new religious community. I don't have a dog in that fight (I am not a Catholic), but making the internal dogma of the Catholic Church the subject of feminist agitation is a recipe for epic fail.
I'm afraid this particular malignancy is American in nature. We're so spoiled and complacent that all we can think about is our own orgasms. It's the Sexual Revolution fallen into the hands of sociopaths.
If the goals of feminism have been met in America, we can either close up shop or look beyond our own shores, IMO.
That's fair. I don't mean to imply that all women who can relate to the goals of feminism have herpes, or want you to have it too. Still, there is a powerful censorship, in my experience, at many of these sites. When I have tried to leave comments about what women face in this sexual environment, they go into moderation and never show up. Dissent is not tolerated. I will confess that I tend to read these sites through the lens of relationships, just because it's where I spend my time doing research.
Although this misbehavior occurred nearly 2 years ago, it was recently linked to on Slate to illustrate what a bunch of squares we all are, how judgmental in our scolding. More about this in my next post.
LoL! So very true! I'm read that post and started to laugh. I'm a professional woman, I dress well, have good hygiene, always have condoms on hand and make 'em use it, don't have a rep for 1 night stands, visit my gyno regularly … So I must be safe, right? LMAO! Well, maybe not… I do have a few hidden tattoos….
I'm still not sure why you include these women in your catch-all "feminists" label. They do not self-describe as feminists and certainly do not match any definition I've heard of the word. Some feminists are "sex-positive" as you describe it, but there is a big difference between tolerance for alternative lifestyles and promoting drunken hookups without condoms.
Welcome, Too Tall Jones, thanks for leaving a comment.
First off I need to reject your statement about gays working destructively to redefine traditional marriage. Whether you see it as destructive or productive depends on your POV, but it's off topic here and against my own feelings. I don't want to debate it, but I do want to raise an objection. I'm not a fan of IQ comparisons either, by the way, as I feel that it has limitations when predicting success.
I will say that since hookup culture originated on college campuses, and the Sexual Revolution was ushered in by many very smart people. Intelligence does not prevent us from making poor decisions about sex. When it comes to sex, both men and women tend to think with the little, and tiny head, respectively.
Re the shame question, I really don't think these women do feel shame. However, to have a condition that is painful and contagious sucks – and it also makes life awkward if your doctor is telling you that you are morally and legally bound to share that information with all potential sexual partners. Wouldn't life be great if everyone had herpes and we could just make it the new norm? Not even worth mentioning. I think what they're engaging in is some sort of denial.
@ Athlone,
"Instead of stewing in misery and hating myself and/or women, I tried to change. I realized I could not because it isn't who I am, but I took a shot."
I'm curious—what exactly did you do to change?
And thanks for your reply on the other thread here, I haven't time to reply but I will.
This follows my theory that the subset of people regularly hooking-up in bars and clubs are pre-selecting one another for casual sex. So, you mostly have that 20% of alphas getting tons of tail…but trading around the same 20% of women who are stupidly giving it up to just about anybody. Recipe for much higher infection rates among both sides.
Further, both sides are deluding themselves about being D-free. They're walking vectors for HPV and HSV. *Somebody* is spreading it, and it isn't the wallflower beta boys and girls.
Net result? I wouldn't touch a known manwhore with *her* vagina, even with a hefty bag as protection.
Well here's the voice of reason. It's just not that complicated. I couldn't say about the sensation question – my husband doesn't think it's that big a deal but some guys really, really hate it. It's your policy of having unprotected sex only when committed that got Moe Tkacik into an uproar in the first place. As if your making that choice affects her in some negative way. Well, you see what my response to that was.
Crabs? *Shudders* There's a good reason to shave.
You are not kidding about the denial part… lol
I think it is a question of tolerance vs. promotion. In the post I wrote about sex week at Yale, there was a very definite feminist agenda – the fair is done with the assistance and blessing of Women's Studies. That included the aforementioned BDSM demo, complete with whips and clamped nipples. It included a career counseling session with a hooker interested in getting emails addresses from students.
At Duke, freshman orientation includes a session on how to acquire the best sex toys to maximize your freshman experience, but absolutely no mention of making careful or wise choices around sex.
As I see it, as a regular consumer of media, there are three groups of women who describe themselves as feminist:
1. Women's Studies profs – generally extremely anti-male. The new Sexual Misconduct Policy at Duke is a perfect example.
2. The NOW/NARAL crowd – my generation, mostly aged 40+. Most concerned with perceived pay/career inequality and Roe.
3. The young women bloggers who identify as feminists, and regularly promote no-strings sex, while deploring abstinence, not only as a sex ed approach, but as a behavior. Jessica Valenti recently made a teenage girl in an audience cry by telling her that her choice not to have sex was wrong and unhealthy.
Am I missing anyone? It's true that I'm writing here about #3, mostly because young people have no awareness of #1 and #2 (unless they pursue a Women's Studies course of study). College students generally believe that feminist = grumpy old lady. In fact, I'd wager that the rate of herpes infection in groups 1 and 2 is near zero. So I concede that it's only feminists under 35 or so that want you to get herpes.
Haha, good call! Wow, i didn't even notice that. Um, yeah, I guess that was a bit of a Freudian slip. Not that there's anything wrong with that……
What's up Dragnet?
I did a few things to change.
1. I started reading game and lots of it. I read a bunch of evopsych, MRA and feminists sights(like jezebel) just to get a balanced view of things. It helped me get a slightly better mindset.
2. I started drinking socially. Usually I'd go out with the guys and not touch alcohol but now I started drinking alongside them.
3. Drinking allowed me to approach girls and actually try to dance/talk to them. The problem is that, while I have much more confidence when I'm drunk, I'm still not smooth and I was often too aggressive and direct. Girls at schools like these, as you know, don't react well to caveman game. Girls in a lot of places don't, but its especially a bad idea here.
My ultimate goal was to become "alpha" enough that I could attract a girl and turn it into an actual LTR. It took me a couple months to realize that I was unlikely to find this type of thing in frat basements.
I also thought that by doing all of this I'd stand out less, but I realize now I'm too weird not to. Just gotta deal with it.
My point is…be careful of using a very broad brush to paint with. If you want to condemn all feminists based on the lunatic ravings of a few, then you need to do the same with Game. Or perhaps we should start couching it with terms like "Dark Feminism" and "Jedi Feminism".
Although that's not an entirely accurate analogy seeing as the gender-ratio in the Jedi Council was only slightly better than that of the current U.S. Congress.
Further…I advocate sex toys. What safer sex is there than with yourself?
Fair enough. I am guilty of some pretty broad brushstroking here. I did it to make a point about something I think is particularly harmful to young women. It's true that these particular women have their detractors, but many take them seriously, and now Moe T. is trying to make a name for herself writing about the financial crisis. She's in way over her head, but that's not germane.
As for Game lunatics, I make no secret of my opinions of them either.
Oh, sex toys are awesome! Didn't mean to imply otherwise. It's just the one-sidedness of the Duke approach that seems, well, unsafe. I believe that the session covered many toys meant for two, by the way. It wasn't about rubbing one out to destress and fall asleep.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2008/pr039-08.shtml
"The new study suggests that genital herpes is more common in New York City than nationally (26% of adults versus 19%). Among New Yorkers, the rate is higher among women than men (36% versus 19%), higher among blacks than whites (49% versus 14%), and higher among men who have sex with men than those who don’t (32% versus 18%). This is the first measurement of New York City’s infection rate, but the national rate has declined in recent years."
"The gift that keeps on giving", as my microbiology professor called it….
And there is a smorgasbord of other religious options with a variety of liturgical styles and catechetical beliefs. It's not like it's devout Catholic or nothing. Plenty of Catholics use birth control and still participate in their faith communities – although I would argue that this is one outcome of the rejection of the Church's authority that has all but annihilated the real strength of the Catholic faith tradition in America.
The Catholic Church is NOT a democracy. And the Church's hierarchy has no problem with saying, "Piss off," to feminists. And good for them. The head of a religion gets to pick what the religion believes and allows. That's kind of how it works.
My recent post Piece of Advice #26: Watch North and South
Hmmm, how has the national rate declined, I wonder? Are infected people dying off faster than people are getting it? Doubt it. I could understand a decline in the number of new cases, though I'd be surprised, but overall infection rates?
VJ, I just looked at that drugsrus link. I feel like I've stumbled into Trainspotting. BTW, I do believe that's Moe with her. They make quite a pair.
Perhaps more and more of the edgy people moving to New York could explain it.
Yeah. I've never understood this obsession with barebacking with relative strangers. STDs are real—the shit kills motherfuckers all the time. You would think that having Game and the power that comes with it would at least prompt some sort of self-preservation response.
It definitely has for me. STDs are actually a big reason why I quit pick-up. I had a friend who got crabs after hooking up with a girl we met at a bookfair (of all places!) Sure, the crabs are no big deal, but he knew it could have been much worse and I decided to learn from his experience. I've never had unprotected sex with someone who I wasn't committed to and had been tested. Don't pin a medal on me—this is just basic.
Sex with a condom still feels great. But I guess people forget that.
Waga, welcome, thanks for leaving a comment. What are young American feminists fighting for? What do they stand for? How many of them are there?
Who are the women fighting for the causes that ATS has identified? Recently Joan Wallach Scott (over 40) said that it is inappropriate for Westerners to criticize the stoning of Muslim women:
I have not used the word toleration to talk about how we should deal with those radically different from ourselves," she explains in the Introduction to her recent book, The Politics of the Veil, a polemic against western anti-Muslim prejudice, because, following political theorist Wendy Brown, I think toleration implies distaste (her word is aversion) for those who are tolerated. I want to insist instead that we need to acknowledge difference in ways that call into question the certainty and superiority of our own views….
What is the equality and change you seek? Here in the U.S., where the college ratio is 60F/40M? Please explain.
I derive my understanding of young feminists from the blogs they write and frequent:
feministing
feministe
pandagon
jezebel
The women on these blogs are wholly on board with sex-positive feminism, and as far as I can tell are not agitating for real and positive change, other than to rail against "the patriarchy." Those claims look pretty weak as women outpace men in nearly measurable way.
If I'm missing something, I really would be open to enlightenment.
That's fair. I don't mean to imply that all women who can relate to the goals of feminism have herpes, or want you to have it too. Still, there is a powerful censorship, in my experience, at many of these sites.
I don't read or try to comment on these sites, but I have heard this on other MRA/PUA sites. In contrast, to the best of my knowledge, even some of the most radical/extreme/hyperbolic MRA/PUA sites generally allow just about everyone to post. Any thoughts/opinions on why that is?
To nova and grerp–the problem is that the Catholic Church in my country (the Philippines) has enough power to block government policy. Which they have and still do. The Reproductive Health Bill which still merely aims to provide condoms and birth control to public health centers so that poverty stricken women (most of whom are illiterate and most of whom have had more children than they should–we're talking of women I've met who have had 5 kids almost every year since they were teenagers, with more coming) can avail of them has been called sinful, and misleadingly accused of encouraging women to have abortions. Congress has not been able to pass this law because of fear of backlash from the Church. Priests preach against it during masses. And we're 90% Catholic, so opting out hasn't been an option for a lot of people here who are very religious, and where 50% live below the poverty level and are illiterate and so would put their faith on God and the Church unquestioningly. Their influence is so pervasive politicians court Church approval. This is a case where a particular religion has had a direct impact on government policy, to our detriment. We're 90 million and counting, with no population control in sight, and still mired in poverty.
Oh, and something I forgot to add–I'd be fine with the Catholic Church picking what they want to believe in and preaching it to their flock, but not when there's already active interference on their part re government policy that directly affects women's choices. The CBCP (Catholic Bishops Conference has been a very vocal voice against the Bill, and in fact, has candidates running for elections this year tiptoeing around them. I've added the latest news about the issue so you can get a clear picture of the Church influence the proponents of the Bill are up against:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50643
Hmmm, I'm not sure. I think one factor is that men are more comfortable in confrontation – they're happy to duke it out without a lot of hard feelings either way. Women are far more emotional, and we take things personally. I know I have tossed and turned in the middle of the night about insults I've received online. I doubt many men have had that experience.
Or perhaps it reflects some awareness of the weakness of the argument? IDK, so much of feminism depends on portraying men as the opposition. I haven't spent much time commenting on MRA sites, and when I have it's been with an open mind, so I've not encountered too much hostility. In truth, though, I was deeply mistrusted at the beginning. I received some very threatening emails that I found frightening. I don't think men censor as much, but they are perhaps equally as aggressive and argumentative.
Susan that is key in understanding feminism of any wave. Atholone was doing his own thing. He’s an adult and it’s his life. He should be free to do what he wants as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. And it’s not hurting anyone else.
Unlike Atholone Feminism is trying to control everyone in a very totalitarian manner. The idea that Atholone is supposed to obey some feminist dictat is the exact opposite of freedom. Somewhere else ATS was complaining about the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is a private organization. No one is forced to be a member. If you don’t like their view on something then ignore their views or not be a member. That simple. Feminists don’t have the right to interfere with other people’s choices. The herpes deal is the same thing. Feminists are literally trying to force herpes on everyone and damage public health.
Personally, feminists are constantly interfering with my life with everything from government policy forcing me to subsidize them to interfering with my job. Atholone does not interfere with my life. The Catholic Church does not interfere with my life. I’m on the side people who don’t interfere with my life and that means always being against feminism.
Sorry, that's Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines.
Hey Susan, couldn't post yesterday so am testing here.
LOL @ "boobquake". Susan, google "pink chaddi campaign". Something EXTREMELY BOLD AND BRAZEN for conservative Indian culture that happened last year. The internet is indeed a very powerful mobilizing force.
If sex positive feminism gets 90% of the media's attention but only 9% of actual takers, then it's nothing to worry about.
Moe can want me to get drunk and laid without protection all she wants. Again, she's only getting 9% of takers, if that, because I doubt most sex positive feminists would agree with her raw dog policy.
If you disagree with Moe's message than you must also agree with those who drink her Kool Aid, which is people like Athlone who are aspiring to get drunk and laid – just like her.
Who's the real fool here – the cult leader, or the one who joins her cult?
In addition to the above Athlone, I just don't buy that your alcoholic frat friends were the only people you could find to hang out with. How about the Asian or Desi clubs? Muslim/Christian/Orthodox Jewish clubs? They are all quite conservative. You would not stick out like a sore thumb in those groups for not drinking or having sex. You wouldn't have to convert. Just make it clear you are there coz you want to have non-drunkard and non-slutty friends. You could be made an "honorary Desi" or "honorary Jew", etc.
But, maybe the girls in these clubs are not good looking enough for you???
Athlone is not drinking the Kool Aid of sex-positive feminists. Men are sex positive by nature, LOL. The whole point of sex-pos feminism is having sex like men. So that doesn't really make sense.
When I said that spf gets 9% of the takers, I mean women who would identify with the label. The media attention is a big problem because it redefines the norm in our culture. It is now "normal" to drink 15 shots on a night out and go home with a random partner. Most (75%) college students will have this experience. And they can find plenty of reinforcement in the popular culture. The "anything goes" attitude grew out of the Sexual Revolution, and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.
Again, you are being ridiculous! Why accuse Athlone of being picky? He was recruited to play football at a fine college. His friends are his teammates. That's natural enough. He is Jamaican, already dealing with a new culture. Why on earth would you suggest that he go in search of yet another culture where he wouldn't fit in and feel comfortable?
If Athlone showed up at any of those clubs he would not be welcome. Clubs that focus on race or culture do so precisely so that people can separate themselves and associate with their own kind. Honestly, this is pure nonsense.
So the problem is there is inadequate separation of church and state in the Philipines, ATS?
I personally have waffled back and forth on the issue of birth control. It would be easy for me to take the high road since I've had infertility problems and never needed to make a stand on this issue. But I also think some people are plainly not cut out for parenting a lot of children and, of course, poverty and lack of education are very problematic as well. I think in the US, though, birth control in its various forms has been abused beyond belief – so that sex has not been pushed into the merely recreational zone, but far beyond into meaningless, rather apathetic interaction.
My recent post Piece of Advice #26: Watch North and South
Well, the Catholic Church here in the Philippines DOES interfere with women's lives–they block government policies which are not in line with their beliefs as I've outlined below in my replies to nova and grerp, and I've provided a link to give readers here a clearer picture of just how pervasive the Church's influence is in my country.
Cult, I'm glad you're here, but I'm confused as to the point you're trying to make.
My recent post Friends Without Benefits (Part 2): Let's Just Be Friends Edition
Cult, I'm glad you're here, but I'm having trouble following your argument.
(sorry if this is a repost, comments seem to be a bit wobbly)
My recent post Friends Without Benefits (Part 2): Let's Just Be Friends Edition
Wrong. Men don't need women to be sex-positive in order for themselves to be sex positive. Men are generally by default sex-positive because that's how our bodies are built. Blame God / Mother Nature/ whatever if you want but it doesn't change the fact that it's the 21st century and humanity hasn't physically changed within this time. Both genders could reach "equality" if there's a genetic breakthrough that allows viruses to rewrite our DNA but gender issues would be the least of our worries if such a virus were created.
Susan isn't saying that there's anything wrong with sex-positive women. She's saying that Moe and cohorts are portraying sex, and unprotected sex at that, as the only way to feminine liberation. Guys are encoded with the desire to get it on as much as possible but why seek freedom by giving out sex like candy?
You seem to have an extremist view where all sex is bad and where the only way to drink alcohol is in a trashy manner. That's the only reason I can think of for why you think Athlone and Moe are the same. Please correct me if I'm wrong because right now I can't take your perspective seriously.
-Wookie wookie
I would recommend any woman to read a site like Roosh's so they can see how exactly a cad views them, unfiltered. Maybe it might teach caution to some of the more thoughtful out there.
However, I'm fairly sure that, for a non-trivial percentage, the response will be: "But my local cad/bad boy isn't like that!". But, there you have it…
Ugh – any of these PUA's blogs are enough to make the blood boil. I was reading Vincent's blog because of his comments in the other thread and I'm disgusted that women put up with that type of behavior. The more I read the blog, the more I *almost* want to become a nun and take a vow of chastity!
So hold on Susan, you are supportive of men being sex positive but not women? That doesn't make sense. Neither can be sex positive without the help of the other.
Posting for Athlone McGinnis here as we transition to a new commenting system:
Susan’s already said most of what I had to say to this. I mean, c’mon-the Orthodox Jewish club? “Honorary Jew”? Are you frikkin serious?
“You would not stick out like a sore thumb in those groups for not drinking or having sex.”
You’re right, I wouldn’t. I’d stick out for having absolutely nothing to do with the common ethnic/cultural background on which their groups are founded. No big deal though, right?
Your suggestions show that you are either:
(A): Trolling
(B): Genuinely ignorant as to how the social scene works for people in my age group.
The sheer ridiculousness of your suggestions and the passive/aggressive questions(with multiple question marks) you put on the end of all of your posts lead me to believe the former, but then again I’ve met plenty of older individuals who really and truly had no idea of how my generation’s social scene operates, so who knows.
Either way, I’m not wasting my time. Suffice it to say that the answer to your question is no.
Nonsense. She’s taking the point of view that being a slut is bad and bad for both men and women psychologically and physiologically.
It’s not like the results of STDs are made up.
AMEN! When will feminism start working towards making sure that women represent 50% of the war dead and are equally treated in custody disputes? What about making sure that women are registering for selective service?
I think women are underrepresented in undesirable positions and I find it appaling that patriarchal oppression prevents their full participation in society with equal dignity, right, and self-respect.
Is herpes spread by skint–skin contact or is contact with semen or vaginal fluids necessary?
It is spread from contact between viral cells and skin. The cells enter through microscopic tears in the skin, which is why women are so much more susceptible to it.
So herpes could be spread by simple touching, not just sexual intercourse.
“The cells enter through microscopic tears in the skin, which is why women are so much more susceptible to it.”
Why would that make women more susceptible to it?
Because vaginal tissue is much more sensitive to abrasion than penile tissue. There are many more opportunities, or locations, for the virus to enter the bloodstream. This is why twice as many women as men get herpes.
<blockquote>Guys are encoded with the desire to get it on as much as possible but why seek freedom by giving out sex like candy?</blockquote>
I have heard that them more one gives, the more one receives.
Should not generosity and sharing be encouraged?
Because generosity is a virtue?
Because the more one gives, the more one receives?
.-= Michael´s last blog ..Michael is now friends with eldorado Restaurant lounge =-.
I was just diagnosed with herpes, hsv2. I am not promiscuous and neither are my previous partners (3) all bfs with whom I was friends prior to our relationships. I had to go to 4 doctors to actually get tested for herpes, the first three wouldn’t do it, and the test isn’t included in the standard STD testing. They usually only test if they see obvious, serious symptoms and a huge number of people with herpes NEVER show any symptoms, they just unknowingly pass it on. Doctors seem to think it’s not a big deal. Even PP decided it wasn’t necessary to test me, my symptoms are really mild, the NP said it was a yeast infection. Now I have been reading more to better inform myself and condoms only provide 30% protection against herpes, they also don’t completely protect you against hpv. It makes sense, I always used condoms (except for a few times when I found out I’m allergic to semen) and got tested regularly, same with my partners. They are all getting tested now that they know I have it.
When they say herpes isn’t a big deal they mean that the effects aren’t so horrible, some people get pretty bad symptoms, but they can be taken care of with suppressive therapy and a healthier lifestyle. It’s mostly uncomfortable, it’s cold sores just on a different place! I certainly would not wish it on anyone and I plan on telling my future partners. Chances of transmission go down to 1% with condoms, meds, and abstinence during outbreaks (which occur less frequently over time). Based on these statistics if you’re having casual sex, even with condoms, chances are you’re better off with someone who has it and tells you and takes care of themselves than with someone who doesn’t know, doesn’t want to know (it’s just razor burn hon!), or doesn’t disclose (which happens often with casual sex). That is what they mean when they say “And people who say they don’t totally have it, they just don’t know it yet. They have it worse than anyone.” You may be unknowingly passing it on.
Now, I would never have sex without condoms, but if they want to and their partners want to, it’s their decision. Plus, they do disclose their status, so it’s informed consent, an informed decision. Nobody is coercing anyone. I also don’t see anything wrong with talking about this, even with graphic details. I have the same conversations with my friends, always have. It doesn’t make me go out and have sex with anything that moves. It’s enjoyable, funny, and unfortunately at times, sad. Talking about sex openly can only help, how are we supposed to prevent harm and have healthy sexual lives if graphic details make us uncomfortable? Why do we expect people to disclose and go to the doctor if people feel it’s taboo to describe it? I find it offensive that you underestimate women’s intelligence so much that you think that reading these women’s writings will make others out there go and do the same thing. If they do, they probably were thinking about doing it prior to reading. It’s not a cause and effect relationship, you can ask any media studies scholar.
So, to answer your question, yes, you’re being ridiculous. You are definitely slut shaming. Not just that but shaming anyone who for whatever reason contracted an STD. If anything we should be writing about the medical community and their reluctance to provide an accurate diagnosis and listening to patients, the cost of proper health care and meds, and the stigma that causes so many to go untreated for a long time. Less moralistic rants and more solutions for me, please.
Jules, welcome, thank you for leaving a comment? How am I slut shaming? By criticizing Moe T. and Tracie E.? If you watched the video you saw that these women didn’t need any help whatsoever in shaming themselves.
First, with respect to the medical information you shared, that is covered very thoroughly in the prior post The Complex Psychology of STD Transmission, which I linked to at the start of this post. Check it out, so that you can speak from a place of being fully informed:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/04/23/hookinguprealities/the-complex-psychology-of-std-transmission/
I wrote it after hearing from a reader who found herself in the same situation you’re in. It’s very thorough and quite supportive, just the opposite of shaming those with an STD. I make it very clear that anyone can get it, and also why it’s very hard to know who you got it from, and what that means in terms of disclosure.
Now, to get to what seems to be your real objection. Saying that everyone in New York has herpes or HPV, they just don’t know it yet? Surely you can see how ridiculous this is. How do you know that these women disclose their status? Dismissing STDs as soooooo not a big deal is irresponsible. I wonder how responsible these women feel to share their status with potential partners. If everyone has it, why disclose at all? What would be the point? An awkward moment! If you just keep your mouth shut, you can rationalize your behavior, because surely they already were infected. Someone else got to them first! That is shameful, and it has nothing to do with being slutty.
The truth is, this post was inspired by a reader who saw commenters at Jezebel shot down for expressing concern about STDs. Talking openly about sex does not involve telling concerned women to shut up. It does not mean doing your writing in an echo chamber of women who boldly state that “everyone already has it.”
That kind of double talk is the reason why, in fact, a third of college students will get it, and why NYC has very high rates of infection. Women do alter their behavior based on media reports. These women writers have a lot to answer for, in that they are actively promoting irresponsible, unsafe sex, and implying that there is no real need for disclosure.
I hope Jezebel takes a long moment of self-reflection to realize how far they’ve gone from representing your average woman:
http://www.slate.com/id/2259434/pagenum/all/
Wow, that is an AWESOME article. Thanks for sending it. Interestingly, the writer, Emily Gould was a sex blogger when she wrote for Jezebel, and the experience pretty much gave her a total breakdown. I wonder how Rebecca Traister et al are taking this – EG has been treated with kid gloves by the feminist sites for the most part.
Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
@Aldonza, I love your new profile pic. Its awesome.
Yes folks, I’m drunk. Pimms, lemonade and vodka FTW.
The Jezebels of the world are going to, sure as the sky is blue, create the noose that will be used to (figuratively) hang them. With these statements, its clear that they are self destructive either intentionally (because they are completely ant-society and committed to it at all costs) or they aren’t intelligent enough to think about the very, very real response that society would have if the “spread STD’s” meme were to become a widely acknowledged mainstream directive of their movement. While I loathe their values, in general, I have at least always thought of them as a group of women of likely a little above average intelligence who are very good at leading a wider group of women with mostly average intelligence (as most groups are comprised of people of average intelligence – its the leadership that matters – also, the lack of ability by the jezebel masses to construct cogent arguments tends to be very telling). However, the not so long term ramifications of this meme are extremely easy to see. This makes me question the leaderships analytical ability and therefore their intelligence.
I now see them as a likely a bunch of over educated new york spoiled children of overall average intelligence who cannot control the egotistical inflation that would come with having such a leadership, and are now willing to spout very predictable directives (from a sociological perspective) that will ultimately cause an extreme societal backlash from society and have the reverse effect that they are looking for. It takes logic and intelligence to see how this would certainly play out. Their directive is undoubtedly based, instead, in emotion stemming from extreme self-interest.
Here’s what would happen: word of this “spread STD’s” directive would hit the mainstream media and immediately legislation would be enacted to protect average family oriented people from the Jezebels of the world who are knowingly and intentionally spreading disease. The legal basis would be very clear at this point, as it is already in place in the form of all of the very well established law in this country that protects people from injury (ironically, feminists have more than benefited from this in the form of the extremely heavy handed version in family law). What would occur is that people would start to be compensated, on a widespread basis, for contracting STD’s from partners who knowingly (or perhaps unknowingly) gave the STD. Women (and men) with STD’s would have to start getting waivers signed before sex to indemnify themselves from liability. This extra step would cause much further marginalization of STD carriers than currently exists; hence, having the opposite effect of what these low IQ completely self-centered morons are suggesting.
Feminism, especially as it exists in the world of Jezebel, is a movement based on the extreme self interest of one group of people. The thing about self interested movements, that have been empowered and encouraged to an extreme, is that they don’t know when to stop for the good of the society that provides them the cocoon that they live in. They are literally poisoning the cocoon by suggesting the spread of disease. It won;t take long for the cocoon to become aware of such an egregious insult to its health and stop the offenders from further doing any damage to society.
I hope that the meme does become a widely accepted directive. I’ll be one of the first ones on the court-steps and the media desks with evidence of their readership size, their directives, and urge communities to put appropriate laws in place to protect society from such people.
And seriously, if anyone has any doubts as to whether extreme feminism is a breakdown of society and not an evolution, is there any better proof to the powers that be than the willful spread of disease in the community ??
And I do think that such a directive is the logical path of their movement, when taken beyond the boundaries of care for society and others.
Awww, that’s so British. I’ve only ever had Pimms with cucumbers, though. It’s ginger flavored, right? That actually sounds pretty good.
@C
Great comment, thanks for leaving it. Check out newer posts too, and grab the RSS or email feed!
I am a Feminist and I am disgusted by much of the “sex positive” movement. The message that promiscuity is empowering is nonsense. What’s empowering about herpes, crabs, syphilis, etc? “Sex positive” is a misnomer anyway, implying that those who disagree with it are “sex negative” which is nonsense. There are many people who love sex and are not puritanical, yet reject promiscuity.
@Lili
Thanks so much for your comment! I totally support gender equity, and resent the intrusion of sexual politics into modern feminism. Please check out some current posts and join the discussion!
I’m a liberal feminist, and I’ve never had any STIs/STDs (and I get checked for them regularly), nor do I wish it on anyone else to get herpes or any other STI/STD. I don’t have unprotected sex (outside a long-term relationship) and strongly advise anyone else against doing so. Sexual health centers even recommend condoms or dental dams for oral sex, depending on how casual the encounter is.
Whilst I certainly don’t condone what this individual was saying, I really don’t think it’s fair to say that “feminists” as a group want people to get herpes.
I’m also a survivor of rape and multiple sexual traumas. I’ve never pressed charges and my reasons are: firstly, I don’t think I can prove it beyond reasonable doubt and don’t want my word pitted against the words of others. I don’t want to risk being thought of as a false accuser, after having identified names of perpetrators without proof. Also, I just think the whole thing would be a humiliating ordeal that I’d rather not be subjected to and re-traumatized all over again.
The fact that I haven’t pressed charges for my own experiences probably contributes to my feeling a need to participate in activism to address sexual violence and other problems in society more generally.
My take on the following exchange:
Moe: I guess third guy, I ever had sex with, date raped me, and I got very mad at him, but I wasn’t gonna fucking like turn him in to the police and fucking go through shit.
Lizz interrupts: Why not, you see that’s the problem, why not, I am just curious?
Moe: Because it was a load of trouble and I had better things to do, like drinking more.
…….I wonder if she was drinking (and possibly, having casual sex) as an avoidance response to traumatic feelings.
We may have different views about the illness but the whole point of internalizing if it’s true and reliable is all up to the reader. They are the one who can best figure it out if the said though is more likely good to have or not at all.
Maybe its there way of advertising or some kind of method to catch the attention of the readers or to get some other opinions which react to their topic.
{ 3 trackbacks }