Promiscuity Does Not Empower Women

brosurance3


If you find the advertisement above to be offensive you are a sexually frustrated Republican who wants to slut-shame women because you are a misogynist who can’t stand to see strong, powerful women who are in control of their own sexuality.

At least that’s what defenders of the ad say. Ironically, most of them are men.

As a heterosexual male who lost his virginity in 1977 I can tell you from personal experience that men most definitely won the sexual revolution. We got consequence-free sex with lots of women. Milk was free!

What did women get? Abortions and single-parenthood. The “hook-up” culture.

But somewhere on the road to full equality feminists became defenders of promiscuity, porn, prostitution and pole-dancing. “Don’t be judgmental!” they said. “Stop slut-shaming!” When did morality become a bad thing?

There is a difference between being non-judgmental and encouraging immorality. Promiscuity does not empower women. Girls are not sex toys for boys.

If you think there is nothing wrong with that ad, you’re the one with the problem.


Advertisements

About Myiq2xu™

Peaceful coexistence or mutually assured destruction. Your choice.
This entry was posted in Sex, Sexism and Misogyny and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Promiscuity Does Not Empower Women

  1. votermom says:

    OT Ted Cruz press release post O-trainwreck presser
    http://www.cruz.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=348056

  2. The Klown says:

    The first time I expressed this opinion I was attacked by feminists.

    • Constance says:

      Current “feminists” are just halfwits or worse. They don’t understand money or economics. They don’t understand how to bargain effectively or run a business. They enjoy victimhood, and seem to find degradation empowering although they probably have never really felt empowered. They seem to pathetically crave male approval in fact they don’t believe in their own sexuality unless it is approved by males. It is just sad how susceptible they are to whatever load of shit the male run media jam down their throats. I would have thought by now women would have their own media but instead the media that exists to sell business mens products is called “women’s media” and they still exist to make women feel wrong and bad and as a result buy product to feel OK.

      • votermom says:

        They enjoy victimhood
        The movement is a victimhood movement, so they create new victims to prey on. Destroy girls’ self-respect, and then tell them to join them in hating the patriarchy to feel better.

        • wmcb says:

          HONK! This X 10000000000000000000000000

          It’s no longer about empowerment. It’s about whining and making demands that men treat you like a special flower, while at the same time proclaiming “independence”. It’s “I can behave however I like and never get called on it, because I’m a grrrrrrrrrl.”

          It’s infantilizing, and a rejection of actual self-composure and power in favor of constant, relentless self-affirmation.

          Modern day feminists are fucking children, and spoiled, bratty children at that.

      • DeniseVB says:

        When I left the left, I joined Amy Siskind’s Army of “alternative feminism” (cough, New Agenda, cough) claiming to embrace bipartisan ladies in politics. Boy, was I wrong. Lady parts politics still had to be more focused on the lady parts than brains and accomplishments. What a letdown 😦

      • lorac1 says:

        myiq: But somewhere on the road to full equality feminists became defenders of promiscuity, porn, prostitution and pole-dancing.

        I can’t stand this ad; it’s nothing but trashy. Shame on the government for sinking to the lowest common denominator to market/manipulate young people, instead of modeling something with more integrity.

        But I’m uncomfortable using this ad and referring to feminists – without a qualifier such as “younger” (feminists). I can’t imagine any second wave feminist considering this “feminist” or empowering for women. The feminists I know and have known are strong, intelligent women – who fought for improvements for women and won a lot of battles (that the current generation takes for granted and is destroying). We fought hard for women not to be objectified – but the younger generation seems to be all about being objectified.

        But it doesn’t mean that traditional feminists or their work over the years weren’t genuine, real, or important. IMO, “real” feminism hasn’t changed. I’ve noticed the same thing happened to blacks. They fought really hard for education, and valued education. Now, popular black culture eschews education; working hard at learning is “acting white”.

        I think the real problem is not feminism or blacks – it’s our younger generation (not all of them, but the popular culture of youth).

        • The Klown says:

          I agree with your point. My mom was a feminist in the 60’s and 70’s – not a bra burner but an advocate for equality. She is aghast at the new generation of feminists.

  3. votermom says:

  4. helenk3 says:

    as I said yesterday. the new feminist = SUCKER

    when you talk yourself into lower standards and give yourself less respect, why should anyone respect you?
    you get lower cost birth control pills and stds and the other consequences including abortion which may not be given in a sanitary atmosphere which could lead to a lot of consequences further on in you life. this is not a win for women

    The passing penis no longer uses condoms, has a lot of fun and is like a butterfly going from flower to flower and an extended youth without responsiblity. not a bad deal for men

    • Constance says:

      I also think a lot of young women are setting up lesbian relationships just to get a partner that is engaged. Many of todays young men seem to prefer jerking off in front of their computer screen to actually engaging in an intimate relationship with a woman and being the adult male in a family. I don’t know whats up with that. But I have heard young women who are fed up with trying with these guys.

      • Many young women treat young men their age as equals. Big mistake. They are merely older boys. Not the same at all.

      • underwhelmed says:

        There is an enormous groundswell of rage out there from men, towards women, as (I think) a logical end result of the male hatred, male bashing, blaming, trivialising, demeaning, and so forth, that is championed by the modern feminist movement.

        An interesting study is the Christina gets pregnant storyline on Grey’s Anatomy. She’s married. He wants kids, she doesn’t. But she gets pregnant, and she still gets to have the abortion, even though he’s devastated and wants a child. And what’s more, his job is to hold her hand while she’s having the abortion, and be supportive and positive and never once make her feel bad because she’s having his child vacuumed out of her body in front of him because having a child is inconvenient. And how dare he mention it? How dare he have feelings? How dare he question her right to do this? How dare he want the child at all? The marriage crashes, they’re still together but it’s bad, he has a one night stand. She finds out.

        And he is the greatest monster on the planet. He hurt her feelings. She is the victim. She did nothing wrong, nothing questionable. It’s all on him.

        It is the most horrifying storyline. And it’s right out of the playbook of modern feminism.

        • Toxic. And impossible to restore that relationship in real life while continuing to maintain one’s humanity.

        • wmcb says:

          That is horrifying. In a marriage, he gets a say IMO. And his feelings are just as important and valid as hers. No, that doesn’t mean I want a LAW giving husbands veto power over termination decisions. But I’m pretty tired of the attitude that the man should have zero input, not even in the non-legally-binding sense. Sorry, but that’s his potential child too.

          When did feminism become just a convenient whitewash for a woman being a narcissistic selfish ass?

  5. Frat houses will “unfriend” you for saying the obvious, and Sororities will never believe it. It is far better to be used and discarded than stay home on a Saturday night.

  6. helenk3 says:

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/11/14/administration-officials-one-year-extension-may-not-be-taken-by-all-insurance-companies/

    Backtrack bunch—-one year extension may not be taken by all insurance companies.

    GEE You Think!!!!!!

    • Mary says:

      Yeah, but THIS way, it’s no longer Obama’s fault. That’s the point from the politicos in the WH.

    • DeniseVB says:

      Let’s go back to those mortgage foreclosure days. My kid couldn’t refi his Florida house because he made his mortgage payments on time. Then he had to sell it because of a “federal” transfer. It became a short sale (he had to take the credit hit, can’t buy another house til 2015). Survived his DC tour with a rental, now in Denver renting. No way he and his family are ahead of we the parents financially.

  7. Was that the quickest unsettling of the “settled law of the land” on record?

  8. helenk3 says:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/14/insurance-cancellations-just-beginning

    per CBO insurance cancellation just beginning.

    Up tp 93 million people will lose their insurance.

    does not matter if it is 2014 or 2015 the numbers will not change

  9. votermom says:

  10. insanelysane says:

    There are plenty of strong self empowered women in blue collar country where I grew up. They may be against abortion and may be stay at home moms, but they are equals when on the job and in the home. But , of course, they aren’t feminists because they are bitter clinger religious types.
    I knew I could not respect the democratic woman when they fell for the emotional “War on Women” crap that Obama and his henchmen pulled last election.

    Any self respecting woman would not fall for the play on the silly emotions of the womenfolk tripe.

    • wmcb says:

      Sorry, but any women who are running around like ninnies repeating ZOMG, MITT ROMNEY IS GOING TO OUTLAW TAMPONS! are not empowered, strong women.

      They are fucking frivilous airhead bimbos with some “feminist” jargon layered on top.

      • underwhelmed says:

        But why was that tripe believed? What has happened to the basic brain functioning of people? Has an entire generation been so comprehensively brainwashed by the liberal media that no lie, no inanity, is too huge for a handwave?

  11. helenk3 says:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/11/14/merkley-you-see-we-just-didnt-realize-that-wed-created-a-monster/

    dem–you see we just didn’t realize that we created a monster.

    well pardon me but if you would do what you are paid to do

    read the bills—–understand the bills—–get a clue

    maybe the country would not be in this mess

    the country might be better off with monkeys with yes and no buttons, it can’t be any worse and it would be cheaper

    • Constance says:

      “the country might be better off with monkeys with yes and no buttons, it can’t be any worse and it would be cheaper”

      Yes, we would be better off with monkeys as they wouldn’t understand the concept of selling out to multinational corporations. Of course they also wouldn’t understand representing the interests of the voters but we already have that going on.

    • lyn says:

      Meh, Merkley is my senator and he always knows best. Next time, dumbass, read the fucking bill. OT, his name also was on a letter to the IRS to target Tea Party groups. He’s a good little Obot.

  12. helenk3 says:

    just a thought

    backtrack is trying to slow down a sinking ship by putting cheesecloth over the hole in the boat. will not stop the sinking but will give more time for the rats to jump ship

  13. underwhelmed says:

    Later, when asked by National Journal’s Major Garrett why he had continued to pump the website just one week before launch, and whether he had been informed about the technical problems, President Obama claimed ignorance. “I was not informed directly that the website was not working,” Obama said. “If I’d been informed, I wouldn’t have gone out and said ‘The website is going to be great.’”

    Okay, so here’s the follow up:

    Who is the person who decided to keep you, the President of the USA, in the dark? Who in the WH has the power to decide what you should and should not know? Or have you issued instructions that you are not to be told certain things that are happening in your administration, so you can come out and lie to the people of America?

    Who is running the Obama WH? Who is the running the USA?

  14. helenk3 says:

    backtrack skipped town after the spewing. now in Cleveland at a manufacturing plant spewing some more.
    guess that plant will close . every where he goes chaos follows

  15. helenk3 says:

    http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=212674

    for the lawyers here. is there a way that the cancellations of insurance can become invalid not for just one year but as long as you want to keep them?

    HIPAA 2742
    health insurance portability & accountability act of 1996
    public law 104-191

    have these laws been overturned?

    • SHV says:

      IANAL, but from reading parts of the AHC law and the IRS bulletin from 2010, it was an HHS administrative decision that almost any change in an insurance policy would make that policy a “new” policy and therefore no longer grandfathered. Because the individual insurance market has high turnover, essentially every policy would become invalid between 2010 and 2014. Using the same IRS data, up to 80% of small business and 66% of large business policies will be invalid by 2014.

      HHS could have issued different rules for what constituted a “new” policy but that would have defeated the purpose of pushing the maximum number of people into the exchanges.

    • The Klown says:

      Administrative law is a specialty mostly practiced by government attorneys and corporate lawyers. The Code of Federal Regulations is huge and constantly changing.

      Admin law is so vast you have to specialize in subsections to have any expertise. Angie specializes in Bankruptcy, and she can tell you that pretty complicated just by itself.

      Tax law is another big subsection. Environmental law is huge too.

      • left_VA_&_Dems_for_TX says:

        For a little heavy reading….

        http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2013/01/do-new-laws-and-budgets-automatically-supercede-old-laws-and-debt-ceilings-a-legal-qa/

        Here’s some of the article:

        “RGE Senior Manager of Research David Nowakowski sits down to discuss how new legislation is reconciled with older laws with attorney David Mollow, presenting implications for the debt ceiling, government borrowing and trade law.”

        “Nowakowski: If a law is passed that contradicts existing law, but does not directly make a reference to the current law being amended, does the new law always supersede the old? Is there a legal name for this principle? For example, Congress passes a law that says, no meat may be eaten during Lent. Then a year later, they pass a law (not a constitutional amendment) stating “The right of the people to keep and eat bacon is hereby established and protected.” I would say that means you can eat bacon during Lent. If the chronology were reversed, then no bacon til Easter.”

        “Mollow: The new law will trump the old one if that was clearly the legislative intent; the term “amend,” which you use, is correct. It is sometimes said that the old law or statute has been effectively repealed by the new law. In many situations, a court will find a way to infer an exception to or exemption from the old law, rather than strike it down entirely. The court can look quite carefully at the language of both statutes and sometimes at the legislative history, and can apply a number of canons of statutory interpretation to both laws. IF THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT IS UNCLEAR, THEN THINGS CAN GET MORE CONFUSING. IN PRACTICE, THE COURTS IN THESE KINDS OF CIRCUMSTANCES ARE REALLY LIKELY TO BASE THEIR DETERMINATIONS, WITH OR WITHOUT SAYING SO, ON PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS, AKA POLITICS. [MY EMPHASIS ADDED]”

        It can get especially tricky when so much is left up to the discretion of an agency. This discretion is “the law” but its not really spelled out so what happens when the “discretion” goes off the reservation and starts stepping on the toes of previous laws and areas that weren’t explicitly contemplated? My husband calls Dodd-Frank and all the current financing/mortgage/consumer protection regs that are and will be going into place his “personal employment act” because interpreting it for his clients will be paying our mortgage for years to come – maybe even our kids college tuition!

        Side-note – I spent a summer of law school researching GATT legislative history (in French) in Geneva – truly riveting stuff (not) and about as clear as mud.

        Don’t even get me started on the “hot” mess that is environmental law and policy and the woefully behind the times national security law….

  16. DeniseVB says:

    I got a BREAKING email from Daily Kos, told me that the Rush Limbaugh fans were “crapping their pants”. I should have clicked on that instead of reporting spam? Oh well.

  17. helenk3 says:

    House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., on Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., bill to fix part of Obamacare: ‘We may very well have an alternative of our own tomorrow’ – @ChadPergram

Comments are closed.