Tag Archives: virginity

The Wall Street Journal roots for horny boys

There is an upside to narcissism. No matter what other people do, you are reminded of your greatness. Lucky you.

Someone invents the Segway, you thought of it years ago. Someone memorizes pi, you just did mom’s taxes. Somebody ran a marathon, you were in the office. All weekend. Challenge is a vestige of childhood.

It’s a cushy gig. The rest of the world busts out in manifold directions, the center of gravity, you, stays still. Greatness never sweats.

James Taranto, writer of Wall Street Journal editorials, is a great guy. He writes about America’s lameness. When a Massachusetts sociology professor describes her research in the New York Times, it’s lame. When she talks about sex, it’s lame. When 15 year old boys don’t want to get girls pregnant, it’s lame.

An odd recent New York Times op-ed by sociologist Amy Schalet touts the rise of, as the headline puts it, “Caring, Romantic American Boys.” Schalet, who studied American high school sophomores (along with Dutch ones) for a forthcoming book, reports that “boys [are] behaving more ‘like girls’ in terms of when they lose their virginity,” by which she means they “are becoming more careful and more romantic about their first sexual experiences.”


Maybe her book will flesh out that claim, but in her op-ed the boys sound downright terrified: “American boys often said sex could end their life as they knew it. After a condom broke, one worried: ‘I could be screwed for the rest of my life.’ Another boy said he did not want to have sex yet for fear of becoming a father before his time.”

If “I could be screwed for the rest of my life” is what passes for a romantic sentiment at the New York Times, the editors’ Valentine’s Day cards must be a laugh riot.

Nothing’s as erotic as caring for children. Harlequin Romance built an industry on the language of changing diapers. The Romeo and Juliet fable tickled orgasm as they argued over how to beat autism. Toddlers get fussy, nipples get sucked, and the silk sheets get plenty sweaty.

. . she offers this further point of comparison: “The 2002 National Survey of Family Growth found that more than one-third of teenage boys, but only one-quarter of teenage girls, cited wanting to avoid pregnancy or disease as the main reason they had not yet had sex.”

Given that nature imposes the physical burden of pregnancy on the female of the species, that sounds counterintuitive. And it’s possible that some of the boys in the survey, mindful of what Schalet quotes another sociologist as calling “the stigma of virginity,” are rationalizing away their lack of success with girls by chalking it up to prudence.

This is a WSJ hack pooh-poohing a sociology professor: “Since when do boys care about getting chicks pregnant?” I suppose if that were no longer true, it would be news. James once slagged a survivor of Vietnam, triple-amputee Max Cleland, for being a war critic because he had PTSD. What a loser, huh? Tough guys protect their territory. American boys wanna fuck, dude.


Sam Schulman chews on gay marriage and promptly defecates on the internet (part 1/2)

This one is unbelievable, it’s profoundly putrid.

But I am a little put off the game, frankly–I am having a hard time managing the bile. Because independently of whatever philosophical giant Sam Schulman pretends to be, he has written a piece of fetid garbage so toweringly arrogant, so wrenchingly stupid and foul that I’m struggling to pick which way to stab it in the neck. This is a hall of fame pile of shit, even for The Weekly Standard.

To half-wit:

The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage
It isn’t going to work.
by Sam Schulman
06/01/2009, Volume 014, Issue 35

Ow, it already angers. Okay, you guys are not a bunch of bigots, you’re just an endlessly practical lot, right.

Schulman tries a completely new gambit with this mess: marriage is the foundation for the all-important ‘kinship system’. And to underscore how American-life-and-culture providing it is, he never once defines ‘kinship’ or its ‘system’. Bravo, Professor. Nevertheless, the ‘kinship system’ is the paramount thing in life, and gay marriage runs afoul of it. Or it doesn’t reinforce it, or something. Man, this hurts a lot already.

Here is where this whoppingly over-written and under-thought argument delivers its lightning bolt premise: at the end of the seventh paragraph:

The entity known as “gay marriage” only aspires to replicate a very limited, very modern, and very culture-bound version of marriage. Gay advocates have chosen wisely in this. They are replicating what we might call the “romantic marriage,” a kind of marriage that is chosen, determined, and defined by the couple that enters into it. Romantic marriage is now dominant in the West and is becoming slightly more frequent in other parts of the world. But it is a luxury and even here has only existed (except among a few elites) for a couple of centuries–and in only a few countries. The fact is that marriage is part of a much larger institution, which defines the particular shape and character of marriage: the kinship system.

DAMN. We all see where this is going, and I, too, am way ahead of him, not in the least because it takes a logical snail like Sam seven paragraphs to begin an argument.

I reject your idea of ‘romantic’ or ‘modern’ marriage as a ‘luxury’. Unless you will agree that ‘loveless’ or ‘old’ marriage was child-squeezing serfdom, to put it mildly. Less mildly: deadly for women forced to suffer or dodge a whole host of maladies that accompany serial childbirth. And soul-killing for anyone with such an intimate relationship lacking any meaning or vitality other than what Sam Schulman would groundlessly ascribe it.

This is the ‘old’ truth: traditional marriage was a brutal, tyrannical bureaucracy, period. I thought Conservatives hated that sort of thing. Let’s say we never return to it, K?

Already, I figure Schulman has gotten almost everybody who’s reading this to dislike him, but–take heart–he’s not gonna leave anything up to chance.

The role that marriage plays in kinship encompasses far more than arranging a happy home in which two hearts may beat as one–in fact marriage is actually pretty indifferent to that particular aim. Nor has marriage historically concerned itself with compelling the particular male and female who have created a child to live together and care for that child. It is not the “right to marry” that creates an enduring relationship between heterosexual lovers or a stable home for a child, but the more far-reaching kinship system that assigns every one of the vast array of marriage rules a set of duties and obligations to enforce. These duties and obligations impinge even on romantic marriage, and not always to its advantage. The obligations of kinship imposed on traditional marriage have nothing to do with the romantic ideals expressed in gay marriage.

Okay, how much do you despise this monstrous asshole? I can barely contain myself. On and on about what marriage is not, how important the ‘kinship system’ is, nothing about what it is, bargle nawdle zauss…

Consider four of the most profound effects of marriage within the kinship system.

The first is the most important: It is that marriage is concerned above all with female sexuality.


The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage. This is why marriage between men and women has been necessary in virtually every society ever known. Marriage, whatever its particular manifestation in a particular culture or epoch, is essentially about who may and who may not have sexual access to a woman when she becomes an adult, and is also about how her adulthood–and sexual accessibility–is defined.

Why do I do this?

Women come equipped with free will–Voila! Argument dead. What the hell sort of case is he building anyway–that the ‘traditional’ ways supercede the modern ones? Would he also choose Victorian medicine, too? Sarsparilla anybody?

Again, until quite recently, the woman herself had little or nothing to say about this, while her parents and the community to which they answered had total control. The guardians of a female child or young woman had a duty to protect her virginity until the time came when marriage was permitted or, more frequently, insisted upon. This may seem a grim thing for the young woman–if you think of how the teenaged Natalie Wood was not permitted to go too far with Warren Beatty in Splendor in the Grass. But the duty of virginity can seem like a privilege, even a luxury, if you contrast it with the fate of child-prostitutes in brothels around the world. No wonder that weddings tend to be regarded as religious ceremonies in almost every culture: They celebrate the completion of a difficult task for the community as a whole.

This is so twisted, Schulman is really making me uncomfortable. This is the political web equivalent of those sex talk filmstrips in high school health and driver’s ed. Only far less accurate. Actually, it’s like one of the frighteningly ill-informed and acne’d teens turning the tables, lecturing the filmstrip on how sex really happens.

This most profound aspect of marriage–protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex–is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage. Virginity until marriage, arranged marriages, the special status of the sexuality of one partner but not the other (and her protection from the other sex)–these motivating forces for marriage do not apply to same-sex lovers.

Marriage’s ‘only true reason for being’ is ‘protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex’? Virginity, arranged marriages, only women’s sexuality being ‘special’–all terrific, vital American stuff? I call a Vomit Break.


on the virginity front

22-Year-Old’s Virginity Auction Hits $3.7 Million

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

A San Diego woman who is auctioning off her virginity said she has now received a bid of $3.7 million, according to a published report.

Natalie Dylan, a 22-year-old San Diego woman, said she got the idea for the auction after her sister was able to pay for her college education after prostituting herself for three weeks, according to the London Telegraph.

Dylan has a degree in women’s studies. She told the paper she hopes to pay for an advanced degree in family and marriage therapy with the proceeds from the auction.

She told the Telegraph that she doesn’t think she’s the only one who will be benefit from the auction.

“I think me and the person I do it with will both profit greatly from the deal,” Dylan told the paper.

Yes, you and him is will be happy. For those women economically foolish enough to have fallen in love at some point, take heart: a Chinese company has got the thing for you.


Okay I get it – in some countries virginity is a highly prized trophy for father’s to auction off as they look for husbands for their pure daughters but what happens if daddy’s little girl got all naughty one night. Well now you can fix that problem for as little as $14.00 USD instead of the typical surgery which will cost you a lot more.

Now before you think I’m pulling your leg on this let me quote the sales pitch from the Chinese company that is behind this special effects marvel

No more worry about losing your virginity. With this product, you can have your first night back anytime. Insert this artificial hymen into your vagina carefully. It will expand a little and make you feel tight. When your lover penetrate, it will ooze out a liquid that look like blood not too much but just the right amount. Add in a few moans and groans, you will pass through undetectable. Its easy to use, clinically proven non-toxic to human and has no side effects, no pain to use and no allergic reaction.

Isn’t technology grand.

Or eww.