ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for sex

“Mindful eating, mindless sex”

by 1 Comment

A creative thesis in this article here. With subheadings like “Broccoli, Pornography, and Kant” how could you not read it? She’s asking an interesting question:

…What happens when, for the first time in history — at least in theory, and at least in the advanced nations — adult human beings are more or less free to have all the sex and food they want? This question opens the door to a real paradox. For given how closely connected the two appetites appear to be, it would be natural to expect that people would do the same kinds of things with both appetites — that they would pursue both with equal ardor when finally allowed to do so, for example, or with equal abandon for consequence; or conversely, with similar degrees of discipline in the consumption of each.

In fact, though, evidence from the advanced West suggests that nearly the opposite seems to be true. The answer appears to be that when many people are faced with these possibilities for the very first time, they end up doing very different things — things we might signal by shorthand as mindful eating, and mindless sex. This essay is both an exploration of that curious dynamic, and a speculation about what is driving it.

This does seem to raise one of the great ironies, and it’s one I encounter often enough. Many will watch very closely what they consume when it comes to food (organic, naturopathic, special diets, etc.) but show less concern for who they sleep with. (Then again there are those who just consume a whole lot of both–maintaining consistency, at least.)

This came up on Roadkill Radio last night too, where I talked about People for the Ethical Treatment of People (buy a shirt)–the irony that many will maintain a high level of concern for eating organic, but not think too much about the invasive and destructive surgery called abortion.

More from the “societal norms are lacking” file

by 2 Comments

I always find Kay Hymowitz interesting, even as I say yikes–the dating scene is not that bad.

Here’s the thing: I think you end up embittered and creating web sites called “relationshit.com” when you only ever viewed the opposite sex as a vehicle from whom you can get something, be it sex, marriage, money or status. Seems to me at some point that is going to break down. Seems to me it will break down particularly poorly for one or the other when you start a relationship with sex. But hey–they call me “old-fashioned” while muttering about stealing women’s rights…and baking cookies….while barefoot and pregnant….

Anyhoodle, this quote from the article:

As the disenchanted SYM sees it, then, resistance to settling down is a rational response to a dating environment designed and ruled by women with only their own interests in mind. “Men see all of this, and wonder if it’s really worth risking all in the name of ‘romance’ and ‘growing up,’ ” a correspondent who calls himself Wytchfinde explains. “After all, if women can be hedonistic and change the rules in midstream when it suits them, why shouldn’t men? Why should men be responsible when women refuse to look into the mirror at their own lack of accountability?”

reminded me of a personal exchange I had with a guy I worked with once. He made it clear if I ever repeated this, he’d deny it. He said something like this: “If marriage means being constrained in manners x, y and z and you still have to eat Mister Noodles every night, then what’s the point?” And I see his point.

But then is his deal that his significant other ought to care for him through good cooking? Who doesn’t like good cooking, I ask you? Mmm, mm. Back to my point. Which is that people do not equal a vehicle to fulfill yourself.

People=relationships=hard and messy, sometimes AND good times other times. It’s either/or almost all the time.

(I’d like to dedicate this stream of consciousness to Véronique.)

________________________

Brigitte can out-old-fashion Andrea: It’s the old ‘why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free’ thing. Except nowadays guys don’t even have to live with girls – heck, they don’t even need to be ‘in a relationship’ – isn’t that what they call friends with benefits? Free milk on demand?. And the girls are drilled to believe giving it all away in exchange for nothing is ‘liberating’. Pfshaw. I wouldn’t say we’re lacking societal norms. I’d say we got societal norms that stink. Both for men and women. I’m told boys are enjoying themselves. But men are about as disappointed with these newish norms as women are.

In school, it’s called sex ed

by 1 Comment

But in a church, it’s called a marketing ploy. Figures.

Ed Young wants married couples to have sex all week long. Once a day. Beginning this Sunday. The call to action will headline Mr. Young’s Sunday sermon at Grapevine-based Fellowship Church…

Jim Dale of Coppell said he figures the pastor is trying to create more buzz for his five-church mega-ministry. “Draw ’em in, no matter what or how,” wrote the Coppell resident in a posting on dallasnews.com. “Sex? You betcha. That’ll pack the pews (or theater seats).”

Alas, church is supposed to be boring and stale. One is only supposed to hear drawn out liturgy about who begat whom. And, for Pete’s sake, if the subject of sex is to come up, it should only be to tell people to repent from having it.

If — aside from what I instill in her — my kid learns about sex from school, television, the internet, highway billboards, fashion magazines, music videos, movies, and that extreme PDA couple on the bus every afternoon, I sure hope the church won’t be silent on the topic.

Meta