Since A[manda] &J[ill] admit to being regular readers, I decided to get their attention with a post that would essentially call their bluff. I wrote an allegory about kissing, insinuating that true sexual freedom is accepting sex in all its meanings — pleasure, emotional union, and the possibility of procreation. To be truly sex-positive, one must be life-positive. Anything else stunts one emotionally and physically.
I didn’t make the point so articulately in my post — in fact, it was clumsy, awkward, and corny.
Why, yes, Dawn. It was all of that. I’m still trying to figure out why at your age you still seem to be under the impression that the kissing is all about the transfer of saliva. But do continue.
But it did the job:
Hm. What job is that, Dawn? The job of throwing a spotlight on the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a contradiction that is Dawn Eden, single, childless career woman who has All The Answers About Married Sex yet has not, apparently, fully embraced sexuality, since she’s a contracepting little minx who won’t accept her partner’s full, true being, which is manufactured somewhere near the vas deferens?
But do forgive me. I’m getting ahead of myself. Please, share.
I feel that I’m doing a public service by giving these angry people something nonviolent to do with their time. Kind of like that story, which is probably apocryphal, about how no tires were slashed in all of New York City on the night the Beatles made their Ed Sullivan debut.
That’s it! Dawn’s keeping us from a life of crime! Heck, I should have known that the reason I didn’t hear any police helicopters or car alarms last night was because all the angry feminists were too busy trying to puzzle out that clumsy, awkward and corny post about a saliva-sapping drug and nasty women who won’t accept their husband’s sperm to be shooting up the ‘hood.
Of course, Dawn lets us know that she gets something, too, from this public-spiritedness. Oh, sure, she does it mostly for the warm fuzzy glow she gets knowing that she’s occupied the time and minds of angry, angry, baby-hating, sperm-shunning women (who, let’s be honest, simply don’t deserve to be called “women,” seeing as how they’re denying so essential a part of their femininity; of course, if we were to stop calling them “women” because they contracept and won’t accept the risk of becoming pregnant, then we’d have to stop calling Dawn a woman, which is… well… um… it… well, it would be consistent, now wouldn’t it, but see, we could just be calling Dawn a “girl,“, yes, that works, Dawn is a girl, you see, because, see, she’s not married yet, but oh, you can just bet she intends to be really soon, and then, oh boy, oh, then will she just full with, simply sloshing with the manhood of her manly, mighty husband, who of course won’t let her work anymore since that wouldn’t be the wifely thing to do when one is sloshing with one’s husband’s manhood and one has to make up for many years of lost time while running around unmarried and contracepting while having dirty, dirty, unfulfilling premarital sex with men one wasn’t ever intending to marry and even then, one should have waited because that’s what Jesus would do and what the Bible says to do if one ignores the Old Testament, that is, and in any event, one must immediately become sloshy with one’s husband’s manhood and fully accept it and have as many children as God wants one to before one’s ovaries shrivel up and one loses all value as a woman, but by then one is no longer a girl anymore, either, so either one raises one’s grandchildren or one goes off on an ice floe so as not to be a bother).
But I digress. Dawn, you were saying, you clever girl?
Moreover, practically all the visitors from the angry blogs are people who would never bother to visit a blog just to read about the Biblical view of sexuality. I figure, if just one of them starts thinking about things differently thanks to coming here, then, praise God, I’ve done my job.
But even if no hearts are changed, my Truth Laid Bear rating spirals upward and my Google status improves with all the hits, so that kindred spirits have a better chance of finding this blog than they would otherwise.
Just think, that clever girl Dawn has single-handedly brought the feminist blogosphere to a grinding halt, thus sending crime levels in those big coastal cities where the angry, slutty sluts live plummeting AND increased her standing on Google and in the TTB ecosystem!
Gosh, Dawn. I stand in awe.
Similar Posts:
- Dawn Eden explains women by Jill January 14, 2007
- The Thrill of the Chaste, Chapter 3 by zuzu February 12, 2007
- Dawn Eden: Nasty Little Piece of Work by zuzu December 23, 2006
- The Thrill of The Chaste, Introduction by zuzu January 21, 2007
- Walking Wounded by Lauren August 23, 2005
Yes. Yes, it is apocryphal. (It’s also New York; that’s a pretty specific downward trend in vandalism.) That’s kind of my favorite part of this whole argument. “I’m performing a civic duty. Like when those guys lowered crime rates, except that they actually didn’t. Anyhoo…”
Hah! Sucker! After I commented, I totally committed sodomy! Then I broke some windows and kicked an old lady real hard! While I was wearing a condom! And then I slashed tires so I could commit sodomy with them! And then I blogged about sodomy! Twice!
I don’t understand her point here. If what she’s saying has independent worth as a serious argument, then it shouldn’t be put out there merely to get our dander up. If it doesn’t, then she needs to offer updates on a whole lot more posts than this one. Her phrasing and use of analogy in this post didn’t veer any more into self-parody than the rest of her blog. And if this style of argument was meant to piss us off and get extra attention…again, not that dissimilar to everything else she’s ever said. I don’t see the wisdom of arguing stupid so that a wider demographic will encounter those stupid arguments.
I feel like she’s challenging us to Googlebomb her.
You know, zuzu, I caught that same vibe.
And it’s not an allegory. It’s an analogy. The spit-swapping thing was an analogy.
It’s her blog, but she uses the Classic Troll Defense for her ignorance:
“You’re talking about me! I got you to talk about me! I WIN!!!”
Well, but we got her and all her commenters to think about saliva and other bodily secretions for hours, so…don’t we win?
I feel moved to share my comment on that thread that got me banned. Hope you don’t mind.
People should try to get her to #1 for “sloshy, wet sex,” which of course would make her feel all warm and fuzzy inside because she could reach out to all the horny people who Google that phrase and enlighten them about the Biblical view of sexuality.
Okay, I like Chris’s inadvertent Googlebombing suggestion better: “dripping penetration.”
You mean for sloshy, wet sex?
D’oh! I forgot the link. But which do you prefer, zuzu – sloshy, wet sex or dripping penetration?
Personally, I like them both.
Dawn’s post betrays her as an idiot, no more sexually educated than a fourteen-year old. My wife and I have only recently gone off birth control, but as a man I can personally attest that my faith in my wife’s love for me is not measured by whether or not she allows any egg I fertilize to implant in her womb. If anything, I am only assured of her love for me, in that she has cared enough to involve me in the decisions regarding our family planning.
I don’t need my wife to permit “the full essence of my being” up her fallopian tubes to know she loves me. She’s gladly accepted it everywhere else, and that’s good enough for me.
sloshy, dripping sex?
How about some hardcore anal penetration?
I’ve been reading the comments on Dawn’s bizarre blog post, and I begin to honestly feel as though she has some sort of impregnation fetish.
And just on a personal note, when I wasn’t on the pill (I was taking a break, and we resorted to other protection), my partner & I had the most tense encounters ever. We’re both worry warts, so the thought of never or rarely using BC seems to me like the fastest way to thwart one’s sex life (unless of course you’re independently wealthy, don’t have a conscience about the planet and the population, and are willing to have any number of children).
You might be into that, Comandante, but Dawn Eden has made it perfectly clear that she’s into sloshy, dripping sex. Hard to procreate your way.
I haven’t spent tons of time at her blog or in her comments section, but does anyone know if she has ever responded to people when they bring up the issue of infertile couples? Do they have loveless marriages & empty sex too? Seems like a big hole in her theory.
Besides, Commandante, one of the words in yours trips our spam filter.
Unlike sloshy, dripping sex.
that got you banned Chris? Really? that’s pretty lame…..
I just posted this in response to Dawn’s site. I’m sorry, I had to share this, sorry about the massive quote.
*Strikes a muscular pose* I am all that is Man.
What Dawn did do (alliterative!), however, was spark some of the greatest takedowns this side of Wolcott bender. This was great, Zuzu.
I think Dawn and her cohort might be in need of a spiritual intervention to save them from the sin of Pride. They sure show a lot of love for themselves over their True Believer status and great enmity for those who take a different view.
Smug self-satisfaction is just kind of thing that could put a black mark on a girl’s immortal soul. Of course, it would be wrong to wish that it could also give her a nasty case of genital warts. But, I’ve been wrong before, so I’ll deal.
Yeah, you’re right. Dawn wouldn’t be into that. She prefers sloshy, dripping sex.
Argggh, I’m no fan of evo-psych, but would someone send her a copy of Why is Sex Fun by Jared Diamond and so we can watch her head explode?
another lynne, I susppect that what tripped her trigger* was my Christian past and the fact that I’ve happily reformed.
* with no possibility of pregnancy resulting, therefor it wasn’t sex
Looks like she just became a Catholic. Dawn, dear, you’re supposed to do the crossed leg parochial girl thing when your’re—how should I put this delicately—YOUNGER!
Before you give any more advise to married people lemme tell you a little joke.
Pope John Paul II missed his plane one day and had to fly Alitalia back to Rome. He was seated next to a young Italian man. Said young man starts to flirt with a female flight attendant. Much to his delight she flirts back.
Finally Il Papa can stand it no longer and he says to the young fellow (wagging his finger) “Now see here, young man. You shouldn’t behave like that in public, it’s outrageous.”
The young man wags his finger back and says “No playa da game, no maka da rules.”
Great take-down, Zuzu.
I actually feel bad for Dawn. And I’m not saying that in a condescending way, I really do mean it. She strikes me as a person who is desperately searching for fulfillment and happiness, and isn’t able to find it (I say this being privey to some details about her pre-Christian life). She’s moved from music journalism and musicians to Catholicism and Jesus. She’s a woman searching for a community, and seaching for positive feedback. The one thing she seems to want more than anything is a husband, and for whatever reason that hasn’t worked out for her. Can you imagine putting all of your energy into doing things (like abstaining from sex) for a future mate, only to never find one?
What Dawn did do (alliterative!), however, was spark some of the greatest takedowns this side of Wolcott bender.
Exactly. It was rather heartwarming to see several blogs at once so nicely slicing and dicing this idiocy.
I’ve never heard of a Truth Laid Bear. Is that a new species?
So, what if I kiss someone without the (ahem) penetration of the tongue, but do swap saliva? Is that love?
What is our bluff exactly? and why must it be called?
If her post was supposed to make us feel really unfulfilled by our sex lives it most certainly did not work. It mostly made me laugh.
I think its the name considered for that abomination of a statue of the birthing Britney.
I agree with Betty, I think she has a fixation on pregnancy, coupled with what Jill describes as someone a little disordered in other areas as well. SHe has apparently latched onto the anti-birth control end of catholicism and is humping that vein for all its worth.
Of course not that announcing to every potential date “I have no intention of sex until marriage at which time I plan on having sex for procreation only.” is about as fetching as wearing a bunny suit to a bar.
I think she’s looking in all the wrong places. Cattle auctions in Kansas, fundie churches in Tennessee and Monster Truck Rallies in Missouri might be where she needs to place her focus.
Sure, she might have to settle for a few less teeth, a little less edumacashun and a shanty house, but when one is hunting for bear, one must go where the bear lives.
The most romantic way is just to have someone spit in your mouth and pray for a baby.
Why, why am I not surprised to learn that Dawn is a convert to Catholicism?
Talk about your convert’s zeal.
Makes me very glad that I was raised in the post-Vatican-II church and not the late JPII-Ratzi version.
I was reading Dawn Edens piece that was linked to, and thought it pertinent to comment. I believe the point she makes is more metaphysical then biological.
The idea, (in my understanding- and its one I subscribe to) is that the nature of the sexual act with birth control as apposed to without birth control, is one of kind not degree.
This phenomena is magnified as an entire culture succumbs to the notion of sex under a regime cheap, reliable, female controlled birth control.
If one is truly interested, the works of scholars like Robert Michael at the University of Chicago, or most prominently, Nobel-prize-winning economist George Akerlof of the University of California at Berkeley – use an economic model to show how the introduction of the pill dramatically restructures our concept of human sexuality and its value.
To be curt, one can accurately say that sexual intercourse is seen in contemporary society as essentially recreational rather than procreational. Indeed, this is a dramatic departure in terms of human understanding of sexuality. I believe Dawn thought experiment is helpful in highlighting this significant divide in peoples understanding of intercourse.
Any non-nut gets banned over there, in time. She purports to enforce some set of rules that she calls “the Harris protocol” that would, if enforced, essentially turn the comment section into a formal debate club. But she doesn’t actually enforce them – she just uses them as a pretext to ban people who disagree with her and delete their comments.
If you equate sex with intercourse, your operational lexicon is already so out of touch with reality as to render your analysis of human sexuality useless. Oh, and? Not different, according to Dawn. Worse. Of course reliable birth control changes things. So did the ability of women to own property independent of their husbands.
I’m really not down with economists commodifying human relationships, as it were. I’ll stick with those in the “soft sciences” like psych for analyses of love.
To be curt, one can accurately say that sexual intercourse is seen in contemporary society as essentially recreational rather than procreational. Indeed, this is a dramatic departure in terms of human understanding of sexuality.
departure from what? to the extend that societies that have “understood” sexuality as about procreation above all else, they’ve done so only via heavy regulation. control of female sexuality via all sorts of laws and social regulations, for example. every culture’s understanding of sexuality is a social construct. the understanding of sexuality as exclusively “for” procreation is one that takes a lot of heavy, heavy work to maintain, as you can see in cultures that stone women to death for adultery, or cultures in which some members try their best to force others see or experience sexuality this way via making birth control impossible to obtain…
Jeez, Fitz, how many blogs did you paste that same comment onto?
“Truth Laid Bear”–
Talk about kinky.
So, just who is this “Truth” person, anyway, and how on earth did s/he get the bear to hold still?
Truth gets Bear to read all the comments that Dawn allows to remain up, and Bear passes out from boredom.
And then Rumour and Gossip have hot lesbian sloshy, dripping sex.
You are onto something there Piny. Ever since women were allowed to get past the fourth primer in reading, the world has just gone to hell in a handbag.
Take me for instance. I don’t even know how to sew, do you know what that’s done to my identity as a woman? Its made me tempted by them damn feminists I tell you and filled my head with ideas about sex and pleasure and I tell you, I am just as wicked as they come.
Dawn! Rescue me! My love of coital pleasure absent procreation has ruined my mind! Take me to Pope pronto to be cleansed. I lay myself prostrate…er…I lay myself down before thee…uh, I mean I spread myself prostrate to the divine love of..
Oh damn.
It never fails. Dawn inevitably brings up her groupie-slut status in the same breath as she’s proclaiming, once again (yawn), her chastity to the world. Because she needs to remind us that she once was desireable on some level in some male’s eyes (although I think it’s more likely she needs to remind herself). And, of course, there’s the usual link to her cheesy glamor-shot pic (oh, please, all you married men, cum here and tell me how beeeyooootiful I am!! Pleasepleaseplease!)
I don’t mind people who accept and adhere to the Catholic Church’s teaching on sexuality at all. I know plenty of Catholics who do and who are not finger-pointing, nagging scolds and who don’t poke about in other people’s sex lives and relationships. They’re perfectly charming people who are fun to be around and interesting to know and who are good people and who would give you the shirts off their backs if you were in trouble – and they’d do it non-judmentally.
I do mind people who use the Catholic Church’s teachings (or any aspect of any religion) as a license to be downright mean and nasty.
One wonders if these people really believe all they say they believe. If they believe in Christ and his message and in accountability and a judgment day, how could they possibly act the way they do? Their actions and words are in direct opposition to the teachings they claim to revere and model their lives around.
It’s really mind-boggling. Or it would be if it were really worth bothering about that long. In the end, it’s their problem and their misery and people like Dawn have to go home to their cold, empty beds and lonely existances and deal with it. I don’t have to. I can go home to my husband and children and know that I am loved and that I love in return. Which is a pretty nice place to be.
What I do not understand is that “Natural Planning” is of course, a type of contraception. Dawn’s commenters have even promoted it as a effective source of family planning.
So how can they not consider it to be a form of contraception? It does boggle my mind.
Furthermore, what does their ideology say about anyone who stops short of coitus? For example, a couple who holds hands, cuddles on the sofa, or has a plain old make-out session? If a married couple stops short of coitus, are they immoral?
In the colonial era it was common for a fertile woman to have 12 live births. (Of course, families needed the labor for agricultural work, and America had a labor shortage.)
I find it ridiculous that their philosophy simultaneously acknowledges the need for family planning, advocates the use of a form of contraception (natural family planning) and then builds an ideology around it that is clearly not logical. (They proclaim that they are not “contracepting” marriages.)
The logical flaws are just so obvious. If they are really participating in non-contracepting marriages – they should be bearing at least 10 to 12 children in their fertile years.
The worst is that they’re making NFP out to be a moral good in itself. That’s like saying my kitchen sink is a moral good.
If a woman uses NFP, and only picks up men for one night stands on her infertile days in order to avoid pregnancy, does the NFP make what she’s doing moral?
If a married couple use NFP, and the husband only chooses the infertile days to force his wife to have sex with him against her will, does the NFP make what he’s doing moral? Or, if the wife only allows him to have sex with her during her fertile period because she wants a baby even though he thinks they need to wait, does the use of NFP make it moral?
Apparently.
Also, according to their logic, if you use NFP to put off pregnancy, the reasons behind that choice are automatically good and moral and “grave” (to use Catholic terminology), but those very same reasons would be immoral if you use a condom or a hormonal method. I lost count a long time ago how many times I’ve heard a Catholic get all superior and snooty and claim that people with small families are selfish and materialistic and want big houses and nice cars and vacations more than they want children, yet an engaged couple on the “kiss-met” thread proudly announces they’re going to put off children for two years while they get used to being married and start making more money so they can afford a bigger place. The hypocrisy is apalling.
I’m old enough to remember when the only “licit” form of family planning was the old fasioned rhythm method, aka “Vatican Roulette”. Would these people still be so high on the method if that’s all they had available to them? Would they be as “open” to life if they couldn’t control the outcome of their sexual relations with such a high degree of accuracy? I doubt Dawn et al. would be singing the praises of the rhythm method as loudly as they are the incredibly improved NFP method, or waxing so eloquent about the wonderful natural design of human sexuality if they couldn’t control it to such a great degree.
They claim that their 99% effective NFP has been given to them by God. What does that say to millions of Catholic women of generations past – that God wanted them to run their bodies into the ground by sustaining pregnancy after pregnancy after pregnancy, no matter what their financial, health or personal situation was at the time, but he likes this generation better, so he gave them a nearly perfect method of birth control? Given that the overall birth rate is way, way, way down right now, isn’t it a little odd that God has chosen this time to make it much easier to licitly put off childbearing?
They continue to claim that NFP isn’t birth control, and then when called to explain how controlling the birth of your children isn’t birth control, and how pinpointing your fertile days and using this knowledge to schedule when you’ll have intercourse, they’ll tell you that you have to accept Catholic teachings to understand. Well, yeah, if I agree to allow the Church to dictate to me how I may live and then agree to never question but always blindly follow and always mindlessly obey, then I don’t even have to understand. I just have to stop being a thinking, reasoning human being…which is why they can’t explain it…they don’t understand it either, they just agreed to turn off their minds and obey.
Sorry so long, and sorry for all the questions, but I guess I can’t understand how people can willingly allow themselves to become that stupid. It’s shocking, really. Do they not get how incredibly insane they all sound to anyone with the ability to reason?
They claim that their 99% effective NFP has been given to them by God.
Yes! Which makes the claim that they are not “contracepting” marriages all the more bizarre. It does sound insane. The conceptual intent is to prevent pregnancy. The idea of “withholding” fertility is still inherent within the NFP concept.
It almost seems to me like they are “playing” at patriarchy or “playing” at the idea of “fertility” while retaining a completely modern middle-class attitude towards family size.
(Warning – simplistic explination of history ahead: Industrial Revolution=creation of the middle class=urbanization=lower family size.) Meanwhile, they are “pretending” to have the same attitude towards family size, but very few are willing to “walk the talk.” I find the pretense odd.
The book Cheeper By The Dozen is an example of a family who really did not use birth control. But it’s just silly for someone to be married in their fertile years and end up with 2-3 kids to pretend they don’t use contraception. (That form of contraception may be withdrawal or it may be “natural family planning” but they obviously don’t have the same attitude towards family size and fertility.)
The idea of “withholding” fertility is still inherent within the NFP concept.
The idea of pin-pointing to a near-100% accuracy and then withholding fertility is NFP. That’s the method in a nutshell.
I couldn’t agree more with what you’ve written. Their arguments boil down to little more than a set of rationalizations and justifications for wanting to live in the same way any other middle class, non-NFP-using couple does. The only thing their words and “beliefs” accomplish is providing a very thin and brittle veneer over it all that allows them to fool themselves into believing their doing something different and doing it for much more noble reasons.
You can insinuate it all you want, Dawn. You can outright say it all you want, too. Doesn’t make it true.
Oooh! I know! Ditch the birth control and be “life-positive,” and then when the unpleasant consequences come, go off and get an abortion! Problem solved! All the benefits of “life-affirming” sex, and we get to support our favorite “industry” as well!
‘Cause the “rejection of the possibility of life” comes after the sex, so it doesn’t “stunt” it! Perfect sex! *laughs maniacally*
Of course, if couples who use condoms or who are on the pill or whatever are incapable of experiencing real love and if couples who use these methods are merely walking dildos and sex dolls, then they can’t make a real baby, so the abortion question is moot for them. They’re only growing a teeny-weeny wittle vibrator in their bodies, so Dawn shouldn’t have any problem when it comes to abortion for them. Removing a junior sex toy from your uterus would be doing society a favor, according to those people.
And how is using condoms to plan families any less life-positive than using NFP? It always comes back to this question, and it’s the one they dance around or get so frustrated by they end up calling people names in lieu of proffering an intelligent answer.
By the time I was celebrating my second wedding anniversary, I had two babies. I actually got pregnant on my honeymoon. But I’m less life-positive than Catholics who want to wait two years until they’ve test-driven marriage and saved enough to buy a house in the suburbs. Go figure. Oh…and my husband and I are just taking turns jerking off over each other. We don’t have a real relationship, even though it’s lasted longer than some of those little twits have been alive.
Well, I suppose it’s a good thing they’re NFPing themselves into a negligable minority.
Dawn posted a really sad, pathetic post where she implies that Jill is a slut and that she’s doing what Dawn admits she used to do, sleep around in hopes that casual sex would result in a man loving her and thereby making her important. My response before she deletes it:
She really, truly cannot grasp that women can believe in our own selves, that we don’t need a man’s approval in order to achieve humanity.
It’s interesting to me that she mentions idolizing the Plaster Casters. The Plaster Casters always creeped me out–talk about defining yourself through men! She thinks she’s made a profound shift from defining herself through all the men she sleeps with to defining herself through an imaginary future man who will make her the Mrs. I’m afraid she’s going to find defining yourself through one man isn’t especially superior to defining yourself through many. In fact, the opposite. Defining yourself through many at least means you can fuck them, get said definition and then kick them out instead of having to do all the irritating husband maintenance work that traditional wives have to do.
I look at the writings of DE and don’t feel the need to make fun or put her down. Sure, I think most of what she writes is total mind fuck. But you can disagree with someone without attacking their looks or using sarcasm.
Parker, a chivalrous feminist
>>It would be wonderful to be able to plan out the rest of my life without having to leave a husband-sized gap just in case.lives.
It is exactly this palpable desperation – this gaping, “husband-sized” hole that is the one thing guaranteed to run off any male who comes near the woman. That kind of neediness and lack of self-worth scares the crap out of men – scares the crap out of anyone, but in Dawn’s case, it’s scaring off the men that’s so counterproductive.
She needs to be a whole person before she can be anyone’s partner or spouse, not someone with a big old hole only a man can fill.
Oops, a piece of that went missing…
It would be wonderful to be able to plan out the rest of my life without having to leave a husband-sized gap just in case.
Big news flash for Ms. Eden: It is not only entirely possible to plan out the rest of your life without having to leave a husband-sized gap just in case, but it’s what most people do. They have interests, careers, hobbies, friends, family – in a word, they have lives.
It is exactly this palpable desperation – this gaping, “husband-sized” hole that is the one thing guaranteed to run off any male who comes near the woman. That kind of neediness and lack of self-worth scares the crap out of men – scares the crap out of anyone, but in Dawn’s case, it’s scaring off the men that’s so counterproductive.
She needs to be a whole person before she can be anyone’s partner or spouse, not someone with a big old hole only a man can fill.
You. Are. Shitting. Me.
So, someone who objects to the Vagina Monologues on the grounds that they reduce women to body parts nonetheless idolizes a group of women who take plaster casts of penises, thereby reducing the men they’re with to their body parts?
I would say that the level of denial is astonishing, but I’m the daughter of an alcoholic, and I’ve seen worse.
zuz, that was her old life. Her former life, if you will. And she wouldn’t take it back now if you paid her. No, she’s accepted Jeebus. Maybe he’ll find her a man.
Why couldn’t she have accepted Jeebus and become a Carmelite nun and left us all alone?
Dawn apparently thinks that if a woman is not having “marital sex,” then she must be having meaningless one night stands with lots of different people. Does she think this is the only kind of sex single women have (not that I have a problem with that myself)? What about a woman who is in a long-term, monogamous relationship with a man she loves? (I’m being “heteronormative,” as they say, because Dawn’s philosophy doesn’t even begin to contemplate non-heterosexual relationships.) What if a woman meets a man and is in a relationship with him for the rest of her life and they never get married? How is the sex any different in that case? Isn’t that a love that “lasts forever?”
See Ledasmom’s comment in that thread for a similar question.
Oh, and Dawn’s statement about leaving a husband-sized hole sounds sad to me.
So I’m really curious – just how would she live her life differently if she knew she would never get married? What would be so “wonderful” about that to her?
I’m wondering what it is that she’s NOT doing in order to leave room for this imaginary husband? Why is it necessary to rearrange your life “just in case”? I’m really confused on that one. Why not just live your life, and if you meet somone, you meet someone. That’s the usual method. Seems to have worked for most of the population.
Plus, I honestly believe if you truly, truly want to be married, you will be.
Dawn’s getting a lot of mileage out of claiming to want to be married and yet not ever attaining this supposed wish. What could she possibly blog about if she actually met someone, got married and started making babies like a good little Catholic girl?
Her unfulfilled yearnings are what give her something of a unique status in the blogosphere, and God knows Dawn would stop breathing if she couldn’t live her life “out loud” through her blog.
Plus, I’m just not seein’ Dawn in the maternal role. She’s way too self-obsessed to be a mother, believe me. There’s no room for ego in motherhood. She really hasn’t got what it takes to spend several years basically covered in baby gak and puke and taking care of sick children and cleaning up after them and all that good stuff. The thought of her parenting a teenager is really pretty frightening, too. Can you imagine having Dawn Eden for your mother? Can you imagine some poor girl of hers trying to have a normal social life? Good God, but that’s a scary thought! And Lord knows how warped any boy she might raise would turn out. Yeesh!
“Husband-sized gap”? I thought size didn’t matter. . .
[...] that posts flying back and forth also draw in other folks. Which, of course, led me to go this post about a blogger who [...]
You women are angry, rage-filled examples of all things wrong with the feminist thought.
Sad that you expend so much time on a person different than you instead of doing good and decent things with your lives. It doesn’t take much to be word nasty.
and this comment: “There’s no room for ego in motherhood”
is so full of bullsh** Our egos never take flight, but are set aside temporarily. If you think ego dies with having a child you’ll be in a mental hospital by the time your child reaches teen hood.
If there is NO ego – why would one BOTHER to do any of the myriad of things we DO for our children. (and NO it’s not because that’s what apes do! :P)
I guess logic and feminism just don’t go hand in hand – that’s why I jumped ship years ago – WITH EGO intact.
Thanks, Elizabeth. I needed a laugh what with all the Duke trial stuff. Excellent parody.
Do I even need to say it?
Um, Elizabeth…
My oldest is 25, my youngest 17. I have four children. I’ve been a stay at home mom for all of these years.
I never said ego dies. I said there isn’t room for the kind of mentally ill, narcissistic ego of the likes of Ms. Eden’s ego.
And if that poor, sad, shell of a woman is going to encourage and condone statements that reduce my marriage to dogs doing it in an alley, or a five minute roll in the sack, or two people merely using each other as masturbatory material, then she’ll just have to suck it up when people think she’s a frickin’ nutjob.
BTW, missy, I have done and continue to make the sacrifices and do the hard, tedious work involved in motherhood because I love my children and because doing things for them brings me great joy. The reward, at this end, is that I get to sit back now and relax a little and watch them build lives and families of their own.
Oh, yeah, and I get to have lots more of that cheap, shallow, pleasure-seeking, objectifying hot sex with my husband now that we’re alone with each other again more often than not. Hey, we even take trips together and do it in expensive hotel rooms all over this country and a few others. Go us!
Now, see, Dawnie would be pretty close to doing that, too, if she hadn’t wasted her youth and her most fertile years skanking around and engaging in a series of cheap, meaningless one night stands.
Sucks for her. And I don’t feel the least bit sorry for her now after the way she’s run down decent, good, hard-working people who grew up when they were supposed to and didn’t wait until they were damned near forty.
And if that poor, sad, shell of a woman is going to encourage and condone statements that reduce my marriage to dogs doing it in an alley, or a five minute roll in the sack, or two people merely using each other as masturbatory material, then she’ll just have to suck it up when people think she’s a frickin’ nutjob.
See that’s the thing, exactly. Part of what is bringing me back to the liberal side lately is this contraception-no contraception dichotomy that conservatives keep bringing to light. I’ve posted about this anonymously on her site and others. Since when was someone who already has kids and has stayed home raising them for years, “anti-child and anti-family?” How can that possibly be? Why is using a rubber device, or a synthetic hormone, being lumped in with people who don’t feed their kids, or don’t emotionally nourish them, or who didn’t want their kids from the get-go?
There are many of us who are pro “traditional” family (although again unlike D@wn’s supporters I also support gay marriage) who use artificial means to plan those families. Many of us married young. Many want nothing more than to be a full-time mom. I always feel like I agree with a lot of these folks until they alienate me by playing the “contracepting” card.
All the right does with this stuff is hurt itself. 95% of the population uses some sort of contraceptive device; something like 85% of those are Catholic. How is 95% of the population anti-child, child-hating, anti-marriage, husband-hating, whatever, while the other 5% has these perfect, blissful marriages? Even if 50% of that 95% vote like Dawn does, and believe like Dawn does about their faith, and agree with her on a whole slew of other issues?
If they keep this up, the only supporters that the Right will have will be the likes of the Duggar family. Ugh!!
Well, or Mormons. The reality is that there are even more conservative sects of Christianity out there than these superficial and phony Catholic conservatives. There are the evangelical protestants who adhere to the “quiver-full” philosophy based on Biblical text, for example, who think NFP is just as evil as a condom or the pill. Frankly, I have more respect for them even though I disagree with the philosophy. But they not only live their beliefs, they tend to do it without condemning those around them who don’t adhere to the same philosophy. Same with Mormons. I may have huge problems with the underground sects which practice polygamy, but I can respect polygamy (when consentual between adults) because they don’t judge me and spit on my marriage.
Plus, we keep coming back to the fact that it’s easy for Dawn to pass all this judgment now. Hey, she fucked everything that moved and probably a few things that didn’t for years, and now that her fertility is dwindling away and she’s probably unlikely to ever marry, she gets up on her high horse and tells the rest of us we’ve all been doing it wrong and that our marriages are worthless and we don’t even really love our children. How dare she?
When she was busy sucking dick backstage at some dive down in the Bowry, I was pregnant with my second child and nursing my mother while she was dying of cancer. While she was out there giving Jenna Jameson a run for her money, my husband and I were sitting in a hospital in Chicago being given a pretty dismal prognosis for our eight year old son (he’s fine, thank heavens). We’ve weathered a year and a half of unemployment, breast cancer, my mother’s death, his father’s ongoing Alzheimer’s, 9/11 (we both lost family members and several friends) and all the usual ups and downs and stresses (and joys – although Dawn wants to deny us those) of marriage and parenthood.
And now Saint Dawn, who imagines herself right up there with the Virgin Mary, comes along and tells us she’s always wanted to be married. Bullshit. People who want to be married act like it.. They don’t peddle their body around town for a few measly crumbs of attention, they date men who are seriously interested in marriage and they are the kind of woman a man would consider making a commitment to, not some freakin’ headcase who’s been around more times than the wheel on Lance Armstrong’s bicycle.
What could she ever know about love and commitment? It is the one thing she has failed at consistantly all her life. And then, because she’s so bitterly jealous and resentful of those of us who’ve succeeded at it, she has to try and tear down what we worked hard and sacrificed to build.
She’s a disgusting whore and no decent man will ever be interested in her shabby leftovers.