Just creepy.

Don’t these people have anything better to do with their lives?

I know you don’t say so, but some liberals do, and it bothers me.

I’ve experienced some of this at my undergrad when some of the socio-economically privileged classmates accused me of being “repressed” for not having much expressed interest in sex when asked.

What was grating wasn’t the fact they were liberal…but that all of them were so secure in their high socio-economically privilege that they didn’t care that my reasons were due to prioritizing my studies so I could maintain the scholarship which made my education possible and thus, improve my odds of graduating. This was a serious fear of mine as an uncle and several older cousins came close to/were tossed out of college for overprioritizing their leisurely activities…including having sex at the expense of their studies.

Unlike those classmates, my uncle, and those older cousins whose parents had the resources and connections to help them if they faltered in their undergrad career…..I did not have them and I knew if I f&^ked up this educational opportunity, that was it…no more college.

Here’s the thing; the part that makes us a ‘counter-culture’ is saying that its ok to have sex. The magazine that pandagon is clipping from keeps on harping about second virginity, second virginity, second virginity – you should STOP having sex, Jesus still loves you and you can still repackage your hymen…

The idea that you can have sex without getting pregnant, an STD, heartbroken, or becoming a dirty, dirty whore is almost nonexistant in our culture.

But actually we don’t.

We’re now operating under the illusion that there’s some perfect amount of “acceptable” sex to have, and if you fall on either side of the line you’re either a slut or a prude. Or possibly both at the same time. And always, that perfect amount of acceptable sex is in service to male sexuality – aren’t almost all of the sex articles in Cosmo about how to please your man?

i know you didn’t address me, but i don’t see either as either.

to abstain or engage in sex are both choices. they are both very personal decisions, both holding good merit if made freely by those involved.

to call one “culture” and the other “counter-culture” diminishes them as valid choices. it is not the place of anyone not personally involved in the decision to shame someone for making one or the other. there are plenty of good reasons to abstain, just as there are plenty of good reasons not to. i don’t think anyone here is saying that sex is the norm or that not having sex is the norm (i could be wrong), but rather trying to figure out what the big damn deal is.

some people have sex.

some don’t.

neither choice is unnatural or superior.

just my $.02

I hate it when other people make that mistake. This is why I should read things over before posting them.

The fact that so many people do not follow it to the letter is merely a sign that it is ineffective.

Okay, maybe. I can’t see why you’d think it’s humorous that the anti-sex crowd think they’re “radical” and mock them for it, if you though their assessment was correct (as is actually the case).

Which do you think is the culture and which the counter-culture? If they are the counterculture, then they’re perfectly right to say they’re radical, and I can’t see what’s so humorous.

What I find humorous is that pretty much all the leading lights of the feminist blogosphere – Jill here , and Amanda at Pandagon, and Jessica at Feministing – seem convinced that they’re the radical embattled minority and that anti-sex crowd are the establishment.

Uh, no. But I do find it humorous that you are severely challenged in the reading comprehension area.