So it’s very kind of John C. Wright to assemble a post that completely kills my appetite — in fact, it makes me feel like an inhabitant of the planet Miranda, only I can’t make up my mind whether to just lie down and die or go full Reaver. It’s titled The Secret to the Most Mind-Blowing Sex Ever
. Very click-baity. I can only the imagine the disappointment of people searching for “mindblowing sex” and landing on Wright’s article, and feeling their generative organs shrivel.
It’s premise is that there’s more to sex than just the physical — and I’d agree with that. It’s emotional, it’s social, it strengthens the pair bond, it’s fun. But Wright isn’t thinking along those lines, and he also has a peculiar idea of what’s appropriate about the physical side of it.
If the union were physical only, nothing but the physical sensation of the orgasm would matter, and rubbing your penis in an anus, mouth, armpit, elbow, or an elephant’s ear, not to mention the crevasses of mothers and sisters and underage children, convenient animals, and fresh corpses or whatever floats your boat would be called sex just the same as sex is sex. The word sex would refer only to the hunger for the sensation, and not to the sex act.
I’m fine with people who get off on armpits. As long as the two people doing it (and I’m pretty sure that one requires at least two people; if you can do it solo, you must be built like a barnacle) are willing participants who both are enjoying it, why not? And of course I’d be among many agreeing that there’s a difference between sexual interactions and sexual gratification, and that regarding your mother as a collection of crevasses
is more than a little icky. It is rather important in long-term sexual relationships that you consider your partner as a human being.
But no, that’s not what Wright is getting at. He has his own definition of the function and purpose of sex.
In order to understand the perfect sexual experience, we first must say what sex is: it is copulation, the process by which two halves of a sexual whole find complement and completion, and reproduce. The sex act is the act of sexual union in sexual reproduction. The sexes, however, are spiritual rather than physical: men are masculine in psychology and mind and soul, masculine in speech and deportment and nuance in all they do just as women are feminine. The sexual union is spiritual, ordered toward the end of reproduction.
That’s it. The whole purpose of sex is making babies. For someone who just lectured on interminably in flowery language about how sex is not physical only, he sure seems focused on the physical process of getting the lady preggers.
Since sex is ordered toward reproduction, anything that hinders it is an imperfection. Prudence, if nothing else, would warn potential mother and potential fathers not to do the act which makes you a mother or a father until you have a household and loving union ready to rear children.
If you are artificially sterile, or using contraception, you are holding back, you are not passionate about the sex, you are trying to use the sex rather than surrender to the sex.
Gosh, is he an evolutionist? Because we’d be the types to say that the only ‘goal’ of evolution, the only measure of success, is sustained maintenance of the species. Of course, we’d also note that it’s a much more complicated process in humans than blindly inseminating random females (that’s more appropriate to sea urchins), and that sex also plays a role in strengthening bonds between people to help with survival, and we’d also note that lots of phenomena in biology have interesting side-effects that can be important in life histories, too. Sex is not exclusively ordered towards reproduction, so his premise is false.
We get to his real deal, at least: he’s against contraception. He doesn’t see any point to any kind of sexual interaction that doesn’t have the possibility of conception. Well, gosh, I’ll have to break the news to my wife that there were only three brief periods in my life when our sex life mattered, and that was when we were trying to have kids. All the rest was frivolity and illusion, and now that we’re all done with the kid stuff, we can stop. Because sex would be pointless.
It just gets worse from here. If you’re just trying to lose a bit of appetite, you can stop just a couple of paragraphs in — proceeding further takes you deeper into bulimia territory, as you discover that sex is also supposed to reinforce very traditional roles for men and women: master and servant.
Since sex is ordered toward reproduction, you have to love the woman first, and want her to be the mother of your children, and want it more than you want life itself. Since sex is spiritual, you have to protect your children and your wife and make them safe. Your wife cannot be made safe if you are allowed to abandon her. Hence, since sex is ordered toward reproduction, you must swear, swear by Holy God and your hope of heaven, never to leave her, but to love and cherish her, in sickness and health, for better or worse, until nothing less than horrid death itself you do part.
For her part, she must vow to love and honor and obey.
And if you do not understand about that obey part, you do not understand women. She wants a leader, an alpha male, a chief, a Christ, and you must be willing to die for her as Christ was willing to die for you, or she will not feel secure in your love. If she does not swear to obey, you are not a couple, not a dyad, not a unit, but are still two sovereigns dealing with each other at arm’s length, not intimate, and she cannot trust you fully, cannot love you fully, not with a divine and self-sacrificing love. And she knows you don’t love her fully, not with a love that is more than madness, more than sense, more than the universe.
So much nonsense. Here’s the real secret to mindblowing sex: each treats the other as a sovereign, intimately. My interactions with my wife are not subservient to praising tropes in a dusty old holy book, nor are they dedicated to creating some third party (yeesh, especially not at our age).
Of course, this is John C. Wright babbling: Catholic, conservative, fan of Vox Day, science fiction writer. And if the puffed-up goofy prose in that column is any example, not a very good writer. Judging by the content, also a dogmatic idiot.
I think it would do him a world of good to go fuck an elbow, actually.
Except barnacles don’t have armpits. Curse you, nature, for thinking like an O. Henry short story!
I hate, hate, HATE, the Christian description of a marriage. The husband cherishes the wife while she obeys and honors him. That is not an equitable relationship. You can cherish things that aren’t human, and there’s no respect there. The wife is a servant to the husband.
The wife is a servant? I think it’s worse – the wife is just property, like the rest of the man’s goods and chattels.
Curse you, PZ, now I feel too sick to eat breakfast!
By Io, that man’s sex life must be really, really shit…
Fuck you.
So, why are those individuals who are naturally sterile different from those who aren’t? Is their sex doomed to be unfulfilling because of their biology, or has God compensated that they don’t get a choice about biological kids by guaranteeing them mind-blowing sex?
Also, I can think of those folks who are artificially sterile, but hadn’t sought it. Are you going to tell someone who suffered from testicular and uterine cancer and lost the ability to conceive or bear a kid because that was how the doctors saved their life, that their sex is now meaningless and could never be as pleasurable as pre-cancer sex? I’m sure Wright would argue intent here, because otherwise he looks like an Even Bigger Jerkface by adding ‘survivors of cancer and other serious illness or injuries’ to his shit list.
Presuming, of course, that he can discern other anatomy from that elbow…
On the plus side, I’ll now associate John C. Wright with humping elephant ears, so that’ll give me something more pleasant to think about while reading his article.
My parents did all of the things that Wright advocates (four children in five years!). To the end of here life, my mother complained about how bad sex with my father was.
That guy is a freak. What is it with religious people that they get so cranked up over the smoshing together of genitals when it involves just the mutual pleasure? My wife and I had a hell of a lot of mind blowing sex before we considered having children. I’d say that children, for many reasons, actually cause a serious diminution of one’s sex life for a number of years when they are young. Little sex-reduction creatures.
And what about people who have vasectomies? Are we done? I don’t think so. This guy is spewing a lot of psychobabble and spirituality nonsense that is completely devoid of meaning to me. I’ve never thought about Jesus in the middle of a shag, though I may have reflexively called out to his dad at the end. :)
So, I’m going to express mild disagreement here.
There are probably thousands-to-millions of couples who think and act like that…and I say, if it works for them, then good for them. Young couple next door to me seem to be operating under this paradigm. Nice couple, four kids all under age 6, they all seem as happy as a clam at high tide, keep inviting me to their church (thanks, but no).
That doesn’t mean that I agree with their chosen lifestyle, or the reasons that they have chosen to live that way. Only that it’s their choice and it appears to be doing them no harm (other than chronic sleepless nights from popping out a fresh baby every 18 months or so.)
HOWEVER: That does not give you the right to impose your preferred lifestyle on me. Any more than it would be for me to impose my lifestyle on you.
You go your way. I go mine. And stop trying to legislate your way as to being the only way.
@Becca at 5 –
Silly. Of course it can’t be good sex anymore. They subverted god’s plan by seeing that evil doctor. They should have prayed the cancer away or died to follow god’s plan for them, then the sex issue would be a non-starter.
Yow. That’s icky to say even in sarcasm.
Notice too that in his world, it’s only men who have sex (described as rubbing one’s penis in various crevasses). The only differentiations between wife-crevasses and other-obect-crevasses are the wife’s vow to obey her owner and her capacity to be bred by him.
@ Kevin #10
I’m sure there were slaves who were happy as clams too. And “choice” when you’ve been indoctrinated is rather a weak and complicated concept.
Indeed, women don’t count, gays dont count, and one has to wonder what this fellow’s view of those who combine those categories might be. Post-menopausal intercourse? Post-operative cuddling? The whole thing is seriously ridonculous.
@Ibis:
That’s a feature, not a bug, of Christian-based sexual relationships. Fuck the wife (literally) it’s only the husband who deserves pleasure.
That horrid, horrid death that is just a brief moment of transition between your earthly, imperfect world and the paradise that awaits!
Oh, how I hate being transported to paradise! If I were to be transported to paradise it would be the worst thing ever.
Evah!
…um, am I doing this Christian thing right, because that doesn’t seem to make any sense whatsoever?
Oh look. Another douchey sci fi writer who doesn’t need my fucking money.
At least it’s convenient when they identify themselves.
FUCK YOU, JOHN C WRIGHT. I AM NOT CHATTEL.
And people wonder why I generally disdain the institution of marriage. (Not *your* marriage, I’m sure it is wonderful.) Yes, I understand why, with the shitty US laws out there, people need to get married for legal reasons and yes, yes, celebration of love, I get it, but fuck is it ever poisoned by religion and horrible conservative traditions. Even the ones conducted by a civil authority are tainted by religion, either because the participants just accepted things as “traditional” or because you actually have to put a shit load of time into removing those aspects from the ceremony – and even then you will probably get a faceful of religious-based sexism or homophobia when you fill out the paperwork.
A husband has to be a Christ to his wife? I’m not familiar with Wright, but I suspect he’s not overburdened with humility.
@17 wondering
We didn’t have any religious or traditional thing in our wedding. Just us, our children (we had them all before we got married so they could attend), two witnesses, and the justice. On a foot bridge over a stream in the middle of the woods. We wrote our own short ceremony. We wrote our own vows and injected them with some humour. And there was narry a word of religion or tradition when we did the paperwork. It was as secular as it could be. Then we went home and drank champagne, ate some good food, and invited some friends over for a party. We didn’t tell them we were “just married” and they didn’t even know what they were celebrating. It was funny.
Well, someone doesn’t understand women…
John C. Wrong and folks of his ilk kinda makes me nostalgic for the reign of Henry VIII.
So how were sex and marriage even possible before Jesus came along? By the fundamentalists’ own timeline, women must have been hugely sexually frustrated for at least 4000 years before the One True Alpha Male came along to provide the model of an Ideal Husband. (It would be rude, I suppose, to point out that fundamentalists also believe Jesus died a virgin.)
Sounds like he rejects even the Rhythm Method. What? You’re having sex when you think your wife is in an infertile part of her cycle? How pointless!
@5, 9, 11
You are all reminding me of “The Meaning of Life”…
NIGEL: Couldn’t you have your balls cut off?
DAD: Hohh, it’s not as simple as that, Nigel. God knows all! He’d see through such a cheap trick. What we do to ourselves, we do to Him.
@13: Yes, I’m quite sure you’re right.
But again, it’s still their choice, isn’t it? (Which wasn’t the case for slaves, FWIW, which is why the analogy fails.)
What’s your alternative? DEMAND that they stop having babies and start using birth control? This is the 21st century; I’m pretty sure they’re aware of the arguments against their lifestyle. There’s this thing called “the internet”, you see.
You can’t be for equality and then deny people the right to live the way they choose, as long as the decision is mutually arrived at and consensual. I see no evidence whatsoever that this isn’t the case with my neighbors. Or with thousands-to-millions of other couples. You’re trying to impose your beliefs on non-believers.
Now, if the decision is not mutually arrived at and/or nonconsensual, that’s a different story, and if there’s domestic abuse, not what we’re talking about at all and also untenable. But that’s a case-by-case situation.
You can’t tell a couple that appears perfectly content that they’re wrong — anymore than a right-wing preacher can tell you that your preferred sexual position is an abomination.
Oh, this argument again! I like it better the way I typically see it, with a little “NFP works perfectly!” stuck on at the end, because the irony of insisting that birth control is a tragedy, but something that “perfectly” controls birth is not birth control and is totally ok and wonderful just adds such a nice seasoning. I do like the part about how men who listen to women about what women want obviously don’t understand women, though. It really highlights how helpful it is for someone who cannot get pregnant to explain that the fear of pregnancy can never damage intimacy between partners during sex, I assume because the female partner isn’t having sex, she is having sex done to her, and therefore does not need intimacy.
I do have a question though. I have a condition that causes me to be rather sub-fertile unless I take a pill every day, but doesn’t really affect me otherwise, so I have only taken the drug when I wanted to conceive. Is it still evil doctor medicine if I take it? Or is increasing fertility beyond my natural state totally different from decreasing it, and therefore allowed? Am I REQUIRED to take it all of the time for sex to have meaning? A conundrum, to be sure.
wondering@17 — if you happen to find his “Golden Age” in a used bookstore, it’s not terrible (assuming you like dense flowery prose). Perhaps coincidentally, it was written prior to his enthusiastic embrace of religion.
Oh him, the one who did that public flounce from the SFWA when his dues were up and it wasn’t right wing enough for him any more.
I was taught this kind of thinking in high school may not as directly but the implied arguments were the exact same.
He has stated one part of the ideal very well. namely there is only one way to have sex and only one reason to have sex all else is sinful to varying degrees
What he has not stated is the other underlying belief and that is that sex is bad and the highest moral value or path is the celibate life.
Sex needs to be confined in marriage and restricted to necessary reproduction in subservience to god
It is ignoring the language about mind blowing sex just more controlling anti nature thinking with the outcome of the creation of more guilt ridden people who fail necessarily to follow the impossible letter of the law and have one more thing that makes it impossible to ever reach that paradise in the afterlife.
Christianity = slavery
I need more coffee and maybe some toast with jam
uncle frogy
I read that crape a few times and my interpretation [what your reading this for, obviously ;-) ] is that he is conflating “sex” for “love”. Love is far more than just the physical act of sex, why one will sacrifice one’s life to protect the other, and willingly give in to the other’s decisions (i.e. “obey”), yada yada yad. But while he appears to be describing “deep love”, he scrambles it into a mess with other bible-bugs and declares those “bugs” as “features”. He scrambles cause & effect. Yes, a couple should wait to have kids (ie reproduce) until they are able to afford to raise them. But to say the only reason for love is to reproduce is confusion-extreme. He is correct that the most mind-blowing sex ever, is sex with love as a significant component. The reproduction aspect is a severe inhibitor, not an enhancement.
A husband is Christ to his wife? I’d love to trade places with his wife for the afternoon. I’d whip the living shit out of this self centred asshole and nail him to a cross.
I bet he’d enjoy it, beats elephant ears.
Don’t do this.
But we’ve already established that he’s supposed to be doing the nailing and she’s the one just getting nailed….
twas brillig, @30:
He is correct that the most mind-blowing sex ever, is sex with love as a significant component.
Speak for yourself. I’ve had plenty of brain-melting sex with people I wasn’t in love with.
John C. Wright only has three children.
I guess we can assume he only had sex three times in his life or so, or he wasn’t walking his talk.
Probably the latter. He converted to xianity at age 42 and then went RCC. Too late to do the rabbit breeding thing.
Really, just another kook babbling away on the internet. I have no interest or intention of ever reading his books even though I read a few books a week. It’s a gigantic world and there are many good authors out there. I’m reading Richard Bowes right now.
@25
Kevin, I agree that the couple next door has a right to live that way if that is they way they want to live. No question.
But your assumption that they are happy that way because they seem happy is seriously flawed. In the community that they were raised in they are not allowed to be anything but deliriously happy. Anything but pure and very, very obvious happiness, especially on the part of the young woman, is like slapping Jesus in the face.
Go read some of the stuff on No Longer Quivering. It is possible that the young couple is as happy as you claim. It is (in my not terribly humble opinion) more likely that they are both miserable.
And whether they are or not is beside the point of the OP. The point of the OP is that if Wright actually believes that crap, he must have a lousy sex life and he wants to impose that lousy sex life on everyone. And also? His view of both sexuality and gender roles are poisonous. I believe that “Fuck you” is the appropriate response to his attitude toward women but I also believe “Fuck you” is the appropriate response to his attitude toward men.
#25 @Kevin Kehres
That wasn’t an analogy. It was a refutation of your position that because someone is ostensibly happy, the circumstances which give rise to their situation ought to remain unchallenged.
You are employing a false dichotomy (i.e. either we employ force to make people comply with what is moral or we do nothing). There’s always education and persuasion. Even mandatory education, especially for the young. There’s resistance. There’s protest. There’s making alternatives available and accessible. The internet is just one tool, but it can’t work if someone is being monitored (you do know that these cultures encourage both men and women to restrict their access to media right?), for example.
I’m not denying anyone’s rights to live the way they want. I’m questioning how consensual a decision is when the person making it has been prevented from being informed. Or has been the victim of social pressure to conform to the rules laid down by authorities lest they be cast out of their families and communities. Or have been brainwashed to believe that if they even question their divinely ordained place they’ll burn for eternity. That’s not what I’d call a choice. I’d call that coercion, no matter how “happy” a person appears to be.
You’re wrong. I can say that they are wrong to treat women as subordinate
brood mareshelpmeets. I can say that they are wrong to have so many children (for a multitude of reasons). I can even say they’re wrong to feel happy and contented with the life they’re choosing. I can say all of that without advocating they be stopped by legal means.O my fucking FSM, did he really name his kids Orville, Wilber and Juss Wright? He made a JOKE out of his kids names.
Zeno:
And what about marriages between atheists or agnostics, or followers of Hinduism or Buddhism?
This kind of ugly nonsense is a recurring theme in religion, especially amongst its most obsessive/extreme exponents. I associate it with a desperate need for control over both self and others, vividly personified by the tyrant God himself, Erdos’s “supreme fascist”.
So I wonder how John Wright feels about analingus, cunnilingus, and fellatio?
@41.
Well he says the husband should be Christ for his wife. And we’re supposed to eat of the body of Christ…
This sort of thing always makes me wonder about the relationship between religion and kinks. Reading that, it’s fairly clear that this isn’t just a religious hangup but that John C. Wright genuinely gets off on the idea of reproduction. He speaks so raptly, so ecstatically over just how fucking hot breeding is. When he says that you need the chance of reproduction and female submission for truly mind-blowing sex, I believe that’s true for him. This whole thing is an ode to D/s breeding fetishes.
Unfortunately, instead of recognizing that this is his personal fetish and should only be explored ethically instead of genuinely trying to achieve a pregnancy with every sex act, he’s got religion and so blankets the earth with his kink. The only way to have sex is by indulging in his personal breeding fetish and he’s got Jesus backing him up.
Your kink is not my kink, buddy. I can have mind-blowing sex without it.
In case his sexytimes article wasn’t emetic enough, here’s Mr. Wright’s latest bolus of wisdom:
http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/07/23/politics/liberals-mass-neurosis-political-correctness
Here’s a handy summary: Progressivism = Tyranny.
Mellow Monkey, #43: Brilliant analysis.
#41: The way I heard it was that all of those icky sex acts were tolerated as long as they were considered foreplay and the Man does not ejaculate. That is saved for the woman’s baby-making part.
Growing up Catholic with an ultra-Catholic* father I was always taught that sex was only for procreation. This was what I got from the nuns who taught me. My parents never said anything about sex. We learned the mechanics from the pornographic cartoon books in my father’s top drawer. When puberty hit and I discovered my Magic Part I started masturbating a lot. For a while I felt guilty but, by the time I was 14 I realized that it made me feel good and I wasn’t struck by lightning when I did it.
*He faithfully attended Mass every Sunday but totally ignored the “Love thy neighbor” crap. Need I say he was physically and emotionally abusive?
Meanwhile,, over at Lawyers, Guns, and Money they’re not amused with Wright’s take on Marvel’s female Thor plotline.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2014/07/just-grown-ass-man-upset-thor-now-gross-girl
— John C. Wright.
— Christ.
Wright is a control freak, a Dom. It is pure B&D.
And a sadist. Children are just pain objects and long lasting ones at that.
I have a coworker who has spoken about the umbrella of protection under god. At the top is, of course, god. Followed by, you guessed it, the man of the house. Women do get the next spot with the kids tucked safely under her wing. He’s even sent his male children to classes and workshops that reinforce this concept, and he is confused when I bring up feminist objections to this paradigm he so readily subscribes to.
He has 5 kids so I’m guessing he has used each of them as an excuse to have sex without guilt. What an awful way to live. I’m glad my partner and I are not under this sad umbrella. We prefer to get wet.
Here’s a passage from the article I found particularly funny:
Hey, you can still and they can still and without all the romance bullshit. Even (because nothing inspires kids like an entertainer who was born in the 19th century and has been dead for more than twenty-five years) is still possible without it ending in some Duggaresque breeding program.
Then again, I have yet to write a sonnet to anyone’s so maybe I have been really missing out all this time (minus the occasional elephant-armpit-elbow-crevasse diversions, of course).
Hey! No picking on the sea urchins! Besides, they don’t inseminate (they’re free spawners – females don’t have any copulatory organs to hold semen) and it’s not random (they display mate choice in fertilization, just like the animals that actually have brains).
Ok? Carry on then…
I have no idea how to flirt, would feel utterly ridiculous playing coy, don’t understand why I need to be pursued (am I a fugitive?), would sprain an ankle trying to dance like Fred and Ginger, and have never had a sonnet written about me. Oh, no, I’m not really a woman!
What about twerking? Is twerking with a partner sufficiently womanly?
I don’t know about anybody else, but my boner is killed deader than dead.
How does that saying go? Too many Christs, not enough Native Americans?
And all this will be happening on Wright’s lawn, too.
@Kevin Kehres #25
“Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.” – B. Russell, “A Liberal Decalogue”, #10
Great. Now I’m eating to mask the depression and comfort myself. Not exactly a way to lose weight, PZ
Also, the only thing “feminine” about me is my body.
It’s been a while since I read it, but if memory serves, Philosophy in the Bedroom mentions that as an option for avoiding pregnancy. No mention of elephant’s ears, though.
John C. Wright would be to misogyny as Orson Scott Card is to homophobia, if it weren’t for the fact Wright’s extremism makes Card look like Quentin fucking Crisp.
I’ve never had a sonnet written to my glory. I wrote a sonnet once, though. Does that count? To tell the truth, it wasn’t great art.
Oh, yes. Definitely. I’m a woman and I exist to Serve Man*.
*Why, yes, in fact, it is a cookbook.
Hmmm.
Have any of the women in this thread had sonnets written to glorify you? If not, is this something you’d like?
Have any men in here written glorifying sonnets to any women?
This strikes me as so damned bizarre in the modern era. Does Wright fancy himself a Romantic™?
dianne:
Sadly, no.
To experience life as women are supposed to-according to Wright-a heterosexual man who is courting you must write it.
I do wonder if the quality of sonnet matters…
Well, improvising sonnets is kind of my go-to stand-up act, but I don’t think anyone’s written one to glorify me. I think I wrote one once that sort of said I was kind of a good poet sometimes, in an English-understatement version of the rapper’s boast, but I wouldn’t say I glorified myself.
So a qualified ‘no’, Tony, no one has ever done that for me. Sorta. Other than a bit of masturpoetry.
Martin Wagner
Card is also a somewhat competent novelist, something Wright cannot come close to claiming.
Tony @ 63:
I wrote a sonnet in honor of a dead guinea pig when I was in college.
To this day, I honestly think it’s the most beautiful thing I’ve ever written.
(I will never forget you, piggy.)
66: Point.
Also…YOU GUISE! THIS IS THE BEST THING! Wright’s writing dramatically improved!
The Mellow Monkey @ 43
Judging by his Chronicles of Chaos series, he’s also got a thing for spanking teenage girls. Bleh.
Why the fuck not? You’re doing the same thing to us here – telling us we shouldn’t do something because reasons.
As for the rest of the comment…
Are you really too fucking stupid to envision any intermediate step between literally putting a gun to someone’s head and demanding they renounce their religious lifestyle, and “hey, man, your deeply bigoted, crushingly anti-human misogyny is no better or worse than any other way of viewing the world! Good on ya!”
REALLY?!
You’re conflating consensual BDSM with a desire to oppress people. That’s bad and you should feel bad.
(Kevin, take fucking notes.)
Another control freak who likes to tell people what to do. And not the first time in this thread.
Fuck you troll.
Tony @63:
Actually, yes. My boyfriend wrote a sonnet about me and sent it to me in a text message while he was bored at work one day. We’d recently had some sort of discussion of Shakespeare and had tried improved discussions in iambic pentameter, so it wasn’t entirely random.
And we’ve had plenty of mind-blowing sex–always with at least one form of birth control, as we both definitely do not want children. I would laugh in anyone’s face if they told me I had to obey him, and he doesn’t see it as his duty to protect me from the world.
So fuck you, John C. Wright: great sex and romantic poetry are both possible without all the religious claptrap around it.
@63 Tony
Have you seen him? Yes, he does, and it is pretty sad.
@69 Snoof
How very predictable.
raven, Azkyroth is factually correct (and not a troll). Consensual BDSM ≠ oppressing someone (the fact that it personally squicks me out doesn’t prevent me from grasping that there is a massive fucking difference – and as so often in these matters the massive fucking difference is consent: genuine, informed, un-coerced, un-bullied, un-blackmailed, always-rescindable consent). Wright may possibly have some predilections in common with a dom, but he clearly has no grasp of the concept of consent.
Tony @63:
Do filthy limericks count? Those are pretty much the same as sonnets, right?
If my wife gets her tubes tied and doesn’t tell me, can I still have wild mind-blowing sex if I THINK there’s a good chance she could get pregnant? What if someone has been slipping her birth control pills and neither of us knows about it?
What the actual fuck? I was under the impression you were at least semi-regular……
What?
What species? Your genes have no idea which species you’re classified as belonging to.
There are fundies who believe that all women are asexual. Men are heterosexual unless demon-possessed or something, women are asexual: very simple.
I’m afraid that’s true.
Hell?
– part of the Klingon marriage ceremony
So? Would that be bad? ~:-|
GAAAAH!!! ANARCHY! CATS AND DOGS LIVING TOGETHER! MASS HYSTERIA!!!!!
…I mean… your existence isn’t provided for by poor John Wright’s worldview.
He kind of has to.
Commas are important people!!!
See also comment 75.
Has been one for longer than you or even me. Has also, however, always behaved like their attempts at insulting fundies were beyond criticism. Has even exhibited the Dunning/Kruger effect about the (nearly) neutral theory of evolution.