The ellipsis marks the place in a NYT "Modern Love" column where I had to stop and laugh. Something about the combination of "sexiest" and watching a TED talk. And it gets even unsexier. The TED talk is Malcolm Gladwell on the topic of marketing. If you do continue reading, you'll find that the author Sophie Dillon — "a junior at Yale" — uses Malcolm Gladwell's TED talk on marketing to explain different labels for sexual relationships. There's a "wide spectrum" that goes from "single, talking, friends with benefits, hookup buddies (all physical, no friendship), cuff (a temporary, reliable cuddle buddy for wintertime, when it’s too cold to go out and meet people, a special favorite of Northeasterners), exclusively hooking up (all physical with the same partner), dating, and then the finish line: 'in a relationship.'"
In the end, the young woman wants "a relationship" with Kam (a male), and after a drunk friend calls Kam "a coward" for not being willing to call what they have "a relationship" and she realizes she's "scared" to confront him about it, she finally confronts him with "Are we going to do this thing? Or does he want to chicken out?" Notice all the fear words.
Anyway, they end up at the so-called "finish line," "in a relationship."
Now, why doesn't this NYT column have a comments section? Young Sophie must be protected from the mean things people might say. Speaking of fear. But what is there to say about this? I have 6 things:
1. I only started blogging this because I suddenly noticed the utter unsexiness of TED talks and laughed.
2. People who go to Yale are probably — speaking of things arrayed on a spectrum — very oriented toward language and therefore unusually susceptible to deep belief in the importance of the words used to explain what they are doing and sensitive about getting the labels right.
3. Why all that fear? If you're really so fearful, why are you doing casual sex in the first place? Why not experience the fear as your body's message to guard it more carefully, to keep sex precious?
4. Whatever happened to marriage? Dillon delineates a "wide spectrum" with a "finish line" that ends only with "a relationship."
5. How did "relationship" get to be such a momentous word? It's a completely neutral word that, under one common definition, could be used for everyone you know. You can say you have a good "relationship" with your children, with your ex-husband, with your boss without inducing sniggering as if you'd announced that there was something sexual.
6. I got to thinking isn't it weird that the word "hooking" ever transgressed beyond the realm of prostitution? But I did some research (in the OED), and I discovered that "hooking" was used to refer to hooking a husband or wife before it was used to refer to prostitution. Thackeray's "Vanity Fair" (1848) has: "The first woman who fishes for him, hooks him." And the first use of the verb "hook" in connection with prostitution is from 1959: "She's been in the city for almost a year, Pete. Hooking mostly." As for "hooking up," that appears in the context of getting married before casual sex:
1903 G. Ade People you Know 69 Then he hooked up with Laura so as to get a real Home....An even older meaning of "hooking up" is the literal use of a hook as in attaching a horse to a carriage, as in the metaphor used in the song "Love and Marriage."
1989 S. Forward Toxic Parents ii. xiii. 254, I keep hooking up with these cold, unresponsive guys.
Posts
75 comments:
Ah this is what the sexual revolution and feminist wave led to---women getting scr@wed. It really is pitiful.
Looks like the comments are open now.
'You can say you have a good "relationship" with your children, with your ex-husband, with your boss without inducing sniggering as if you'd announced that there was something sexual.'
...
"Thank you for asking me to speak at your Sunday School class. Children, I have known Mr. Johnson for many years." (Slight sniggering). "Oh - in a Biblical sense, of course!"
Friends with benefits! Yes, ain't college grand -- except if you get entangled with mattress girl, or St. Paul guy.
The one thing modern women/college girls/feminist scholars are never, ever going to understand is that no-strings attached sex is almost always great for the guy, and almost always less than great for gal. That's just how life is, I don't make the rules, I just follow them:)
TED talks are modern day EST seminars.
The noun "hooker," meaning prostitute, is much older than "hook" as a verb referring to prostitution. That needs to be said. The oldest use in the OED is:
1845 in N.E. Eliason Tarheel Talk (1956) 277 If he comes by way of Norfolk he will find any number of pretty Hookers in the Brick row not far from French's hotel.
Much older than that is "hooker" meaning a thief who operates by using an actual hook:
1567 T. Harman Caueat for Commen Cursetors (new ed.) sig. Biiiiv, These hokers or Angglears be peryllous and most wicked knaues.
1591 R. Greene Second Pt. Conny-catching sig. E3v, The Courber, which the common people call the Hooker..with a Curbe..or hooke, do pull out of a windowe any loose linnen cloth, apparell, or else any other houshold stuffe.
"There's a "wide spectrum" that goes from "single, talking, friends with benefits, hookup buddies (all physical, no friendship), cuff (a temporary, reliable cuddle buddy for wintertime, when it’s too cold to go out and meet people, a special favorite of Northeasterners), exclusively hooking up (all physical with the same partner), dating, and then the finish line: 'in a relationship.'"
-- I was always under the impression that if you're hooking up or friends with benefits with someone, that the whole point was to NOT be emotional about it. That's how everything else I've been told/read about the terms mean. I don't see how you can assume that one leads to the other, and assuming that it will seems to have been the flaw here.
On the issue of whether "hooker" relates to a Civil War general named Hooker, here's what the Online Etymology Dictionary says:
hooker (n.)
"one who or that which hooks" in any sense, agent noun from hook (v.). Meaning "prostitute" (by 1845) often is traced to the disreputable morals of the Army of the Potomac (American Civil War) under the tenure of Gen. "Fighting Joe" Hooker (early 1863), and the word might have been popularized by this association at that time (though evidence is wanting). But it is reported to have been in use in North Carolina c. 1845 ("[I]f he comes by way of Norfolk he will find any number of pretty Hookers in the Brick row not far from French's hotel. Take my advice and touch nothing in the shape of a prostitute when you come through Raleigh, for in honest truth the clap is there of luxuriant growth." letter quoted in Norman E. Eliason, "Tarheel Talk," 1956).
One early theory traces it to Corlear's Hook, a section of New York City.
HOOKER. A resident of the Hook, i.e. a strumpet, a sailor's trull. So called from the number of houses of ill-fame frequented by sailors at the Hook (i.e. Corlear's Hook) in the city of New York. [John Russell Bartlett, "Dictionary of Americanisms," 1859]
Or perhaps related to hooker "thief, pickpocket" (1560s). But the word is likely a reference to prostitutes hooking or snaring clients. Hook in the figurative sense of "that by which anyone is attracted or caught" is recorded from early 15c.; and hook (v.) in the figurative sense of "catch hold of and draw in" is attested from 1570s; in reference to "fishing" for a husband or a wife, it was in common use from c. 1800. All of which makes the modern sense seem a natural step. Compare French accrocheuse, raccrocheuse, common slang term for "street-walker, prostitute," literally "hooker" of men.
The family name Hooker (attested from c. 975) would mean "maker of hooks," or else refer to an agricultural laborer who used a hook (compare Old English weodhoc "weed-hook").
"wide spectrum"
That's how the doctor described my prescription.
"I was always under the impression that if you're hooking up or friends with benefits with someone, that the whole point was to NOT be emotional about it. That's how everything else I've been told/read about the terms mean. I don't see how you can assume that one leads to the other, and assuming that it will seems to have been the flaw here."
There's an editing problem that the NYT should have addressed (and the writer should have noticed) and not spotting it is telling. A spectrum isn't a progression, but an array along a line with end points. Things appear at points on the spectrum and they are understood in relation to other things on the spectrum. Don't switch in the middle of the sentence to treating the spectrum as a journey or a race. The "finish line" started out as an extreme on a spectrum. A spectrum seems more to imply that the middle is normal or balanced. Going from one extreme to the other doesn't seem right. If you find yourself in the middle, you should feel good, which the author did not. She fretted about what a gray area it was and wanted more definition, more progress toward something that seemed good, a "finish line." Okay, but don't do that in the middle of a sentence about a spectrum.
"We were more than hooking up. That much was clear."
-- If it was clear, you don't have to talk about it. It wasn't clear, that's why she needed to talk about it.
"Is this what “hooking up” means to him? Sleeping over and cuddling and pet names? I thought hooking up was just supposed to be noncommittal sex."
-- And he wasn't committing [though eventually, he gives in and does.] Also, notice this quote: "We’ve finally advanced enough to demarcate that horrible gray area between single and committed, so everyone can get exactly what she wants." Why not they there?
Let's look at more conflict: "I suppose it’s a sign of how far we’ve come that relationship labels are no longer two-sizes-fit-all: “single” or “in a relationship.” ... As great as it is that we have developed a buffet of relationship labels, at some point these intermediary names seem the easy way out of confronting our feelings." So ultimately, all those other definitions aren't as important as single/in a relationship.
This is a fairly stock story of a couple where the woman finally wears down the man to be committed. I'm not sure if it tells us anything special about Modern Love except that it is a lot like Not Modern Love.
In addition to being very oriented toward language Yalies self identify as special snowflakes requiring unique language to describe their unique and esoteric relationship situations.
Collegiate women are most available at the following times:
1. Immediately upon arrival on campus freshman year.
2. Following Thanksgiving break, when they are on rebound from home-town sweeties who broke up with them.
3. Just before Christmas break (Finals).
4. Immediately after return from Christmas Break, when they are on rebound from being dumped by home town sweeties who lasted past Turkey Day.
5. Valentines Day. A box of chocolates is a weapon of mass defloration.
5. Spring Break.
6. Semester end, Finals again.
7. Just before and after the "Big Game."
Timing is everything. And asking is everything, too. So ask all the time.
[And despite my harrumphing, it is good that it worked out in the end [for now] for them. Good on them.]
"Whatever happened to marriage?"
Or pregnancy, in any other context than avoiding (or destroying) it?
very oriented toward language and therefore unusually susceptible to deep belief in the importance of the words used to explain
This might be the reason the OED is unlink-able.
My thoughts, in no particular order:
What the fuck is wrong with her?
What the fuck is wrong with her?
What the fuck is wrong with her?
What the fuck is wrong with her?
Being hooked up in a yoke of marriage as a team of oxen is a traditional metaphor.
Sexual episodes with strangers in the city as a few nights only quasi marital hook up came into vogue during WWII as men and women sought a shipping out last chance recreation/procreation loss of virginity.
We are so schizophrenic as a society.
On the one hand, sex is just this casual thing we do to receive stress with friends.
On the other hand, when its done without positive consent, it takes years to recover from, counseling, lots of hard work and emotional trauma, and jail time combined with social stigma, for the perpetrator.
Can't have your cake and eat it too, folks.
Ugh. Relieve stress.
3. Why all that fear? If you're really so fearful, why are you doing casual sex in the first place? Why not experience the fear as your body's message to guard it more carefully, to keep sex precious?
I'd say its because modern culture (I was going to say youth culture, but its the culture, period) promotes the idea that celibacy is unnatural and basically monstrous. Thus you have the rise of "asexuals." Basically that's a sexual orientation invented so that people who aren't interested in sex won't be looked down on.
You are not some creepy religious fundamentalist or someone who is unattractive (or socially inept) and can't attract someone for casual sex. You are asexual.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that there really are some asexual people. For whatever reason. But the label is important because otherwise people might think you are some kind of weirdo for not having sex all the time with people you don't really know and who could not care less about your emotional wellbeing.
You know, in 1984 the State discourages sex because it seeks to harness the unexpended sexual energy to the service of the state and to discourage the formation of familial bonds. In Brave New World, however, the State encourages casual sex while severing it from its natural outcome, the creation of a new life, in order to discourage formation of familial bonds.
It would appear that we are transitioning from the Brave New World to 1984.
"I have 6 things"
Goodness, slow morning again? Quick, have another cup of coffee.
@MS: "Modern Love except that it is a lot like Not Modern Love"
Funny how Love often (always?) turns out to be Not Modern.
Feminism tells women sex is good and empowering: women need it, deserve it, enjoy it as much as men. Women have sex as if they need it, deserve it, enjoy it as much as men. Turns out many women don't need it, enjoy it, "deserve it" in the way men do, don't feel good and empowered by it. But sex is good and empowering! What's the problem? It can't be 1. feminism 2. sex, or 3. women themselves. That leaves: 4. men. Bad, bad men.
French for hooker is grue, crane, I assume poetic for how they dress.
"...with your boss without inducing sniggering..."
Surely you mean tittering. Oh, wait...
Everybody needs a fuck buddy!!!
Electronic equipment, with plugs and jacks called male and female (hard to keep track of which is which), is hooked up.
The point of TED talks is to affirm that everybody there is really smart and will appreciate the topic being taught.
It's mostly wrong on all counts, unless it's seen as ironic performance art.
These smart people are really dumb, and the speaker is an idiot.
You could fuck when I was in college, but you had to keep both feet on the floor.
There was nothing in the rules about consent, just position.
The libertine exception always existed, but to normalize libertinism or an amoral/a-religious culture was just asking for trouble. Progressive morality has consequences. I wonder how many men and women, boys and girls, make that choice.
So does "yes means yes" apply to all of those situations or only some of them? Since Yalies are into language...
What's with this self obsessed drivel that is popping up everywhere lately. All these women describing themselves with their made up labels and announcing to the world how awesome they are because they can have sex with whoever they want, whenever they want, and they hold the power and yadda yadda yadda. And every one of them is disappointed, or hurt or hate men because their lives aren't working out the way feminism told them they would.
Figure it out yet ladies....
You bought the lie.
Why all that fear? If you're really so fearful, why are you doing casual sex in the first place? Why not experience the fear as your body's message to guard it more carefully, to keep sex precious?
Sex is easy. Feelings are hard.
That's what your generation brought us, Ann.
In either case, the important thing is to tame the sexual impulse so that it cannot be used to engender relationships that could impede total loyalty to the State.
So, first you make it meaningless, a mere animal appetite, and the satisfaction of it is of no more import than the purchase and consumption of a cheeseburger. Once that is accomplished, when people no longer associate it with love and commitment, you then demonize it. After all, its immoral to purchase and consume cheeseburgers, your contributing to the destruction of the environment after all.
I just read this. It completely explains this previous post...
But more and more research reveals that though the thought of a smart woman is appealing to men, a real, live smart woman standing in front of them is actually a turnoff.
"People you Know 69 "
Is that a coincidence? Too bad it's in the 1903 marriage use instead of the 1989 floozy use. THat would have worked better.
rhhardin said...You could fuck when I was in college, but you had to keep both feet on the floor.
There was nothing in the rules about consent, just position.
In my school, you couldn't fall asleep afterwards, because that was cohabitation and against dorm rules.
vanity of vanities, all is vanity. nothing is new under the sun. or something.
I can't imagine that casual sex makes a stressful time less stressful.
How do you draw a clear red line in a spectrum?......Where in the spectrum would you place having a threesome with the older sister?
You bought the lie.
Exactly. The Feminists, progressive liberals, and pro-choice cult sold them an appealing myth about men's character. A myth about women's character, too.
She seems to be admitting the "casual" aspect of sex is misinformation while the true purpose is enjoying sex during the getting to know you stage of dating. It would be much easier to just quit pretending x or y.
And what's with the re-titling? We have to get the new name for the same old thing so we can pretend the old thing is new? Is this for the benefit of young people who prefer to believe they invented sex? Or is it for the NYT to convince their readers they aren't quite as old and dull as their bosses? Inquiring minds want to know.
The Left has done a remarkable job of persuading women to disconnect sex from: (1) love, (2) marriage, (3) pregnancy, (4) emotional attachment and, even a (5) modest commitment from a male partner.
How's that working out for you, as Dr. Phil might ask?
"when people no longer associate it with love and commitment, you then demonize it. After all, its immoral to purchase and consume cheeseburgers, your contributing to the destruction of the environment after all."
The cheeseburger is much worse. After all, the woman is involved in sex, but the steer is committed.
persuading women to disconnect sex from: (1) love, (2) marriage, (3) pregnancy, (4) emotional attachment and, even a (5) modest commitment from a male
We're going to need a bigger bunch of Darwin awards.
@madAsHell
It's a popular meme among atheists to deride sexual mores as silly superstitions because after all, "is a God that created the Cosmos going to be upset just because of where and how and with whom people put there naughty bits?"
But if there is no God, then it follows that sexual mores arise out of evolved behaviors. Which means that they aren't totally irrational, but contribute to the preservation and propagation of societies and the people that exist within them.
From a Darwinian perspective, divorcing sex from procreation is anti-survival behavior. Your investing lots of time and energy into it, but are not producing the offspring that should be the pay-off.
Also, from a Darwinian perspective, the guys having multiple children with various women without having to support either the woman or the children is pursuing a winning evolutionary strategy. So regardless of how smart you think you are, if you are not having as many kids as he is you are a evolutionary failure.
Somewhere I saw that the term "hooker" used to refer to prostitutes was originally applied to the camp followers who accompanied the Union army - commanded at the time by General Hooker. Google says kinda, sorta.
http://www.stripes.com/blogs/the-rumor-doctor/the-rumor-doctor-1.104348/do-hookers-owe-their-moniker-to-a-civil-war-general-1.142179
From a Darwinian perspective, it makes perfect sense for a woman to want a man to commit to her since she evolved before the existence of birth control. Sex generally led to pregnancy and a pregnant woman needs a man to help provide for her and the children once they are born.
Women evolved the desire to have a man commit to her after sex or the desire to not have sex with a man until she felt that he was committed because women who had that desire would be more likely to produce more, healthier offspring.
I'm sure that these days this is all considered patriarchal claptrap but it was considered commonsense evolutionary theory when I was being educated.
I blame the fags. Fags were doing this way before straight co-eds.
We are pioneers and groundbreakers.
grindr-tindr is a perfect example.
tits
@Ron,
I don't know if you're trying to disprove evelutionary theory or not, but you're doing a mighty darn good job of it.
You talk as though evolution acts in this rational, reasonable, way. The mother with children needs the father, so it causes the mother to want to be married and attached to the father.
And yet, we don't see that. Instead, we see fathers abandoning their women and children (why doesn't evolution act on them to protect the women and children?) And we see more and more homosexuality, bisexuality, incest, you name it.
Shouldn't this rational, reasonable force of nature be killing off these people by now? Shouldn't we all be in committed nuclear families if this is how evolution works?
Might need to tweak your theory some.
This thread will not be complete until Lazlo tells us where anal is on the spectrum.
- Krumhorn
Does casual sex help with the stress of child rearing or of work place frustrations or is it only good for academic pressures?.....I think a lot of people get married to relieve the stress entailed with casual sex.
eric said...
You talk as though evolution acts in this rational, reasonable, way. The mother with children needs the father, so it causes the mother to want to be married and attached to the father.
That is a shorthand anthropomophization. In reality, mutations happen a random, and children of the women who favor a commitment are more likely to survive and reproduce.
And yet, we don't see that. Instead, we see fathers abandoning their women and children (why doesn't evolution act on them to protect the women and children?)
The natural selection does not favor the same things in men. Men can have many, many children, while women can have a much smaller number. So in evolutionary terms, women favor commitment, while men can get away with impregnating lots of different women.
Shouldn't this rational, reasonable force of nature be killing off these people by now? Shouldn't we all be in committed nuclear families if this is how evolution works?
The social changes of which you speak have only been around for the blink of an eye, in evolutionary time.
Might need to tweak your theory some.
You might need to improve your education a lot.
I am not Lazlo...but I'm thinking that anal pretty much implies a 'relationship'. It's not really a cuddly winter day thing, or exam stress relief either. We will need Lazlo to tell us where bukkake is placed on the journey to a relationship.
- Krumhorn
This is our future elite, folks. Except they won't be and boy are they going to be pissed.
I wish people would stop to characterize human behaviors as "anti-evolution" and "anti-Darwinian".
Evolution produced an incalculably enormous array of mating and procreation strategies. Any bizarre thing you can think of, some form of life has evolved to do that thing in that way and it works for them.
So you can't go and say that sex divorced from procreation is somehow automatically against Darwinian evolution. You have a do a great deal of work to demonstrate that, and that work will require a careful analysis of what is going on in the environment as well as what WOULD be going on if some other strategy were followed AND how successful that strategy is relative to others, including itself, once prevalence of that strategy in the population is accounted for AND what the equilibrium distribution of strategies is likely to be.
Natural selection does not automatically favor maximizing offspring, or even maximizing survival of offspring. Think of a beehive or an ant colony.
@eric
Actually I'm a Christian who likes to point out to atheists that their own theory (evolution) indicates that sexual mores are not purely arbitrary constructs and therefore the consequence free hedonistic society they envision is not going to last more than three generations.
They seem like a nice couple. I hope they live happily ever after.
@Ron Winkleheimer:Actually I'm a Christian who likes to point out to atheists that their own theory (evolution) indicates that sexual mores are not purely arbitrary constructs and therefore the consequence free hedonistic society they envision is not going to last more than three generations.
That's why there's so few insects and bacteria around, right?
@Gabriel
We have a great deal of information concerning what reproductive strategies work for humans, its called history. The reproductive strategies of bees and ants are rather beside the point when looking at the reproductive strategies of humans.
So what do we know about the reproductive strategies of humans? Well, that until recently birth control did not exist so large numbers of offspring were the norm with many dieing young due to childhood diseases. Recently that has changed with the availability of birth control and modern medicine (that is antibiotics for the most part and an environment where many pathogens have been eliminated.) But until recently human reproductive strategy consisted of finding a mate, having children, and hoping enough of them survived to adulthood so that they could care for you when you got too old to hunt and gather or herd or farm.
@ Gabriel- seriously?
I can't believe Ron is getting pushback for stating the basic, well accepted ideas about primate evolutionary mating behavior.
You know, primates? The ones with a maturation period almost two decades long, and completely dependent on parents for rearing during infancy? A bit different than insects and bacteria.
That's why there's so few insects and bacteria around, right?
Once again, we are talking about humans. You know, mammals. Give birth to babies that are helpless and require years and years of investment from the parents before they can survive on their own. And by on their own I mean within the context of a society because humans are social creatures. Perhaps you have heard of them?
How is this any different from the age old person-wants-relationship-after-one-night-stand? Common.
A TED talk? Like a virgin, touched for the very first time
@Gabriel,
I'm pretty sure doing any such great deal of work would by a ginormous waste of time. Like Global Warming, all evidence proves the theories of evolution true. It's a bullet proof theory with no way to falsify it.
Although theory is going a bit far. It's more like a philosophy where all scientific research proves the philosophy true. At this point, its even closer to being a religious belief.
You might need to improve your education a lot.
Nah, ignorance is bliss.
From The Crucible by Arthur Miller:
ELIZABETH, delicately:
John—grant me this. You have a faulty understanding of young girls. There is a promise made in any bed—
PROCTOR, striving against his anger:
What promise!
ELIZABETH:
Spoke or silent, a promise is surely made.
(See Quote 2 & 3
"The social changes of which you speak have only been around for the blink of an eye, in evolutionary time. "
What are these social changes of which you speak? Is this more anthropomorphic speech?
Do social changes happen outside of evolution somehow? This theory of yours is all so very confusing. First you say that the children of the women who favor commitment are more likely to survive and reproduce. Now we see many women supporting lifestyles that favor the lack of commitment. We see that hundreds, even thousands of years ago, women and men stayed together in what was called families. Certainly you don't argue there is more commitment today then there was then? Or does evolution have no effect on the offspring? It's just a roll of the dice each time a new kid is born?
Cmon. Let's hear more stories about how this is supposed to work even though the facts don't support it
@eric:It's a bullet proof theory with no way to falsify it.
Rabbits in the pre-Cambrian would falsify it.
If there were no way to falsify it, it would not be a scientific theory at all; and if were not falsifiable then of course it could never be false, so this is not a productive objection.
@eric, Ron Winkelheimer:
I don't think either of you can have studied much of human history, if you think families as you define them are the norm. The number of social organizations humans have lived under is staggering. And of course to evaluate their success you'd have to define "success" in some objective way, or else you'd be arguing in a circle.
For example Ron's idea of large numbers of offspring that mostly die of diseases was not, in fact, the norm--hunter gatherers space their offspring (by infanticide, if no other way) and have a wide variety of family arrangements, which usually include the mother with the children but not always.
@Ron Winkelheimer:We have a great deal of information concerning what reproductive strategies work for humans, its called history.
So you have defined away any new social structure. Your conclusions are limited, therefore, to the reproductive strategies of True Scotsmen.
@eric:Do social changes happen outside of evolution somehow?
They happen faster than natural selection does. If all humans were wiped out by a solar flare or a meteor strike, we'd be unable to evolve adaptations. Only having high enough technology--i.e. social change that happens faster than evolution--would save us.
@CStanleyI can't believe Ron is getting pushback for stating the basic, well accepted ideas about primate evolutionary mating behavior.
You know, primates? The ones with a maturation period almost two decades long, and completely dependent on parents for rearing during infancy?
They're not basic or well-accepted and not true of all primates. Lots of primates do a lot of things. They eat each others' young, for one. Good like deriving "ought" from "is" and ending up where you want to be.
"Why not experience the fear as your body's message to guard it more carefully, to keep sex precious?"
Why is sex "precious"?
Do homosexuals think sex is "precious"?
There were quite a few different kinds of families in different human societies in the old days but they all had in common that they produced enough children for the society to survive. Modern society has created a family form, which wherever it is in the majority, invariably does not produce enough children for the society to survive. That is true of China, Russia, Germany, Italy, Spain, South Korea, Japan and Tunisia and of sections of American society, notably the African-Americans. Feminism and contraception together create a family form that is hostile to children and this leads to a shrinking aging population which leads to economic, then social collapse. This is the future for all the above named groups between now and 2030.
Darwin said that natural selection would wipe out any group that failed to reproduce or, to put it another way, that natural selection favored the behavior patterns of those groups that did reproduce. So if you believe in science and not religion then you will accept that the societies dominated by the feminist-contraceptive family behavior pattern will die out. And you will accept that this is proof that the model has something seriously wrong with it.
But the irony is that it is the behavior patterns of religious people, not the behavior patterns of supporters of Darwin, which maintains families, children and society. Regardless of the religion. Research is needed.
"The noun "hooker," meaning prostitute, is much older than "hook" as a verb referring to prostitution. That needs to be said. The oldest use in the OED is: "
Speaking of Yale girls obsessing on words.
There is a Ratings Scale for Women in this context.
On a scale of 1 to 10:
Girls who won't do Bukkake: Stuck-Up Factor of 2.
Girls who won't do Anal: Stuck-Up Factor of 4.
Girls who won't Swallow: Stuck-Up Factor of 5.
Drunk Girls who Won't Have Sex: Stuck-Up Factor of 8.
I know that last one may be Politically Incorrect.
I am Laslo.
The movie will star Amy Schumer as Sophie and Adam Sandler as Kam.
Post a Comment