Well, I have been told, “Thank’s, but no thank’s!” That’s all good – I never push it too far, but, so far, this has never happened to me:
“When grasped by a male they do not want to have sex with, female cane toads will inflate their bodies so rival males can dislodge the unwanted suitor.”
So, what is it about men and women and sex?
Sex is one of God’s greatest gifts to mankind. I often say that “sex” is a little taste of Heaven so that we stay on the right track.
But why is there so much focus on sex? We are all human (well, except me) so sex comes naturally to most of us. We are attracted to the opposite sex (or the same sex) and we pursue sexual encounters. We buy flowers, candy, dinners and movies, all in pursuit of that “moment.”
Our airways and media are filled with sex. Movies, television, music, advertisements, magazines, bathroom stalls are all dedicated to the pursuit of sex.
In my not so humble opinion, there is no such thing as “bad sex,” so long as it is consensual among adults. “Doin’ it” is as natural as breathing. In fact, many would just as soon “do it” as breath.
So, why the goofy, puritanical views of sex in America?
Americans are fascinated by “who is doin’ whom.” At the same time, we are quick to condemn “who” for “doin’ whom.” What sort of hypocrisy leads us to condemn while secretly (or not so secretly) playing the numbers game?
Tiger? Bad boy. Bill? Dumbass. Wilt? Serial exaggerator.
George Clooney? Yeah! What a stud!
Come on! We can’t celebrate the bachelor without celebrating the bachelorette. If “he” is a stud, how is it that “she” is a slut?
It’s just “sex” boys and girls – or boys and boys or girls and girls.
Ease back on the hypocrisy and celebrate it for what it is.
Sex.
William Stephenson Clark
PrairiePopulistsAndProgressives.net 
When I read that headline that I used for the thread header, I had this vision of a “toad singles bar” with various females inflating themselves periodically to toss off unwanted suitors.
Yes, I know, I have a warped mind.
I learned something today that I don’t believe I have ever heard before.
Wow – to have the ability to inflate oneself to not have sex. I know alot of women who would love to have that certain power. LMAO –
As for the question as to why Americans have this puritanical view of sex – my only reply is – who the hell knows.
But this puritanical view of sex goes along with the other hypocritical views our society seems to be all too willing to accept.
For example, we claim to be a Christian (Puritanical view) nation but yet we have a high number of homeless people, people addicted to drugs, incarcerated people and pedophile priests that were given cover as evidenced by the Catholic Church scandal in the last few years.
We also claim to be a peace loving nation but yet we had a self-professing born-again Compassionate Conservative Christian president, supported by many people, to invade a foreign country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. And then this same president actually stated that he did not even think about the real mastermind of 9/11 any more. How cruel was that to say to those family members of the 3,000 killed in the 9/11 attack?
And to further muddy the waters – this same Compassionate Conservative Christian president and his supporters had no trouble with our country torturing people.
And then to muddy the waters even further – how many times have we heard that this is a war of good v evil? What was implied is that Christians are good and Muslims are bad.
Again – is this hypocrisy?
But I do find it interesting that those who profess to be so puritanical about sex are usually those found doing whatever feels good under the guise of darkness but their arrogance finds them out each and every time.
Then they go before the people with a tearful confession and beg God to forgive them because they are such sinners. But then they go on the next day and repeat the same pattern.
Our puritanical views towards sex is just the tip of the hypocrisy iceberg – in my opinion.
There is so much danger in commenting on this that even I who normally will comment on anything.
refrain for at least now, it is a subject and thought that I would be more tempted to comment on later at night when I am tired and more goofy. Inflating females so they drive off unwanted attention is a landmine!
I suspect many of our opinions and social beliefs about nudity and sex is one form of contraceptive.
But for a long time I had felt that it is also a part of the inequality between the sexes.
As was pointed out, if a male has a wide and varied sex life he is known as a stud while if a female has one it is considered as a bad thing.
Stud = powerful and good.
Slut = lowlife and amoral.
Again our social concepts are based in part on the danger of what will happen.
A male who is free and varied with their sexual encounters stands no chance of becoming pregnant.
While every time a female has sex she is endangered of becoming with child and alone.
Again a form of contraceptive, don’t have sex and you will not be pregnant!
Good point! Reliable contraception has changed the wold of sex! Not long ago females bore the brunt of the responsibility and that had a damping effect on the physical feelings.
There is another factor in greater play these days: STDs. Genital herpes as a contraceptive? Hmm, gotta think about that a bit. . .
6176, AIDS didn’t do it, why would other STDs?
Inflating females so they drive off unwanted attention is a landmine!
I didn’t inflate on purpose! 😉
I know, I know, eat less, exercise more…
Serious for a sec now. My generation of female grew up being told how wrong sex was! It wasn’t talked about very much and details were lacking, but we knew it was something to whisper about. So you go from being told ‘those feelings’ were bad, bad, bad to suddenly it’s not just OK but you should enjoy! Not an easy transition.
I do remember it was supposed to (overnight) be OK after marriage. Most of us married people of the same generation who had been taught pretty much the same things. It took all of us a while to sort out what we wanted from what we had been taught was verboten.
Today, I wish there was more mystery, less sexually explicit talk, dress… I like that sex has lost its ‘badness,’ but still long for romance to be equally important, equally desired.
I’m old so I need to ask — have we progressed to the point that everyone can acknowledge both sexes want and like sex? Are we past the girls are bad but boys are good for acting on sexual desires?
I don’t think so, fnord; at least here in Wichita, America, we haven’t it seems to me.
This may be one of those attitudes that will be subject to generational change, but I suspect it will be a few more generations before we here in this part of the country are past the distinction.
As to romance; your generation is showing (as is mine).
Perhaps my inflation (not on purpose) was the result of something opposite, i.e., the bigger I am, the harder it is to dislodge me? I dunno, seems counter-intuitive, but who knows?
That is what I was thinking about any comment. Not you but how it could be turned into a war about body image and weight.
I once decided to buy my wife some sheer and sexy thing. I looked over what was there for women her size.
And what was there which I had in mind to get her.
That which I had in mind were made for at most a size four.
That which was there for her size as the line from screwballs.
“is the a bra or are you anticipating an assassination attempt!”.
It is one of my favor stories to tell, I went to places like Fredrick’s and Victoria secrets.
It was always the same reaction, I would say her height and size.
Then the sales person would look me up and down and comment that they thought they could find something that would fit!
I finally gave up, they do not truly make things for real women just the fashion idea of what a woman should look like.
I’m with fnord.
LOL I had finally met the wife of a co-worker in the jail who weighted a little over three hundred pounds.
She could not have weighted much over about one hundred and thirty pounds.
After my wife and I walked away, I commented to her I could imagine when ever he tells her he wants to be on top….. NOOOO!
I think sex has become a recreational activity and not something that should be cherished between two lovers.
Perhaps that is what happened to the romance?
And when did it become a requirement for sexy females to be a size 4?
Marilyn Monroe was quite the healthy, robust girl with curves. Wasn’t she a size 14?
And Marilyn was considered the sexiest woman alive – wasn’t she?
I am told size 12 in the “old” sizes, now perhaps an 8 or 10 (stuff one hears when the younger is watching her shows).
Men have it good because whatever size they wear is what size they wear. Women can pay more and get a smaller size, if you shop at bargain stores you’ll need a larger size. Don’t ask me, it’s never made any sense! You’d think we women could demand better, but I suspect we enjoy that smaller size (even if we have to pay to get it). 😉
That’s something I’ve never understood. Using slacks as an example: when I buy a new pair (have had to lately 🙂 so they don’t fall off) I look for 38″ waist, 32″inseam. Shirts: 18″ neck, 36″ sleeve. Women: size whatever, if they’re lucky the lengths will vary a bit, otherwise hemming the legs might be needed. Oh, I forgot; what size also depends on whether “juniors” “misses” or “womens” sizes; then there’s petite, etc. Geez, make it simpler.
I had to laugh when my grown niece was in town recently and we got to talking about her parents that had to get married and how my mother looked down on her mother for getting pregnant.
Now follow this please – my mother was mad at the girl my brother got pregnant.
So how was it just the girl’s fault? LOL
But more than that – when I pointed out to my niece that my own parents had to get married because my mother was pregnant with my brother, her father, she got the biggest laugh.
Just why do people always blame the girl?
Is this another case of that puritanical view of sex being played out or is it stupidity?
Human beings are funny bunch to try to figure out – huh?
BTW – sex was never discussed while I was growing up. It was strictly forbidden.
I guess I’m luckier than most in that regard, indy. My parents, while not outrageous about it, weren’t reticent if the subject was broached by one of us offspring. Plus, my voracious reading had allowed me to obtain much factual information by the time I was 10, which allowed me to call “BS” at appropriate times.
6176 – Maybe it was the time period I grew up in – I don’t know – or my own parents’ hangups?
But as evidenced by my telling a rather personal story, my mother who should have had empathy for my sister-in-law instead turned on her and blamed her with not one word of blame for my brother.
Of course, my mother was very much into keeping her own family secrets – but when a person reaches the age of reasoning and the ability to count up the months between the date of marriage and the birth of their first child is not too hard to figure out – is it?
That is what is so outrageous about this entire scenario. I don’t care if anyone had to get married or not – but in those days, alot of these under-the-gun marriages took place.
I think the difference today is that a marriage is no longer seen as being the only proper and correct thing to do when faced with pregnancy?
And with that old mantra of getting married because you’re pregnant no longer being the rule of the day – is that a bad thing for our society or a good thing?
Don’t know, indy. What I do know is the number of female high school classmates that “had” to get married (and, with one exception, barred from attending graduation if the marriage occurred or if they were “showing” before the end of the school year) whose marriages all ended in divorce within a few years thereafter. Is (was) this a better societal outcome? Generally, I’d say not (there always being exceptions).
Both good and bad, indy. While I don’t think it’s right to force the him and her to marry, because it usually results in an unhappy marriage and sooner or later a divorce, there are too many children out there without a father. Let’s face it, there are far more missing father’s than mothers.
There are far more types of contraception available than there were when I was under the age of 18, but it isn’t being used much. One reason is because there’s a whole half of this country that thinks teens should just say NO. Abstinence is good in theory, but in practice it fails. Kids aren’t educated enough to know how to obtain what they need or to use it once they do get it. You’d think in this day and age…
I remember that I kept telling my own daughters to ask themselves one question before they did the deed: Would you give your life for this person? Because unprotected sex in the age of AIDS was much like playing Russian Roulette. Not that they listened.
My oldest grandson attended Whitman College — a four-year liberal arts school of some note — on campus every restroom (mens and womens) had bowls full of condoms. This was not to encourage sex, this was to ensure safer sex. Most every adult who visited was at first surprised but came to be understanding and in approval. These are kids who deserved to finish their degrees and move forward, and most of us will benefit from the contributions they may make to our world.
Indy I think it was more the stigma of being a Bastard child more then the thought of being responsible for the actions. Being pregnant is not the truest sign of being in love and in hindsight forcing a couple to commit for that circumstance is not the best of ideas.
My grandma once said that the latest generation did not invent sex.
Many girls while she was growing up went to visit an aunt back East for six months coming back suddenly thinner. Or in some case sooner also suddenly thinner, either way they were the unspoken of reason.
It just was more polite to not meant it though it was not a well kept secret.
Wicked – you bring up a good point about missing fathers.
I’ve often thought about this factor in our society.
I worked in a tax firm for several tax seasons and I’ve done our own taxes (in fact my entire family’s taxes) since I was married.
I am always amazed at how many couples we saw in the tax firm that stated they would never marry as long as one of them could get the Earned Income Credit and end up with a huge check – usually in the thousands – because they would use the lesser of the two people’s income (usually the woman) and then they also get credit for each child and some of those women walked out of the office with a $4,000 to $7,000 tax refund check in the system waiting to be processed.
The last time I checked, the maximum cap for one person working to claim this was around $30,000/year. Now how many average single woman would not qualify under that guideline?
And then throw in a bunch of kids – and you’ve got quite a check coming to you. And let’s not forget – this person will be getting back every penny of tax that was withheld on their check through the year because they end up not owing any taxes.
But the kicker is – if this couple was married – then both their incomes would be counted and more likely than not, they would not qualify for the Earned Income Credit.
So this is why alot of couples refuse to get married – even though they live in the same house.
Now is this fair to my grown kids that chose to get married and they do not qualify for that Earned Income Credit?
In my opinion – a big fat NO.
But let’s just take the father out of the picture and talk strictly about single women with kids. The same applies to them. While I understand it takes alot of money to raise kids – but believe me, the kids do not usually see any benefit from the money.
And then take this scenario and multiply it by millions across the country. Who do you think is making up the difference in all this lost tax revenue ?
And then to throw in a wrench to all this madness – these people who are so against gay marriage just do not realize how much of a benefit that would be if we did have legal gay marriage.
I know of one lesbian couple. They wanted children. One of them got pregnant by artificial insemination and ended up having triplets. Now, both of these women work but the one that had the babies took a lower paying job (just below the max cap limit) and then claimed Unearned Income Credit and with 3 kids to claim – she came out with a hefty tax refund check – and will continue to do so until the kids get older.
But if this lesbian couple were to be married – both of their incomes would not qualify them to get that credit.
I wonder if Republicans would change their minds about gay marriage if they knew this was happening.?
Probably not – their hatred of homosexuals trumps the money aspect.
They know it’s happening and is one of the thorns under their saddle of someone is getting something they don’t deserve.
I too think it needs to be improved. It wasn’t available when I was a single Mom. I made it, but barely. We, me and my kids, paid a price and gained from our experiences. I don’t know whether the price we paid was higher than what we gained. It wouldn’t do anything positive, or change anything, to dwell on whatifs.
I think we are about the same age and this help was not available when I was growing up either.
I give you all the credit in the world for keeping your kids and yourself together during a trying time and that’s a part of my reason to even bring this up.
What made you be successful and plow through even though times were tough? Do you think it was your upbringing – your sense of self pride?
Or was it because there was no help available and you were forced to do it?
Are we being too helpful in today’s world? And what, if any, is the economy and unemployment doing to make this situation worse?
All too many working families are falling through the cracks – but yet I see people on welfare that have their rent subsidized by taxpayers and they all seem to be out and shopping with the rest of us.
Is the answer to just let everyone quit their job and go on welfare? If so, then who will be paying those taxes to keep it running – especially when one party thinks they should be paying NO taxes.
Or was it because there was no help available and you were forced to do it?
A really good question! I don’t know if I have an answer.
One time I went to SRS and stood in line for hours to talk to someone about some help. My plan was if I could get either some help with childcare or medical expenses I could quit one of my part-time jobs. I know this sounds unbelievable, but I’m not making it up — I was told if I sold my house and quit my job the state would support me and my four kids. It didn’t sink in right away and I explained that I thought I could get raises over the next two or so years and then we’d be OK, so just for a little bit I wondered if I could get a little bit of help?
I have to tell you that even today talking about asking for that help makes me ashamed all the way to my core. It made me feel dirty then and it doesn’t feel different today. It was for my kids and that’s the only way I worked up the courage to ask.
Well, once what they were saying sunk in I was livid (and probably made a royal ass of myself by telling them what I thought of their stupid system). We lived in a N. Riverside bungalow, 3 bedrooms, 900 sq/ ft. plus basement, that we purchased in 1972 for $30,000 and Griffin and I sold for $59,000 in 1990. So it was a fine house in a fine neighborhood — nothing close to a mansion and nothing close to a slum either. If memory serves our house payment (including taxes and insurance) was around $250 monthly. Even back then a rental would have been more even in a less desirable neighborhood.
Suffice it to say, I kept the part-time job and did get raises and things did get easier. But for those years when I worked one full-time and two part-time jobs (plus typing at home) I wasn’t a mother, just a provider, and my two girls were burdened with too much responsibility for their age while my two sons deserved more parenting than they received.
I’m sorry – I got on a soapbox there. That is one thing that really bothers the most. Our tax code is not fair and that needs to be the next thing on Obama’s agenda.
But back to the issue of missing fathers.
I think our society and our government makes it too convenient for the fathers to be missing.
For example – if a unwed teen gets pregnant, she keeps the baby and her family raises the baby. This unwed teen gets Medicaid, WIC, educational expenses, and day care can now be by the grandmother/grandfather and they are paid.
So some families see this baby’s birth as a way to bring in extra income to the household. And with the stigma gone of being that bastard child – what is the harm some would say?
Are we paying people to abuse/legally use the system to not strive to do better for themselves?
I don’t like the current system of Medicaid and our tax code. I think we need to start caring and nurturing every family – not just those that know how to game the system.
If we had universal health care coverage everyone would receive health care and all these problems would be eliminated. Health care wouldn’t be something only some could afford, not would it be something given to only some. It has to come, and it can’t come too soon.
I agree with you there – but try getting that through the some elephant-thick skulls.
Does any one know if a woman has to reveal the father’s name when applying for Medicaid? I’ve been told they are never asked that question.
Maybe if we started making the father step up to the plate and share in the responsibility of raising that baby – some of this Medicaid spending would stop?
And personally, I don’t care if they are married or not. but when it comes to filing taxes and they have a child together – then both their incomes should be put together to see if they qualify for any Earned Income Credit.
See – I have all kinds of suggestions to help Obama clean up the tax code .
Now let’s get after the other big piggie at the government trough – corporate welfare.
Folks, you’re talking apples and oranges, but I guess you know that.
If I recall, Kansas SRS does ask for the name of the father of the child when requesting Medicaid. It also asks when applying for any other assistance. In the latter, if the father is not paying child support, SRS does its best to find the father to get that child support. Sometimes it works, but not always.
6716 can correct me, but I believe there’s a limit of 3 children when it comes to the Earned Income Credit. There’s no more refund if there are 4 or 8 or 12 children.
I do receive EIC. I guess that makes me a bad person in indy’s eyes.
There is a limit so to speak wicked as you described. However, there is the “Additional Child Tax Credit” for larger families.
As I read indy’s posts, her point was directed to the couples who live together, etc., but game the system by intentionally not marrying even though there are two incomes, etc., there for financial support. Not that being eligible for the EIC makes anyone a bad person.
No, wicked, and I apologize if that is the impression I left. I have no problem with helping people that need help. But I want that help to be available to everyone and to be a fair system.
I have no problem with the EIC but I do have a problem with people purposely setting out to use the system to their advantage – such as the parents not getting married so the lesser income of the two can qualify for the credit.
Because on my side of this issue – I see my kids that chose to get married and they are not getting the same benefit of paying no taxes and getting a big tax refund just because they both work and the combined income does not qualify for the EIC.
I also watched as my daughter, single and no kids , had to work two jobs, go to college at night to further herself and she paid her income taxes.
She was often told that if she would have a child, there would be all kinds of government help for her.
So that is what I mean with all questions about this mess.
And we are comparing apples to oranges in some cases. That is what makes all this so complicated.
Now if I really thought anyone that takes EIC is a bad person – I would be a ‘real’ Republican and not just a registered Republican for voting purposes. Just another RINO – lol
Not to say that gaming is necessarily limited to those of us who have yet to attain Bill Gates status. On the opposite end of the spectrum is the couple (both professionals, highly paid) who do not get married to save income taxes. While the so-called “marriage penalty” has been essentially eliminated, there are still situations where staying single for income tax purposes are advantageous; just not as many of them.
EDIT: The above is limited to the federal law. States vary, and there may be significant advantages to this strategy depending upon the jurisdiction.
fnord – I know exactly how you felt in the SRS office that day. All you needed was temporary help and their advice was to give up everything you worked for and go on welfare.
I think I’ve told this story before but here goes..
When I was going through my cancer journey, I was advised by the hospital in the very beginning to quit my job, divorce my husband and go on welfare. The logic was that then all my health care needs would be paid.
But the sad fact is – when my son was 5 yrs old, he was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes. I was advised back then (during Reagan’s years) to quit my job, divorce my husband then both my kids would have all their health care needs paid.
It did not make sense in 1985 with my son and it did not make sense in 2007 for my own cancer scare.
In both cases – we only needed temporary help to get the health care bills paid adn to keep our heads above water. But it seems the system would rather see us as a divorced family and on welfare for many years.
It just does not make any sense.
BTW – we did not take the advice in 1985 and we did not take the advice in 2007. We stayed married, struggled to pay the bills and somehow managed to get through.
I prefer my tax dollars to go toward helping people keep their lives as stable as possible and give temporary help than to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
As a side note: In 1985 and 2007 – we had health insurance – so most of the hospital bill was paid for by insurance.
But since we were facing future health care needs, that is why were advised to go on welfare.
Just imagine taking my experience and multiplying it by millions across the country being given the same advice.
Is it any wonder a big chunk of our tax dollars are going for Medicaid? Personally, I think we can do a better job of spending our tax dollars than keeping people on welfare. Because, let’s face it, if welfare people do better themselves and get a better paying job (although difficult in the current economy), they would lose money in the big picture. It just does not make any sense.
I’m pretty sure welfare reform changed the scenarios we faced from years ago. Although it still needs work, the reform did make some improvements — and at the expense of going backwards in some areas. We don’t seem to get things done right the first time and I don’t have a problem with that as long as we all recognize our governmental programs can’t be fixed and ignored but need constant surveillance and tweaking to keep current, to address problems that weren’t anticipated or thought of…
Government isn’t the enemy, inefficient government can be, and that’s why we elect people to keep it going and keep it from getting worse rather than better.
Do I think we always get our monies worth? No.
Do I think we should scrap it? No.
That’s how I feel about it also.
I do not want the safety net being yanked out from anyone. But at the same time, I don’t want that safety net to become someone’s nest for life.
I think it is a vicious circle.
And I fully recognize that we will always have those who will game the system. That is human nature, unfortunately.
I remember the welfare reform that went into effect. I was going to WATC at the time for some medical transcription training classes. That school was overwhelmed with welfare recipients because at that time, they had to either be in school or working. Alot of these girls (most were in the 20’s or 30’s with young kids) would not show up for class and as a result – would not pass the class. But that gave them a few more months on the welfare roll and then they would go sign up for more training and the cycle would repeat itself.
And then there were women like me there – there were quite a few of us – that was paying our own way and paying for the welfare reform tax dollars that was obviously not working to change anyone’s life.