ɢιɗɢєт (gogogidget) wrote,

  • Mood:


So, I found this article.


I HAVE NO WORDS. No, wait, I think I've found some...

***please note this is full of quotations from the article and my commentary and this whole thing is probably a big pile of NSFW so this is the big warning***

Yadda yadda, found the link through one of my RSS feeds (probably Shakesville or Feministe), and yeah. The whole article posits that it knows how the legalization of same-sex marriage will harm women specifically, and all one has to do to find out what and why is to ~~look into the past~~ with their resident failstorian.

First, though, a story. A story of the future.

"Let's fast-forward the video-tape and see what that day would look like. Johnny, a teenager, has pals who date boys and pals who date girls. In the movies, on billboards, Johnny sees depictions of men in love with men and of men in love with women. Johnny admires the picture in his principal's office of the principal and his husband on their honeymoon. In this day, no one uses the word "homosexual" anymore, in just the same way that today no one uses the word "negro" -- it's so laden with the baggage of yesteryear's bigotry. In fact, in this day, no one makes a big deal about sexual orientation at all. Johnny knows that when he seeks intimacy he is free to choose a blonde, a brunette, a Latina, a Phillipino, a guy, a girl; it's all cool. Free choice and tolerance take the day."

Well, gee. That sounds like freaking homotopia to me. (Sidenote: homotopia sounds like the name of a delicious dessert involving yogurt.) Everyone living in perfect harmony and love and I bet that principal poops rainbows or something. Gay rainbows that smell like daffodills.

Ah, perfection~


"The real problems begin, however, when we read what these writers had to say about marriage. Consider this piece from the first century BCE poet Catullus (Carmen 61:134-141), in which the poet addresses himself to a bridegroom on the eve of his nuptials:

"You are said to find it hard, Perfumed bridegroom, to give up Smooth-skinned boys, but give them up... We realize you've only known Permitted pleasures: husbands, though, Have no right to the same pleasures."

The social history behind this piece is clear: once they've experienced sex with other men, Catullus tells us, men are unsatisfied with what their new wives provide them. Notice that the poet is unconcerned about the husband's dallying with other women -- it's the other men around that threaten the marital union."

How is this any different that the same tired misogy-dog and pony show where the wife is the ol' ball and chain and marriage is just another painful but required part of growing up, like acne? Just because he can fuck men instead of just lots of other women? Is the appeal of the Great Phallus that strong that no man may resist its charms?

How... Why... WHAT?

It even goes on to talk about a satire in which a wife is displeased with her husbands constant attention to his male suitor and he tells her that it's okay because all the other husbands do it, and she just can't satisfy him like his boytoy can. How is this ANY DIFFERENT AT ALL from any other form of cheating on a spouse?

Someone let me know because I'm hurting here for an answer.

But wait, there's MORE!

"And so now we come back to the idyllic day of free choice and tolerance envisioned by the gay and lesbian movement. It turns out that that day has winners and losers. The winners -- big time -- are homosexual men, because the historical record shows that they can expect their potential pool of partners to expand exponentially. Of note here is that this expanded pool of partners accrues to gay men, but not to homosexual women. At the risk of getting too explicit, I leave it the reader's basic grasp of anatomy to figure out why in ancient Rome a man who found pleasure in a woman, could also find pleasure in a man, while the record shows that a heterosexual woman rarely found sexual satisfaction in the company of another woman.

The losers from all this will be the vast majority of women. With full social sanction given to homoerotic activity, the historical precedent suggests that tomorrow's women will have a harder time finding and holding on to suitable men. As women will suffer, so will the vitality and stability of the nuclear family."

Okay, since he won't be explicit I will.

IT'S CALLED CUNNILINGUS AND DILDOS. Vibes. Fingers. Hands. Hell, frotting works for chicks just as well as it does with dicks. Also, there's a surprisingly high percentage of women who DON'T get off from the old fashioned "stick something up there and move it around until she makes a funny face" technique. I'm pretty sure the womenfolk will be able to manage just fine.

I'm surprised there is someone on this earth that horrifically clueless. But, alas, this is beliefnet and I should really know better. In their world, the homos will take over and no man can stand against his secret desire for the cock while women must sit and stare longingly at bananas as they spend their nights alone.

Truly, it is the stuff of nightmares.

And no, I don't have a point. I just can't sleep and this was too easy to pass up.


(8:27:52 AM) Gidgie:
dykes wear makeup
(8:28:40 AM) Gidgie:
idk I'm proud of myself for not referencing the horrible River/Inara fic I read
(8:29:07 AM) Gidgie:
direct quote: "She would purr for Inara. Grow a cock for Inara, pink and hard and perfect, just to watch her eyes close in bliss when she slid it inside her."
(8:29:31 AM) Fell:
(8:29:33 AM) Fell:
oh god
(8:29:46 AM) Gidgie:
THE REST OF IT WAS PRETTY OKAY but jesus that part was
(8:29:54 AM) Gidgie:
sry you are doing femmeslash wrong
(8:30:11 AM) Fell:
I was gonna make some comeback about how none of the bulldykes -I- know wear makeup but then
(8:30:13 AM) Fell:
that just
(8:30:24 AM) Fell:
River's cock fucked it right out of my mind
(8:30:28 AM) Gidgie:
(8:30:39 AM) Gidgie:
I'm adding this to the post
(8:30:54 AM) Fell:
Tags: politics, srs bzns
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened