PDA

View Full Version : Makow - 'Sexual Liberation' is Anti-Women


lakeway11
Sep 15th, 2003, 05:44 AM
Makow - 'Sexual Liberation'
Is Anti-Woman
Satanic Snare
By Henry Makow PhD
9-14-3

An item in a story on blind dates in a local university newspaper caught my eye.

The young female author advised girls to bring "protection" on the date, "just in case."

The blithe notion that a girl might jump into bed with a stranger on a first date shows how far females have been hoodwinked by "sexual liberation."

To begin with, the term "sexual liberation" is typical Masonic double speak. Liberation is when you don't have to think about sex all the time. Casual sex ensures you do.
Sexual liberation is part of a feminist strategy to make young women devote their most fertile years to building a career instead of a family. The deceptive logic, expressed in books like "Sex and the Single Girl" is, "If you can have sex outside of marriage, why get married?" http://www.savethemales.ca/130103.html

The world elite wants to reduce population and do away with the family. Their media bombards us with examples of young fertile women pursuing demanding careers and supplanting men as providers. We are bombarded with young women flaunting themselves "no strings attached." Marriage and family are made to appear irrelevant.

Young women are being tricked into thinking promiscuity is "cool" and the way to get love. When they succumb, they usually feel used, empty and angry.

FEMININE PSYCHOLOGY

"Sexual liberation" is incompatible with feminine psychology, which is based on biology.

One male ejaculation produces 200 million sperm. A woman produces one egg a month.

Thus man tends to care about abstractions and principles. Woman, on the other hand, has a unique ability to care about a few real people.

A woman needs a man to focus on her (and their offspring) to the exclusion of all the other women. Sexual liberation obviously does not serve her. Love and marriage do.

Furthermore, for a woman sexual intercourse is total self-surrender. She doesn't only remove her clothes; she surrenders her whole being. This is why a woman becomes so radiant and beautiful in the sex act. She is sacrificing herself for love, for the survival of the species.
Love is self-surrender. The sex act is the act of love. Even if conception doesn't take place, the act has the same psychic significance. This is why traditional morality reserved sexual intercourse for love.

Love naturally takes time to grow. Courtship is the process by which a man earns a woman's trust and love. Women should insist on it.

BAD FOR MEN TOO

For a man, the sex act is planting his seed, which is his essence. He should not plant it indiscriminately, symbolically or not.
For a man, love is a different kind of self-surrender. He devotes himself to providing leadership and sustenance to his family. He acquires stability and meaning from this sacrifice, and from intimacy with his wife.

In order to develop psychologically, a man needs a woman to accept his leadership. Obviously a woman who has been burned by successive men will find it difficult to trust and acquiesce.
Sexually, a woman responds best when she can lose herself completely. (See "The Power of Sexual Surrender" http://www.savethemales.ca/290502.html)
A woman's arousal is what arouses a man. That is why "sexual liberation" is bad for both sexes.

CONCLUSION

By eschewing love, "sexual liberation" has debased all male-female relationships. But young women especially have been degraded by this false satanic ideology.

They have been taught to bare their souls to males who only want to use their bodies.

The recent fashion of baring the midriff is a metaphor for feminine degradation. Most women do not have the body for this. It makes them look silly and cheap, and feel more insecure than ever.

It's time young women stopped being fashion victims. Like feminism, "sexual liberation" is a cruel elite-inspired hoax.

It's time young women obeyed their own instincts, and insisted on true sexual liberation based on courtship and marriage.

JonBcn
Sep 15th, 2003, 12:45 PM
Oh my god, thats the biggest load of bollocks I've read today. is it a joke?

Young women are being tricked into thinking promiscuity is "cool" and the way to get love. When they succumb, they usually feel used, empty and angry.

Yes, thats right. Its all a lie girls; theres no fun to be had engaging in sexual acts. You'll just be left feeling used, empty and angry - and thats not because of the shitty way that men treat you, its basically because you’re stupid and shouldn’t be enjoying sex in the same way that men do.

for a woman sexual intercourse is total self-surrender. She doesn't only remove her clothes; she surrenders her whole being. This is why a woman becomes so radiant and beautiful in the sex act. She is sacrificing herself for love, for the survival of the species.
Love naturally takes time to grow. Courtship is the process by which a man earns a woman's trust and love. Women should insist on it.

:lol:

Hagar
Sep 15th, 2003, 01:16 PM
"In order to develop psychologically, a man needs a woman to accept his leadership. Obviously a woman who has been burned by successive men will find it difficult to trust and acquiesce."
Shiver.
I guess the successive men that burnt women are often the same that at a certain moment need a woman to accept their leadership.
Respect is the key word. Respect for yourself and for the other.

decemberlove
Sep 17th, 2003, 08:24 PM
Thus man tends to care about abstractions and principles. Woman, on the other hand, has a unique ability to care about a few real people.

ha right. lakeway, why do you let this shit brainwash you? you dont honestly believe this, do you?



The recent fashion of baring the midriff is a metaphor for feminine degradation. Most women do not have the body for this. It makes them look silly and cheap, and feel more insecure than ever.


walking contradiction.

im guessing this boy doesnt get laid.

save the males :rolleyes:

JonBcn
Sep 17th, 2003, 08:32 PM
Pfft...

Makow: lick my :cat:

CC
Sep 17th, 2003, 09:43 PM
Makow - 'Sexual Liberation'
Is Anti-Woman
Satanic Snare
By Henry Makow PhD
9-14-3

An item in a story on blind dates in a local university newspaper caught my eye.

The young female author advised girls to bring "protection" on the date, "just in case."

The blithe notion that a girl might jump into bed with a stranger on a first date shows how far females have been hoodwinked by "sexual liberation."

To begin with, the term "sexual liberation" is typical Masonic double speak. Liberation is when you don't have to think about sex all the time. Casual sex ensures you do.
Sexual liberation is part of a feminist strategy to make young women devote their most fertile years to building a career instead of a family. The deceptive logic, expressed in books like "Sex and the Single Girl" is, "If you can have sex outside of marriage, why get married?" http://www.savethemales.ca/130103.html

The world elite wants to reduce population and do away with the family. Their media bombards us with examples of young fertile women pursuing demanding careers and supplanting men as providers. We are bombarded with young women flaunting themselves "no strings attached." Marriage and family are made to appear irrelevant.

Young women are being tricked into thinking promiscuity is "cool" and the way to get love. When they succumb, they usually feel used, empty and angry.

FEMININE PSYCHOLOGY

"Sexual liberation" is incompatible with feminine psychology, which is based on biology.

One male ejaculation produces 200 million sperm. A woman produces one egg a month.

Thus man tends to care about abstractions and principles. Woman, on the other hand, has a unique ability to care about a few real people.

A woman needs a man to focus on her (and their offspring) to the exclusion of all the other women. Sexual liberation obviously does not serve her. Love and marriage do.

Furthermore, for a woman sexual intercourse is total self-surrender. She doesn't only remove her clothes; she surrenders her whole being. This is why a woman becomes so radiant and beautiful in the sex act. She is sacrificing herself for love, for the survival of the species.
Love is self-surrender. The sex act is the act of love. Even if conception doesn't take place, the act has the same psychic significance. This is why traditional morality reserved sexual intercourse for love.

Love naturally takes time to grow. Courtship is the process by which a man earns a woman's trust and love. Women should insist on it.

BAD FOR MEN TOO

For a man, the sex act is planting his seed, which is his essence. He should not plant it indiscriminately, symbolically or not.
For a man, love is a different kind of self-surrender. He devotes himself to providing leadership and sustenance to his family. He acquires stability and meaning from this sacrifice, and from intimacy with his wife.

In order to develop psychologically, a man needs a woman to accept his leadership. Obviously a woman who has been burned by successive men will find it difficult to trust and acquiesce.
Sexually, a woman responds best when she can lose herself completely. (See "The Power of Sexual Surrender" http://www.savethemales.ca/290502.html)
A woman's arousal is what arouses a man. That is why "sexual liberation" is bad for both sexes.

CONCLUSION

By eschewing love, "sexual liberation" has debased all male-female relationships. But young women especially have been degraded by this false satanic ideology.

They have been taught to bare their souls to males who only want to use their bodies.

The recent fashion of baring the midriff is a metaphor for feminine degradation. Most women do not have the body for this. It makes them look silly and cheap, and feel more insecure than ever.

It's time young women stopped being fashion victims. Like feminism, "sexual liberation" is a cruel elite-inspired hoax.

It's time young women obeyed their own instincts, and insisted on true sexual liberation based on courtship and marriage.

barf

Dava
Sep 18th, 2003, 12:06 AM
Oh God I read the first line and stopped, sex is a perosnal thing, why bother conforming to any sort of movement. OK i dont believe that you should shag everyone and everyone, but if thats your thing, then thats YOUR choice, not mine.

GBFH
Sep 18th, 2003, 12:17 AM
personally, I'm looking forward to the next article. you never know what other anti-feminist pseudo-profound piece of drivel lakeway will pull out of his ass next.

*JR*
Sep 18th, 2003, 01:16 AM
AUGUST 27--Arnold Schwarzenegger once told a magazine interviewer about participating in an orgy with other bodybuilders, noting that "everybody jumped on" the woman involved and "took her upstairs where we all got together." The California Republican added that not every muscleman participated in the gang bang, "just the guys who can fuck in front of other guys. Not everybody can do that. Some think that they don't have a big-enough cock, so they can't get a hard-on."

At the time of the Oui story, Schwarzenegger, then 29, was appearing in "Pumping Iron," a documentary on the bodybuilding circuit. In the Q&A with Manso, today's gubernatorial wannabe spoke about his sex life, drug usage, and belief that men "shouldn't feel like fags just because they want to have nice-looking bodies."

Schwarzenegger even entertained a question about his penis size. When Manso asked, "Is your cock disproportionate to the rest of you?" Schwarzenegger replied, "Well, that depends on what you mean by disproportionate. The cock isn't a muscle, so it doesn't grow in relation to the shoulders, say, or the pectorals. You can't make it bigger through exercise, that's for sure." He added that "women have told me they're curious about its size--you know, outgoing chicks who're just trying to be outrageous or horny. I hear all kind of lines, including 'Oh, you're hurting me; you're so big.' But it means nothing. Bodybuilders' cocks are the same size as everyone else's."

Asked if he felt "exploited" by women who pursued him because of his physique, Schwarzenegger said, "No, I'd feel used only if I didn't get something out of it. If a girl comes on strong and says, 'I really dig your body and I want to fuck the shit out of you,' I just decide whether or not I like her. If I do take her home, I try to make sure I get just as much out of it as she does. The word exploited therefore wouldn't apply." Schwarzenegger later noted that once outside the gym, he forgets about bodybuilding: "I can look at a chick who's a little out of shape and if she turns me on, I won't hesitate to date her. If she's a good fuck, she can weigh 150 pounds, I don't care."

On the practice of abstaining from sex prior to a competition, Schwarzenegger rejected that approach: "I get laid on purpose. I can't sleep before a competition and I'm up all night, anyway, so instead of staring at the ceiling I figure I might as well find somebody and fuck." In fact, at the 1972 Mr. Olympia contest, "we had girls backstage giving head, then all of us went out and I won. It didn't bother me at all; in fact, I went out there feeling like King Kong," added Schwarzenegger.

* Southern California hijinks: "Bodybuilders party a lot, and once, in Gold's--the gym in Venice, California, where all the top guys train--there was a black girl who came out naked. Everybody jumped on her and took her upstairs, where we all got together." Asked by Manso if he was talking about a "gang bang," Schwarzenegger answered, "Yes, but not everybody, just the guys who can fuck in front of other guys. Not everybody can do that. Some think that they don't have a big-enough cock, so they can't get a hard-on. Having chicks around is the kind of thing that breaks up the intense training. It gives you relief, and then afterward you go back to the serious stuff."
:lol:

GBFH
Sep 18th, 2003, 01:24 AM
^^

thank you, JR. I needed a kinda morbid laugh session ;)

Consistency
Sep 18th, 2003, 01:32 AM
I guess you have to consider the source.

www.savethemales.ca ? :rolleyes: Talk about having an agenda.

decemberlove
Sep 18th, 2003, 01:41 AM
cali folk are so silly.

i get the nbc west coast and theres an arnold ad on tv EVERY commercial

CC
Sep 18th, 2003, 03:51 AM
lmao! so cc, how do you really feel about this article? please...don't be shy. :lol: :lol:

It's just one of those things that doesn't really require much else. :drive:

Crazy Canuck
Sep 18th, 2003, 06:13 AM
Sexual liberation is bad; conforming to traditional gender roles is good. Alright, I get it ;)

Crazy Canuck
Sep 18th, 2003, 06:18 AM
Even better than the article are some of the responses to it on savethemales ;)

Crazy Canuck
Sep 18th, 2003, 06:19 AM
I really liked this line in one of the responses: "Who will be Woman when all the women have become men?" :lol:

Deep :rolleyes:

Hurley
Sep 18th, 2003, 06:21 AM
"Who will be Woman when all the women have become men?"

RAE DAWN CHONG!

ys
Sep 18th, 2003, 06:21 AM
Lovely piece..

For a man, the sex act is planting his seed, which is his essence.

Amazing wording. Is it from The Bible?


He should not plant it indiscriminately, symbolically or not.

This sounds more like a piece from Constitution..

GBFH
Sep 18th, 2003, 06:25 AM
RAE DAWN CHONG!

lmao

Crazy Canuck
Sep 18th, 2003, 06:34 AM
And I thought that savethemales was full of rubbish.... http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/ :o

ys
Sep 18th, 2003, 06:36 AM
And I thought that savethemales was full of rubbish.... http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/ :o

Are you joining?

Crazy Canuck
Sep 18th, 2003, 06:38 AM
Are you joining?
lol... I shit you not, there is an article called "The Extinction Of The Feminine Nightgown" *dies* It's not exactly about nightgowns, but it might as well be ;)

ys
Sep 18th, 2003, 07:11 AM
What would be the English word opposite to "Liberation"?

DutchieGirl
Sep 18th, 2003, 07:26 AM
A woman needs a man to focus on her (and their offspring) to the exclusion of all the other women. Sexual liberation obviously does not serve her. Love and marriage do.

I hate to tell the guy, but I don't need a man at all! Thanks all the same! :p Marriage doesn't suit me, besides, the law here says I can't get married, coz I'd wanna marry someone of the same sex! :p So I think sexual liberation serves me quite well! If women were sexually unliberated I don't think many women would "experiment" or come out! ;)

DutchieGirl
Sep 18th, 2003, 07:34 AM
I really liked this line in one of the responses: "Who will be Woman when all the women have become men?" :lol:

Deep :rolleyes:

hmm oh yeah, all us women are trying to grow dicks too! ;) :lol:

DutchieGirl
Sep 18th, 2003, 07:36 AM
What would be the English word opposite to "Liberation"?

enslavement! ;)

JonBcn
Sep 18th, 2003, 08:26 AM
What would be the English word opposite to "Liberation"?

Repression.

DutchieGirl
Sep 18th, 2003, 09:02 AM
Repression.

Wouldn't it be oppression, not repression? :confused: Repression is pushing something down you don't wanna think about...oppression is more about keeping someone else down! ;)

Colin B
Sep 18th, 2003, 11:27 AM
I guess you have to consider the source.

www.savethemales.ca ? :rolleyes: Talk about having an agenda.

Hmmm, difficult to tell exactly what that agenda is though. Amongst the expected articles on the 'evils' of promiscuity, homosexuality, feminism etc, are Sept. 11 conspiracy theories that, amongst other things, blame Israel for the attacks (and just about everything else that went wrong in C.20th) and suggest that The Pentagon was not hit by a plane at all.
Some of the links gave me a good laugh though.

JonBcn
Sep 18th, 2003, 11:39 AM
Wouldn't it be oppression, not repression? :confused: Repression is pushing something down you don't wanna think about...oppression is more about keeping someone else down! ;)

Maybe...but we were talking about sexual liberation, which I see as self determined to a large extent, so the opposite of self-liberation would be self-repression.

lakeway11
Sep 18th, 2003, 02:10 PM
GBFH is anticipating excitingly another article? ok one from the Cosmo lady:

Rampant, Soul-Less 'McSex'
May Forever Ruin It
By Lorraine Candy
The Mirror - UK
9-18-3

If sex is no more than a source of drunken amusement then we can stop expecting it to be special or significant ever again. And secondly, the rise in sexually-transmitted infections has accompanied the increase in soul-less sex. Is it worth putting your fertility, your health and maybe your life at risk for McSex? I think not.

Girls, Stop This Soul-Less Sex

It is not often that the editor of Cosmopolitan, a glossy magazine which has devoted 31 years to liberating women in the bedroom, is shocked.

In fact, when it comes to sex I can honestly say that apart from the time I mistook a solid silver sex toy for a designer doorknob, very little has unnerved me during my day job on what I describe as "the sexual frontline".

Until now.

Now I'm distressed, depressed and, yes, shocked. The behaviour of today's young women has put me in the unusual position of being the first Cosmo editor to say "No to sex".

Why? Because of the rise and rise of a worrying new trend we've labelled "soul-less sex". What I'm referring to is the behaviour of young women today whose Saturday nights and holidays seem to be about sex with men they don't know, and probably don't want to see again.

Now, I've no problem with the number of men a woman chooses to sleep with. In fact, during what I light-heartedly refer to as my "summer of love" (after my first proper boyfriend and before my forever relationship), my girlfriends and I relished our new-found sexual power.

We took advantage of an open approach to sexuality. We didn't feel ashamed about one-night stands, we didn't judge each other and we were not embarrassed by our enjoyment of sex.

This, we thought, is what feminism is about. Along with millions of other women in the mid-90s (I'm 35 now), we expected satisfying sex with different men. We didn't always get it but we knew we deserved it - unlike our mothers who'd encountered extreme prejudice if they dared to enjoy casual sex.

No, my issue isn't with having a pleasure-seeking attitude to sex. It's with young women who feel bullied into being part of this new soul-less sex trend. Women who obviously feel pressured because sex is suddenly a cool, fashionable thing to do.

When it comes to fashion, women are incredibly vulnerable.

Why else would we cram our feet into the worst-quality but most expensive heels? Because we're dedicated followers of fashion and right now, it appears, "Sex is the new black".

Snazzy Notting Hill shops sell vibrators at 1,600 a go (really) and super-stylish champagne orgies are organised in posh London apartments - it's all as much a part of this new trend as sex on the streets of Faliraki.

But what about emotions, self-esteem, and most importantly, your orgasms? Soul-less sex is not a route to any of the above. You don't have to buy expensive sex toys, you don't have to have as many one-night stands as possible, you don't have to accompany your lover to flashy sex parties - unless you want to.

Of course I'm not really saying no to sex (I'd be in the wrong job if I was). What I am really saying is no to "McSex" - the rubbish take-away version which is being sold as the latest "must-have". This soul-less sex is not what feminists fought for and it's something we've never advocated in Cosmo.

Feminism is about having a choice and it seems to me that many young women today feel they have no choice. They have to have sex to be in with the in-crowd. Sexual liberation has been reinterpreted as an imperative to get sex, whatever the emotional cost.

When we researched soul-less sex what we found was upsetting. We sent reporters to nightclubs all over Britain, to Faliraki and Ibiza - they went out on Friday nights and then talked to the young women they'd interviewed on Saturday mornings.

It's these conversations that disturbed me the most. We spoke to a 27-year-old who'd had sex with "about 40 men" this year but never had an orgasm. We spoke to a woman vomiting on a beach as the sun rose. Was she happy?

"No, I just want to go home," she replied but when her friends arrived minutes later to pick her up she told them what a great time she was having. We spoke to women who described the sex they'd had the night before as "actively unpleasant".

"It's a buzz," one clubber told us, "but once you have sex the excitement is lost, there's nowhere left to go. I feel down and a bit deflated."

THIS was the overwhelming message that stayed with me after reading our report.

Irma Kurtz, our agony aunt, highlighted this sense of sadness to me earlier in the year because she was getting more and more letters about soul-less sex. What price are women paying for this aggressive new sexuality, she asked. Firstly, we all know overspending debases the currency.

If sex is no more than a source of drunken amusement then we can stop expecting it to be special or significant ever again. And secondly, the rise in sexually-transmitted infections has accompanied the increase in soul-less sex. Is it worth putting your fertility, your health and maybe your life at risk for McSex? I think not.

I met a forward-thinking man recently who runs parties where couples enjoy sexual experimentation. Most of his clients are women in their 20s who take their men along. He summed up the new female sexuality very well.

"Women", he said, "are now free to experiment, indulge and enjoy sex as a good, guiltless activity. It's become as fashionable as the nation's new-found obsessions with interior decorating or celeb-inspired cooking.

"But it doesn't work for everyone. There are always emotions attached to sex and that means emotional risk. What works for one woman may not work for another."

Few of us are like Sex And The City's man-eating Samantha. I think the emotional price of soul-less sex is too high to pay, and it's time women loved themselves enough to say no.

- The Rise And Rise Of Soul-less Sex appears in this month's issue of Cosmo

owned by or licensed to Trinity Mirror Digital Media Limited 2001.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13416336_method=full_siteid=50143
_headline=-GIRLS%2D%2DSTOP%2DTHIS%2DSOUL%2DLESS
%2DSEX%2D-name_page.html

DutchieGirl
Sep 18th, 2003, 02:33 PM
Maybe...but we were talking about sexual liberation, which I see as self determined to a large extent, so the opposite of self-liberation would be self-repression.

hmm fair enough! ;)

GBFH
Sep 18th, 2003, 02:48 PM
wow, lakeway, I'm impressed. I have nothing to criticize. you must not have read the article before posting it.

The Crow
Sep 18th, 2003, 03:43 PM
Wow, this sounds like the old lady here at uni preaching to every girl with a skirt :lol: :lol:

JonBcn
Sep 18th, 2003, 03:55 PM
I have penis envy :p Any solutions??

Try to see as many of them as possible. Eventually you might get bored. If not, at least you'll have some fun :)