TYT: Have Liberals Lost Their Nerve To Be Sexually Free In America?

[ihavenobias]

(Note: The video IS work-safe but as for the audio, you may want to ear-muff the kids)

Professor and author of "Sex in Crisis" Dagmar Herzog joins Cenk to discuss how .

I think both Cenk and Dagmar make some excellent points, especially regarding the influence of The Religious Right.

Also watch Cenk discuss how .

And check out .

Finally in case you missed it, CNN is terrible, and .

PS---Keep in mind that you can download the first hour of The Young Turks free every day through Itunes. Also, the show loops 24 hours a day at www.theyoungturks.com and runs live M-F from 9-11pm EST, with a post game show (politics with entertainment and current events) starting at 11pm. Finally, there is great news for XM radio subscribers: The Young Turks are now on XM 167 Monday-Friday, 8am-10am EST!

[Lorien]

1. The first link doesn't work. n/t

[ihavenobias]

3. Thanks, I fixed it. For me it opens up in Windows Media Player n/t

[pnwmom]

14. I couldn't open it. n/t

[ihavenobias]

22. Do you have Windows Media Player installed on your PC? n/t

[Overseas]

109. Yes I have Win Media and other players and the link doesn't work. //nt

[ihavenobias]

110. Hmm...you can try this

http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2008/7/12/15939/8161

[Overseas]

115. And then below her picture the link leads to the same dead place

Server not found

Firefox can't find the server at youngturks.wmod.llnwd.net.

[ihavenobias]

117. Turn off pop-up blocker or change the firefox settings to allow TYT.com?

And or use Internet Explorer? I'm not sure what else you can do, but I'm no tech-expert.

[SpiralHawk]

2. "I will not have free Diaper Sex with a hooker. No way." - SH

"Fine for the republicons to be so FREE & KINKEE, for they have a notoriously Wide (albeit hypocritical) Stance on such pervs. But it just don't float my boat. So call me a nervous, uptight, sexually repressed lib-rul if you must, but I have my standards, and they are not as low as republicon so-called standards." - SH

[gateley]

4. I saw/heard that 'live' on TYT.

Fascinating.

[stray cat]

5. Is random sex a progressive value now?

[ihavenobias]

6. Did you actually listen to the segment or is "random sex" the assumed point of it to you? n/t

[Lorien]

8. Huh? obviously you didn't watch the clip. n/t

[ihavenobias]

9. Great minds think alike ;) n/t

[WillyT]

10. No Such Thing...

Unless you accidentally fell into an orgy pit.

:evilgrin:

Or should that be...

:evilgroin:

:hi:

[baby_mouse]

18. I think I'm going to start standing at the top of these threads

With a dustbin for the disposal of rent garments.

[Firespirit]

27. I wouldn't go that far, but there is a clear pro-sexuality bias

It's often claimed to be based in "medicine," with the notion that if you do want to wait until marriage (or don't have any interest in it at all), there's one reason only for that, and it's Religious Right repression and internalized psychological problems caused by their media influence. It's the idea that no normal, healthy person could have any reason but that one to not want it, because hey, take the pill and use a condom and it's perfectly safe, right? As if the only concerns anyone might ever have are propaganda-influenced lies about condom safety or bible-inspired ideas about morality. I mean it's sex, right? Once you get past your "hangups" everyone loves it, right?

It's insulting. And those who pretend this idea does not exist in liberal circles are fooling themselves.

[ihavenobias]

35. Be honest though

The idea of waiting until marriage is born of and promoted by certain religions. You can't really get around that fact.

[Firespirit]

38. So what if it is?

I'm an agnostic. I'm the next thing to a nihilist in some ways. Just because religion influences some people to arrive at a decision, does not mean it influences everyone.

Morality is also encouraged by religion, but any atheist will tell you that religion does not have a copyright on it.

[gateley]

45. It depends on what the definition of morality is.

I think sex has been placed in that context to our detriment.

It's not morals, it's sex. We're sexual beings. :shrug:

[Firespirit]

54. I don't mean to suggest that morality = sexual behavior standards

My point was that it's unthinking to knee-jerk against something -- here, the idea of waiting until marriage -- just because it is promoted by a belief system, or people, that you don't like. Or to suggest that that belief system can be the only root cause of holding a particular opinion.

[ihavenobias]

57. But the vast majority of people who wait until marriage (a very, very small group BTW)

ARE doing it for religious reasons.

That's a fact. Very few people spontaneously decide to wait until marriage based on the (perceived) benefits.

PS---If someone is asexual, I wouldn't force them to have sex. That's their business. And if someone I'm not with has a low sex drive, that's also none of my business (why would I care)? I think some people here are mixing up very different topics based on their particular personal situation(s).

[Firespirit]

63. Why does that bother you?

If they do it (or, more accurately, DON'T do it) for religious reasons, why is that any less valid than some other reason?

Sex, even when it is safe and results in neither disease nor pregnancy, often causes heartache. Unless we become Brave New World where it means absolutely nothing, it always will cause heartache. It is a defensible argument to make that behaviors which hurt people are sometimes immoral.

[ihavenobias]

64. A very telling sentence

You wrote:

"Sex, even when it is safe and results in neither disease nor pregnancy, often causes heartache"

IMO, that's not an asexual thought, that's a personal opinion *clearly* based on bad experiences. That's none of my business and I have no desire to explore it, but it seems obvious to me.

[Firespirit]

65. Well, if you'd read further down, you'd see

I never claimed to be asexual, but I understand their way of thinking very, very clearly.

Do you disagree with my statement? You're entitled to do so, but you're wrong, as millions of men and women would tell you.

I also don't particularly appreciate being called a liar, which, although you didn't use that exact word, IS what you implied. There are such things as books and magazines. You don't have to experience something firsthand to understand it.

[ihavenobias]

66. No

I'm not calling you a liar (sorry if you took that way, not my intent at all), but yes, I disagree with you.

You wrote ""Sex, even when it is safe and results in neither disease nor pregnancy, often causes heartache"

Could you not just as easily have written "sex, especially when it is safe and does not result in pregnancy, often causes extreme pleasure"(?)

Both are true to an extent, but your statement is misleading IMO. *Relationships* in general can cause heartache. Infidelity, disappointment, break-ups...the list of potential downsides is long, as is the list of potential upsides. Sex can be an important component (is for most people) but to say that sex often=heartache is too narrow a view *for me*.

But hey, we're both entitled to our opinions. :)

[gateley]

70. Valid point.

And I think we tend to knee-jerk in that direction because so often it's religion that has taught us that sex before marriage is a sin.

[Occulus]

74. Suppose "waiting until marriage" is pointless.

Suppose the concept is a catch-22.

What then?

[Firespirit]

78. What, indeed?

I'm not sure how the concept could even be a catch-22. A catch-22 is a situation where there is a causality loop, where one thing must take place before the other can, but the other cannot take place until the first has. It's generally an artificially created scenario set up by someone with an agenda. Example: Industry X doesn't want to hire from a certain generation but cannot openly discriminate. Therefore the companies require 5 years of industry experience for all job openings. The result is that new grads can never get their industry experience to qualify for the jobs.

Are you suggesting that there are no people out there who would consider marriage unless they'd already had sex with their partner first? That's not only an artificially created scenario, but it is absurd. No one should be bullied into sex like that: "I'll never marry you unless I know you can f***", that's your premise. :puke: The hell with any relationship like that.

[Occulus]

100. You missed my point completely.

Hearing "wait until marriage" is, to me, a particularly insulting slap in the face. And yes, it's a catch-22.

What I'm waiting for is for you to figure out how that's the case.

[Firespirit]

111. So I have looked up "catch-22" to see if my definition is mistaken

And... it's not. However, farther down in the thread I see that you say you are gay, so I think you are defining catch-22 as any impossible-to-meet criterion, rather than the definition invented in the eponymous novel. To that I have three comments.

1. It's rich that you decide to attack me, a bi person with a preference for the same sex. You need to choose your enemies better, unless of course you are one of the gay and lesbian people who group bisexuals with real enemies. I don't know. If you are, I'd recommend changing.

2. I think that same-sex marriage will be legal nationwide in 10 years, by means of a court decision striking down DOMA and all the state hate amendments. However, if this prediction is wrong, same-sex couples will still be able to marry in MA and CA, and any other state that may decide it in the meantime. If I decide to marry a woman, then I'll move to one of those states with her. I am sorry if you don't have the financial means to do that. It is unfair and needs to be changed.

3. I have made it very clear in this thread that I'm not interested in what other people decide to do, or not do, but I'd like a modicum of respect in return. I am not going to have sex until marriage, whatever gender of person I marry notwithstanding. You say that is a personal slap in the face to you to even hear it, even from a person who is not pushing that choice on you. If that's so, I say that you can get over it. I don't push my sexual standards on you; you'd better not push yours on me.

[Book Lover]

103. So sexual compatibility is not important in your marriage?

I'm supposed to find out how my partner likes sex *after* we are married? Please tell me I am misunderstanding you.

[Firespirit]

112. No, you are not misunderstanding me

Sexual compatibility is indeed NOT important to me. I have a pretty low drive, but if my spouse couldn't deal with that, he/she would be free to find alternative means of fulfillment, including flings. I'd make it clear that this would be fine by me as long as it was done safely. I'd be far more concerned about emotional incompatibility and the simple passage of time driving us apart.

I also never thought I'd see on DU a defense of people bullying their partners into sex by threatening not to continue the relationship otherwise. I consider that coercion at best, rape at worst. Guess you learn something every day.

[Book Lover]

116. Edited to say:

After reading a few of your other posts, I can assume you are not married. If you would ever consider the words of a woman with 20 years of marriage under her belt, please consider these: Sexual compatibility, no matter the details, is vital to a long-lasting and happy marriage. Discussing the kind of sex you like to have before marriage is critical to your happiness. If you don't want to engage in actual sex before marriage, you need to understand that the surprise in store for you may not be a pleasant one.

[Firespirit]

118. Well, I repeat what I said

What many people would consider "cheating" would not be a problem for me, as long as I had an emotional commitment. If spouse is a man, I'd actually prefer that kind of situation, where I get the housemate and the financial perks and the friendship, but someone else takes care of his sexual "needs." If it's a woman, the situation is less appealing, but I wouldn't rule it out.

I realize that my views must strike people on this thread as bizarre. However, they all fit when you accept that one can be very liberal and tolerant of other people's sexuality, but really and truly dislike the idea of it for oneself. There is an inability among people on the Left to understand that just because you don't want something does not mean that you want to force everyone else to act in the same way.

[tburnsten]

91. Absolutely!

You don't have to go to church every weekend to be a morally righteous, upstanding individual. Anyone who conflates the term moral or righteous with religion is really chaining themselves to a bad tradition. Why plant the wholly good ideas of morality and conscientiousness in the religous right's court?


I don't understand people who are so bound and determined to get out of traditional behaviors that they will throw out all the good with the bad. And besides, many churches have really come around in many ways. I no longer go to church, but I remember when my mom was working for the U.C.C. and the new pastor raised a rainbow flag just below the national flag. The next week about a third of the people didn't show up, but the church is doing fine right now, and is certainly not a hotbed of intolerance.

[LiberalAndProud]

49. Throw out religion and rely on common sense,

and you may arrive at the same conclusion.

[XemaSab]

102. It's been promoted by most cultures around the world

There are many reasons that promiscuity is bad that have nothing to do with religion. :shrug:

[ihavenobias]

104. Who is promoting lots of random sex? That wasn't the point of the segment.

That's a mis-characterization of the segment in fact.

[Hannah Bell]

77. i agree. & it influences behavior. i know it did mine.

[raccoon]

82. Except it isn't always perfectly safe. A condom may not protect you from contracting herpes.

A fact which is generally not acknowledged. I was surprised when my best friend, a middle-aged, well-educated woman, didn't know that. From that I bet a lot of other people don't.

I agree with you, btw.

IMO what consenting adults do in private is their business. But not everybody is OK with having casual sex at the drop of a hat. Which doesn't mean it's because of their hangups. It may or may not be but it's nobody else's business anyway.

[ihavenobias]

86. It bothers me that people keep creating this false dichotomy

It's not "crazy casual sex" vs (fill in the blank conservative equivalent).

It's about a rational conversation about masturbation and sex, including abstinence and contraception. If people aren't aware about how they can get herpes, then part of the answer is better education. That's not the magical answer, but that ALWAYS has to be part of the answer.

Besides which, I'm amazed that no one mentioned HPV which is incredibly common and far more dangerous (potentially) than herpes.

[raccoon]

85. I agree with you. I think a lot of it is the mass media, movies, TV, etc.,

that promote the idea, because, of course, sex sells. So in movies/TV, etc. characters have sex all the time, at the drop of a hat, the majority of the time without any inconvenient repercussions. And of course, they ALWAYS have great sex, every single time. :sarcasm:

[tburnsten]

89. In all fairness

condoms don't inspire a huge amount of confidence in me, not since a weekend in high school when eleven out of a twelve pack broke. It is infuriating to have to keep stopping to put a new one on, especially once you have realized that it is an exercise in futility and you are just going to have to do it all over again in a few minutes.

[ihavenobias]

90. A common mistake is not having any lubricant handy

I'm not saying that applied to you in that situation but it does seem to be an issue for many people who don't even think about it.

And of course not all brands are created equal.

[tburnsten]

92. Yeah they were Trojan Supras

The non-latex ones, I bought them thinking they would be ultra-thin and great, but instead they just broke. Lubricant would not have helped at all unless it was on my unit.

[Skittles]

62. not according to Larry Craig

:7

[Chovexani]

7. Without a doubt.

DU is proof (assuming there are still liberals who post here, which in and of itself is in question). Just check any thread about a Repuke sex scandal and about half the responses will be people screaming "pervert!" and then hiding behind the "but it's the hypocrisy!" excuse when someone questions it. For people who swear up and down about just concerning themselves with these things because they involve Repuke "family values" hypocrites, there's an awful lot of 6th grade health class giggling about the behavior, and an awful lot of "pervert" and "freak" tossed around. This of course is ignoring the fact that progressives are kinky too--including many people on this board. Hell, when the McGreevey aide came forward with allegations that he'd had threesomes with the Gov and his wife there were threads all over DU expressing disgust (and someone called me a pervert for saying it was no big deal).

It's really just a symptom of the larger problem, which is that we live in a wildly erotophobic society, and liberals are just as much a product of it as conservatives. The difference is that conservatives hit you in the head with a bible (which still includes the softcore Song of Solomon AFAIK) as an excuse. Professor Herzog touched on this in the video but a lot of is also fear on the part of the chickenshit liberal set that if we discuss sex in any respect we are giving fundies license to yell, "see! LIBERALS ARE PERVS!"

Thanks for posting the video, it was really good.

[Occulus]

75. Actually, from my POV, it really *is* about the hypocrisy when they pass laws against me.

Most of the schmucks who write one-man-one-woman legislation and use their position as Senator/Representative deserve to be gleefully outed if they're doin' the nasty with someone of the same sex (and since that whole "hypocrisy" spiel usually happens when such a situation is revealed, I'll presume those are the sorts you're talking about).

Look, it's easy for me: these people pass laws that are intended to ruin my life or make it difficult for no reason other than personal dislike. These sorts of laws have no beneficial effects, except for the purely emotional "we don't like you so we'll pass laws against you to make ourselves feel better" response these assholes experience. What that means if, if they themselves are closeted gay/bi/lesbian/whatever, I get to just as gleefully prate about it until I'm blue in the face- and may they lose everything in their subsequent divorce.

Also note, it's these same people- especially the devout- who pass judgment in the first place. If they are doing something behind closed door which they themselves judge me negatively for going myself, they deserve to hear from me everything I've ever heard from them, and more.

[regularguy]

105. Very good post.

I've noticed that "Its the Hypocrisy!!!!" is sometimes just an excuse for "haha he's a homo" or whatever.

[knitter4democracy]

11. I think I'm going to get her book. Really interesting.

Having grown up in an evangelical church with a mom who was a bit wild in the 60s, I was raised to talk honestly with my mom about sex issues, but my peers at college were more than a little sheltered. I've seen both sides, as it were, and I think her book would be interesting.

I remember my MIL gave us a book before we got married on sex in marriage that she got from her Christian bookstore (it started with a whole section on how to stay chaste before the wedding that she wanted us to read), and it gave us some good ideas. ;)

[alfredo]

12. AIDS

[pnwmom]

13. And some of the older standbys.

Herpes -- 20% of adults have it.

Antibiotic resistant gonorrhea, etc.

And of course, there is always the risk of an unplanned pregnancy.

Anyone who isn't cautious is an idiot.

[frebrd]

17. Sure glad I had a few good years to enjoy....

the "sexual revolution" before sex got to be so dangerous!

:hippie:

[alfredo]

19. Married life really cuts the risks.

[pnwmom]

58. It certainly does.

As long as you're talking about married life PLUS birth control!

[alfredo]

59. Married life plus menopause.

[Clark2008]

69. Married life plus a husband who's had his baby shoots clipped.

[alfredo]

108. Or as we say: Shooting blanks.

[Occulus]

76. Be nice if we all were allowed to do it, huh? n/t

[ihavenobias]

20. I'm not sure what you're driving at?

Did you listen to the segment? It wasn't about having tons of unprotected sex. That would be a rather limited interpretation of sexual freedom.

PS---Besides which, you forgot the most common STD (by far), HPV.

[pnwmom]

56. I couldn't listen to the segment. I couldn't open it.

And I wasn't talking about totally unprotected sex. But birth control methods fail, and STD's are impossible to completely protect against.

And I do think that sexual response, for most women, is best in the context of a caring, trusting, and long-term relationship. For most women, sexual freedom, outside of that context, is highly overrated.

[ihavenobias]

60. Birth control methods are incredibly effective if used properly

http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html (11 year old stats that haven't changed much).

I'm not a woman and you may be right on the second point but I do know there are plenty of women who would disagree with your particular opinion on what "most" women think on the subject. Now if you had said "sexual freedom, outside of that context, is highly overrated *for me*" you'd have a great argument that I couldn't disagree with. :)

Finally, as for STD's, no argument here, but I don't think that in and of itself is an argument against ever having sex outside of a "caring, trusting and long-term relationship".

And for the record I'm in the caring, trusting and long-term relationship (that's my personal preference and pretty much always has been).

[seabeyond]

79. most men too, they just like to pretend otherwise. most people,

random sex gets old over time. people look for more in life than just fucking a stranger. male and female.

[CherylK]

94. I mostly agree but many people get bored with one parter, just look at infidelity rates!

Let us be honest here. It is sad and I have never cheated but I have come to realize that it is very, very common. :(

[raccoon]

106. Strongly agree with your post. nt

[autorank]

15. k*r Where are the pics;)? n/t

[Blue-Jay]

16. I beat off in the front yard just this morning.

I'm guessing that the people who yelled at me probably aren't liberals.

[navarth]

95. LOL

They're just jealous.

[B.S. Lewis]

120. Hey, conservatives masturbate publicly too

:patriot:

[KoKo]

21. I think AMERICA is the HEIGHT of Sexual Freedom! It's incredible...how much FREEDOM

we have here. Of all our "Freedoms" Bush has taken away...everything has flourished under his watch because of the BACKLASH... We now have the ability for many GLBT..couples to get married...and we have the ability to marry many partners and get babies for couples who could never "conceive on their own" and we have much freer adoptions from other countries so that couples who can't conceive "any other way through science" can actually adopt babies from other countries. And there's been a free up of GLBT Couples being able to Adopt or inseminate themselves to be able to have a family. He hasn't been able to stop that..

Of all the evils of Bush/Cheney, they've made the "ability to make babies, find babies and adopt babies a REALITY for thousands of American Families who need "help" doing it all on their own.

It might be his biggest legacy the History Books will write about. :shrug:

Those "Faith Based Initiatives Folks...do know how to connect one with BABIES!

It's what they DO to those Babies and their PARENTS...we really need to worry about. :-(

[Firespirit]

23. The only "attacks on sexual freedom" from liberals that I've ever seen

are from the "you're abnormal and damaged if you are a virgin past age 17" crowd. I've gotten a heck of a lot more ugly insinuations about my mental health, including here on DU, because I am 24 and haven't "done it," than I've EVER heard handed out to people in my age-group acquaintance who are sexually active (everyone).

This woman is CLEARLY part of the aggressive pro-sex crowd, and frankly, it's people like her who are becoming the new fundies on sex.

[ihavenobias]

24. I'm not going to single anyone out except to say that some of these comments prove her point

I'm a little amazed actually (especially with the mis-characterization and incredibly limited interpretation of her position)...wow.

[bemildred]

25. How would you know?

Free means you can do whatever you like.

[ihavenobias]

26. Actually

There's a big difference between "anything goes" freedom and freedom from (unnecessary and illogical) sexual guilt, shame and repression over natural acts desires.

For example, making people feel extreme guilt and shame because they happen to be attracted to members of the same sex or because they masturbate, etc.

[Firespirit]

29. I guess no one can have any reason but a pathology to not like the idea, right?

It must be either RR-induced guilt and repression or false information about condoms. Because everyone loves sex.

What about the freedom to say NO without having people think there's something wrong with your head?

[ihavenobias]

30. Well, people *are* biologically programmed to seek out sex, can't argue with that

And society (friends, family, mass media, religion, etc.) can either reinforce, blunt or channel that natural desire in some way, I'm sure you'd agree.

Does that natural desire vary person to person based on genetics and environment (including bad or good experiences, fluctuations in hormones and many other factors)? Of course. And people can choose to act on or ignore those desires based on their goals and priorities.

Finally, of course you have the freedom to say no. Do you you have freedom to not have *some* people disagree with your decision in ANY area of life? No, no one is free from potential criticism and disagreement, whether the topic is sex, politics or anything else.

But you are completely free to ignore this criticism and be confident and comfortable with your own decisions.

[Firespirit]

37. The double standard, however, is really ironic

This woman has a huge problem with Religious Righties, many of whom are sexual hypocrites, sticking their noses in other people's bedrooms. That's fine. What is not fine is the demonization by some on the Left of those who truly do act in the way that the RR claims to think is best. We're repressed, we're harboring guilt. We must have something medically wrong with us that needs to be "fixed" because we're missing such a glorious, natural (i.e. we are unnatural/abnormal) thing.

Your post just now is a good example of how liberals do it and apparently really don't see it, because like in most things, liberals think they are doing someone a favor. If I'm not interested, it must be bad experiences, bad observations, hormone problems, or some other thing that should be "set right" by a medical professional, for my own good, because it's such a great thing that so many healthy people enjoy. There are "studies" out there saying that a relationship must involve sex to work out and therefore that platonic love is doomed. It's this kind of aggressive pro-sex attitude that I'm referring to.

I don't eat sushi. I find the concept of it revolting, I think it smells bad, and I have no desire ever to consume it. I have no problem with anyone who doesn't agree and who does eat it. However, they would be out of line to say I'm missing a great thing and shouldn't I at least try so I'll know for sure? No thanks, I believe I know myself and my tastes better than anyone. What the pro-sex Left is doing is no different than the RWers who use "science" -- their reading of it -- to say that homosexual or bisexual orientation is an unnatural state caused by DNA/prenatal hormones/early childhood problems. Something to be fixed, for their own good, of course.

[ihavenobias]

39. Comparing sushi to sex? Really?

I have to say, that's a really terrible comparison, and to say it's "apples and oranges" is a drastic understatement.

We aren't biologically programmed to crave fish specifically. I could go on but I think the point is obvious.

[Firespirit]

42. You really don't get it

Really, honestly do not get it.

Read.

Talk to any of these people, and they will tell you that yes, it absolutely is like a type of food or a hobby that they don't find any appeal in. Who are you to say otherwise for them?

[Lorien]

55. I think that asexuality is going to baffle a majority of the population

regardless of their politics. The Right will probably find it more "offensive" though, because the Right believes that we should all get married to someone of the opposite sex and bear children. As a far left progressive liberal, I say yes, I think that the choice to live a celibate life is a perfectly valid one. However, having no sexual appetite is indeed generally a sign of illness or emotional trauma, and therein lies the cause for concern from those in your life who care about you. It has also probably been a source of frustration for men who have been attracted to you. My father had a long career as a sex therapist, the vast majority of his clients came to him because they lacked desire or were impotent. It was something that most of them wanted to "fix", otherwise they wouldn't have made the appointments.In nature, all mammals engage in sexual acts, both heterosexual and homosexual, so naturally asexually will always be cause for a great deal of speculation from just about any group; right, left, and everything in between. Asexuality is on the rise worldwide, and personally I believe that it's either nature's way of cutting down on the population (which is a good thing) and/ or there's an environmental factor to it. Either way, if a person really wants nothing to do with connecting with another human being sexually then they should never feel pressured to do so. Freedom includes the freedom to say "no thanks", and only in repressive (fundamentalist) societies do people lack that Freedom.

[Firespirit]

61. Well, I'm actually *not* asexual, but I'm close enough that I do get it

I'm bisexual, approximately Kinsey 4, 4.5 (so yeah men would be frustrated if they were attracted to me, LOL), but I just don't really see the big deal about people wanting sex, or why it should be necessary in a healthy relationship. This is the pro-sex push I've been talking about, the ideas of (1) the earlier the better, if it's safe and consensual, (2) the more experience the better, (3) the earlier in a relationship, the better. I think these three ideas cause a LOT of heartache.

I understand a great deal of what asexuals say. The culture in America treats sexless romantic relationships as if there is something wrong with them. I think it's best for two people to have similar sexual drives, but I don't think the failure of a relationship should be blamed automatically on the one with the lower drive, nor do I think that there's anything wrong -- medically or otherwise -- when two people love each other but don't have any real interest in fluid exchange. Even if there were hormonal or other problems to cause this, if they don't mind it, it's not the place of an individual or media or culture to convince them they need to be "fixed."

[Lorien]

67. Well, I don't know anyone personally who would encourage or support your

first three assertions. When I was a teen my very liberal parents said that sex before the age of 18 was inappropriate (I waited until I was 19), they sure as hell didn't promote promiscuity because of both the heartache and health risks involved. They stated that a couple should not engage in sexual activity if they hadn't developed love and respect for one another-and that can't happen in the first few dates. I can't think of anyone I know except for a few promiscuous republican men that I've met, a handful of TV characters and several musician/ rappers who believe otherwise.

It's very difficult for most humans to be in love with someone and not feel a powerful sexual attraction to them too; it's not just "fluid exchange"; it's the need to feel as close as you possible can to that person. I know that I personally would be incapable of sustaining a long term romantic relationship with a man who was celibate. Most humans need physical contact, in fact, most mammals crave physical contact and lack of contact can lead to depression (our dogs and cats, for instance, often DEMAND that we pet them. A pet that is isolated can develop antisocial and self destructive behaviors). Physical contact doesn't always have to be in the form of sexual activity, of course. It's normal for desire to diminish with age, but the need for contact never fades away unless there are psychological and/ or issues involved. If you don't want sex then hopefully the person you love will feel the same way, otherwise it's going to be very hard to sustain the relationship.

[Firespirit]

71. The younger generations -- X and Y -- absolutely promote the ideas,

and because they are the generations most likely to have disgust for fundies (a good thing), they tend to regard people who break with the overriding "ideology" to be some sort of fundy, or influenced by them, or just plain messed up (a bad thing). It's the knee-jerking that I mentioned upthread. "Sex by the 3rd date" is the standard, and if you don't go for that, it must mean you've got a problem. I've been called a man-hater, a misanthrope, and a sociopath by people I'd considered friends because of disagreeing with the prevailing Gen-Y CW about sexuality. I hope people grow out of it, because otherwise it will mean the utter waste of all the good that feminists accomplished in the past.

[treestar]

52. Yep. Everyone is biologically programmed differently and it is

the left who should get that.

Some people don't have a great sex drive. That should be OK, too.

The problem with this culture is the extremes. No one believes in moderation. I believe you should do whatever you want to do. I'm not unhealthy for not wanting to do the same things, and don't want you to feel guilty. Just don't tell me I'm abnormal for not wanting the same things you want.

[bemildred]

33. What part of "whatever you like" is it that you disagree with? nt

[ihavenobias]

34. What's your point?

I don't ask that in a snippy way, I'm honestly just not sure what your perspective is here. :)

Please clarify and I'd be happy to answer.

[bemildred]

43. It seems to me Americans are as free sexually as they have ever been.

Unless you are a chicken hawk, then things are worse than they used to be.

[ihavenobias]

44. Did you listen to the segment?

Or are your responses based solely on the subject line and other comments? Again, I don't ask that to be snippy, I ask that because you're not objecting to any of the specific claims made by the author/researcher.

She gave her thoughts on why people *are* less sexually free in some cases and while you're totally free to disagree with her specific ideas, I don't think that's what you're doing here.

[bemildred]

80. No, I'm not likely to either. Same with YouTube.

I have lived in the USA for over 60 years and had a fair amount of sex myself though, and know a lot of other Americans who had sex, and so on. But I'm no expert ...

[bemildred]

81. How about if you share those "specific claims" of this author/researcher

so that I can see why the notion that we are more sexually inhibited now than we used be is not the fatuous idea that it appears to me to be, based on my own experience and observations?

[ihavenobias]

84. Enjoy. And boy does that synopsis seem damn accurate based one some of the comments on this thread!

Publisher Comments:
The Religious Right has fractured, the pundits tell us, and its power is waning. Is it true – have evangelical Christians lost their political clout? When the subject is sex, the answer is definitively no.

Only three decades after the legalization of abortion, the broad gains of the feminist movement, and the emergence of the gay rights movement, Americans appear to be doing the time warp again. It’s 1950s redux. Politicians—including many Democrats—insist that abstinence is the only acceptable form of birth control. Fully fifty percent of American high schools teach a “sex education” curriculum that includes deceptive information about the prevalence of STDs and the failure rates of condoms. Students are taught that homosexuality is curable, and that premarital sex ruins future marital happiness. Afraid of sounding godless, American liberals have failed to challenge these retrograde orthodoxies.

The truth is Americans have not become anti-sex, but they have become increasingly anxious about sex—not least due to the stratagems of the Religious Right. There has been a war on sex in America—a war conservative evangelicals have in large part already won.

How did the Religious Right score so many successes? Historian Dagmar Herzog argues that conservative evangelicals appropriated the lessons of the first sexual revolution far more effectively than liberals. With the support of a multimillion-dollar Christian sex industry, evangelicals crafted an astonishingly graphic and effective pitch for the pleasures of “hot monogamy”—for married, heterosexual couples only. This potent message enabled them to win elections and seduce souls, with disastrous political consequences.

Fierce, witty, and brilliant, Sex in Crisis challenges America’s culture of sexual dysfunction and calls for a more sophisticated national conversation about the facts of life.

Synopsis:
Americans may not be anti-sex, but they're increasingly anxious about sex--largely due to the tactics of the Religious Right. Fierce, witty, and brilliant, this work demands that America confront its national sexual dysfunction.

[bemildred]

87. Exactly the sort of unsupported and stereotyped propaganda-drivel I expected.

[ihavenobias]

88. Exactly the sort of unsupported and opinionated drivel I expected

That's not a refutation, that's a complete and baseless dismissal (at least including "IME" or "IMO" could've made it slightly more honest).

But my God, I give up. I've wasted far too much time arguing with comments that prove the claims of the author. As she says, people are not more anti-sex (even though so many of you have incorrectly argued against that exact point) but they *are* increasingly ANXIOUS about it.

A cursory review of the comments on this thread confirm that and then some. Thank you for being among those comments.

:)

[CherylK]

93. Thank you, well said!

I do not think these people listened to the same thing we did and if you just read the comments and did not tell me where they came from I might have guessed Bill O'Reilly.com!

[bemildred]

96. So your inference is that because I think this story is horseshit, I'm "anxious" about sex?

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

It seems to me that if anyone here is "anxious about sex", it's you and the author.

[ihavenobias]

97. I like how you mock my jab and then turn around take the exact same jab

Classic!

[bemildred]

98. My pleasure, it just seemed so right. nt

[Firespirit]

114. It's hopeless

This thread makes it very clear who among the Left has problems with differing sexual standards, and it isn't the ones like you and me and some others upthread. There is something thoroughly fucked up (pun intended) about liberals having to defend a decision not to have sex. They won't see it, though. They're utterly convinced that one cannot make that decision without there being guilt, repression, or pathology involved somehow.

Some folks need to see what "liberal" really means.

[bemildred]

121. I still like "Do your own thing".

Sex is nobodies business except you and anybody else that is involved, as long as nobody is coerced or manipulated. And that is the gold standard in sexual relations.

[BlooInBloo]

28. Titillating I suppose, but not deep.

[ihavenobias]

31. It's hard to get too deep in a short segment like that, and I'm sure the book adds much more nt

[BlooInBloo]

32. It's hard to get deep in a puddle.

[ihavenobias]

36. Right, a short segment on a radio show can sometimes be like a puddle

No disagreement there. That's partly why the host said he'd like to have her back on to discuss some other topics in more detail.

[BlooInBloo]

40. I think the issue in its entirety is a puddle.....

He wants her back because it's fun talking about sex-stuff with non-shy girls, imo. (Which is a perfectly fine reason :) )

[ihavenobias]

41. I don't disagree

It can and should be an interesting AND fun topic!

But apparently some people (not you) take it far too seriously for their own good and get defensive about it for no good reason. Sometimes you just hit a nerve...

[gateley]

46. It was a talk about sex. It wasn't sexy talk. nt

[BlooInBloo]

47. Dude. The quibble award for 2008 has already gone out. Try next year.

[gateley]

48. Sometimes I'm reduced to that.

I hope you'll forgive me.

Sincerely,
Mary Ellen

[BlooInBloo]

50. Oops - dudette. My bad.

[gateley]

51. It's more than okay -

A LOT of people think I'm a guy. I just wanted to GENTLY let you know. :hi:

[BlooInBloo]

53. :) Thx!

[OhioChick]

68. Maybe I'm missing something here....

Sex has been around as long as man. Not everyone waits until they're married to have it.....no big deal. If one wants to wait, that's their prerogative, as well.

Since bush took office, it seems as though sex has become a dirty word. (The spewing of "Family values"...in which I believe the republican party has destroyed)

The Dems can't follow their lead on this issue.....it's none of anyone's business! People are going to have sex if they want to and I don't want the gov't. spying in my bedroom next....

Am I following this right? If so, who cares who does what, when?

[Hannah Bell]

72. who cares?

[CherylK]

73. I do!

Interesting topic, glad it was posted.

[theFrankFactor]

83. Liberals Scared? Nahhhhhhh...

First of all Liberals today are intimidated about nearly every fucking thing. That we don't defend privacy and choice in every facet of our lives is no surprise (witness FISA et al). We find ourselves in a situation worse than the McCarthy era and the failure of American Liberals to step up is abhorrent and serves to support the right's claims that Liberals are cowards.

Sexual attitudes and the defense of privacy are just facets of the same Liberal shame diamond.

About this segment; it's great to hear something different and Mrs Herzog was a great guest.

[navarth]

99. I'm not mentioning NAMES, but

SOME people on this thread need to get LAID. BEFORE marriage.

[OhioChick]

101. .......

:rofl:

[CherylK]

107. LOL!!!

That is all I have to say.

[RedLetterRev]

113. One thing the study of genealogy has taught me

that if any two people decide they're gonna tear one off, no force on earth or under heaven will stop 'em. If anything the wedding business has taught me, it's still true :)

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[seabeyond]

119. i went to his site and tried to play, and wont play. at the least cenk is sophomoric when it comes

to sex and women. i totally respect and enjoy him when it comes to political or other discussions. not that i always agree, but even in disagreement i enjoy his character.

but,

i have listened to his view too often on sex and women to take him seriously or informative or revolutionary in that area.

i think firespirit has made a lot of relevant points that are not connecting in the thought process of some on this thread. i for one can appreciate (not emulate) her perspective. and respect it.

an uniquely individualist smorgasbord of sexuality. no one identical.