Archive for the 'Pantysniffing' Category

Another 20-year-old who thinks he’s got it all figured out

Published at November 23, 2007 in Lousy hypocrites, Religious nuts, Pantysniffing, Woman-Hating and Dipshittery. 16 Comments

Time to create a “fuckwit college columnists” tag. Because, really, who deserves it more than Ryan Haecker, writing for the Daily Texan?

Ryan certainly starts with a bang:

Dresses epitomize womanhood in the Western world.

Grab the popcorn, kids! There’s gonna be a show!

Such has been the case since the western man adopted pants to replace the tunic in the sixth century (an aspect of the West’s Germanic barbarian heritage). Dresses allow us to differentiate between the silhouettes of men and women on restroom signs. Dresses are the indelible image of womanhood because of the symbolic nature of pants and dresses. If all fashions are symbolic, dresses in particular symbolize womanhood by more fully embodying the ideal of a true lady, the objective understanding of what men find attractive in the fairer sex: passivity, domesticity, childrearing, coital love, piety and fertility. These defining aspects of womanhood are immutable. We all tacitly reaffirm these attributes in our attempts to find a partner. Flirtation and courtship are reaffirmations of what it means to be masculine and feminine because it is only by fulfilling the obligation of our form that we can attract the opposite sex.

Wow. Just…wow.

Dresses are the epitome of womanhood because they allow us to differentiate between the silhouettes of men and women on restroom signs. That’s deep, man.

Really, you have to love a guy who switches from immutability to change back to immutability all within a couple of sentences. Dresses have been the epitome of womanhood, but only since the sixth century. Yet they’re an immutable sign of femininity, because pants — which have only been around since the sixth century — are an immutable sign of masculinity. Dresses symbolize fucking and piety all at the same time — maybe nun’s habits get this guy hot.

But that last sentence really amuses me. Let’s see it again:

Flirtation and courtship are reaffirmations of what it means to be masculine and feminine because it is only by fulfilling the obligation of our form that we can attract the opposite sex.

I dunno about you, but I can flirt just fine in pants. But this whole “obligations of our form” business makes me chuckle — because I can’t help thinking of that scene in The King and I where the children of the court keep trying to look up Anna’s dress because they think English women must be shaped like their dresses since they don’t wear pants like other women.

You might say these things were once true but times have changed. Not so. The nature of sexual attractiveness in women is objective, immutable and incontrovertible because it is directly related to the constant and unchanging physiology of men and women. What men find attractive in women is fixed because the physiology of humanity has been relatively unchanged. In this way, the ideal form of femininity is also unchangeable and without regard for cultural context or time period. What men find attractive in women - the form of a true lady - is objectively identifiable, just as it was in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. In short, femininity is sexy, and sexy is timeless and universal.

Um, Ryan? Women’s bodies may very well be the same as they’ve ever been, but it doesn’t follow that a) what men find attractive in women is immutable and unchanging; or b) that therefore dresses are the only thing that’s feminine and/or sexy. Because, as you’ve stated in paragraph 1, in the West, there’s only been a pants/dresses distinction since the sixth century, and even if you’re a Young Earth Creationist, that’s just a drop in the bucket, history-wise.
Like all opinion pieces, there must be someone whose opinion Ryan is implicitly if not outright refuting — the villain of the story, so to speak. And this is where he busts out the villain. Who could it be?

Wait for it…. wait for it….

What’s not sexy is feminism (not to be confused with femininity), which is directly responsible for the disappearance of our beloved dresses and the adoption of pants by the “new woman.”

That’s right! You can blame ANYTHING on feminism! Continue reading ‘Another 20-year-old who thinks he’s got it all figured out’

Hmm, interesting twist

Published at September 4, 2007 in Political theater, Pantysniffing, Schadenfreudelicious and Anxious masculinity. 0 Comments

Larry Craig now says he just may not resign after all:

“It’s not such a foregone conclusion anymore, that the only thing he could do was resign,” Sidney Smith, Craig’s spokesman in Idaho’s capital, told The Associated Press.

“We’re still preparing as if Senator Craig will resign Sept. 30, but the outcome of the legal case in Minnesota and the ethics investigation will have an impact on whether we’re able to stay in the fight — and stay in the Senate,” Smith said.

Craig, a Republican who has represented Idaho in Congress for 27 years, announced Saturday that he intends to resign from the Senate on Sept. 30. But since then, he’s hired a prominent lawyer to investigate the possibility of reversing his plea, his spokesman said.

He probably should have hired a lawyer to begin with, rather than mailing in his plea deal and expecting everything to go away.

I’m actually pretty happy that he’s deciding to fight being pushed out of the Senate over this. Oh, don’t get me wrong — the schadenfreude of all these moralizing Republicans, particularly those who, like Craig, had plenty to say about Bill Clinton, getting caught up in one sex scandal after another is like Christmas in August. But hell, why should Craig be forced out for a sex scandal that hadn’t even yet involved any sex when David Vitter, whose name appeared on the DC Madam’s phone list, is encouraged to stay?

Well, except for the fact that Vitter’s replacement would be appointed by a Democratic governor, and he went to a female prostitute, we have an answer. Of sorts:

[Mitch] McConnell, R-Ky., disputed there was a double standard in how GOP leaders reacted to Craig’s case and to the admission in July by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., that his telephone number showed up in 1999, 2000 and 2001 phone bills of an escort service that federal authorities say was a prostitution ring.

In Vitter’s case, “there have been no charges made,” McConnell said, adding that the alleged wrongdoing occurred before Vitter was a senator.

Craig, by contrast, pleaded guilty to a crime, McConnell said. “The legal case was, in effect, over. At that point, the question was for the Republican leadership, what would be our reaction to it,” he said.

Ah, yes. Because it’s the filing of charges that makes all the difference!

vertdelayhcso.jpg

Okay, maybe not. Delay actually didn’t step down until it was obvious that he wasn’t going to win re-election. It wasn’t the corruption charges.

I don’t really know what the Senate rules are regarding service after being convicted of a crime, but I would imagine they’re loose enough that low-level misdemeanors such as disorderly conduct — which is what Craig pleaded to, and what five members of Congress were arrested for outside the Sudanese embassy — are gimmes. Vitter, if the story is to be believed, participated in a crime of a more serious sort, with all sorts of potential for coercion and economic disparity. Mark Foley preyed on Congressional pages, who are not only underage, but entrusted to the care of the Congress.

The more I’m reading about the Craig case, the more I’m convinced that the cop jumped the gun — while the signaling was well-known in certain circles, how can you possibly argue that the intent to have sex then and there in the stall was crystal clear? My understanding of the foot-tapping and hand-waving code is that it’s incredibly elaborate for a couple of reasons — one, because it resembles certain things one might innocently do in a stall (tap one’s toes, wave a hand underneath a stall to get paper, checking for occupancy), it doesn’t necessarily draw attention to itself. And two, if the overture is made and either no signals or the wrong signals come through, then it’s clear that the other guy isn’t into it, and you move on. This will save you a beating. The whole point, then, is to prevent unwilling straight guys from even realizing they’re being cruised:

That said, what results! In minute, choreographic detail, Mr. Humphreys (who died in 1988) illustrated that various signals — the foot tapping, the hand waving and the body positioning — are all parts of a delicate ritual of call and answer, an elaborate series of codes that require the proper response for the initiator to continue. Put simply, a straight man would be left alone after that first tap or cough or look went unanswered.

Why? The initiator does not want to be beaten up or arrested or chased by teenagers, so he engages in safeguards to ensure that any physical advance will be reciprocated. As Mr. Humphreys put it, “because of cautions built into the strategies of these encounters, no man need fear being molested in such facilities.”

Mr. Humphreys’s aim was not just academic: he was trying to illustrate to the public and the police that straight men would not be harassed in these bathrooms. His findings would seem to suggest the implausibility not only of Senator Craig’s denial — that it was all a misunderstanding — but also of the policeman’s assertion that he was a passive participant. If the code was being followed, it is likely that both men would have to have been acting consciously for the signals to continue.

But a lot of guys seem to think that the toe-tapping is lewd in and of itself, and an actionable sexual assault and far worse than any kind of harassment a woman has to put up with on the street and deal with despite the absence of undercover cops waiting to bust catcallers and frotteurs. Certainly a few self-described liberal guys on the threads here, here and here thought so (and many more disbelieved the stories the women on the threads were telling about being harassed, demanding proof).

I would imagine this kind of butt-clenching terror that a gay guy might hit on you is one of the forces driving the GOP parade of outrage over this.

Mind you, what would be really refreshing would be if Craig started taking a look at the kind of discrimination, legislation and morals policing that drives a lot of men, men like Larry Craig, to seek anonymous sex in public restrooms, instead of living out and proud in their communities and loving whom they wish.

But I won’t hold my breath.

Visible bra straps = jerking off in public

Published at August 24, 2007 in Pantysniffing, I see fat people, Anxious masculinity, Woman-Hating and Dipshittery. 5 Comments

At least, that’s what a city councilman in Atlanta thinks.

ATLANTA - Baggy pants that show boxer shorts or thongs would be illegal under a proposed amendment to Atlanta’s indecency laws. The amendment, sponsored by city councilman C.T. Martin, states that sagging pants are an “epidemic” that is becoming a “major concern” around the country.

“Little children see it and want to adopt it, thinking it’s the in thing,” Martin said Wednesday. “I don’t want young people thinking that half-dressing is the way to go. I want them to think about their future.”

The proposed ordinance would also bar women from showing the strap of a thong beneath their pants. They would also be prohibited from wearing jogging bras in public or show a bra strap, said Debbie Seagraves, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia.

The proposed ordinance states that “the indecent exposure of his or her undergarments” would be unlawful in a public place. It would go in the same portion of the city code that outlaws sex in public and the exposure or fondling of genitals.

si_cover_july_1999_brandi_chastain.jpg

Felon!

Melissa McEwan did a brilliant post at her now-down site, Shakesville, which illustrated the white male privilege that a similar ban in a town in Louisiana demonstrated: she not only noted that visible underwear never seemed to be a problem before it was displayed by young black men and young women rather than white men, she illustrated it, IIRC, with a photo of, essentially, white man’s plumber’s crack and boxers peeking over the top of a young black man’s pants. One was not the subject of legislation, the other was. Guess which was which.

I have to be honest — I find it endlessly amusing when I see young men with their pants belted around their thighs. Because, seriously, it’s just stupid, and doesn’t seem very practical. Though, frankly, I haven’t seen that going on for a while. Maybe it takes a little longer for these things to filter down to Atlanta or something.

Even though this is cast as some kind of neutral thing, it’s clearly targeted to certain populations. I even got a taste myself of the kind of selective enforcement of these things when I went to Louisiana to volunteer after Hurricane Katrina. I stayed in a camp run by FEMA and staffed with armed Wackenhut guards. We were not to cuss, or fuck, or do anything that might offend the sensibilities of the churchy folk who comprised most of the camp. And one of those things that offended the sensibilities of the churchy folk was low-riding pants and visible underwear.

But of course, this was not enforced in any kind of even manner. Personally, I’d bought pants that were a size too big because I thought I was that size, they were on sale, and what the hell, not gonna try on pants that were five bucks. So on the job site, I used duct tape to make a belt. But at the camp, I used shoelaces or nothing, which meant my old, fat ass hung out with visible undies for all to see. Did anyone care? No. Or, not that anyone told me.

But my 18-year-old, thin, blonde teammate? I was following maybe 10 feet behind her as she walked by an armed guard while wearing pants that were slightly loose and a top that showed a slight bit of her midriff. And he admonished her for her temerity at showing flesh. I walked by not five seconds later, showing even more flesh if you’re going to measure by the square inch, and nothing.

Gosh, could it have the slightest bit to do with who makes white guys uncomfortable, whether racially or sexually?

Might.

Running the numbers

Published at August 13, 2007 in Sex sex sex, Pantysniffing, Revising reality and Anxious masculinity. 11 Comments

numbers.jpg

Isn’t it interesting how nobody ever really questions statistics that bear out some version of reality that “everybody knows!”

EVERYONE knows men are promiscuous by nature. It’s part of the genetic strategy that evolved to help men spread their genes far and wide. The strategy is different for a woman, who has to go through so much just to have a baby and then nurture it. She is genetically programmed to want just one man who will stick with her and help raise their children.

Surveys bear this out. In study after study and in country after country, men report more, often many more, sexual partners than women.

One survey, recently reported by the federal government, concluded that men had a median of seven female sex partners. Women had a median of four male sex partners. Another study, by British researchers, stated that men had 12.7 heterosexual partners in their lifetimes and women had 6.5.

And of course, that statistic gibes with reality — or at least, what we tell ourselves is reality — the Way Things Are, Naturally. And because it does that, newspapers and other media outlets just keep repeating that statistic as if it’s God’s Honest Objective Truth. After all, someone else had it in their story, and they must have fact-checked it, and it was in a book somewhere, so that’s good enough for me!

Well, except for the part where it’s mathematically impossible. Continue reading ‘Running the numbers’

Revealing quote of the week

Published at July 27, 2007 in Religious nuts, Pantysniffing, Sex miseducation and Dipshittery. 8 Comments
Conservatism teaches that individuals are not inherently good and so must be carefully civilized.

Michael Gerson, former Bush speechwriter and conservative/religious shill. This is from a column in the WaPo entitled “The Kind of Village it Takes.” Takes to what? you may find yourself asking.

To be honest, I’ve read the article, and I can’t be entirely sure. Except that it has to do with teenagers having sex. Specifically, evangelical teenagers, and how Michael Gerson wants everyone to just stop saying that they have sex just like any other teenagers, and that being Right With Gawd doesn’t stop them from having sex any earlier than their “mainline Protestant” peers:

Recent books and studies seem to indicate disturbing sexual trends among evangelical Christians. And this time we’re not talking about their pastors or political leaders. The new attention is on evangelical teenagers, who reportedly start sex earlier than their mainline Protestant peers.

One gleeful headline on an Internet site recently read: “Evangelical Girls Are Easy.” That is not the way I remember it.

What is this? Rashomon?

I dunno, Michael, maybe it was just that you weren’t getting any. And that your peers who were maybe didn’t want to confide in you, because they suspected you might do something squirrelly like rat them out to their pastors. Just a guess.

After being confronted with that little factoid, Michael consults a social scientist, who assures him that it’s much more complicated than the “sniggering media” reporting showing evangelical kids have sex at the same age as their non-evangelical peers.

My, isn’t that interesting. A conservative embracing nuance when it serves his purpose.

Michael is quite relieved to find out that “intensely” religious kids put out a few months later on average than their less-intense evangelical peers and the irreligious mainline scum, meaning all that tithing has paid off:

When the statistics on teen sexuality are controlled for social and economic factors, conservative Protestant teens first have sex at about the same time as their peers — the average is midway through their 16th year. That is hardly comforting to conservative Protestant parents, who would expect more bang for the bucks they spend funding Sunday schools — well, actually, less bang.

But these numbers shift when controlled for religious intensity. For those who attend church often, sexual activity is delayed until nearly 17, while nominal evangelicals begin at 16.2 years, earlier than the national average.

So, really, the “nominal” (and what a nice way to distance yourself from these results) evangelicals put out earlier than the non-evangelicals, and the “intense” evangelicals put out later. Which, I’m sure, when averaged together, gets you right back to the beginning: evangelism is no cure for teenage sexuality. But still, speaking in tongues and snake-handling and believing in literal demons only buys you about 9 months over the rest of the WWJD crowd.

But that’s inconvenient! So Gerson pulls out a bunch of statistics about cohabitation and children out of wedlock that really have nothing to do with teenagers having sex, but everything to do with making the uncomfortable fact that evangelical kids fuck, too, a little less uncomfortable. Oh, and have we directly bashed liberals yet? We have not! So, back to Michael:

These messages of responsibility are often reinforced by tightknit religious communities, but they are not owned by them. Wilcox notes that American liberal elites often “talk left and walk right, living disciplined lives and expecting their children to do the same, even when they hold liberal social views.” Divorce rates among college-educated Americans, [Sociologist Peter Berger] points out, have fallen since the 1980s, as it became more evident that casual divorce did not serve the long-term interests of their children.*

Because they can’t really be liberals if they do moral things! They can’t really be liberals if they lead disciplined lives and give their children the tools to do the same things!

Kind of a problem he has with the “live and let live” concept, isn’t it? But then, this is the guy who also has trouble with the idea that atheists can have a moral framework when they don’t have an angry invisible friend threatening them with eternal torment if they fart the wrong way.

Now, he does recognize that support networks are crucial for influencing behaviors, and he does recognize that kids who have goals and ambitions are less likely to get sidetracked by early pregnancy. And he even recognizes that abstinence-only sex miseducation doesn’t automatically confer any sort of protection against having sex. But his solution — to the extent he offers one — just seems to be more of the same; more intense and tight “moral” networks, more rigidity. Heaven forfend he might concede that those socially-liberal parents who give their kids accurate information and the tools to make good choices might have something there.

H/T: Thers.

_____

* Actually, my understanding of the reason for falling divorce rates among college-educated Americans has to do with the fact that they tend to marry later than non-college-educated Americans, and not just because they want to have sex.  Though the real statistic he should be looking at is the divorce rate among evangelicals as opposed to other groups.  But I’m guessing that wouldn’t have worked out well for him.

Again with the stupid metaphors by the abstinence-only people

Published at July 18, 2007 in Pantysniffing, Sex miseducation and Anxious masculinity. 4 Comments

The fuzzy-piece-of-tape metaphor for you hussies who have sex is alive and well:

In northeastern Texas, advocates of abstinence education vow to fight for their mission because to them, it is not just a matter of sexuality or even public health. Getting a teenager to the other side of high school without viruses or babies is a bonus, but not the real goal. They see casual sex as toxic to future marriage, family and even, in an oblique way, opposition to abortion.

“You have to look at why sex was created,” Eric Love, the director of the East Texas Abstinence Program, which runs Virginity Rules, said one day, the sounds of Christian contemporary music humming faintly in his Longview office. “Sex was designed to bond two people together.”

To make the point, Mr. Love grabbed a tape dispenser and snapped off two fresh pieces. He slapped them to his filing cabinet and the floor; they trapped dirt, lint, a small metal bolt. “Now when it comes time for them to get married, the marriage pulls apart so easily,” he said, trying to unite the grimy strips. “Why? Because they gave the stickiness away.”

And as we know, if there’s anything that sex isn’t, it’s sticky.

duct_tape_baby_mianro.jpg

Mr. Love, an adult man who rides around in a “Virginity Van” and obsesses about the hymens of young girls for a living, is a little afraid of having some of that sweet, sweet federal funding cut off as more and more states — not to mention Congress — start to wake the fuck up and realize that abstinence-only sexual education does not work, it is no more effective at preventing early sexual intercourse than no sex education at all, it can be dangerous since it gives out patently false information about contraceptives and the risks of sex, pregnancy, abortion and the like, and often results in “abstinent” kids having unprotected sex because, like, using protection would mean we planned on having sex, and that’s just wrong, because we’re abstinent. Indeed, Family Planning Perspectives applied the “perfect” versus “typical” use analysis for various contraceptive methods to abstinence, and discovered that abstinence, as typically practiced, is a better way of getting pregnant than not taking your pill every day. Continue reading ‘Again with the stupid metaphors by the abstinence-only people’