Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Support Canadian snark!
Syndicate
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(2150)
-
▼
May
(191)
- Captain "Special Ed" screws another pooch.
- Harry Reid: 1. Blogging Tories: 0.
- "War?" What "war?"
- Outrage? What outrage?
- And the Crazed One unleashes her yapping minions.
- Michaelle Jean meets Dustin Hoffman.
- Blogging Tories Short Takes: May 31, 2006.
- What can possibly go wrong?
- Why the word "chickenhawk" just isn't enough.
- Blogging Tories Long Takes: May 30, 2006.
- There's funny "ha ha" ... and then there's funny "...
- Did I mention that I hate Microsoft? No, really.
- Blogging Tories Short Takes: May 29, 2006.
- Sorry ... what was all that "values-based" stuff a...
- Dear Stephen: Two can play at that game.
- Really, really stupid quote of the day.
- The mote in one's eye, and all that.
- For cat lovers only -- too damned funny for words.
- CPC to RCMP: Bite me.
- And a good time was had by all. And will be again.
- With God, all things are possible.
- Blogging Tories Short Takes: May 28, 2006.
- Look out! Fake outrage alert. (Part 2.)
- The man with his finger on the button.
- Neo-con journamalism, as it were.
- The principles of Alberto Gonzales.
- Look out! Fake outrage alert! (Part 1.)
- Don't forget Bloggerapalooza.
- Dixie Chicks to Wanker critics: Bite me.
- The unbounded joy of the Internets.
- Werner Patels: You are SO banned.
- Revenge is a dish best served by wankers.
- "Not only that, it turns on a dime, I guarantee it."
- Karl Rove arrested for carnal knowledge of barnyar...
- Maybe there is a God after all.
- This isn't rocket surgery, folks.
- One of these things is just like the other ...
- Bloggerapalooza!
- Redefining "stupid."
- Dear Damian: Put up, or shut the fuck up.
- It is officially retraction time.
- Dixie Chicks to Blogging Tories: Suck on THIS.
- You want to "cure" something? Cure THIS.
- Colour me unconvinced.
- Thank God for the wankersphere!
- Perspective? Wankers don't NEED no steenkin' pers...
- Hey, HERE'S a suggestion!
- Another smear, another swift boot to the nads.
- "Look! Bright, shiny thing!"
- And "disavowed" is shown the door.
- Glenn Greenwald and The Angry Left.
- The yellow stars that weren't there.
- The hoisting and petarding of Damian Penny.
- "AT&T: How may we violate your privacy today?"
- Blogging Tories Short Takes: May 23, 2006.
- NOW you've done it, Stimpy!
- All-night stakeouts just got a lot more fun, I'm g...
- Dear James: Bad blogger. No biscuit.
- Biological evolution, and the argument from person...
- That was then, this is now.
- Hold that thought, sweetie.
- Dear John:
- Blogging Tories Short Takes: May 22, 2006.
- "Um ... that's not what I meant."
- You can annoy some of the people some of the time ...
- "Off to the big city" open thread.
- Man, those retractions sure are taking a while.
- Not a student of history, is he?
- I'm sorry ... you call THAT a "retraction?"
- The Department of Wingnuttery.
- When the president talks to God ...
- Retractions, and the weaselitude thereof.
- The "National Compost" still flogging that baby.
- Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck meets Godwin's Law.
- "Bring me the head of Dan Rather!"
- And the terror alert colour of the day is "Jew."
- But it makes SUCH a great story.
- Your daily wankery.
- Evolution and the Inuit.
- God loves you. Yes, he does.
- Not quite getting the idea here.
- Dueling sock puppets.
- The joy of selective memory.
- Well, isn't THAT convenient?
- Harperology 101.
- The joy of gaffes.
- More pearls of wisdom from the Falafel Man.
- Dear Steve: Extrapolate much?
- Stephen Harper and the joy of selective outrage.
- Oh, by the way: Stephen Harper lied.
- Tom Friedman: Particularly hacktacular!
- The Globe's Terry Weber: Hacktacular!
- "Hotter Than Hell" apparently hotter than ... oh, ...
- "Well, OK ... but that's DIFFERENT!"
- Attack! Attack! ... RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!
- Blogging Tories Short Takes: May 17, 2006.
- Christianity, as it were.
- Blogging Tories Short Takes: May 16, 2006.
- Apparently, that "mandate" honeymoon is over.
- The hilarity of low expectations.
-
▼
May
(191)
5 comments:
So.......If these asexuals are being glorified, then I guess the right can stop harping on gay people for "ruining" the family?
An "under-populated utopia"? Don't we hear whines about how all the white people are aborting themselves into extinction?
Anyways, more reason to vilify sex I guess.
Kay is always out to lunch. I have yet to read a single column of hers with which I agree.
In this asinine edition, I especially enjoyed the finishing touch of describing young women as 'dressing like hookers'. As usual, Kay fundamentally misunderstands why young women would choose to dress that way.
Sanctimonious bitch.
While asexuals probably don't really need to be defended, I thought the article was a good one. Kay is correct that we are a sexually-driven society -- the only animal that is obsessed with sex to the point where we make it our business to know eveyone else's sexual business.
I can almost understand Cijay Morgan's view that freedom from sexual urges could be liberating. Imagine a world where the advertisers of products actually had to tell you what the product does for real, rather than try to tell you how sexy and appealing it will make you! From toothpaste that actually helps fight cavities to a fuel-efficient car -- truth in advertising! What a concept!
"As usual, Kay fundamentally misunderstands why young women would choose to dress that way."
Okay...'splain it to me. Why would little girls want to dress like hookers?
You know, I'm seeing alot of asexual bashing going on here, which really isn't very progressive. Asexuals don't want to "vilify" sex, they just happen to believe that a non-sexual sexual orientation is perfectly natural, inborn and healthy just like being hetero, gay, or bi. It's not like they're out to get us hets, gays and bis and make us stop shagging.
I do, however, disagree with the tone of the article, as Kay is trying to equate asexuality with asceticism, which it is not. asceticism is giving up something that you do desire, wheras asexuals have no desire whatsoever.
As for Stella's comments, while I do take offense to Kay's description of how young females dress as being "like hookers", I don't see any reason why we do it that isn't grounded in the patriarchy. Why do we wear uncomfortable clothes if not because we've been culturally conditioned to believe that it's what we do? If not to pretend we're "empowered" by offering ourselves to the male gaze?
I don't believe asexuals villify sex.If asexuals want to be "ra-ra" about their sexless lifestyle, then thats fine. Everyone deserves the right to be who they want to be, sexually or otherwise, as long as they don't hurt or victimize anyone in the process.
I felt the author villified sex, implying that asexualism is the thing to be.....Utopia, so to speak.
True, many ills of society would be fixed if no one wanted sex, no rape, incest, teenage pregnancies.....and women can be artifically inseminated, therefore technically there's no downfall, right?
The drive for sex kinda corresponds to species survival. Other animals are very obsessed with sex-their primary goal in life is to reproduce and assure the survival of their young. I think our society's obsession with sex stems from it being such a taboo subject for so long! Things are scandalous when they are "dirty".
My point was, maybe not so eloquently stated, is that people (not necessarily Kay, I am not familiar with her opinions on this stuff) should stop crapping on other non-reproducing people about their lifestyle choices if they are going to be promoting this one.
Post a Comment