Brian Howell

Sex For President 2000: The First Round Of The Second Sixties. Thanks, Boomers.

In Here We Go Again on July 11, 2012 at 10:59 am

George Walker Bush vs. Albert Gore, Jr.

This is an installment in the series Sex For President, which considers the 2012 U.S. presidential race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in the historical context of previous U.S. presidential elections. To read more about the premise of Sex For President, read the first installment: http://americanparser.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/sex-for-president/

George Walker Bush vs. Albert Gore, Jr.

Daytime soaps almost went (and eventually many did go, permanently) bankrupt for about a month in late 2000 because of this election, which was so unbelievable it couldn’t have been written. Or could it? Depends on who you ask, I guess. But as I mentioned previously in this series, it just doesn’t matter. After the Y2K bust, Americans were ready for anything. Or so we thought.

Both of these guys were good looking fellows. Before his chin started threatening to double, Al Gore, Jr. was naturally photogenic. It was hard to take a bad picture of him. No matter what his point when he spoke, he always gave the impression of being the voice of reason in the room. But he also was soft, a mama’s boy, an occasionally whiny policy wonk who could put you to sleep with minute articulations of the case he was trying to make. As reasonable as he was in his manner, he could also be a bore.

Bush’s sharper facial features, coarser hair, leaner physique, and glint of mischief in his eyes suggested a personality less inclined to make decisions by internal philosophical inquiry than by gut feelings or common sense. Bush’s disposition seemed more casual than cordial, and more passionate beneath the surface than Gore, but more decisive in a tough moment. Earlier in life, Bush might punch a hole in the wall in a drunken rage, but he would also defend your honor, maybe even before he found out if you had any.

So Bush had an inner Yosemite Sam. Gore was a handsome, Anglo-liberal version of Ben Stein‘s public persona, minus the sarcasm. If Bush had convictions we weren’t sure he understood, then Gore had convictions we weren’t sure we cared about. Of course, I’m making gross generalizations here. Gore could be funny. Bush could be articulate. But as today’s academically dominant relativist pseudo-intellectualism screams from the parapets of our ivory towers, it is not the facts that are important here. It is rather the truth.

Of all the elections we’ve covered so far in this series, 2000 is the one that I must admit was a wash. So we let the lawyers decide. And of course, when you let the lawyers decide, even the winners wonder afterward if it was worth it.

========================================================================================================================

========================================================================================================================

George W. Bush

Women Are Weaker; Men Are Responsible

In Barbarians At The Gate, Unmentionables on December 5, 2013 at 12:52 pm

Kate Upton

Could you text me that look, sweetheart?
— Picture courtesy of Kate Upton on Twitter

      Roxanne Jones, a woman who has apparently made her mark in sports journalism, recently posted a column on CNN‘s website concerning the motherly advice she gave her son when he left for college. Her advice to him was simple, best summed up as, “Beware the cray-crays. Here are a few hundred condoms to get you by. Just get a text confirmation from the girl before you have sex.” This is the same woman who, speaking about crass uses for texting back in July, quotes relationship author Michael Masters saying, Texting is not the place for anything serious.”

      Now, obviously I have a different view of sexuality than Ms. Jones, but every woman I knew in college considered penetration of her vagina a pretty serious matter. I don’t know; maybe vaginas are easier to come by these days. Not that I inquired often. But even if texting had existed then, I can’t imagine having asked any of them to text me their consent first. I suppose a Post-It note would have been the equivalent.

      Really, is this the best that post-post-modern feminism has to offer? What about, “Son, keep in mind that everything that is permissible isn’t profitable, and all that glitters is not gold. Just because she offers a resounding ‘YES!’ doesn’t mean having sex right then is best for her, or you, okay?” Why not tell him that maturity is the ability to delay pleasure, and that maturity has its own rewards, now and later? Why not tell him that there is more to gain from that moment of decision than ejaculation, and more to lose than freedom from fatherhood and STDs?

      Hell, if we want to get as clinical as texting, why not just have the girl wear a screen printed undershirt (or bra), and when a she wants a guy, she just takes off her top right there, and the underlying garment says “YES!” That way, she doesn’t have to break the mood, he can take a cell shot of her pointing to it, and then they can get busy. ‘Cause that’s what it’s all about, right?

      Beneath Ms. Jones’ column, the comments begin, and the fools come out in droves. When someone suggests that maybe concerned men just avoid drunk women, another retorts,

        “To answer your question of why not avoid drunk women? That’s fairly simple, (sic) drunk people don’t always make the best choices. You cannot place the responsibility on men to avoid intoxicated women, when those men are intoxicated themselves, and you cannot absolve women of the responsibility of their actions while intoxicated.”

      From here on to the end of this piece, I speak to men only. Of course, everyone should take responsibility for their actions, whatever sex they are. But one can absolutely, and should, hold men responsible for whatever they do when they’re drunk, whether it’s having sex with a woman or plowing a car onto a crowded sidewalk. The alcohol didn’t drink the man; the man drank the alcohol. He’s accountable for whatever choices he makes subsequently, period.

      When did we cross the line of insanity in the United States, where men are encouraged to prance around like cocks at a hen-house, strutting and clucking with all their might to display their masculinity, while working feverishly to deny responsibility for the most biologically masculine act they can commit?

      We live in a culture where the most popular communal medium is largely financed by pornography, a culture where popular music on the play-lists of millions of teens is exemplified by the most popular song of the last three months with statements like, “you(re) the hottest bitch in this place” and “I’ll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two.” And then we expect a generation fed on this to act responsibly. Garbage in, garbage out, folks.

      The problem is, when young men choose to live irresponsibly, we send them off to adulthood with hundreds of condoms and some harebrained advice designed, not to guide them toward responsible, healthy boundaries, but instead to protect them from the legal liabilities of their unbridled impulses. What is real manhood, anyway, if not subduing unbridled impulses?

      So when both sexes make stupid decisions, why should we hold the male more responsible? It’s fairly simple: women are more vulnerable, and always have been. Women are not as physically strong as men. Women are not as physically aggressive as men. Women, historically, haven’t been as privileged, as respected, or as honored as men. Consequently, rare has been the place or time in the last 6,000 years of recorded human history when women at large have been considered more than property to manage and trade.

      And most importantly, when humans have sex, it is the woman who is invaded. It is the man who breaks down the wall to enter, and leaves his troops behind to occupy the territory. It is the woman who is more likely to be injured, in the process or in the aftermath. It is the woman who puts her health at risk to carry a child, or suffers the medical risk, shame, and haunting guilt of an abortion.

      If she does carry the child alone, she is often forced to reckon whether to either raise or feed her child, because she can’t do it all alone. At the very least, it takes a village to replace a parent, assuming that is even possible, and not all villages are willing, able, or healthy themselves. So not only does she suffer, but so does the child. And eventually, by the way, so the the village.

      It is the woman who has a much greater chance of contracting an incurable or even deadly disease from the man, instead of imparting one to him. It is the woman who carries the label “whore” for the same choices that are celebrated as badges of honor among men, although phenomena like Chelsea Handler’s career and the slut pride movement show that licentiousness is shedding its skin as a vice among women. Still, “she’s a real slut” doesn’t have the same shine as “he’s a real stud,” does it?

      It is women around the world who are right now having their genitals mutilated and labia sewn together, their noses cut off, their faces burned with acid, and their throats slit, all because they have the right faith while living in the wrong place, or dare in some way to act like men have been acting en masse for thousands of years, or even because it is assumed that at some point, they might. It is women who were not heard for millenia. It is women who deserve the benefit of the doubt when senses, the common one included, are compromised.

     That said, there are women who, by character or conditioning, have learned to use what they have, their intelligence and/or their sexuality, to bring many a foolish man to despair or death. So how does a young man tell the difference between a siren, drunk or not, and an honorable young woman?

      Well, first, he stays sober. Second, he doesn’t look for the “hook-up.” He looks for a wife, and until then, he becomes the man who would deserve one. Thirdly, he holds out longer than it takes him to get the image of a woman, sloshed, naked, and in a submissive position, uploaded to the Internet, because he realizes that a woman is not a good time, a hole to fill, or a place to relieve himself. She’s not a chance atomic assemblage. Her worth, whether she recognizes it or not, is intentional and priceless. She is crafted for greatness and eternity. She is not fast food. And maybe she would believe that if she met a man who did.

      You generally find what you’re seeking. Seek love, get love. Seek trouble, get trouble. Of course, trouble is easier to find. So is death.

      This is why King Solomon, the man who had it all and, in the end, found it was all worth nothing, warned his sons, as recorded in Proverbs (especially chapters 5 and 7):

        “Do not let your heart turn aside to (the temptress’) ways,
Do not stray into her paths.
For many are the victims she has cast down,
And numerous are all her slain.
Her house is the way to Sheol,
Descending to the chambers of death.”

     Be deliberate and clearheaded as a man, respecting all women, whether they ask you to or not, and you will largely avoid  the suffering of fools. Men are ultimately responsible for all of their choices, including what they choose to ingest. Courts may judge the drink, but God is not mocked. He will judge the man.

     Therefore, men are also accountable to act responsibly, even when women don’t, because, like it or not, at the end of the day, men are more powerful, and less civilized, than women.

     As it turns out, nature hasn’t subscribed to Cosmopolitan yet. Regarding humankind, the sexual revolution may have temporarily clouded our thinking, but that doesn’t change human physiology or accountability.

Thanks, Mack.

In In Honor on August 9, 2013 at 6:46 pm

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 100 other followers

%d bloggers like this: