How feminism self-perpetuates: today’s sluts, tomorrow's ...

[snuggles911]

In her latest slut-shaming post: sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/how-feminism-self-perpetuates-todays-sluts-tomorrows-frivorcees-and-spinsters, Sunshine Mary blames feminism for encouraging women to be sluts.

She attacks a blogger who has written about having a one-night stand and the feminists commenters who have supported her rather than shaming her.

The response which one would reasonably expect – a chorus of heart-felt mea culpas – is notably absent. Instead, the sex-positive herd seems bizarrely committed to doubling down on the Slutz 4evah! battle cry, in an attempt to lure ever more young women onto the casual sex carousel.

She issues this warning to young women:

Single girls, let me help you out here: Women like this are trying to dribble their slut-poison into the communal female well. They know they are ruined and if there is one thing misery loves, it is company. If we’re all sluts, then no one has to feel bad about it and no one can claim she is any better than anyone else and men will have no choice but to take our bad slutty selves as is, like that refrigerator with the big gash in the side – But it hardly shows, you’d never even know it was damaged! – that you got on clearance at the Appliance Bump and Scratch Discount Center. Only without, you know, the actual discount in price.

Later, in the comments section, Sunshine admits that she had sex with her husband on their first date. But, her situation was different b/c she had to have sex with him or he would have moved on to someone else. In other words the ends justified the means.

had two choices at the end of my first date with my husband: put out or no second date. He didn’t directly say so, but it was understood. So I put out. I wanted to anyway, so it wasn’t like it was some traumatizing thing. But the fact that I wanted to was in conjunction to the fact that I had to do so if I wanted to continue seeing him. Understand?

So, I willingly became his concubine, like 80% of other women do with their men. And I (and they) enjoyed it, but I was very much wanting his commitment, too. My choices, again, were this:

- Put out immediately. Continue to see him. Have a slim hope that he will put a ring on it.

- Do not put out. Do not see him again. Have no hope that he will put a ring on it.

(Reminder: I was a lapsed Christian and he was an atheist, so two sexually-active Christians *might* have a slightly different script, but it will probably only be a matter of how long they wait to jump in bed together).

The right choice would have been the second one: do not put out, do not see him again, do not get a ring.

But…and here is where it gets tricky…suppose I had done that? Suppose I had continued doing that? I’d be 44 and single. I would also be righteous and blessed by God…but I’d probably have no husband. As it stands, I was unrighteous and I got the prize. I have a man who committed to me.

The hypocrisy of this women astounds me. Do as I say and not as I do seems to be her mantra.

[anjulibai]

As it stands, I was unrighteous and I got the prize. I have a man who committed to me.

Except that he didn't, because he's cheated on her frequently.

She is the definition of doublethink.

[ILoveJellybeans]

Women like this are trying to dribble their slut-poison into the communal female well.

That sounds like something the lovely Miss Graveyard Dirt would do. :ew:

[ladyamylynn]

Is she even trying to make sense in this post?

[docmom]

Is she even trying to make sense in this post?

Yes, yes, it all makes perfect sense... You are a slut. SSM is not a slut. If you have sex before marriage you are a slut. If SSM does, she isn't. If you have a good marriage with a man who is faithful to you, you are a slut. If SSM is married to a cheating bastard, she is not. Easy!

[hollyandivy]

????????

talk about double standards....

*stillscratchingherhaed*

[thoughtful]

I love the special gift of Lori claiming that other people have developed their philosophy about sex and men because misery loves company and they want to pull people into their awful life.

Yo, pot! The kettle wants to have a word with you.

[dairyfreelife]

My choices, again, were this:

- Put out immediately. Continue to see him. Have a slim hope that he will put a ring on it.

- Do not put out. Do not see him again. Have no hope that he will put a ring on it.

(Reminder: I was a lapsed Christian and he was an atheist, so two sexually-active Christians *might* have a slightly different script, but it will probably only be a matter of how long they wait to jump in bed together).

The right choice would have been the second one: do not put out, do not see him again, do not get a ring.

But…and here is where it gets tricky…suppose I had done that? Suppose I had continued doing that? I’d be 44 and single. I would also be righteous and blessed by God…but I’d probably have no husband. As it stands, I was unrighteous and I got the prize. I have a man who committed to me.

The hypocrisy of this women astounds me. Do as I say and not as I do seems to be her mantra.

[lizziesmom]

I am really confused. I'm a feminist and have been accused more than once of hating all men. I thought we were supposed to be anti-male? If so, why would we want to have sex with every random guy?

[ladyamylynn]

Yes, yes, it all makes perfect sense... You are a slut. SSM is not a slut. If you have sex before marriage you are a slut. If SSM does, she isn't. If you have a good marriage with a man who is faithful to you, you are a slut. If SSM is married to a cheating bastard, she is not. Easy!

So, slut = anyone who isn't a self-loathing, miserable martyr. When you put it that way, SSM doesn't sound too far removed from mainstream views about sexuality. Sadly.

[Angharad Crewe]

Did she really just describe herself and other unmarried sexually active women as "concubines"?

How pathetic that she believes that the only way she was able to land her husband was by putting out on the first date.

So even though he cheated on her and gave her a nasty STD, by "putting a ring on it" she got his commitment and everything a woman could ever want.

I wonder if it has ever occurred to her that her husband was the real winner here. He got an insecure, needy wife who will basically put up with any and all bad behavior (ie abuse) in exchange for food, clothing and shelter. In return, he gets the benefits of being married and the benefits of being single. And she will never leave him, no matter how unhappy she is, because she gets off on being a martyr and is super insecure.

[fatcat]

I don't have much to say about this particular post of SSM's, it's the usual railing against women who have too much sex, or not enough sex, or don't get married in time. I get it, women can never do anything right.

I was reading her blog again today, though, and her latest post is about how it's wrong to expect your husband to buy you lots of nice things, basically. It isn't a bad post by her standards, and actually I agree with a lot of it. Personally, I don't place much value on celebrating anniversaries and so forth, but I know a lot of people do. There are lots of comments on the post from women, all saying how grateful they are for their husbands and saying what they get as presents and how their husbands proposed. Thing is, their relationships sound so... not great. I mean, many are not terrible, their husbands did nice things for them, but they're all like 'my husband is not interested in things of this world, so he only bought me a very cheap ring, he never buys me anything, he is more interested in following God, and I am soooo grateful for that, and oh yeah I buy him stuff all the time.' :evil-eye:

I dunno, these people just fascinate me. I try to be tolerant of all kinds of people and beliefs, in fact I am probably usually too tolerant, but they have got to realise this kind of self-abnegation isn't normal. Deep down. Right? :shifty-kitty:

I wonder if it has ever occurred to her that her husband was the real winner here. He got an insecure, needy wife who will basically put up with any and all bad behavior (ie abuse) in exchange for food, clothing and shelter. In return, he gets the benefits of being married and the benefits of being single. And she will never leave him, no matter how unhappy she is, because she gets off on being a martyr and is super insecure.

Yes, exactly. Seriously, I wonder if it has ever occurred to any of these men in SSM's crowd how lucky they are to have the wives they do. I guess not, since they consider it their divine right to have another human being serve them for their entire lives, but really, if what they say is true, they are in relationships where they are doing all of the taking and hardly any of the giving. That is an amazing gift to receive.

[August]

That sounds like something the lovely Miss Graveyard Dirt would do. :ew:

Ugh, I hate dribbling slut poison. That's why condoms are so good.

[VolgarTheViking]

If we’re all sluts, then no one has to feel bad about it and no one can claim she is any better than anyone else and men will have no choice but to take our bad slutty selves as is, like that refrigerator with the big gash in the side – But it hardly shows, you’d never even know it was damaged! – that you got on clearance at the Appliance Bump and Scratch Discount Center. Only without, you know, the actual discount in price

so yeah women are worthless as soon as they bang someone

wow, i am speechless, we aren't pieces of furniture for f*ck sakes...we are human beings and our worth isn't based on how many dudes we've shagged (or not shagged)

[August]

I've always wondered, if you're worthless once you've had sex, why ever get married? Then I remember the Botkins and it all comes clear.

[snuggles911]

Did she really just describe herself and other unmarried sexually active women as "concubines"?

How pathetic that she believes that the only way she was able to land her husband was by putting out on the first date.

So even though he cheated on her and gave her a nasty STD, by "putting a ring on it" she got his commitment and everything a woman could ever want.

I wonder if it has ever occurred to her that her husband was the real winner here. He got an insecure, needy wife who will basically put up with any and all bad behavior (ie abuse) in exchange for food, clothing and shelter. In return, he gets the benefits of being married and the benefits of being single. And she will never leave him, no matter how unhappy she is, because she gets off on being a martyr and is super insecure.

This is what she wrote in her comments section today in response to a male reader who doesn't feel it's necessary to impress a woman. It's very telling and very sad:

So why do I have to impress her?

You know, RPSMF, you raise an interesting point, one that I was sort of thinking about earlier today. It occurred to me that my husband has always considered himself the prize and me the lucky one. I’d never thought about that before, but I think it’s true. It’s not that he doesn’t love me and isn’t glad that I’m in his life – he does and he is. It’s just that he has never felt like he had to qualify himself to me.

I wonder if there is a helpful lesson in that? If you feel like you are the prize, the woman will actually find that comforting in a way. I have a sneaking suspicion that men could be a lot more egotistical and self-centered in their romantic relationships and women would actually sort of like it.

[ohnomoe]

The hilarious thing is that for all the talk of sluts turning into forever alone cat ladies, there are a bunch of guys on there who are apparently experts on women and are always bitching that they are forever alone.

[Angharad Crewe]

I wish SSM would talk to a good therapist instead of rationalizing her shitty life choices on the Internet.

[salex]

I am always amazed that anyone spends as much time thinking about, talking about, writing about, complaining about or judging other people's sex lives as SSM and her followers spend.

[docmom]

I wonder if there is a helpful lesson in that? If you feel like you are the prize, the woman will actually find that comforting in a way. I have a sneaking suspicion that men could be a lot more egotistical and self-centered in their romantic relationships and women would actually sort of like it.

Just in case we get too sucked into the rabbit hole with SSMs warped world view, here's a link to a Storycorps piece on NPR this morning about a couple who really loved and cherished each other. The husband wrote a love letter to his wife every morning. He adored her and she was not only happy in marriage, she is wonderfully content to live on in his love even after he passed away. It's a wonderful antidote to SSM and HHG.

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=240291885&m=240686094

[salex]

This is what she wrote in her comments section today in response to a male reader who doesn't feel it's necessary to impress a woman. It's very telling and very sad:

You have to impress me because if I'm going not going to bring anyone in my life, temporarily or long term, who isn't going to add to my life, not detract from it or just be a neutral lump in it. This was true when I was 17 and it is true today.

You can think of yourself as a prize-- but if you follow ssm's advice about being more egotistical and self centered, most healthy women will view you as a prize jackass. But if you are a long term reader/commenter on SSM's blog, you probably don't want or can't manage a healthy woman.

My husband and I both thought we were prizes--which is why we had certain standards for who we would connect with, but even better, we each thought the other was a prize, which has led to years of a successful mutual admiration society.

And, Mary's assumption that being alone at 44 instead of married to that prize she's with would make my never married sister snort in derision. She has zero tolerance for men like Mr. SSM or women who put up with them. She has no cat, no husband, might have liked kids, but not enough to settle for some nasty ass STD petri dick like Mr. SSM. While Mary may think she has a prize, I'd say among my friends and family, most people would pity her or question her sanity for staying, especially if they ever saw her blog.

[thoughtful]

Just came back to this thread and realized I'd somehow gotten the idea it was Lori, not SSM, who crapped this particular load. Sorry about that. But it just goes to show how interchangeable they can seem, sometimes.

Hey, I can say the same thing about Mary:

And the idea that she pretty much describes herself when ripping into other women still holds, as well.