Sexual Revolution Ruins Friendship! Damn Dan Savage!

[debrand]

The No-Man’s land of the resulting Gender Wars is littered with dozens of new sexually transmitted diseases, brains saturated with increasingly twisted pornography, broken marriages, and shattered futures—but as long as slimy sleaze-mongers like Dan Savage get to write columns on how to incur fleeting physical pleasure, we’re all "free." Praise Third Wave Feminism and pass the condoms, I’ve got herpes to catch.

New sexually transmitted diseases? Except for HIV, what new STDs are there?

Society used to frown on broken marriage so people in unhappy marriages remained together no matter how miserable that they made everybody else. Our ancestors probably would have divorced with as great a regularity as we do if women had the financial independence to do so and society didn't frown on couples who divorced. What shattered futures does he mean?

How does he propose to keep Savage from writing his column?

t is an irony of Modernia that the secular elites believe that it is perfectly reasonable to assume that mankind has the ability to the change the climate or end poverty, but is incapable of keeping his or her pants on. We can do anything, if we put our minds to it—except, of course, stop ourselves from devolving into an irrational pool of primal passion the moment we are presented with the opportunity for sexual (mis)adventure.

Yes, human kind working together and making advances in science can end a lot of suffering but we have to work with one another. A lone person might be able to do a lot of good but ending poverty and hunger will take a joint effort. One day, we will get there.

History has shown us that consenting adults will have sex. Because we are talking about individual actions, I don't know how society can stop people from having sex outside of marriage without destroying individual freedoms. Perhaps if we separated the sexes and allowed men and women to interact only with an escort, there would be less action between opposite sex couples but it would be far easier to make certain people have access to birth control and sex education

By the way, I like my passion irrational and primal. Rowr.

That’s because “abstinence,†the Sages of the Sexual Revolution inform us from a wealth of inexperience, is “unrealistic.†Thus, every friendship is now suspect—cross-gender friendships especially, mind you, but certainly not exclusively.

Um..what?

Pop culture confirms and accentuates this new assumption, as well—nearly every sitcom on television has the characters eventually falling into bed with each other,

Yes, sitcoms are a brilliant way to learn about reality. I am watching reruns of the Vicar of Dibley on Netflix so I am now an expert on all things British. My mother's childhood of poverty and abuse could not be true because Father Knows Best was a perfect documentary of life during her childhood.

What is odd is that it is those on the right who often seem to believe that the opposite sex can't form friendship without any sexual attraction.

But, as one of my (female) friends said, perhaps our culture has “killed friendship because we’re so fixated on getting off that we end up neglecting instead of nurturing the friendships with those who might need us and who we may be able to help through the tough times—and they might not be there for us in the future when we need them, because we’re so over-sexualized that all we care about is feeding our sensual pleasures.â€

Wow, his friend is long winded. It is sort of insulting to him that she considers her current friends unable to connect with her as purely platonic friends. I wonder under what circumstances she made such a wordy statement. Seriously, try to say it out loud without taking a breath. You will pass out.

I like the way he put female in parenthesis. It is like the racist saying but I have a black friend. Really, I am not sexest, I have a female friend!

Don’t buy the lies carefully marketed by hyper-sexualized pop culture, pornography, and commentators like Dan Savage and his ilk.

He does not provide any quote proving that Savage doesn't believe that people can be friends without dissolving into puddles of primal passion.

lifesitenews.com/blog/how-the-sexual-revolution-ruined-friendship

Edited because I have no idea why there was a heart in the title put I took it out

[PennySycamore]

These idiots think that herpes only arose in the Sixties and only came about because people started having oral sex. I hate to break to them but people have been having oral sex for ages. And anal sex, too. Neither originated during the Sixties.

[docmom]

Syphilis has been around for hundreds of years (regardless of whether you believe the data for a pre-Columbian origin or not), herpes for at least 2,000 (mentioned in Greek texts) and gonorrhea is apparently biblical:

Chapter 15 of Leviticus deals entirely with the laws of both males and females afflicted with gonorrhea and as we shall see further on the disease as we know it today is consistent with the description of the male sufferer of gonorrhea. Verses 2 and 3 tell us: "... any man who has a running issue out of his flesh (because of) his issue he is unclean. And this will be his uncleanliness when he has this issue, whether his flesh is running with the issue or his flesh is stopped up by the issue, it is his uncleanliness". Rashi comments : "The issue is similar to the water of dough made from barley, and it is dissolved, and similar to the white of an egg which has not become rotten". Rashi's explanation differentiates between the physical appearance between gonorrhea and an issue of semen, according to Rav Huna in the Talmud (Niddah 35b). Gonorrhea is not related to an issue of semen and the Torah itself makes the distinction between the two in verse 16 where the emphasis is on the law dealing with someone who has had an issue of semen. There we find the following: "And if a man has an emission of semen then he shall bathe all his flesh in water and he will be unclean until the evening". Rav Huna explains (Niddah 35b) that gonorrhea, unlike an issue of semen, comes from dead flesh, that is when the member has no hardness. Maimonides and the Tashbetz both add that gonorrhea is not emitted with difficulty nor is there in its emission any passion or pleasure but simply an emission which seeps out. Rashi, Ibn Ezra and the Rashbam describe two discernible types of gonorrhea, one is a clear issue, similar to saliva, which comes out drop after drop, and this is what is called that "his flesh is running" with the issue, and a second form which is a thicker emission which congeals and stops up the flow from the body, and this is called "his flesh is stopped up".

From http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/metzora/nitzan.html

So, even in biblical times, it seems, people had sex outside of marriage. Who'd've thunk it?

[FloraKitty35]

Syphilis was the once called the great pox or the French Disease. There are letters written by George Washington when he was general of the Continental Army complaining about the soldiers contracting it from some of the camp followers.

[August]

So what he's saying is that he has the hots for one all of his male friends, but it's not his fault.

[debrand]

So what he's saying is that he has the hots for one all of his male friends, but it's not his fault.

He is very obsessed that some people might dare question the sexuality of historical or fictional figures.

this point, gender is of little consequence, and the aging and nostalgic hippie academics of history and literature are retroactively applying sexual motivation to every expression of love and affection they can find. From Abraham Lincoln sharing a bed with a male friend (how could they not be gay?) to the ancient Israeli King David’s friendship with Jonathan, to apparently homosexual lines in Shakespeare’s sonnets, everything is now suspect. One literature professor has even claimed that Anne of Green Gables of the beloved Canadian novels had a lesbian relationship with her best friend Diana, the rebuttal of which caused the theorist to accuse her critics of being “hetero-centrist

First, I didn't know that there was an aging hippie academy of history and literature. What does that even mean? Why does it bug him so much that someone might postulate that Lincoln or King David were gay or bisexual? Just because someone puts forward an opinion doesn't mean that most people accept it as fact.

Does he think that people a long time ago were not subject to gossip about their sex lives? He can't be that naive. Didn't upper class women have to be very careful of their reputations before marriage or is that just the idea that I get from reading old novels? At least most modern people wouldn't think less of Lincoln regardless of his sexuality. He could have been straight, gay, asexual or bisexual and most of us would just find that an interesting historical tidbit that has no bearing on our overall opinion about the 16th president.

[Trynn]

He does have one point: I HATE it when people assume I'm going out with a guy friend, or that we must secretly like each other. Erm, no, we don't.

The rest of it though? Total bull and shit

[PennySycamore]

Some people get really offended if you suggest these historical figures were gay. If you should suggest that Tchaikovsky or Walt Whitman, etc, were gay, the you must have some kind of agenda. They don't care if Walt wrote some clearly homoerotic love poems. Nope, totally straight.

[Dysfundamental]

He does have one point: I HATE it when people assume I'm going out with a guy friend, or that we must secretly like each other. Erm, no, we don't.

But that kind of assumption was even more extreme 50 years ago than it is now, so he makes none of the sense,