Erm, no luvvie, you’ve got this the wrong way around

Once again gay people, single women, the non-monogamous, the kinky, and many other people whose sexuality does not conform to the heterosexual, child-producing marital bedroom, will be forced to articulate their right to sexual freedom. For many adults, merely having sex, and being sexual, will become a political act. Welcome to the year of assertive sexuality.

98% of the human race just doesn’t give a damn who you have sex with nor how. The other 2% are morons of course.

However, there is a more general complaint out here. Which is that you do indeed make your preferred method of rubbing uglies into a political act. And no, really, we just don’t care whether the preference is for playing the pink oboe or rug munching, upside down from a trapeze or while wearing a squirrel suit.

We really, really, don’t care. Good luck to you, have fun and all that, but could you stop with this insistence that your preference is a political act? It ain’t.

It’s a sexual preference of no greater import than my stirrings for redheads or her over there’s to be ravished by someone dressed as a liberal.

It’s all tremendous fun, it’s a basic driving urge of humans and it’s also intensely personal, not a societal and thus not a political matter.

By all means get on with your preferred method of getting flushed and sticky. But it’s got absolutely bugger all to do with the public square now, has it? It’s a bedroom matter, not something to be done in front of the horses for fear of frightening them.

30 comments on “Erm, no luvvie, you’ve got this the wrong way around

  1. A woman’s sexual freedom depends on her ability to access affordable contraception

    Indeed (well, not if she’s a lesbian?) but it doesn’t depend on somebody else buying it for her. The possible move away from that being what the idiot is complaining about.

  2. The horrors of being forced to buy her own condoms.

    I think TW has got this the wrong way around. He is right that most people don’t care. But she is weaponizing her sexuality. She is making it the central issue. That means she is attacking everyone else’s. She is trying pathologise White heterosexuality. You know, normality. Naturally that is going to work and it will force everyone else to place their sexual orientation front and centre.

    Basically if she wants to fight on that turf, she will have a short period of grace where people try to ignore her, but if she is successful, she will have a fight on that piece of turf.

    And we are 90% of the population, depending on how wide she wants to cast her net of deviancy, and pretty much the entire productive and useful part of society. She will lose.

    So bring it on.

  3. >personal, not a societal and thus not a political matter.
    Hadn’t you heard? The personal is political — or at least it is for the cultural Marxist.

  4. “A woman’s sexual freedom depends on her ability to access affordable contraception”

    Where in the West is that not possible? How much do supermarket own-brand condoms cost in the UK these days?

  5. Something like 1.5 billion Muslims. Some of them don’t care but I think the figure is higher than 2% of the world population. Not to mention your fundamentalist Christians. Do Sikhs and Hindus accept gayism? Don’t know.

  6. Indeed (well, not if she’s a lesbian?) but it doesn’t depend on somebody else buying it for her.

    This is the flaw in the argument that the demented “reproductive rights” feminists come out with: they equate a woman’s right to an abortion with the insistence that taxpayers fund it, and said taxpayers are allowed no say in the matter.

  7. How much do supermarket own-brand condoms cost in the UK these days?

    Expensive, probably. Those who are really feeling the pinch could compare the price of water-based lubricants and weight up the options…

  8. …gay people, single women, the non-monogamous, the kinky, and many other people whose sexuality does not conform to the heterosexual…

    What are single women doing in that list and if single women are to feature on the alphanumeric spectrum of fine-tuned à la carte deviance, then why not single men?

  9. If all sexual categories stand up and say “We are doing our volunteer thing but all you scummy murdering leftist freaks can fuck right off because we won’t allow ourselves to be used as cannon fodder in your March for Tyranny and Mass-Murder” all well and good.

    But I see no sign of much of a fightback apart from Milo.

    If odd-sexers are going to be willing allies of leftist evil they must get the same shit-kicking as their masters. Not because of whatever antics they get up to but because of their willing alliance with socialist evil.

  10. I beg to differ. 98% of the population might not care about those distant gays in London who make funny TV shows (Graham Norton / Alan Carr / etc.). But they will care a bit more about whether their children’s teacher is gay, and they’ll care a lot more about whether their kids are going on a camping trip with a gay scout leader. Figures probably show that the risks are no greater than otherwise, but quite a few parents feel uncomfortable about their sons having a male role model who bats for the other team.

  11. “Expensive, probably. ”

    Just checked tesco online. From 54 p. Or less than 5 minutes work on the minimum wage.

    If that isn’t affordable, I don’t know what is.

    But I think that “affordabe” means “whatever type of contraception I want, however expensive, provided to me for free”.

  12. Sound principles here.
    If I wish to eat, drink, or smoke whatever I like in a dangerous or unhealthy manner, then it is my human right to do so.
    I should not be admonished, penalised or nudged, or have health care delayed or denied, because of my preference for excessive amounts of processed food, alcohol, or other lifestyle choices.
    Yes, I am sure the writer will agree with me. Why not?

  13. Andrew M – “Figures probably show that the risks are no greater than otherwise”

    I bet they don’t.

    Ironman – “Wow, I must have missed that bit.”

    No surprise. You miss everything else. Like all those rapes in Rotherham you said it was racism to condemn.

  14. The cost of contraception for women is negligible, and she knows it. This isn’t an economic issue, it is a cultural one. She wants to rub everyone’s noses in it by being forced to subsidise this.

    Anyway, if they don’t conform to the “heterosexual, child-producing marital bedroom”, one wonders why they need contraception.

  15. Not that I agree with her, but Tim’s view that sex is nothing to do with politics is as valid as “I’m not interested in politics, I’m a conservative.”

  16. ” A woman’s sexual freedom depends on her ability to access affordable contraception, treatment for infections and abortion services.”

    Sounds like she wants to privatise the pleasure and socialise the costs. Didn’t the left whine about this when Brown bailed out the banks?

  17. Chris – “but Tim’s view that sex is nothing to do with politics is as valid as “I’m not interested in politics, I’m a conservative.””

    Indeed. We can see the leading edge of the new sexual revolution – if you are not open to dating transsexuals, you are a bigot:

    http://theothermccain.com/2016/12/14/tranny-feminist-declares-you-are-discriminatory-not-to-date-himher/

    Jonathan – “Sounds like she wants to privatise the pleasure and socialise the costs. Didn’t the left whine about this when Brown bailed out the banks?”

    Time for a National Sex Service? If the State pays, the State should make sure there is an equal distribution of blow jobs?

    I can see this might be popular in some circles.

  18. Ironman – “Enjoying your antisemitic ramblings on the other thread as well. Thick.Racist.Prick.”

    As usual you have no answer and nothing sensible to say. So you resort to your usual incoherent insults.

    Big deal. You are, as usual, a waste of bandwidth. When you are not incoherent with rage you are utterly disgusting by defending gang rapists as long as they are not White.

  19. SMFS,

    > I bet they don’t

    I’m prepared to believe you, but society has moved from a default position of suspicion (of divergent sexualities) to a default position of acceptance. The onus is thus on you to prove your claim. Daily Mail anecdotes aren’t data.

  20. Andrew M – “I’m prepared to believe you, but society has moved from a default position of suspicion (of divergent sexualities) to a default position of acceptance. The onus is thus on you to prove your claim. Daily Mail anecdotes aren’t data.”

    Sexual abuse of children is disproportionately from Gay and bisexuals. There is not a lot of dispute about that. The claim is usually that someone who is sexually fixated on male children is not homosexual while a male who is interested in female children is heterosexual. This is a rather dishonest argument as someone like Pasolini is generally accepted as homosexual even though he does not appear to have ever been interested in anyone but boys under 18.

    As for society as a whole, our rulers like to foster a fear of heterosexual males. But I doubt that means most people believe it.

  21. SMFS: There is a lot of dispute about that, sexual abuse of children is disproportionately from hetrosexual men, massively disproportionately from hetrosexual male family members.

  22. Andrew M,

    “But they will care a bit more about whether their children’s teacher is gay, and they’ll care a lot more about whether their kids are going on a camping trip with a gay scout leader. Figures probably show that the risks are no greater than otherwise, but quite a few parents feel uncomfortable about their sons having a male role model who bats for the other team.”

    I’m OK with gay teachers. Because it’s a job. What I’m always suspicious of is men (gay or straight) who run scout camps or kids choirs for free when they don’t have any of their own kids there. It’s probably about my own perspective that if I was a single guy, I wouldn’t be hanging around with boys for a weekend. I’d be down the gym or speed dating. But I’ve also noticed that most men don’t like the company of most kids, except their own. They’ll do the polite “and how’s school for you, young man” at a family party or whatever, but after that, they don’t want to know in most cases.

  23. Some types of sexual activity were politicised in the UK with the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 came into force. It became illegal to film acts that are legal between consenting adults, even for your own use. (see http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/#an04 for details)

    That kinda breaks Tim’s comment of “By all means get on with your preferred method of getting flushed and sticky. But it’s got absolutely bugger all to do with the public square now, has it?” as the state is dictating what consenting adults can get up to (i.e. filming their fun and sharing it with like minded people).

  24. A woman’s sexual freedom depends on her ability to access affordable contraception

    There are hundreds (thousands, tens of thousands?) of sources of free condoms:

    1. Charities which give away free condoms to anyone

    2. Some pubs and nightclubs have bowls of them on the bar counter, coat-room counter etc

    3. Google: Free condoms

    Her rant is the usual Fake News one expects from MSM

  25. BiW,

    > I’m always suspiscious of men who run scout camps or kids choirs for free

    I’m willing to believe that people do it because they just enjoy the wilderness or enjoy choral music. Also, there are large variations in how far people tolerate children: some men can’t abide them, others genuinely enjoy their company. Trust but verify, as Reagan said.

    My original point was simply that I can understand how the whole gay/scout thing pissed off a lot of Americans. Over here it’s less of an issue, certainly.

  26. Of course the article has nothing whatever to do with the fact that the author E.Witt has a rather racy book on sexual activity just published.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.