Let’s talk about sluts

One comment that shows up repeatedly here goes something like this:

Why don’t you like sluts?

How can you be supportive of sex-work and yet rail against sluts?

Why aren’t you more sex-positive?

Why are you such a prude?

This article at Slate, about women who are out-bro’ing the frat bros at the illustrious Princeton drinking hole called the Tiger Inn, got me thinking about slut-culture, and I feel like I haven’t done a very good job explaining what it is that I find so off-putting about it. Either that, or some readers are just retarded, which is also possible.  Let’s split the difference and say I’m been remiss in explaining my slut POV and some people are stupid.

Seems fair.

Tiger Inn members like to get naked, “strum ‘penis guitars,’” projectile vomit competitively, and slather their dog food- and live goldfish-consuming pledges in ketchup, maple syrup and egg yolk. Last year, more women than men applied to join the Inn for the first time since the club became co-ed in 1991.

In the words of Princeton student Caroline Kitchener, The Tiger Inn is a place where there is no pressure for a “girl to be a girl”.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/08/06/women_in_frat_culture_is_princeton_s_tiger_inn_a_place_where_girls_can_be.html?wpisrc=flyouts

Well, if they’re not girls, then what are they?

According to writer Katy Waldman, they are “hyper-dudely”.  Hyper-dudeliness requires some specific actions:

…pounding back shots, dancing on the bar, going home with someone you don’t care a lot about, and meeting your friends for brunch the next morning in your sweatpants…

At least Katy was objective enough to add the word “hyper” to her stereotype of men as drunk, uninhibited, slutty and slovenly.  It’s the natural state of men to do and be these things, but some men REALLY go to town with the whole charade and “hype” up their manliness.  Tucker Max, anyone?

http://www.tuckermax.com/

You’ll note that Katy doesn’t ascribe any of this to the simple state of youth, or what for many students is no doubt their first taste of freedom. It’s manly to toss back shooters and dance on the bar, and when ladies do it, they are “not ladies” and “hyper-men” instead.

Le sigh.  I wonder if Katy saw this neat little experiment in England where an attractive young woman propositioned random men for sex just to see what would happen.  Wearing short shorts and her hair long and flowing, Andrea asks men “do you want to have sex with me?”  The first guy she asked got so angry he called the police on her!  Fully half the men turned her down flat.

No thanks.

Even the men who played along seemed suspicious, questioning whether she was drunk or planning a robbery.  Not quite the unambiguous pack of raging boners the media likes to portray.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2381362/Asking-Guys-For-Sex–Young-attractive-womans-YouTube-experiment.html

Turns out that the whole “random sex with people you don’t know” isn’t particularly good for anyone’s mental health, and that includes men, too.

…the results show that “casual sex was negatively associated with well-being and positively associated with psychological distress.” There were no disparities in gender when it came to the impact of casual sex.

Again, not quite the story the popular media likes to tell about random sex and sluttiness.

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-college-students-who-have-meaningless-sex-have-more-psychological-distress-2013-7

A routine critique of the word slut decries the fact that it is generally only applied to women, although I personally experience no dissonance using “slut” to describe promiscuous men.  The general idea is that women can have sex anytime they like, and men can’t.  Almost any woman can walk into a bar and walk out with a willing sex partner, while men can’t do that. No one seems to consider the fact that perhaps women are willing to lower their standards, while men are not. Andrea’s experiment demonstrates, if anything, that no, women cannot just randomly proposition men for sex and expect a 100% success rate.  You can bet if Andrea has been less attractive, her acceptance rate would have been considerably less than 50%, and I suspect the inverse – an attractive man propositioning  women, under the right conditions  – would have a similar success rate.

No doubt, you have heard of the Clark and Hatfield study in which men and women propositioned each other for random sex, only to have ZERO women accept the offer, while 75% and 69% respectively of the men agreed to casual sex.

The studies took place in 1978 and 1982.

A few things have changed since then.

Oh my god, those jeans!  Look at those jeans! How did anyone get laid?

http://www.elainehatfield.com/79.pdf

Professor Terri D. Conley of the University of Michigan decided to take another dive into men and women’s willingness to have random sex with strangers, looking at what factors contributed either negatively or positively to engaging in sluttiness.

A few intersecting things came to light:

Both men and women perceive women to be less risky partners.  Very few men were willing to have random sex with other men (duh!) but plenty of women were open to sex with other women, even if the women did not identify as homosexual.

I think there is a huge part of the conversation missing when we discuss “risk” and the differences in how men and women perceive that.  It is not necessarily that men perceive there to be a lower physical risk in sex with women, but probably more likely that men feel they can deal with any bad situation that arises.

Why would women be open to sex with another woman? Because they feel that in a one-off encounter like casual sex, they are more likely to be on the receiving end of pleasure.

…both women and men agreed that the female proposer would be better in bed, thought the female proposer was warmer and had higher status, and thought the female proposer would be more likely than the male proposers to give them gifts. Men and women also believed that female proposers were less likely to be dangerous than male proposers. In sum, both men and women agreed that the male proposers are less desirable than female proposers on dimensions of relevance to sexual encounters.

Here is where it gets really interesting.  When women are presented with Johnny Depp (attractive) and Donald Trump (unattractive), their willingness to engage in random sex with an attractive partner leaps up to match men’s.  The men were given a choice of Angelina Jolie or Roseanne Barr, and I doubt I have to explain how that went!

Here’s the headline — differences between men and women in likelihood of taking the proposer up on the offer was a whole lot closer.  For the proposition by the attractive person, women were at 4.09 (2.16) to 4.16 (2.56) for men — just about a tie.  For the unattractive celebrity, men were at 1.43 (.84) to women’s 1.71 (1.61) — women were higher.  For the unknown person, though, no such effect.  Women were at 1.86 (1.38), men were still at 3.52 (2.06).  Women were only marginally more interested in the offer from a stranger than from a man generally thought ugly.  Men were almost as interested in the random stranger as Angelina Jolie.  The short fling results basically track this, with the fact of celebrity seriously closing the gap between men’s and women’s interest, and the gap for a stranger remaining wide.  The appeal of the offer follows the same pattern: little difference in men’s and women’s response to the unattractive celebrity, little difference in their reaction to the attractive celebrity, lots of difference in their response to the stranger.

What’s the key thing here? STATUS

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/gender-differences-and-casual-sex-the-new-research/

College campuses are a great place to meet men with the status you are looking for, and who could be of higher status than a Princeton Man? Ladies who think that joining the boys for projectile vomiting contests and beer pong is a great strategy to attract high status males are utterly free to do so.

Go right ahead.  It won’t work, for anything MORE than random hook-ups, but some people just have to learn everything the hard way, don’t they?

Here’s where slut culture really gets to me:  most women KNOW, they just KNOW, that being a slut is NOT going to work when it comes to encouraging a relationship.  Guess what?  Most men know that, too.  Ergo the fragility of their mental health.  Hook-ups aren’t good for either MEN or WOMEN.

Some men don’t give a shit.  They are not looking for a relationship and a random blowjob from a hot drunk girl is good enough.  Good for them.  Some women don’t care either.  They are not looking for a relationship and a muffin dive from a hot drunk guy is good enough.  Good for them, too.

But that is NOT what most women want.  85% of college women want to be married by age 30. They want love, family, lasting, committed relationships.

http://www.self.com/blogs/flash/2012/08/survey-most-college-women-want.html

And most women know damn well that men are not keen on marrying sluts.  Very few are willing to admit to just how many sexual partners they have had before marriage.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2045595/Men-exaggerate-women-play-Why-care-ones-number-sexual-partners.html

Most women feel terrible after random sex, and most women want to get married eventually and KNOW that random sex is not a great way to go about it.  But they are stewing in a sea of sluttiness that tells them their instinctive preferences are wrong and prudish and confining and crippling because PATRIARCHY.

Look at this piece from Jezebel, called “How to Be the Perfect Slut”.  Being a slut is synonymous with liberation and self-actualization.

Having however much sex you want, with people you may or may not know very well, should be enjoyable, it should be easy, and it should never make you second-guess yourself. In other words, it requires that you’re comfortable with who you are and what you want, and capable of communicating both of those things. It requires you to have reached a certain level of self-actualization and self-assurance.

Enjoyable

Easy

Never second-guess yourself

Self-actualizing

Self-assured

And that is what I HATE about slut-culture.  The writer at Jezebel, Callie Beusman, even admits that she wasn’t a very good slut, because she couldn’t shake that desire for a relationship to go along with the sex and it left her mentally distressed.

I wasn’t there yet, so I sucked at being casually promiscuous. I projected my anxieties about myself as a person onto the “relationships” I was having, and it put me in a state of mild psychological distress.

http://jezebel.com/how-to-be-the-perfect-slut-733975809

Rather than believe her needs and desires for sex within some sort of defined relationship is natural, normal and that ultimately, her own instincts would serve to protect her from psychological distress, she decided that she was wrong.  That her needs were wrong.  That her desires were wrong.  That her mental distress was actually wrong.  She was wrong to feel bad.  She was wrong to just be herself. She was wrong to have her own wishes about how she wanted to act and behave.

And more importantly, she was a traitor to her beloved ideology.

Taking up the Mantle of Sluticity is not always a simple task, because it’s caked with centuries worth of fears and myths and horrible assumptions re: sexually active women. So how does one even go about being successful at casual sex without experiencing emotional consequences? What makes The Perfect Slut?

Sex without emotional consequences.  Everything without consequence.  Feminism:  the radical notion that women should do anything they want without consequences.

And even when that consequence is feeling terrible about yourself, well, change your mind and get into sluthood, girl!  The carousel will set you free!

If the only thing that ever happened was bunch of spoiled college girls ended up feeling shitty about themselves, I really wouldn’t give a shit.  Too bad, so sad, welcome to life, ladies.

But there are some very real consequences for women who throw aside their own deeply felt requirements for physical relationships, and it’s not just women who must abide them.

When women can’t quite quash that feeling of utter loathing, they look for someone to blame. No consequences.  Not for women, anyways. Who do they blame?

Oh, hello date rape.  Men go to JAIL and have their lives destroyed by women who use some tequila generated courage to overcome their most basic impulses to reserving sex for the highest status males they can attract, and women end up feeling even more victimized by their own actions.

http://judgybitch.com/2012/10/22/54/

And even more tragically, very young women who buy the slut = liberty fairytale end up dead by their own hands when the magical castle of easy self-fulfilment they were promised ends up being a nightmare of never-ending terror.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/04/12/two-lovely-girls-are-dead-by-suicide-and-we-need-to-talk-about-how-the-world-has-changed/

How many women at the Tiger Inn are there because they feel like doing shooters and dancing on the bar and blowing random guys is just good clean fun?  They don’t give a fuck? How many?

And how many are there because they have bought the story that men are drunk, wild sluts who know the true meaning of freedom and if they want to taste freedom it comes in the flavor of cock?

Sorry, that was crass, even for me, but this whole cultural story just makes me so angry.  I honestly have no problem with women who truly enjoy the art of the random hook-up.  The zipless fuck.  No strings attached sex.  Not that you need it, but you ladies have my complete and utter blessing.  You’re chum that might attract the big sharks, but you will never land one.  Leaving the waters clear for women who actually respect and understand their own psychologies and bodies and who are not willing to compromise themselves in the name of ideology.

Very young women are… well, young.  They need guidance.  Reassurance. They need love and support and friendship and kindness, especially from other women.  That begins with respecting who they are and how they want to share their bodies.

Telling women to go ahead act slutty because it’s the surest path to self-actualization and fulfilment, when that is just what women do NOT want to do is more than cruel and stupid and thoughtless.

It’s hateful.

And it’s a hallmark of feminism.  I’ve said it before, but I am beginning to believe I can’t say it enough.

Feminism HATES women.  Young women, especially.  The ones most in need of the protections of older women are the ones targeted to suffer the most.  Sluttiness is cast as a moral victory over oppressive social norms that keep women from behaving like the fantasy of men feminism has concocted.

No consequences.

It won’t last.

 

Sooner or later everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences.

Robert Louis Stevenson

Lots of love,

JB

Hook-up Culture is a thing white kids do? Why are more than 70% of black children born out of wedlock then? More white, liberal guilt than only reinforces the norm.

Let’s start with a definition:  according to Urban Dictionary, hook-up culture is “The era that began in the early 1990s and has since prevailed on college campuses and elsewhere when hooking up has replaced traditional dating as the preferred method of heterosexual liaison”.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hookup+culture

I think this ecard says it nicely:

There have been a few high profile articles about this so-called hook-up culture circulating around the internet lately, mostly focused on the women who participate in it, and then predictably, complain afterwards that they hate being treated like interchangeable blow-up dolls by men who don’t find them particularly appealing as people.  Women interviewed (anonymously, which is telling in itself) at Penn State recognized that they were not going to succeed in their desires for a boyfriend, and decided to just join the blowjob party in exchange for what they COULD get:

“It’s kind of like a spiral,” she said. “The girls adapt a little bit, because they stop expecting that they’re going to get a boyfriend — because if that’s all you’re trying to do, you’re going to be miserable. But at the same time, they want to, like, have contact with guys.” So they hook up and “try not to get attached.”

Now, she said, she and her best friend had changed their romantic goals, from finding boyfriends to finding “hookup buddies,” which she described as “a guy that we don’t actually really like his personality, but we think is really attractive and hot and good in bed.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/fashion/sex-on-campus-she-can-play-that-game-too.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Haley describes how the hook-up culture works in practice:

“You go in, and they take you down to a dark basement,” Haley, a blond, pink-cheeked senior, recalled of her first frat parties in freshman year. “There’s girls dancing in the middle, and there’s guys lurking on the sides and then coming and basically pressing their genitals up against you and trying to dance.”

Dancing like that felt good but dirty, and like a number of girls, Haley said she had to be drunk in order to enjoy it. Women said universally that hookups could not exist without alcohol, because they were for the most part too uncomfortable to pair off with men they did not know well without being drunk. One girl, explaining why her encounters freshman and sophomore year often ended with fellatio, said that usually by the time she got back to a guy’s room, she was starting to sober up and didn’t want to be there anymore, and giving the guy oral sex was an easy way to wrap things up and leave.

Not all women embrace the hook-up mentality, but those who don’t feel insecure about their choices.

“Am I allowed to find the person that I want to spend the rest of my life with when I’m 19?” she said. “I don’t really know. It feels like I’m not.”

Susan Patton, that “Princeton Mom” thinks women at colleges have heard the message loud and clear, even though it goes against what most of them actually want:

At one point, she asked the young women if any of them wanted to marry and have children. They at first appeared shocked by the question, then looked at one another for reassurance before, she said, “sheepishly” raising their hands.

“I thought, ‘My gosh, what have we come to that these brilliant young women are afraid to say that marriage and children are significant parts of what they view as their lifelong happiness?’ ” Ms. Patton said.

“They have gotten such strong, vitriolic messages from the extreme feminists saying, ‘Go it alone — you don’t need a man,’ ” she added.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/03/30/hey-ivy-league-ladies-if-you-want-to-marry-up-you-need-to-marry-young-so-get-out-there-and-nail-down-a-freshman/

So basically, young women are given a message that men, children, marriage and families are unimportant, they are entitled to sex, and they should happily engage in random acts of swallowing (or spitting, I suppose, depending on your preference) with men they barely know and don’t even necessarily LIKE.

“We don’t really like each other in person, sober,” she said, adding that “we literally can’t sit down and have coffee.”

And gosh, they need ALCOHOL to get through this disaster of a dating scene?

There’s a shock.

(all of the above from the NYT article)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/fashion/sex-on-campus-she-can-play-that-game-too.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Much of the response to the hook-up piece in the NYT has been to moan about “where the men are”.  Why aren’t men being interviewed about all this? How do the men feel?  How are we supposed to blame the men if we aren’t even engaging them in the conversation?

Oh, now, don’t you worry your pretty little head about that.  Actual men are not required to blame all men.  Amanda Marcotte can blame men for everything, at all times, with no evidence of any kind because EQUALITY FAIRNESS PATRIARCHY FEMINISM VICTIM SNOWFLAKE!

Responding to Tina Brown, who thinks young women are making a big mistake to play along, Marcotte has this to say:

Brown’s understanding of this situation is that the boys these young women are encountering are selfish in bed, treat women like they exist to serve them, and are crass and rude. But the young women are nonetheless supposed to make these young men their boyfriends or else they’re “editing out tenderness, intimacy, excitement, somebody respecting them”. I don’t mean to be an asshole here, but how? If a guy treats you like a blow job machine whose pleasure is irrelevant, then he’s not going to be a source of tenderness, intimacy, etc. He’s just a dick, and trying to make him your boyfriend is a waste of your time—and these women are clear they have better things to do.

Selfish dicks.

Selfish dicks.

Selfish dicks.

Did we get that?

Men are selfish dicks who treat women like blowjob machines.  Apparently, it has not occurred to Amanda that perhaps the reason men treat women like blowjob machines is because the women are ACTING LIKE BLOWJOB MACHINES!?!?

I wonder why Amanda can’t see that?

Girls who buy the line that there’s something wrong with them if they don’t have or want a boyfriend at that age end up spending a lot of time sitting around a messy college apartment, being ignored by their “boyfriend” while he plays video games with his bros. I saw it. Hell, I did it. It sucks.

You did it? I’ll bet you did, sweetie.

The reality is that many of the young men who are all caught up in masculine posturing in college mellow out afterwards and become completely eligible bachelors who are totally capable of offering love and support in return for getting it. Part of what helps a lot of them on their journey is realizing that you can’t actually keep a girlfriend if you don’t treat her well. They are not even remotely helped, therefore, by encouraging women to cling to them like life rafts, lest said women get accused of being cold-hearted bitches. By having some fucking standards and not trying to turn “texts you for a beej and boots you out the door” guy into your boyfriend, these young women are probably speeding up the process that turns a belligerent young man who is afraid that intimacy will make him grow vaginas to a young man who puts all that behind him to enjoy the pleasures of actually hanging out with and enjoying the company of women you have sex with.

Hahahahahahah!

That’s just too funny.  Yeah, hand out blowjobs like party favors at a McDonald’s restaurant opening, because that will make men eventually grow up and love you!

Good plan.

I sincerely feel sorry for any woman who takes Marcotte and her ilk seriously.  Embrace your slut!  Accept those booty call texts!  Go down on as many randoms as you can!  You’re actually helping them understand the value of women!  Make sure you’re good and trashed when you do it, too.  And if it doesn’t work out quite the way you hoped, you can always accuse him of raping you.

Ah, romance!

Competing with sluts is actually really, really easy, and Marcotte’s advice makes it even easier!  Any young lady that takes my advice will have her pick of men, who will be devoted to her, as long as she is devoted to him.  And if it requires alcohol to carry out my advice, he’s the wrong guy.  Or you’re an alcoholic.  Either way, it’s wrong.

http://judgybitch.com/2012/11/12/sluts-lower-the-value-of-all-women-heres-how-to-compete-with-them/

The conversation took an interesting turn today at Jezebel, where the ladies proclaim that hook-up culture is a rich, white girl thing.  All the other ladies have the whole relationship thing worked out, and know how to encourage intimacy and attachment and establish meaningful connections with their sexual partners.

…many young black kids have a desire to disprove the historical assumption that black people are “hypersexual” and therefore are more careful about their sexual activities.

http://jezebel.com/hookup-culture-is-a-thing-rich-white-kids-do-867044582

I’m reading a very fascinating book by a man named Tom Burrell called “Brainwashed:  Challenging the Myth of Black Inferiority”.  Tom is not some liberal arts trained PhD student desperately trying to wade through the stickiness of post-modernist/feminist/heteronormative/cis-gendered/bullshit theory, like so many other people who write on issues of race and class and gender.

No, Tom is one of the founding partners of Burrell Communications, an incredibly successful and profitable advertising agency that specializes in targeting black consumers, so his words are written through the lens of what works in practice, not in theory.

I’ll take an adman over an academic, any day.

Burrell’s chapter on black sexuality and family formation is disturbing, to say the least. He charts out how the legacy of slavery and early emancipation was deliberately designed to fracture black families and make it incredibly difficult for black men and women to see each other as fully realized humans.

A common, modern critique of black culture is that plenty of other groups have had a rough go in terms of being dehumanized, vilified, and outright murdered throughout our long, sad history, and have still managed to maintain their basic orientation towards family and community.  Most notably, Jewish people, subjected to the Holocaust, mass murder and plenty of anti-Semitism across the globe have still managed to be productive, functional members of civilized society.

The Holocaust lasted 12 years.

Slavery lasted 250 years.

That’s a whole lot more time to destroy the foundations of a culture.  And the reverberations have carried across a wider gulf of time.

The effect of slavery on families is pretty much a no-brainer.  Children could be, and were sold away from their families.  Marriages were either outright forbidden, or destroyed at the will of the slavemaster.  Once it became illegal to import new slaves, existing slaves were used as breeding stock, and the bonds of family were completely and utterly irrelevant.

What I found very interesting was how early welfare laws STILL acted to destroy black families.  In order for a woman to be eligible for benefits, she could not have a man in the house.  She had to choose between her children and her husband.

Here is how Burrell lays out the historically rooted dysfunction in black families:

Disrespect:  words of mutual contempt, ridicule, wide mistrust of mates

Roots:  Black family life, not conducive to a slave based economy, was disrupted, disrespected, and destroyed.  Black men and women were stripped of their roles as parents and protectors.  Soceity, through the welfare system, dismissed black fathers

The beat-down: disproportionate rates of physical, verbal, spiritual, and psychological abuse in black families

Roots: Slaves and descendants were conditioned to accept physical and psychological abuse. Emulation of slave-era dominant males norms continues today with a misplaced sense of “manhood” and reaction to powerlessness

Can’t be true to my Boo: the acceptance and expectation of infidelity

Roots:  Result of male slave emasculation and bearing witness to misogynistic, humiliating crimes against black women. Black men portrayed as unreliable and unable to protect. Black women portrayed as the property of white males. Unquestioned belief in black male and female unworthiness.

Icing:  Emotional shutdown and distance that fosters unhealthy relationships

Roots: Slaves learned to endure conditions outside their control. Protective mechanisms to provide family safety fractured during slavery. Generational acceptance of trauma and instability of black life.

What I find most compelling about Tom’s book is that he is not offering EXCUSES for how black culture operates, nor is he asking for ACCEPTANCE.  He is offering an EXPLANATION, and using his analysis of how and why certain aspects of the culture came to be as a means of charting a way out of the mess that exists now.

And he very clearly points out that white, especially liberal, thinkers are a key part of the strategy to CONTINUE to represent black people as inherently inferior all the while pretending to be sympathetic and understanding.

The Jezebel article about hook-up culture is a perfect example.  By claiming hook-up is a white thing, the writers can pat themselves on the back for NOT engaging those nasty racial stereotypes about “hypersexual” black folks just wanting sex and popping out babies willy-nilly.  Of course, they still have to make sure the stereotype gets engaged by mentioning how they are NOT engaging the stereotype, but they conveniently put the words into the mouths of black students themselves.

It would be racist for Jezebel to say such a thing directly.

It’s even more racist to ignore it.

By only focusing on the elite, the successful black college kids who keep it in their pants, Jezebel ignores and therefore allows all the young black men and women struggling through a massively dysfunctional culture to seem normal, natural and ultimately responsible for their own predicaments.

And ultimately, they are.  But that doesn’t mean there are not a whole lot of structural and psychological factors that come into play.  Again, those factors are NOT excuses, they are explanations and they offer a road map for how to tackle the issues facing the black community.

Seven out of every ten black children are born out of wedlock, into families that have no fathers present on a permanent basis.

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2012/10/children-born-out-of-wedlock-30-percent-white-50-percent-hispanic-70-percent-black-2502404.html

How does that sneak by the “hook-up” culture radar?  The real headline on the Jezebel piece should have been “White girls better at birth control and abortion”, which leads to a whole different set of critiques. Or maybe it should have been “White girls better at blowjobs”, since it’s pretty hard to get pregnant from a blowjob.

I have often pointed out that feminism, upon closer examination, appears to actively hate women. Marcotte’s advice to engage in casual, meaningless oral sex as a means to teach men to value women falls right into that camp.  Women need to be drunk to override their basic impulses NOT to do that, but feminism still goes all rah-rah-blowjobs-for-everyone! Rather than treat women’s basic instincts as right and proper and valuable and worthy, feminism seeks to get women to deny their most simple needs.

Articles like “hook-up culture is a white thing”, while superficially appearing to be race-progressive (tee hee – only white girls are sluts!) is an active part of the dialogue to ensure that black families continue to be subject to the pressures that make their formation so damn difficult. Black women are right to be very suspicious of feminism.

http://dearwhitefeminists.wordpress.com/

Feminism isn’t just about female superiority:  it’s about WHITE female superiority.  The vast majority of white, college-educated women will go on to marry and produce children within the legal bonds of matrimony, because white women aren’t stupid. There are enormous advantages to being married, and it remains one of the very best ways to create wealth and transfer it to the next generation. Marriage is what allows the divorce industry to flourish, so even when those smart, white ladies decide it’s time to trade in for Husband 2.0, they still keep most of the families accumulated wealth.

http://www.livescience.com/8049-college-educated-women-stay-married.html

And there is a competitive advantage to keeping the number of married, stable families limited to white ones.  It’s pretty easy to compete against the single mamas and fathers paying child support to six different women when you’re a rich white lady married to an equally rich white dude.

Pointing out that hook-up culture is NOT a white thing, and that it is having a devastating effect on black families is not racist.

Ignoring it, all the while congratulating oneself on being so liberal and progressive, most definitely IS.

The problem is not what a bunch of drunk white sorority girls do during their downtime at college. It’s how that culture takes an already problematic idea and makes it so much worse for everyone who is NOT a drunk white sorority girl.  The empowered slut trope makes it virtually impossible to discuss subjects like fidelity and kindness and intimacy and connection and attachment and commitment and marriage without coming off sounding like some Bible-thumping Puritan intent on shutting down all fun forever.

By and large, white folks don’t NEED to discuss fidelity and kindness and intimacy and connection and attachment and commitment and marriage, because we haven’t been subject to centuries of social engineering to make sure those things are almost impossible to achieve.

There are, however, some people who DO need to openly, actively, proactively and strategically discuss those topics. By shutting down that conversation, we ensure black culture continues to flail around in darkness. Feminism doesn’t want black men and women to have that discussion.

Why not, ladies?  Are you afraid to compete? Afraid that a culture coming out of such turmoil and devastation might discover what younger white women, having lived through the nuclear devastation of their mother’s feminism are coming to understand in ever increasing numbers?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021293/How-mothers-fanatical-feminist-views-tore-apart-daughter-The-Color-Purple-author.html

We are meant to live in harmony with one another.  We are meant to have children and raise them in loving, stable families.  Men and women are meant to complement, and not compete with one another.  Humans are social creatures. We are meant to live in families.

And the more of those families that are black, the better off we will all be.  Keeping black culture in turmoil by engaging white liberal guilt is a key part of denying that families matter.  That children matter.  That men matter.

“Go it alone — you don’t need a man”

That’s a message far more black women receive, and act on, than white women.  It’s not racist to point that out.

It’s racist NOT to.

Lots of love,

JB