l want to take a stab at responding to the query from Liberal Heterodoxy I mentioned yesterday. Given my position on older men/younger women relationships, and upon sexual ethics in general, he asks "How can a feminist man get laid?"
He receives some responses in the comments here and at his place. Many of the answers to his blunt but important question are very good, and I urge readers to have a look.
When confronted with a question like that from HL (that's what others are calling him), I can't answer solely from a secular, pro-feminist perspective. Though some of my more conservative friends consider me insufficiently orthodox (small "o"), my Christian beliefs inform both my feminism and my view of sexual morality. More than anything else on this blog, I've tried to make the case that feminist ideas about agency and pleasure and Christian ideas about restraint and commitment and radical giving are not ultimately incompatible, even if most of the loud voices in the culture wars insist that they are.
So, I'm not interested in providing men -- or women -- with advice on how they can "get laid" outside of the context of a loving, committed, mutually sacrificial relationship. I've toyed many times with writing my own list of "dating tips", based on personal experience. But I've shied away from doing so for several reasons. One, it would come across, I think, as very narcissistic (and I get charged with that enough as it is.) It's true that in my adult life, for any number of reasons, finding partners has not been difficult. But no one really needs me to rehash my dating and marital "war" stories. Too many people I know and love would much rather I consign those narratives to the past, and frankly, so would I -- I'm not interested in revisiting, over and over again, the triumphs and disappointments of a turbulent youth.
The other reason I won't offer advice on "how to get laid" to anyone is my reluctance to separate sexuality from broader issues of intimacy and commitment. Though I recognize that it's possible, from a secular feminist perspective, to reconcile casual, uncommitted sex with a radical belief in gender justice and equality, I have no interest in providing a rationale for it. There are plenty of articulate, interesting, voices in the secular blogosphere who can and do articulate a pro-sex feminist case. I respect many of these voices, even as my understanding of sexuality -- informed as it is by the church, Scripture, tradition and personal experience -- is different and more restrictive than theirs.
With all that said, here's the best answer I can give to a fellow like HL who wants to "get laid". The first thing you ought to do is ask yourself a basic question: Why should a woman -- any woman -- have sex with you? I don't intend that question to be flip or demeaning; I mean it very seriously. And I don't want an answer that goes into graphic detail about your (real or imagined) special and superlative sexual technique! Seriously, what are you really offering of value? Is it the promise of physical pleasure? Temporary companionship to assuage (and ultimately exacerbate) loneliness?
Really, I'm offering more or less the same advice here that I offered in this post two months ago on self-transformation. That post was focused on the broader issue of figuring out why someone ought to consider us worthy of dating or marrying. HL's question is more narrowly about sex, but my answer is still the same. From my perspective -- and this is only my own, not some edict from the pro-feminist high command -- a man who wishes to be an authentic pro-feminist while getting laid regularly by different women outside of the context of a committed relationship is living out a contradiction where his language and his life don't match.
I recognize within me a temptation to make pro-feminist principles easier for young men to embrace. I'd like to say something shallow and simple like "Hey, dude, as long as you are honest and sincere about your intentions, you can fuck around all you like -- just make sure to say nice things about respecting the humanity of your sexual partner, take equal responsibility for contraception, and be good in bed." It's tempting to give young men a free pass, the sort that allows them to indulge their sexuality with a clean pro-feminist conscience. But as far as I'm concerned, that amounts to giving men a license to objectify and use women as long they cloak their selfishness in pro-feminist rhetoric!
I can hear the howls of protest already: "Hugo, aren't you being incredibly paternalistic by suggesting that women are 'objectified" and 'used' by men? What about women's sexual agency? What about women who want casual sex from men and nothing more?" Look, I'm not denying that plenty of women have libidos that are not entirely wrapped up in romance and dreams of commitment! I have no false illusions about female sexuality, or about the ability of women to use others for their pleasure. But as a pro-feminist man, my first task is to witness to my brothers and call them to account. What would be patronizing is if I were to focus my advice primarily on young women -- and it's because I want to avoid that sort of charge that I direct my words to the fellas.
In the pursuit of sexual fulfillment, verbal candor is not enough for an authentic pro-feminist. Real honesty, real integrity, comes only when the actions of our bodies, the words on our lips, the thoughts in our heads and the deepest desires of our hearts are all congruent, all matching, all in harmony. At its best, pro-feminism is about more than paying lip service to the idea of gender equality. It's about seeing all human beings -- including those human beings whom we find incredibly desirable -- as extraordinarily precious. It's about recognizing that all of our actions -- how we eat, how we spend our money, how we make love -- have real and enduring significance, and a real effect on the lives of other equally precious living creatures. When we really grasp that aspect of pro-feminism, we can't help but be awed by the huge responsibility we have to be mindful of everything we do. And there is nowhere we need to be more mindful and careful than in the explosive and exciting world of sexuality, where our carelessness and our selfishness has such great capacity to harm others and ourselves.
So I'm sorry, I can't offer advice to anyone on "how to get laid". If that refusal makes my version of pro-feminism seem unappealing or strangely puritanical, so be it. But I'm not going to compromise what I believe to be essential principles about sexuality, humanity, and justice for the sake of winning a greater number of young men to the pro-feminist cause.
UPDATE: Long and provocative response from HL here.
Here comes a howl of protest!
a man who wishes to be an authentic pro-feminist while getting laid regularly by different women outside of the context of a committed relationship is living out a contradiction where his language and his life don't match.
Um, why? If he's honest about what he's doing, with both himself and his partners, what makes it unfeminist to have different partners or to not commit?
I think it's unfeminist to suggest that women need commitment or that they can't accept a one-night stand clearly labeled as such.
Where the confusion and pain come in is in the miscommunication and the lies. As long as there is the notion out there that women will and should only have sex within the confines of a committed relationship, men will lie about their intentions in order to get laid, and women will feel constrained in the full exploration of their sexuality. And both men and women will be under a cloud of deceit.
Posted by: zuzu | January 12, 2006 at 08:19 AM
Excellent post zuzu. I was about to write the same thing (probably less eloquently).
Communication is the key.
Posted by: will | January 12, 2006 at 08:34 AM
Oh, I don't know that what Hugo's saying is unfeminist--after all, he's talking about (and to) men, not about women. I think that it's entirely possible to look at one's own position of privilege, how that plays out in the society we have, and advise a course of action that does not enhance that privilege, *regardless of the feelings/views of some members of the oppressed group*. We live in a society that in many ways still primarily or solely values women based on their ability to sexually please men--a society in which many people view women solely as sex objects. To recognize one's privilege as a male in that society and say, "Well, I'm not going to feed into that, even if there are some women who have absolutely no problem with having encounters in which they are nothing more than a sexual object to me and me to them," isn't necessarily saying anything about every woman, at all. It's saying something about the man who choses to not exercise his privilege.
In a perfectly equal world, would it be a problem for mutually-consenting men and women to having one night stands? I would tend to say no; Hugo would probably say yes--but I'm not sure I agree with judging behavior against its effects in a perfect world. Like it or not, we live in a sexist society. Being "honest" about only viewing someone as a sex object--while better than lying about it, sure--doesn't erase the full weight of history that has led women to disproportionately be viewed as sex objects and not much else.
Posted by: AB | January 12, 2006 at 09:18 AM
What would be patronizing is if I were to focus my advice primarily on young women -- and it's because I want to avoid that sort of charge that I direct my words to the fellas.
It wouldn't be necessary for you to "focus your advice" on young women in order to acknowledge that they are capable of enjoying casual sex. As it is, even though your rhetoric focuses on (presumably heterosexual) men, you are indirectly commenting on female sexuality-- by saying that men who "indulge" in casual sex with multiple partners are "selfish," you imply that their partners are receiving no benefit from their actions. It's difficult to justify that without coupling it with the assumption that deep down, women just can't handle or enjoy sex without committment.
(Or would you argue that both men and women who have casual sex are selfish-- that they're somehow using each other, even if both are honest and enjoying themselves? Seems odd, and difficult to justify without appealing to a far more conservative moral code than most feminists are comfortable with. At least you did acknowledge that this is your personal belief and not a universal feminist edict, but I still think it's misguided to link it so closely with feminism.)
AB:
To recognize one's privilege as a male in that society and say, "Well, I'm not going to feed into that, even if there are some women who have absolutely no problem with having encounters in which they are nothing more than a sexual object to me and me to them," isn't necessarily saying anything about every woman, at all.
One should also probably recognize the privilege that makes men believe that they know better than women do about what's best for women. Of course no one is obligated to have sex with anyone else for any reason, and men are welcome to refrain from casual sex if they feel it's necessary, but the patronizing "these poor women want to be objectified because they don't know any better, but I do" attitude is unnecessary. Your argument basically implies that because women have been historically objectified, women in our society are incapable of meaningfully consenting to any sex that doesn't involve love or committment-- was that your intent?
Posted by: Keri | January 12, 2006 at 09:30 AM
Hugo said: "In the pursuit of sexual fulfillment, verbal candor is not enough for an authentic pro-feminist. Real honesty, real integrity, comes only when the actions of our bodies, the words on our lips, the thoughts in our heads and the deepest desires of our hearts are all congruent, all matching, all in harmony. At its best, pro-feminism is about more than paying lip service to the idea of gender equality. It's about seeing all human beings -- including those human beings whom we find incredibly desirable -- as extraordinarily precious. It's about recognizing that all of our actions -- how we eat, how we spend our money, how we make love -- have real and enduring significance, and a real effect on the lives of other equally precious living creatures. When we really grasp that aspect of pro-feminism, we can't help but be awed by the huge responsibility we have to be mindful of everything we do. And there is nowhere we need to be more mindful and careful than in the explosive and exciting world of sexuality, where our carelessness and our selfishness has such great capacity to harm others and ourselves."
While I hear you re. the issue that pro-feminists should embrace the priciples you describe above, I've seen no good evidence that those priciples are exclusively or even mainly the realm of pro-feminists. In fact, those of us in the MRA movement tend to be quite honor-bound by such principles, for some almost to the point of obssession. Further, I would argue that it's easier to find persons embracing these principles among the ranks of conservatives than among our left-leaning bretheren, who are more apt to embrace principles associated with the "free love" component of the sexual revolution seen during the 1960s and '70s. And I would go so far as to posit that you are more likey to find people who embrace those principles among the ranks of anti-feminists than pro-feminists.
So as far as I'm concerned, if you feel that pro-feminists need to catch up with their more conservative MRA brothers on this score, then you'll get no argument from me.
Posted by: Mr. Bad | January 12, 2006 at 09:36 AM
Let me say again that I am not the high priest of pro-feminism. I do not speak for pro-feminist men; no one can or does.
I've not always done a great job, however, of explaining that my faith and my pro-feminism are mutually dependent. And yes, this has led me to embrace a far more conservative sexual ethic (grounded in trust, mutuality, and commitment as well as in a right to pleasure) than most of my fellow feminists. I am well outside of the mainstream, I admit.
Look, I'm making a case for a fusion of Christian spirituality with a passionate belief in the radical equality of women. That is at the heart of what I do on this blog (though not in my far more secular classroom!) If I lose credibility with secular feminists and pro-feminists as a result of this fusion, that's a price I'm willing to pay. I'm not trying to get a lucrative book deal out of this blog (though the thought has crossed my mind in my fantasies, I confess); I'm trying to articulate a very specific vision that may or may not appeal to anyone else.
Posted by: Hugo | January 12, 2006 at 10:03 AM
Keri--no, it's not my intent to say that women are incapable of consenting to any sex that doesn't involve love or commitment. I believe quite the opposite, in fact. What I am arguing is that since women, as a group, are *currently* objectified in our society, I believe it is entirely feminist for a man to choose to not have casual sexual relationships with women in which he treats them a solely sexual objects.
Like I said before, in a perfectly equal world, I would have no problem with random people treating each other as only sexual objects for the purposes of a one-night stand. We don't live in that world, though.
Just as I would argue that each of us are shaped by the sexist society in which we've been raised, the actions of each of us either perpetuate that system or work against that system. I think there are many women out there that would happily, vocally consent to purely sexual relationships--not because they don't know any better, or because they have false consciousness, or any of that. But actions don't just end with the two people involved--even if this particular one-night stand is non-oppressive and mutual and so forth. It still feeds into a culture in which many men view women's only attribute as being sexual. To refuse to participate in that dynamic is principled, in my view. (I wouldn't agree with Hugo that refusing to view women solely a means to sexual release involves monogamy or commitment or romantic love--but I don't think it's possible in a one-night stand, certainly.)
Hmm. I'm having a hard time articulating this--it's the same way I feel about women changing their last names when they marry. I don't think it's a bad thing because she doesn't really know what she wants--certainly there are cases where his name really is just better-sounding or her parents were abusive or blah blah blah--but because it upholds a system I disagree with, regardless of the circumstances of this one incidence.
Maybe there's an argument to be made that sexual encounters are inherently private and have no effect upon the larger society and in the arena of sexuality, nothing we do sums up to larger social phenomena. I don't agree with it, but I suppose one could argue that.
Posted by: AB | January 12, 2006 at 10:04 AM
Zuzu:
I think Hugo's trying to make a very different argument than the one you refute (and well, too). Right after his "howls" disclaimer, he makes two points to defend his position:
1) He's not talking to or about women: he's talking to men, because that's what he feels called to do. Women's sexuality and/or agency are not being called into question. It's a comment to men about men's sexual behavior (an interesting result of this is that his argument could apply just as well to gay male relationships as hetero ones).
2) His reasons for abstaining from casual sex are not (as I read them) about the inherent power dynamics between men and women. Instead, he cites "mindfulness:"
I think Hugo's argument could be parsed like this:
1) (Pro)Feminism contains an obligation to see all human beings as "extraordinarily precious."
2) Seeing all human beings as "extraordinarily precious" requires that we exercise what Hugo calls "real integrity" in our sexual relationships.
3) The exercise of "real integrity" in our sexual relationships requires much more mindfulness and intimacy than can be achieved in a one-night-stand.
4) Thus, (pro)feminism is incompatible with one-night-stands.
Not that I necessarily agree with this reasoning, but I think it's a lot more nuanced than "women need commitment...they can't accept a one-night stand clearly labeled as such."
Fair cop?
4) Thus
Posted by: arjet | January 12, 2006 at 10:09 AM
ag. damn typo. Please ignore the final "4) Thus"
Posted by: arjet | January 12, 2006 at 10:11 AM
arjet, that's terrific -- thank you for summarizing me well!
Posted by: Hugo | January 12, 2006 at 10:12 AM
I see your point, arjet, but I still have trouble with the idea of encouraging men to place women on a pedestal instead of engaging them as human beings much the same as themselves.
Because I do think that encouraging men to refrain from having casual sex with women, even if the women themselves want the same thing, very much implies that women are incapable of being leveled with or of participating in a casual, uncommitted relationship without being oppressed, objectified or devalued.
I would much, much prefer to hear him advising BOTH men and women to refrain from casual sex on grounds of mindfulness and intimacy. Or, alternatively, encouraging men to be as open and honest about their intentions and letting their prospective partners decide whether to participate.
As it is, it just comes off as protectionist and patronizing and, I think, encourages exactly the view of women's sexuality that leads to dishonesty.
Posted by: zuzu | January 12, 2006 at 10:32 AM
I admit I'm in Zuzu's camp in terms of overall philosophy, but I think what Hugo is trying to do is to break free from the hypersexualized connotation of male and female sexuality, and the "breaking free" for *him* is part of his feminist ideology. He's not *denying* sexuality, but he's choosing to place other factors that are less socially valued (but absolutely no less important) in a higher place of importance when it comes to interaction with people- whether it's a compliment or sexual encounter.
"I would much, much prefer to hear him advising BOTH men and women to refrain from casual sex on grounds of mindfulness and intimacy. Or, alternatively, encouraging men to be as open and honest about their intentions and letting their prospective partners decide whether to participate."
This I agree with. I think how we treat each other- and ideals like respect, integrity, honesty, etc- should not have boundaries based on gender.
Posted by: Catty | January 12, 2006 at 10:50 AM
It's extremely paternalistic, Hugo. I'm going to disagree quite strongly. Far more common than guys who lie about respect to get you in bed are guys who put on an elaborate and annoying show about how important a committment, etc. is to them. Well, if that's the honest-to-god truth that they want a girlfried, bully for them. But while it's not necessarily a line, I don't want a man to say he wants a girlfriend because he thinks that's what I want to hear. I want the truth, which is, most of the time, "We'll see." That's genuine respect. Having a guy play the sexless-until-committed martyr game is very disrespectful to women, regardless of what any individual woman wants.
Plus, easy for a married person to tell us single people what hurdles we need to jump to get laid! ;)
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | January 12, 2006 at 10:52 AM
HL writes: "However, the conclusion that "committed relationship" is the only option does not follow."
This I agree with. I think a mutually respectable relationship is possible outside of a "committed" relationship.
Posted by: Catty | January 12, 2006 at 10:59 AM
Amanda wrote: "Having a guy play the sexless-until-committed martyr game is very disrespectful to women, regardless of what any individual woman wants."
What I fail to understand is if a guy truly believes in not being promiscuous (or "sexless-until-committed" if you choose) then why should he give a flying fuck about whether or not any individual woman would find his morality "disrespectful."
What I find disrespectful is the attitude that men should sacrifice their beliefs and morals in order to accomodate the wants of any given woman. Men should be free to be celibate if they so choose without worrying about whether or not some presumptuous women find it disrespectful, and not have to take any shit for not accomodating her.
Posted by: Mr. Bad | January 12, 2006 at 11:06 AM
I am not advocating either dishonesty or a double standard, folks. I would direct the exact same advice to women -- except that the question came from a man and I'm a pro-feminist man interested in speaking to and challenging men.
Posted by: Hugo | January 12, 2006 at 11:14 AM
And as far as being married goes, you're right -- which is why I don't condemn anyone who chooses differently. But at the same time, it's silly to dismiss people's views merely because of their marital status. I held these views six months ago, before I was married -- did they carry more weight then? Can only the single really be effective advocates for the cause?
Posted by: Hugo | January 12, 2006 at 11:17 AM
Zuzu:
I think the second half of that is just what Hugo is trying to do--encouraging men to honestly engage anyone they have sex with. I think the first is also close--it's just that Hugo is encouraging men to put both themselves and anyone they have sex with on a pedestal. I think a lot of Hugo's philosophy could be described as "putting all of humanity on a pedestal." And to his mind, putting people (including ourselves) on a pedestal simply precludes one-night-stands.
What I hear Hugo saying is that he is speaking to only men here because he believes his "first task is to witness to my brothers and call them to account." It's not about the power differential (although that could be a legitimate criticism--that Hugo can't choose to ignore the power differential). It's about Hugo speaking only to men because he doesn't want to be accused of telling women how to behave sexually. In my summary, I said that his argument would apply to gay male relations just as much as hetero ones. Since Hugo didn't correct me, I'm assuming he agrees. So, as I read it, it's not even about Hugo telling men how they ought to treat women. It's Hugo telling men how they ought to treat anyone they have sex with. I assume if he were a woman, he would speak to women (and possibly both women and men). But he's not, and he doesn't want to be a man telling women how to behave sexually. Is that right, Hugo?
Of course, that reasoning has its own perils--it's suggesting "I shouldn't say X because of my gender (and by extension, you shouldn't either).
Shorter Hugo (?): "One night stands are bad for everyone, but I only have authority to tell guys that."
Posted by: arjet | January 12, 2006 at 11:25 AM
I think the second half of that is just what Hugo is trying to do--encouraging men to honestly engage anyone they have sex with. I think the first is also close--it's just that Hugo is encouraging men to put both themselves and anyone they have sex with on a pedestal. I think a lot of Hugo's philosophy could be described as "putting all of humanity on a pedestal." And to his mind, putting people (including ourselves) on a pedestal simply precludes one-night-stands.
Except that Hugo's argument explicitly raised the objectification of women as a reason for men to refrain from casual sex:
I recognize within me a temptation to make pro-feminist principles easier for young men to embrace. I'd like to say something shallow and simple like "Hey, dude, as long as you are honest and sincere about your intentions, you can fuck around all you like -- just make sure to say nice things about respecting the humanity of your sexual partner, take equal responsibility for contraception, and be good in bed." It's tempting to give young men a free pass, the sort that allows them to indulge their sexuality with a clean pro-feminist conscience. But as far as I'm concerned, that amounts to giving men a license to objectify and use women as long they cloak their selfishness in pro-feminist rhetoric!
Honestly, I'm not sure how to interpret the above other than paternalistically. Instead of counseling honesty about intentions, he's counseling avoiding the issue by not engaging in casual sex because he doesn't want to give men a way to get into women's panties by using pro-feminist rhetoric.
I think, frankly, that that stance demeans men as well as women by buying into the assumption that men will and must hide their true intentions -- whether behind promises of commitment or "pro-feminist rhetoric" -- in order to get laid. Why not trust men to be honest? Why not get them to examine their interactions with women and with potential sexual partners? Why not counsel them that telling a potential partner what he thinks that he or she wants to hear does more of a disservice to feminism than does trusting that person to make up his or her own mind?
Posted by: zuzu | January 12, 2006 at 11:50 AM
Zuzu, I think it would be more effective to accuse me of being paternalistic towards both men and women when it comes to sexuality -- that's a potentially valid charge. But I'm not advocating a double standard, merely addressing myself to my chosen audience.
Posted by: Hugo | January 12, 2006 at 12:26 PM
But Hugo, you're not just telling them what they can do for themselves, you're telling them what they should do relative to women in order to protect women from being objectified as sex objects.
Had you focused on men exclusively, I don't think you need have defensively anticipated howls of protest. ;)
Posted by: zuzu | January 12, 2006 at 12:34 PM
Hugo, I think you can only get part-way to what you said through a feminist analysis.
You said that sex should be "grounded in trust, mutuality, and commitment." I think one gets to two of those things as a feminist, and not the third; and that any attempt to get to commitment through a feminist analysis will rightly get you accused of paternalism.
Certainly, one can believe that feminism requires more from men than that they be honest about their intentions. I think feminism requires from men that when they interact with women sexually, they treat those women not as sex objects but as sex partners. One respects a partner as an equal participant. One reposes trust in a partner. That's trust and mutuality.
But folks can have business partners, dance partners -- lots of kinds of partners, without an exclusive or long-term commitment. When I do an S/M scene with a woman, she's my partner and I have to see her as an equal and trust her. But I don't have to forswear other partners.
Commitment, Hugo, is something that I think you come to as a Christian, and not as a feminist. You've never hidden that your Christianity informs your feminism, and I think if you concede that the "commitment" part of your analysis comes out of your faith and that secular feminists may arrive at a different view, well, if that doesn't get you out of the charge of paternalism, it at least located your paternalism in your religious convictions where it belongs.
Posted by: Thomas | January 12, 2006 at 01:35 PM
Wow. I find myself on the other side from Amanda. But first:
Mr. Bad wrote:
I don't hear Amanda saying that. I hear one smart blogger calling another one out on what she thinks is disrespectful. I'm about to contradict her myself, and if she thinks I'm full of shit, I want to know it. But it doesn't mean she's asking me to sacrifice my beliefs and morals--just that she thinks my beliefs are wrong and my morals bankrupt. I have no problem with that.
Zuzu wrote:
Good point. Although I still think it's vaild if applied across the genders, that's not how Hugo put it in the first place. More than one person has raised this, and I don't see where Hugo says that. What I got was Hugo saying adamantly that people should act on their true intentions--and that their intentions should not include one-night-stands, because one-nighters are incompatible with feminism.
It's not that people should lie about commitment in order to get laid--it's that people should only get laid if they're willing to make a committment. Again, not something I necessarily agree with, but I think Hugo's angle is "If you truly respect yourself and your partner, you won't want to have a one-nighter. The one-nighter is evidence of the feminist failing, not the feminist failing itself.
OK- to Amanda:
I agree with that statement, but I don't see how it applies to what Hugo said. He's not advocating that anybody dissemble or play a game: he's advocating that people act from a mindset that precludes one-night-stands as a respectful form of sexual relations.
I think that one of the problems is that Hugo is a bible-thumping uptight prude compared to most of us on this list (no offense, Hugo), and compared to most feminists in general. He's advocating a sexual morality based on what he calls "a far more conservative sexual ethic" than most of us agree with.
Legend has it that William Penn, after converting to Quakerism, realized that wearing a sword (as was expected of gentlemen at the time) was incompatible with the Quaker rejection of violence. He asked George Fox for advice, who told him, "Wear it as long as thou canst."
In other words, "Don't abandon the sword (or the one-nighter) because I told you it's wrong. Abandon it only if you no longer wish to have it because you find it incompatible with your beliefs." Hugo's just making the case that any "sexual ethic" compatible with feminism requires a level of respect for self and other that precludes one-nighters.
Posted by: arjet | January 12, 2006 at 01:50 PM
Gosh, arjet, do you want to do this full time -- you do have an exquisite ability to summarize my positions (though I haven't actually thumped the Good Book in years. I tend to pat it forcefully.)
Posted by: Hugo | January 12, 2006 at 01:57 PM
arjet said: "I think that one of the problems is that Hugo is a bible-thumping uptight prude compared to most of us on this list (no offense, Hugo), and compared to most feminists in general. He's advocating a sexual morality based on what he calls "a far more conservative sexual ethic" than most of us agree with."
Actually I don't believe that the above is quite correct: Hugo advocates sexual morality for - and passes judgement on - only men. He in no way assigns any code of morality or responsibility for women because, thereby ensuring not to offend his feminist constituency. And in that way, Hugo is an archtypical politician.
Posted by: Mr. Bad | January 12, 2006 at 02:15 PM