Sex Aversion 35

Following on from our post Childlessness (April 30, 2012), we quote today from an article about a spreading aversion to sex. It is by Spengler, writing in the Asia Times:

A Japanese government study [shows that] almost a third of Japanese boys aged 16-19 and three-fifths of girls say that they have no interest in sex. …

The hormones of late adolescence evidently rage in vain against some cultural barrier that makes young Japanese “despise” sexual relations. …

For 60 years, the sexual revolution insisted that repressed desire is the root of all evil. It turns out that the ultimate victim of the sexual revolution is sex itself.

What makes the Japanese hate sex? The same things that make a growing proportion of Americans hate sex. Joan Sewell’s 2007 book I’d Rather Eat Chocolate became the manifesto of American women who don’t like sex …

Pharmaceutical companies are racing to market a pill to revive fading female libido, to no avail: women do not want to be sex objects, and a culture that objectifies women will make them hate sex …

Japan is a step ahead of the United States, as the first industrial country to bring sadism and pedophilia into the mainstream. … A streak of cruelty pervades Japanese culture … But the West has begun to embrace cruelty in sexual relations on a scale comparable to Japan, and the consequences most likely will be identical.

For example: Fifty Shades of Grey [by E L James], the adult version of the Twilight vampire-and-werewolf series, has become a soccer-mom bestseller. Now we know what the original, adolescent version was about, namely sadism and submission. What is it that makes adolescent girls crave sexual control and degradation? Evidently, it is the same thing that prompts their mothers to buy heavy-breathing pulp versions of the same thing in more explicit form.

After half a century of sexual revolution – otherwise known as objectification – women suffer en masse from the sexual equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome, identification with their tormentors, as a number of popular commentators observe. After a quarter-million e-book downloads, Viking Press has just paid a seven-figure advance to … E L James, an Englishwoman who initially posted the manuscript as bondage porn on a Twilight fan fiction site under the screen-name “SnowqueensIcedragon”.  In the original, still available online, little Bella of the Twilight books is deflowered not by her vampire boyfriend, but by a billionaire sadist instead, and becomes his adoring sex slave. …

The Austrian novelist Elfriede Jelinek … got the 2004 Nobel Prize in literature for explicit portrayals of sexual violence, but with literary pretensions. Jelinek … is an Austrian communist who politicizes domination. …

Why are so many American women fascinated by sexual cruelty? The answer is that the prevailing regime of sexual objectification already carries with it the experience of cruelty. For adolescent girls, the replacement of courtship by “hooking up” with “friends with benefits” is a cruel prospect.

Somehow that doesn’t seem an adequate explanation. Cruel prospects might be expected to invoke a yearning for happier ones, not an appetite for reading about cruelty.

Even though only three out of ten American teenagers aged 13 to 16 are sexually active, the options available to adolescent girls are narrowly defined. Adolescent boys are monsters, as anyone who has been one, or known one, can attest, and to require adolescent girls to engage in sexual activity of any kind with such creatures is horrifying. The considerate and courteous young vampire of the Twilight books is a cavalier by comparison.

Freud’s question, “What do women want?,” showed what an ideologically-driven fanatic he was. Women want what every human being wants, which is to be unique, and to be loved for their uniqueness. With rare exceptions, human beings become unique by bearing and raising children: a child can have only one mother. Women are unique as mothers, and men are lifted above their animal instincts by their attachment to the mother of their children.

The moment we separate sexuality from child-bearing, we turn women into generic sexual objects, which makes it impossible for them to obtain what they want, because sexual objects are generic. The one thing you know with 100% certainty about any woman you see, supermodels included, is that some man, somewhere, is tired of sleeping with her. If women cannot control men by bearing their children, what other means to they have to control them? We find the answer in the sudden popularity of dominant-submissive fantasies.

The dominant “master of the universe” in EL James’ story can be controlled by his own need to dominate, for the submissive female heroine has something that he needs in addition to generic sexuality. …

The controller is controlled by the woman he controls? Control, control. Women liberationists, are you listening?

The stylized sexual games that EL James recounts become a creepy substitute for actual courtship. Like the romance novel hero, who must pay court to the female lead, the “master of the universe” must pay prolonged attention to the female lead in preparation for sexual acts. Romance fiction requires a suspension of disbelief that is increasingly precarious in a culture of sexual exploitation. The dominant-submissive fantasy is more credible.

The sudden popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey portends the death of America’s libido.  I cannot speak from personal experience, but the paradox of domination … surely applies to the ritualistic cruelty described in this silly book and its sequels. After the initial frisson has passed, repetition of the same handcuffs-and-riding-crop routine must become unspeakably boring over time. …

And when perversion fails to titillate, nothing at all will. Like Japanese women, who encountered mainstream sexual violence and now eschew sex altogether, American women will have a great deal less sex and a great deal more chocolate.

All the signs are there. …  American women will follow their Japanese sisters into asexuality, and if women become sufficiently disgusted with men, men will become disgusted with themselves.

But then again, much of that diagnosis may be just psychobabble. The ingestion of chemicals could be to blame:

There might be a simpler explanation for the disappearance of Japan’s libido. Between 1998 and 2003, sales of anti-depressants in Japan quintupled …

Prozac is well known to cause sexual dysfunction, along with general calming. Maybe the attack on depression and hyperactivity is affecting aggression, violence, crime, and many other antisocial behaviors. …  Maybe America and other nations are prescribing themselves a gradual but gigantic and deadly loss of libido.

Whether it is due to disgust at the misery of their circumstances, or the side-effect of drugs intended to dull the misery of their circumstances, women are abandoning sexuality.

When human beings cease to desire each other physically, it is because they have ceased to desire each other at all. The things that motivate human beings to unite in intimate and permanent union, procreating and acculturating another generation, give way to the pure exercise of ego.

No, no: “pure ego” is being denied. What is the evolutionary use of sexual desire? The only discernible purpose our biology provides for us is to reproduce. As a biologist once put it: “The only reason an egg gives birth to a chicken is to ensure that there will be another egg.”

But we agree with the main point: promiscuous sex is lonely, sterile, boring, purposeless, destructive of dignity and self-respect, and terminally bad for human beings both individually and as the human race.

The typical [not quite – JB] American household no longer harbors a family but a person living alone. As Eric Klinenberg reports in his much-commented new book Going Solo, 28% of all American households now contain a single person, compared to just 9% in 1950.

Klinenberg, to be sure, thinks this is wonderful; his typical “Singleton” lives in Manhattan, hangs out at the local sushi bar and coffee shop, swims in a rich cultural current, and devotes himself to the grand diversion of the age, namely “self-realization”, which is easier to pursue in the absence of another self that might make competing demands.

In another 20 years or so, though, the self-sufficient singles of American cities will emulate the kodokushi (“lonely death”) victims of Japan, another much-commented 21st-century phenomenon. … Kodokushi clean-up has become a minor industry:

In the 1990s … the owner of a small moving company in Osaka, Japan, began noticing that many of his jobs involved people who had just died. Families of the deceased were either too squeamish to pack up for their dead relatives, or there wasn’t any family to call on. So [he] started a new business cleaning out the homes of the dead. Then he started noticing something else: thick, dark stains shaped like a human body, the residue of liquids excreted by a decomposing corpse.

That is the end that enlightened secular culture has prefigured for us …: to leave no trace of our mortal existence except for a grease-stain on the carpet.

A sickening image, a pathetic fate.

But we don’t like his putting in the word “secular”. His implication is that lack of religious belief underlies or directly causes this vast disillusionment and lapse into hopeless futility. What does religion offer as a counter? A purpose beyond this world, this life? It is in this world, this life that we need happiness and fulfillment. There is no other.

 

(Hat tip for the link, reader and commenter rogerinflorida.)

  • rogerinflorida

    It is difficult to tell whether we are seeing a new trend here or just a continuation of some typical and long held attitudes. it seems clear that the rate of marriage is declining and that single parent families (99% women) are increasing. The role of the govt. has clearly increased in Western Countries where the social safety net takes at least part of the place of the traditional provider. The reduction of the role of men as providers has resulted in the (statistical)  infantilisation of the male population. It is also clear that general access to pornography and to casual sex has not resulted in higher levels of sexual satisfaction. There is also a clear trend indicating demographic decline to the point of near extinction for some national groups. The areas occupied by these groups now will of course still be occupied but by a completely ethnic bloc.
    David Goldman (of whom I am a huge fan) is something of a romantic in his analysis, as a jew who converted to catholicism, I feel he is unable to accept the basic nihilism of the universe. He needs there to be purpose, where for atheists like me there is only a perfectly acceptable chaos. As the WW1 song went: “We are here because we are here, because we  are here, because we are here, etc”. That is not to say that our individual lives or communal activities can have no meaning, of course they can and they do but not at the bidding of some deity.
    For “Winston” I would say that monogamy is the natural state of the human sexual relationship for the simple reason that human children are very difficult to rear, it takes a family to invest the time and resources necessary to raise a human child to adulthood, and, incidentally monogamy is very common in the natural world.
    What I believe and what I have taught my two sons is that the human male achieves fulfillment through service to a human female who bears his children. The man’s place is to provide for and cherish his female  partner. To voluntarily cease to exist, as the childless do, is quite startling considering that all of us alive today are the result of millions of years of parenting going back to the very first molecular or single cell entities that actually “bred”.
    Kodukushi is not a uniquely Japanese phenomenom, it is everywhere, exacerbated by the selfish short sightedness of the self extinguishers.

  • George

    Just as Liz stated , it is now established that  Winston Blake is indeed a troll. I asked that he simply be civil regarding any dialogue or comments and he tells me to  f*** off  and then calls me an  ignorant , illiterate prating  knave because I don’t agree with him.   Since he is allowed to act this way on this site I refuse to respond since this is getting out of control.   I am not going to reduce myself to his level . Everyone was commenting in a civil and intelligent manor and then he comes on here attacking everyone and since it’s being allowed without he being told to knock it off  , I’m NOT replying any further since I have better things to do. I’m not going to get into a pissing contest with any troll.   This has happened before and I’m tired of it .  If  he wants the last word , he can have it as I am above that and I refuse to  engage in such demeanor.   Thanks also Liz for your  truthful  comment.

  • The greatest knot upon the liberty of all European people is the praeterpolitical power of the churches to institute monogamy as an ecclesiastic rule of law, thereby enabling them to determine the legitimacy of the succession of the pagan kings and abrogate the natural rights to property and self-defense as well as power of ecclesiastic censure for divorce.

    The government of men’s external actions by religion, pretending the change of nature in their consecrations cannot be esteemed a work extraordinary, it is no other than a conjuration or incantation, whereby they would have men to believe an alteration of nature that is contrary to the testimony of sight and of all the rest of the senses…

    The idea “thou shalt marry and be given in marriage” is corrupt and degenerate, which is an impossible immortality of a kind (i.e., eternal love), but not of the persons of men.

    Ecclesiastics would have men believe they will receive condign punishment for their contumacy of monogamy, as opposed to the freedom of the polygamy found in nature, which is inherently pagan.

    • Liz

      I agree that the church, when it took power, used and abused its power to force it’s version of morality on everyone, including sexuality.  But I don’t think they invented the idea of a monogamy.  Just like other human behavior that evolved and eventually became encoded in written laws, the basic idea of a monogamous relationship and a family unit was a natural order of things. 
      I’m sure promiscuous sex has always been around, too, but I wouldn’t think polygamy would have become common until societies became prosperous enough for men other than the rulers to afford to keep a harem.
      It may have seemed like a viable option back in the stone age when women were considered to be mens “property” rather than individuals of equal worth, but now that humanity has advanced beyond that mentality, polygamy should be rejected along with the celibate preisthood.
      The fact that there are people still practicing both of these things is a sad commentary on the persistence of religious domination, not freedom FROM it.  

      • Monogamy is an ecclesiastic religious rule of law.

        Women have the “right to choose” any number of men they desire.

        It is not your place to force your religious ideals on everyone.

        Mammals evolve heterosexually.

        • Liz

          I’m not in favor of religious ideals being forced on anyone, either.  But you seem to be advocating promiscuity, not polygamy.  If it’s just a big free-for all and no-one knows who’s kids are who’se, then I guess it really would “take a village” to raise a family.   

          • IT REALLY IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS OR THE GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS TO FORCE RELIGIOUS IDEALS ON ANYONE.

            Monogamy is a tenet of religion. Animals do not get married.

        • George

                                Winston , I agree with you totally that the church  via religion teaches vehemently  monogamous relationships which is what I agree with ( IMO) , however monogamy in itself did NOT originate with the church.   Archives show that 100,000 years ago as found by archeologists in Ancient Africa , there were monogamous relationships and families  .   Christianity / Judaism is around  2,000 years old and Islam is around 1400 years old  .    The church didn’t invent the concept of monogamy , however I will give due credit that in America today , the church does indeed put emphasis on monogamous relationships and the church has for the longest time  tried to lay claim that this concept was started by and solely the domain of the church which is patently untrue.    Liberals today are very anti- traditional marriage ( and I  use the term traditional loosely , because where do we begin  to associate the term “tradition” and who’s tradition is in  question ? ) . 
                               I have actually sat in some churches long ago and some of the things they expoused from a conservative perspective were SOME things that I wholeheartedly agree with ( minus the theological aspect ) , and then on the other side of the equation , I have sat in recent times in meetings of atheists/secular humanists and I have gotten up and walked out because I couldn’t stomach the sicko liberal left-wing nonsense being promoted in these meetings. This is why I appreciate The Atheist Conservative website as a breath of fresh air of relief to get away from that liberal drivel.  I’m with you on the moral issues but please do not  misunderstand the point or perspective that Liz is pointing out as well.  I ‘m not taking any sides here but observing this ( if I do say so myself ) from a lot of my own personal experiences and observations from long ago and even today.  One common denominator that we as secular conservatives share is that we are all conservative and we are indeed secular and we are here to discuss issues from that perspective which I must say is censored by many atheist groups in America which has the general population believing that to be an atheist one has to be a die hard left wing liberal which simply isn’t true and we here at TAC are shining examples of that.     Just my $0.02    contribution , that’s all.  

          • I want government out of the religion business.

            Mammals evolve heterosexually.

            Establishing an ecclesiastic standard of monogamy for homosexuals is RELIGIOUS FAGGOTRY.

  • Carlos

    Off topic: I think you would be interested in the Pamela Geller’s Human Rights conference in Dearborn:

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/opposing-honor-killing-is-islamophobia/

    • Jillian Becker

      Thanks for the link, Carlos. 

      Pamela Geller does great work spreading the truth about Islam and sharia, and acting against stealth jihad, as when she organized a protest against the proposed mosque at Ground Zero.  

      • I love Pamela Geller… If she wasn’t twice my age…

        • George

          Winston , again I couldn’t reply to your post because of NO reply button. In reply to your post two posts above ,  I also don’t believe any group should  be given special considerations and all should indeed be taxed ( the percentage rate according to the amount made according to the tax structure ) but no discrimination on anyone. The churchs should also be taxed but currently they are given a tax shelter from taxation.

    • Dearbornistan…

      • George

                       Winston , I couldn’t reply from your post to me. I also want government out of the religious business and I also want government out of our private lives but an atheist’s decision to settle down and get married and devote themselvs to one another is not because of religion. We are on the same page here . I want nothing to do with the religious or government aspect dictating what my ideals are regarding family & marriage.  
                             I think this mindset has more to do with liberal vs conservative . I got into a debate with some liberal atheists a few years ago. They  were pushing  actually promoting the homosexual agenda   vigorously  while either ignoring , downplaying or attacking the traditional male-female  union of traditional family.  These same atheists/ secular humanists were constantly ranting & raving with accusations of HOMOPHOBIA  if anyone didn’ t automatically jump on their “bandwagon” while at the same time they were expousing their own brand of overt HETEROPHOBIA referring to married men / women as  “breeders” or [ opposite sex partners ] , and making mockery of male-female relationships galore which as far as I could see was simply a double-standard and hypocritical form of bigotry parading as  ” progressive open mindedness ” .  It was indeed a farce.    I have since “washed my hands ” of liberal left wing secularism hiding in disguise as though they represent [ freethought ] in the general sense and they actually don’t.

        • I don’t think it is any of the government’s business to give any kind of special benefit to any group of people over the single individual.

          Everyone should be taxed at the exact same amount.

    • I had the opportunity to host Pamela Geller at my university for her then-new documentary, “Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks”. The event mainly attracted students from the local MSA, but discussed the issues with eloquence and respect despite the ideological differences. As a token of her gratitude, she let me keep the DVD containing the documentary. She is a wonderful, personable, courageous woman.

      I’ll be contributing my brewing mouthful to this post in due time, but I simply had to get this bit out.

  • George

                    Both men and women should be complimenting and supporting each other and not being in confrontation with one another. Our wacked out society today has screwed up the natural roles for both men and women .
                          I take issue with a few statements in this article which I find to be highly biased and reverse-sexist in some circles. 

               The article reads              —    

     ” Women  want what every human being wants  , which is to be unique  and to be loved for their uniqueness “.                I agree with that wholeheartedly. Well guess what ?   The same applies to men.   Men also want what every human being wants which is THEIR uniqueness and to be loved for their uniqueness .

    Another statement reads :   ” Women are unique as mothers  and men are lifted above their animal instincts by their attachments to the mother of their children ”
    Only men have animal instincts ?  Is there an “animal gene ” in the genetic and biological makeup of the male gender ?   Their is an unconscious sexist “jab” her which is so overt ( and NO I’m not reading into this something that is meant ). males and females have their so-called animalistic natures . Society and it’s rules dictate the behaviors.

    Another statement —- :  

                       ” If women cannot control men by their children , what other means do they have to control them ? “.               This statement in itself is that men need to have a woman to control them or else they will be a bunch of raving psychopaths going on murdering sprees if it weren’t for a woman to control him. If a man made the same statement in reverse he would be labelled a male chauvinmist sexist pig. 

     Liberals have normalized the abnormal . What was once regarded as sexually deviant , decadent , abhorrent , wierd , sick-minded and ultra-perverted today is considered to be fully accepted and [ normal ] , granted much of these rewstrictions and perceptions have been influenced or dictated by religion , or at least philosophy and political restraints .  Secular naturalism which should simply embrace that which is sensible , and positive for society ( the question is who is to decide ) could be posited as being the  established “norm” of the society.
                        I grew up during the era of Jim Crow segregation in the south and it was considered the “norm” of that day.   Was it right ? of course not . We once had slavery in America . Was it right ? Of course not  ( but then it was considered by that society as the “norm” as wrong and horrific as it was .   Women did not have the right to vote, hold public office , join the military or even hold certain jobs as men. Was it right ?  Of course not and we have evolved as such henceforth.    
                       The sexual revolution caused an “explosion ” of [ free love ] —do it in the streets, do it if it feels good , anything goes , who cares about anything , follow your feelings and let it all hang out ,,,,yada yada yada yada   !!!!!    What was the result ?    While the sexual revolution liberated women in one respect to act on their own , it backfired and caused a societal pitfall and social catastrophy. Even today in the USA , the traditional family unit ( husband , wife and children ) has dissipated tremendously.  I see both men and women not interested in marriage or family ( children and a spouse ) or romantic or committed sexual relations . What has been the effects of such ? Look around and you will see the answer and it’s effects on a civilized and stable modern culture.    

    • The idea “thou shalt marry and be given in marriage” is corrupt and degenerate, which is an impossible immortality of a kind (i.e., eternal love), but not of the persons of men.

      • George

                         A person’s life is not eternal and a love cannot be what a person’s life is not. I do believe that two-people ——husband/wife can be devoted exclusively to one another and such  has absolutely nothing to do with believeing in some magical invisible Daddy In The Sky .   I also believe that the best ( although not exclusive ) way of raising a child is with an intactb family of mother/father and children in an intact family structure .   Now , if other people believe in some other lifestyle , that’s their business , and I certainly would never try to coerce them to do otherwise . 
                             Many of the atheist/secular humanist meetings that I have attendd in the past was repleat with radical lesbian feminists attacking men in particular and they even hated conservative women just as well. 

        • Monogamy is a tenet of religion.

          The only way any of us can have anything resembling physical immortality is through our DNA.

          To use government as a religious tool in the tax codes and elsewhere concerning marriage is ecclesiasticism.

      • George

        Winston , while the top 3 Abrahamic religions preaches monogamy as their tennants , it did not originate with religion nor is it the exclusive domain of religion.  I do not want government to dictate to me regarding marriage but as Liz has pointed out , it appears that  you are indeed promoting promiscuity rather than a devoted union of man & woman which they decide among themselves.  You say that animals don’t get married . So what ? I do not want to be compared to  what rats , snakes , cockroaches or aardvarks do. Sorry , but not interested.   e are the highest species of know intelligent life and we are capable of advanced living, building , communicationg inventing, and socializing and we are not to be compared to ants and alligators .  I do not need the stamp of approval of the church or governmenrt regarding marriage but in a civilized  society , I do recognize that the government legal system gives recognition of the union specifically for legal purposes such as divorce, child support, protections regarding abuse and so forth. Without that anyone can simply say –this is my wife/husband, and expect it to be recognized . We live in a nation and society of laws , not a society of do anything that makes you feel good at any time  or place and under any conditions. I understand your position of not wanting government to dictate or control and I agree in that sense , but to live in a promiscuous –free for all , do anything you want society is the epitome of chaos, and societal destruction. I’m hoping that this conversation can remain civil in an intelligent dialogue and considering that the regular commenters here are indeed secular conservatives , we share common ideologies , although we may not agree with  everything in political circles and not all atheists are monolithic.

        • Incorrect.

          The Koran permits a man to have four wives.

          You are not listening.

          MONOGAMY IS A RELIGIOUS TENET.

          MAMMALIAN EVOLUTION IS HETEROSEXUAL.

          ANIMALS DO NOT GET MARRIED.

  • Liz

    Yes, interesting article.  I agree that  the promotion of violence and perversion might be somewhat of a factor, but I think the anti-depressants are probably more so.
    And since when is it odd for girls to not be interested in sex?  Traditionally, in both Japanese and American cultures, modesty and chastity were highly valued. 
    Which explains why “Twilight” was so popular – not because it’s some sort of  “sadism and submission” story, which Spengler seems to think is obvious – it’s because, as he himself later admits, the hero of the story is “considerate and courteous” – an old-fashioned gentleman, which is what most girls, and women, really want.

    • The goal of the left is to “feminize” men, making them docile and submissive.

      They run into a brick wall in places like Uganda or Jamaica where “girly men” are literally at risk of losing their lives when perversity and diversity come to a point of cultural clash.

      Funny thing is that Uganda and Jamaica are no longer slave colonies and it irritates the Western white leftists to no end that those stubborn, primitive darker people who aren’t so enlightened reject their notion of what is best for them and their children.

      The white Western leftist “visions of the annointed” is a pitiful joke.

      The homosexuals really desire their own extinction and Muslims are indeed willing to give it to them.

      A broken clock is right twice a day, I suppose…

      The Hindus, of all the religions, have it more exact. 

      If you have intercourse with someone’s anus, you might be reincarnated as a pile of dung.

      Sri Krishna: 

      “The ignorant are awake in their sense-life 
      Which they think is daylight
      To the seer it is darkness.”

      • George

        The sicko and perverted liberals support the Muslims who would eagerly whack them in the blinking of an eye . Liberals act as if they are friends of women and ethnic minorities and they  use both groups as their   “useful idiots”  in their own secret dubious agenda minds .  Liberals operate by deceit and trickery while promoting themselves as the caring and compassionate ones who feels everyone’s  pain.  They are full of  BS  !  

        • Islamic birth control is a bomb strapped to a ten year old child.

      • George

                                Winston I mistakenly checked the  “liked” button in trying to reply to your last post .   You say that I am incorrect and that the Koran allows men to have four wives and that I’m not listening.    First of all it isn’t me that isn’t listening it’s YOU.     I’m well aware of what the Koran  states however the fact still remains that family and marriage DID NOT originate there —that’s what I’m trying to get YOU to understand.  So please stop it with the arrogant comments  and pay attention to others as well.  You’re being attacking instead of dialogue communicating.  I really don’t care what the lower form of animals do . I do not follow what turtles, snails or porcupines do and neither should I .  As a member of homo sapiens , I am a member of the highest form of KNOWN intelligent species and I nor anyone else should not  be compared to what raccoons ,  sharks, or porcupines do. I am indeed  heterosexual and this is not a heterosexual vs homosexual article so you are posting off topic . It’s about strictly the  [  aversion of sex  ]  .  The person that isn’t  paying attention is yourself so get real here.  It appears to me that you are on here engaging in trolling rather than sincere dialogue with your form of demeanor. Now if you have a point to make , we can discuss it intelligently and maturely or not at all.

        • MONOGAMY IS A TENET OF RELIGION.

        • Liz

          I have to agree with you George here that Winston is a troll.  He keeps repeating and contradicting himself.  He repeatedly states that monogamy is a tenet of religion, which should not be imposed on anyone, but also asserts that polygamy, which he apparently thinks is a good thing, is permitted in the Koran, which would make it a religious tenet also. 
          If by favoring monogamy we are “imposing religious tenets” on others, then by favoring polygamy Winston is imposing religious tenets on others, also.  

      • George

        Some religions have adopted  ( or rather stolen ) the concept of monogamy but monogamy did NOT originate with RELIGION.   

        • MONOGAMY IS A TENET OF RELIGION.

          ANIMALS DO NOT GET MARRIED.

    • Keith

      As an old fashioned gentleman I would like to believe that is what girls/women want but it always seems that it is the rebel/outcast to whom they are attracted.  It turns out in “twilight” that the rebel is an “old” fashioned gentleman but in real life the rebel/outcast is usually a rebel/outcast for a reason.
      I have been doing some research and personal dietary changes after reading about the anti-estrogenic diet. It is amazing the chemicals we ingest that we don’t know about which have detrimental effects on our hormonal balance. Men will take pills to enable them to keep having sex after eating foods which make having sex difficult. We have a society where young girls start menstruating before they are 10 years old and the solution is to put them on the pill.
      We don’t have to worry about global warming. the plague or any natural disaster we are slowly wiping ourselves out with the food we eat.

      • Liz

        Yes, and if the food doesn’t do it, something else probably will!  But no harm in trying to stave it off as long as we can.

  • cheongyei

    One has to have a sufficiently strong sense of self to feel good about one’s sexuality.  Japan’s culture has been unstable and volatile for many centuries.  It is no wonder that with their politics, weather, economy and the emergence of China that they might be feeling a little diminutive and diluted.  Not much swagger left, and whatever swagger they had for forty years was more psuedo-swagger.

    And, if America doesn’t put the brakes on its flirtation with marxist nonsense, Americans will mysteriously, but understandably (to me) find themselves alienated, alcoholic, addicted and ultimately lost.