Sex War!

The Feminist Sex Wars, also known as the Lesbian Sex Wars, or simply the Sex Wars or Porn Wars, were acrimonious debates amongst feminists regarding a number of issues broadly relating to sex. The debates, which Lisa Duggan said felt like war, polarised into two sides during the late 1970s and early 1980s and the aftermath of this polarisation of feminist views during the sex wars continues to this day. The sides were characterized by anti-porn feminist and sex-positive feminist groups with disagreements regarding sexuality, pornography and other forms of sexual representation, prostitution, the role of trans women in the lesbian community, lesbian sexual practices, sadomasochism and other sexual issues. The feminist movement was deeply divided as a result of these debates. The Feminist Sex Wars are sometimes viewed as part of the division that led to the end of the second-wave feminist era.

In New York in 1976 Andrea Dworkin was active in organising demonstrations against the film Snuff. However, attempts made to also start an organisation to continue anti-pornography campaigning by feminists in the city failed. In LA organising was more successful and the group Women Against Violence Against Women was founded in 1976 in response to the film and then also proceeded to campaign against the advertising for the Rolling Stones’ album Black and Blue. The anti-pornography movement in the USA gained ground with the creation of Women Against Violence in Pornography and Media in 1977, in San Francisco, following a 1976 conference on violence against women held by local women’s centers. Early members included Susan Griffin, Kathleen Barry and Laura Lederer. WAVPM organised the first national conference on pornography in San Francisco in 1978 which included the first Take Back the Night march. The conference led to anti-pornography feminists organizing in New York in 1979 under the banner of Women Against Pornography, and to similarly-orientated organisations and efforts being created across the United States. In 1983 Page Mellish, a one-time member of WAVPM and of WAP, founded Feminists Fighting Pornography to focus on political activism seeking legal changes to limit the porn industry. Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon wanted civil laws restricting pornography[11] and to this end drafted the Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance. They viewed male sexual dominance as the root of all female oppression, and thus condemned pornography, prostitution, and other manifestations of male sexual power.
Pro-sex feminists

From 1979 feminist journalist Ellen Willis was one of the early voices criticising anti-pornography feminists for what she saw as sexual puritanism, moral authoritarianism and a threat to free speech. Her 1981 essay, Lust Horizons: Is the Women’s Movement Pro-Sex? is the origin of the term, “pro-sex feminism”. The response to the anti-pornography strand of feminism by the sex-positive feminists was one that promoted sex as an avenue of pleasure for women, seeing anti-pornography positions as aligned to the political right-wing’s war on recreational sex and pornography. Early sex positive groups included Samois, founded in San Francisco in 1978, whose early members included Gayle Rubin and Pat Califia and the Lesbian Sex Mafia, founded by Dorothy Allison and others in New York in 1981. The Feminists Anti-Censorship Taskforce (FACT) was set up in 1984 by Ellen Willis in response to the Dworkin-MacKinnon Ordinance, in 1989 Feminists Against Censorship, formed in the UK, its members including Avedon Carol and Feminists for Free Expression formed in the USA in 1992 with founding members including Veronica Vera and Candida Royalle.

In October 1980 the National Organisation for Women identified what became known as the “Big Four” through declaring that “Pederasty, pornography, sadomasochism and public sex” were about “exploitation, violence or invasion of privacy” and not “sexual preference or orientation”. One of the more memorable clashes between the pro-sex and anti-porn feminists occurred at the 1982 Barnard Conference on Sexuality. Anti-pornography feminists were excluded from the events’ planning committee, so they staged rallies outside the conference to show their disdain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_Sex_Wars

 

 

BlackBlueAdhttp://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,914772,00.html

 

Feminist Views on BDSM vary widely from rejection to acceptance and all points in between. As an example, the two polarizing frameworks are being compared here. Some feminists, such as Andrea Dworkin and Susan Griffin, regard BDSM as a form of woman-hating violence, while other feminists, such as Gayle Rubin and Patrick Califia, see BDSM as a valid form of expression of female sexuality. Some lesbian feminists practice BDSM and regard it as part of their sexual identity.

The history between feminists and BDSM practitioners has been controversial. The two most extreme positions are those who believe that feminism and BDSM are mutually exclusive beliefs, and those who believe that BDSM practices are an expression of sexual freedom. A lot of the controversy is left over from the feminist sex wars and the battle between the anti-pornography feminists and the pro-pornography feminists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_BDSM

Gender Studies
Gender Studies

14 thoughts on “Sex War!

  1. The film Secretary had a profound effect on my life. I had read some review of it and wanted to see it, my girlfriend at the time was a bit skeptical, mostly because she was a hardcore sexual submissive but still pretty embarrassed about it.

    I really didn’t relate to the Grey character; I’m not like him, don’t share his sexual tastes, and I think the character was portrayed as weak and defective, on purpose, in order to “soften” the film and to make it more politically correct. It’s hard to believe these days, in the era of 50 Shades of Grey, but the entire BDSM dynamic was declared “violence against women” in the 1980s by the National Orgnization for Women and feminists went apeshit over the idea. Any man into such things was considered to be abusive, a rapist and a misogynist.

    In a pattern that repeats itself constantly, the biggest pushback against the anti-BDSM feminists were women themselves. In fact, it seems the pro-BDSM side largely consisted of lesbians. It’s surely difficult for a feminist to declare some lesbian couple “misogynist” or suffering from “Stockholm Syndrome” due to male violence.

    So an interesting thing happened in the 1980s: BDSM went almost mainstream. I was just a little kid at the time but I remember some store at the mall that would sell t-shirts and calendars and plastic crap with funny and catchy slogans on them, it was then I remember reading this line: “Whip me, beat me, make me bleed.” It didn’t even seem sexual to me, I had no understanding of what the slogan meant or how it was supposed to be funny. Some older friend explained that some people get off on “whips and chains” which just seemed weird, and I never really thought of it again. “Fuzzy handcuffs” started to become an only slightly risque party gift. 9 1/3 Weeks, sort of a BDSM-lite movie, was a smash hit.

    So in 2004 when I see Secretary for the first time, it’s like a light blub goes off in my head. I start thinking about all the relationships I’ve had, and realized that I had been “doing BDSM” with these girls my entire life, I just didn’t know that’s what it was. The “public face” of BDSM, until recently, always played up the male submissives and female dominatrixes. None of that appealed to me nor any woman I had ever been with. But when I found out that the “tie me up game” and blindfolds and scenarios and spanking was all part of “BDSM” – and that the most common dynamic for couples is female submission and male dominance – it was like seeing your own life portrayed on screen for the first time.

    It’s a common trope of the BDSM crowd that it’s usually the submissive that wants the dynamic and the submissive that often gets the dominant into it. Certainly true for me. My first high school girlfriend wanted me to tie her up and blindfold her. It was a girl I dated for a while in California that wanted me to choke her, that was a weird one that took a long time to understand. My last friends with benefits wanted me to bite her nipples so hard I was often seriously concerned I’d wind up drawing blood. (A friend of mine who breast fed three children just laughed, she said, especially after her children, “the harder the better.”)

    BDSM Erotica author Maggie Carpenter wrote an interesting entry on her blog recently about pictures of women in bondage. A picture of a fully clothed woman with rope tied around her hands or a collar around her neck is often described “obscene” and “pornographic” by a lot of people, even when it’s not overtly sexual. She asked, why? Is it that the men and women viewing such a picture are, in fact, aroused by it, thus describe it as “pornographic?” Carpenter and her commenters, a bunch of subbie women, all agreed they found the pictures “beautiful” and “artistic” and that the restraints, the ropes, and the collars are a form of jewelry. I’ve long seen these things as being in the same category as a wedding ring. A wedding ring is, in a sense, a sign of ownership. A collar is just an elaborate wedding ring for your neck.

    It’s led to a life long obsession for me, trying to understand the psychology of submissive women. Like a lot of things with women, it seems very complex and mysterious, but it’s actually dead simple. The two keys that a young man should really understand is women’s submissiveness and women’s masochism. They are distinct dynamics.

    Submissiveness is pretty simple, I find it hilarious that the “game” crowd or the traditionalists interested in promoting marriage often describe this as the “Captain/First Mate” dynamic. Which, to me, is an uneccessary concession to feminists. I can’t say I’ve even known a woman who was interested in being “First Officer” of anything, and I’m almost certain the men using this phrase picked it up from … Star Trek. It’s about the least sexy and most unromantic way of describing the dynamic possible. I think Mister and little works better.

    The best way of understand submissiveness, when you’re taking her out to dinner, and she asks “where do you want to go” the correct answer is never “I don’t know honey, where do you want to go.” The correct answer is always “I’m going to take you to X.” Another simple and obvious analogy is dancing, the man leads and the woman follows.

    A more difficult dynamic to understand is masocism. The best I can figure is that women can handle pain better then men, women’s sexuality often involves pain in a way men don’t experience (think of that often overlooked aspect of sexuality; childbirth. I’ve heard it’s quite painful.) Even more difficult to understand is emotional masochism. In fact, women that are prone to emotional masochism, I’d say: run away, sooner than later. It’s a type of drama, it’s the thrill of the ups and downs. These women fit all of the bad stereotypes, it’s these girls they mean when they say “don’t stick your dick in crazy.” Avoid.

    I asked my girlfriend why were both always so horny when we were hung over Sunday morning, she said the pleasure gives you a temporary relief from the pain. Pain is sort of the opposite of pleasure, and for physically masochist women, it’s sort of this exciting competing dynamic, a balance of pleasure and pain.

    One of my favorite activities lately, and surely this is a bit sadistic, is to read feminists freaking out over their own sexual submissiveness and masochism, and the hilarious contortions they go through trying to fit the square peg of feminism into the round hole of their own sexuality. The common trope – and it’s total bullshit – is “well we are such hard charging career women during the day that we just want to sit back and relax during sexy times and not have to make decisions.” Not sure if that explains the electric thrill they get when they are called a dirty little slut while actually choking on your penis, but whatever you need to tell yourself, gals.

    It seems to me that proper domination in the bedroom leads to submission outside of the bedroom. Give it to her good and hard, and she will have an urge to make you breakfast in the morning. This is, I think, what feminists hate the most, that most women tend to naturally desire male leadership, and are quite often happier when they have a man in charge of them. In fact, some of them only feel happy when they are actually owned by a man.

    Like

  2. What’s also funny is that the “official BDSM” scene is almost comically politically correct, in a sense, they sort of have to be. Most of the doms will describe themselves as “male feminists” and have a nice little canned speech about how much they respect women’s choices, before they start devising various torture scenarios they are going to put these girls through. The girl’s response to these things is almost always: more! harder! Women are crazy.

    I sometimes forget how controversial this sort of thing still is. In my crowd, it was always considered somewhat fun and glamorous, even by people who weren’t really into it. Most of my sexually liberated New York friends saw it as chic, hip, and cool. Yet pre-50 Shades of Grey, it was still somewhat secret, somewhat risque, considered somewhat deviant. But it simply cannot be, considering virtually every girlfriend I have ever had was into it on some level, quite often, very very into it. Considering that most of my girlfriends have been pretty normal middle class white women, as often as not from relatively stable family backgrounds, it’s not believable to me that I just happened to date a string of outliers.

    It also simply cannot be true that girls get into this stuff because of abuse in their past, the girls I’ve known that were into the most hardcore were never abused, never raped, nor even spanked as children (another common trope that is simply wrong.)

    So why is this still considered somewhat controversial? If everyone is doing it, how can it be deviant? It’s the norm. Male dominance and female submission is the majority dynamic in heterosexual relationships. We’re the normal ones, we’re average.

    So why is this being suppressed? When they tried to bring Anne Rice’s classic Sleeping Beauty Chronicles to the screen, they couldn’t pull it off, it devolved into a farcical comedy with Rosie O’Donnell called “Exit to Eden” and it included the lamest, most ridiculous and possibly even offensive “explanations” for why people get off on such things. Pathologizing it. You see this to this day, feminists attacking subbie girls as “damaged” “Stockholm syndromed” and the like.

    But again, as far as I can tell, most women are like that. 50 Shades of Grey isn’t just a best seller, it’s a phenomenon. They are already having trouble deciding how to put in on screen. It’s interesting to me that a spanking scene used to be very common in Hollywood movies, usually played as a bit sexy and a bit funny. From what I can tell that was all suppressed by the second wave feminists.

    I guess every time they push it down it just comes right back up, like Whack-A-Mole.

    Again, I don’t even understand why it’s controversial.

    Like

  3. Sometimes I wonder if feminists are like a little kid that walks in on her parents having sex and thinks “daddy is hurting mommy, she’s screaming!” They see some typical dynamic between a woman and a man and freak out, and call it “abuse.”

    The “domestic discipline” thing is super controversial, which of course made me very interested in understanding it. I can understand why these women crave that kind of authority. In Secretary, Lee is what’s known as a “brat” – she makes spelling mistakes on purpose, because she gets off on Grey being angry and wants a spanking. It’s almost like a “shit test” or a “fitness test” as the game crowd would call it. It might have been SSM that described the fitness tests like mountain climbing. You have to pull at those ropes, strain the rig, so you know everything is secure and tight. It’s dangerous up there, so you have to know your rig will hold you. Women test their men like that, for similar reasons. Subs want to know their dom is in control, strong enough to protect her – even from, especially from, herself.

    I’m also becoming more and more convinced that a lot of “lifestyle feminism” – the feminism that is concerned with relationships and sex (as opposed to say, pay rates) – is projected masochism. These feminists are essentially describing their Ideal Misogynist, projecting on to “men” in general their own fantasies and their own masochistic desires.

    Like

  4. The issue of S/M has been one of the most divisive in feminist history. Perhaps the opening salvo in the debate was Ti-Grace Atkison’s talk, “Why I’m Against SM Liberation,” given at a meeting of the New York S/M group The Eulenspiegel Society in 1975. A return shot entitled “Cathexis” was delivered by Barbara Lipschutz in 1976. Much of the radical or cultural feminist opposition to S/M was based on the idea that men and women had separate sexual natures, and S/M was identified as male. Many cultural feminists also opposed pornography, butch/femme roles, penetration, and other so-called “patriarchal” sex practices. Lesbian feminists drew the boundaries of what it meant to be a woman-loving woman ever more narrowly in an effort to build a safe community insulated from the violent, male-dominated world beyond.

    Many cultural feminists did not place much stock in the idea of consent. They believed that gender-based power imbalances were so entrenched that it was not possible for a woman to freely give true, informed consent. Catharine McKinnon stated that women’s desire for erotic submission was “an unconscious reflection of their own oppression.” Women’s personal positive experiences with SM were often discounted. Kathleen Barry went so far as to claim that “to find pleasure in S/M is to betray one’s female soul.”

    It seems that times have changed. While there are still feminists who oppose S/M, a more pluralistic philosophy that accepts a wider range of sexual choices has become the feminist norm. The sex wars largely burnt themselves out because little dialogue was possible and the two sides either went their separate ways or “agreed to disagree.” Compared to the vociferous denunciations — and even threats and physical violence — faced by women who practiced or spoke in favor of S/M in the late 1970s and early 1980s (as described by Joan Nestle, Amber Hollibaugh, Gayle Rubin, and others), it is relatively uncommon today to hear open criticism of S/M from feminist and lesbian activists. However, women who do S/M still face discrimination within the women’s community. A 1994 survey by the Philadelphia women’s S/M group Female Trouble found that over a third of the 500 lesbians polled had been attacked by other lesbians because of their S/M orientation.

    http://black-rose.com/articles-liz/now-sm-soj.html

    Like

    1. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?cc=mfsfront;c=mfs;c=mfsfront;idno=ark5583.0022.101;rgn=main;view=text;xc=1;g=mfsg

      The debate surrounding pornography and s/m sexualities raging through the feminist community was also pushed to the forefront as a result of the scandal surrounding the conference. The troubling relationships between pleasure, danger, eroticism, and agency were added into the already existing discussions around female sexuality.

      Feminists involved in the scandal surrounding the Barnard conference developed a more nuanced way of approaching the binary oppositions that earlier second-wave feminists struggled with. For these women, the binary between pleasure and danger became inextricably linked with the binary between the personal and political. For feminists directly involved with the Barnard conference, their relationship to pleasure was a highly personal one, while feminists in opposition to the conference’s project saw the need to address danger as a highly political reality.

      Like

  5. Great post, but seriously, I can hardly stand those Documentaries by the jew media about ‘Phenomenons’ they themselves created, pretending they were spontaneous expressions of things the masses themselves felt deeply about.
    Like the 60’s, for instance. Of course it was due to an accumulation of psychic energy that suddenly self animated and took on a life of it’s own, sweeping everybody up into it and totally overturning society over on its ear.
    I guess the very idea that the whole thing may have been intentionally orchestrated by the hostile elite who invisibly hold the reins of power would just be silly and paranoid!

    Like

    1. There’s a woman in the video that say the real phenomenon of 50 Shades was that it was the first time customers actually ponied up a lot of money for an e-book on the Kindle. Of course, the industry tries to make every publication a phenomenon but this was by a first time writer about a still slightly taboo subject that is actually hated by both the “official BDSM community” as well as feminists. And of course, loved by average women.

      I would thank those pro-sex lesbians for using the term “danger” to describe what turns them on. All the whiney man-o-sphere guys always complain about women going for criminals, assholes, jerks, bad boys, serial killers, etc. Well, the missing connection in all of that is the element of danger. It makes perfect sense when you think about it. But they whine, “why do women have to be like that? Why can’t they be this other way? It’s not faaair!”

      The real controversy of BDSM is not the whips and chains or the spankings or the role playing. It’s the psychology and the psychological dynamic that is controversial, which just makes it more interesting.

      “There are other ways of showing your feelings, Lee. More conventional ways.” — Lee’s brother, Secretary

      Surely a lot of mass trends are driven by the media, purposefully. But this particular aspect of human sexuality is described even in ancient literature like the Kama Sutra and seems more prevalent in the Anglo and Scandinavian world than anywhere else.

      You just gave me an idea though, I’m going to go through the list of “anti-porn” (anti-BDSM) feminists and “pro-sex” (pro-BDSM) feminists and figure out which ones were Euros and which were YKWs. From what I’ve read, in Israel the main BDSM type thing is the “Holocaust Porn” which has submissive, masochist Jewish men being sexually dominated by tall, blonde, Nazi dominatrixes. Which is freaking hilarious if you think about it.

      Like

      1. Oh yeah, that ‘holocaust porn’ was fucking huge in israel around the time of the Eichmann Trial. But again, the book market was absolutely flooded with trashy tabloid style paperbacks about Hitler and the 3rd Reich at that time in the early 60’s. It’s easy to see how all that nonsense would appeal to either sexual masochists as well as sadists.
        Yes, it’s a well known fact that for women fear and sexual arousal are very close on the emotional scale. An old trick I learned as a teenager was to drive fast on the first date to scare the hell out of my date to get her in her hot and bothered. I wasn’t questioning that aspect of the whole thing, I’m just naturally suspicious whenever jews write about any kind of social phenomenon since they originally instigate and cash in on all of it. It’s another reason why I can hardly stand documentaries, which is a shame because I used to really like them until I figured out they are always used by YKW to manipulate us emotionally. I’ve had a few ideas for some interesting documentaries myself but I doubt I’d get any cooperation from anyone in the industry since they don’t fit in with the narrative.
        Sorry if I may not be making much sense since I’ve not slept hardly at all in 72 hours. I need to get some fucking sleep dammit!!!!!!!!

        Like

  6. While I appreciate your in depth research and your analysis on the matter, I do believe that you’ve made some blatant generalisations.

    You’ve highlighted how most women, the average woman, likes the pain or the thrill of being dominated by men around. I believe that it is a generalisation because you might know that I am submissive by my name right there, but not in everyday life. I found one person that I wanted to submit to. In my everyday life, I am quite assertive and I actually have lead teams quite well on my own. I do not need men to lead me in working atmospheres, I do that well by myself.

    You’d also be interested to know, that in my side of the world, men are so lost in their day-to-day lives that they choose to assert dominance over their wives by beating them. These wife-beaters aren’t dominant men, and the women aren’t submissive. They are victims. And we have legislation to protect these women. While you have touched the concept of consent, for most of your argument, you’ve assumed that consent is present when a man “dominates” a woman by flogging her or something.

    A submissive gives her dominant the permission to use force (for the beating or something similar). I don’t believe that translates into a typical dynamic.

    While I don’t always agree with what feminists have to say, and anti sex feminism is far too right wing for me understand, I do believe that relinquishing control on one front is absolutely fine (I can almost see you say whatever floats your boat).

    I just think that generalising isn’t getting us anywhere.

    Like

    1. I do believe that you’ve made some blatant generalisations.

      Well of course, everyone makes generalizations all the time, it’s how humans understand the world. Don’t make the mistake thinking that just because you may not fit the generalization perfectly that the generalization is not valid. More often than not, the exceptions prove the rule. Then again, women tend to not really be exceptions, but always wish they were. The special snowflake syndrome and all.

      I believe that it is a generalisation because you might know that I am submissive by my name right there, but not in everyday life.

      Um, no, I think pretty much everyone knows this.

      I found one person that I wanted to submit to.

      OK, you’re new here, this was all covered in the “People Like Us” article. No one here is under the impression that you submit to every man you happen to run across. Please, don’t insult our intelligence, ok?

      I am quite assertive and I actually have lead teams quite well on my own. I do not need men to lead me in working atmospheres, I do that well by myself.

      Ugh. Submissive in the bedroom so therefore outside the bedroom you need to “prove yourself” by being “assertive.” This is exactly why feminists tend to make terrible leaders. Overcompensation. I’m certainly glad you don’t lead my team. Thankfully, most of the women I have worked for didn’t have anything to “prove” so therefore they didn’t need to be “assertive” – i.e. bitchy – because they were comfortable in their own skin.

      You’d also be interested to know, that in my side of the world, men are so lost in their day-to-day lives that they choose to assert dominance over their wives by beating them.

      Are you Arab? I can, with confidence, say this: In the white world – America, Europe, the Commonwealth – women have extremely high social status, and the vast, vast majority of men do not beat their wives, often, won’t even if their wives beg them. Actual domestic violence is just as often from the woman as from the man. I’m not really concerned with the rest of the world.

      While you have touched the concept of consent, for most of your argument, you’ve assumed that consent is present when a man “dominates” a woman by flogging her or something.

      No, I have assumed no such thing. That is 100% your own projection, because you have some feminist point to make I’m guessing. Feminists who lecture about “consent” are almost always sticking their nose into other people’s relationships trying to define “consent” for other people. Other women do not need you to define “consent” for them, ok? No one elected you Leader of Women.

      anti sex feminism is far too right wing for me understand

      Ugh. Anti-sex feminists are almost a parody of the cultural Marxism of the far left, the idea they are “right wing” is stupid. Dworkin and her crowd were far left progressives, not “right wing.” You keep them, we don’t want them.

      I just think that generalising isn’t getting us anywhere.

      Sweetheart, there is no “us” and “we” are not going anywhere. I think you are assuming a lot, and you know what they say about assumptions, don’t you? They make an “ass” of “u” and “me.”

      Did you come from Manboobz or something?

      Like

  7. In regards to the documentary, I find it so hilarious how these progressives are crying about a lack of abortion and birth control available during the 50s – I mean come on it is really not that big of a deal not having sex before marriage, or having a responsible sexual relationship. Because if a boy loves you, he will take care of you that you will not get pregnant so that, especially if he has no job yet, to support the three of them. But then again a responsible boy who truly loves his girl, would not use her in such a matter in the first place. Such a boy will seek a marriage. There is nothing wrong with that at all. And to say that if a woman was a virgin before marriage, that she is frigid or that she will never be ‘kinky’ is just so wrong. Such sexual shaming toward girls goes on today, look my mom was 25 when she first had sex with my dad, and in the USASSR if you are 20 and you are still a virgin you are considered a weirdo and that something is wrong with you, because you should join all other sluts in having sex with boys who have no interest in prolonging a relationship with you anyway. Women are so stupid these days.

    Like

    1. @KinkyVirgin

      I couldn’t agree with you more, virgin-shaming is one of my pet peeves. There are plenty of men who want a virgin wife, I mean, you lose your virginity the first night, and discovering sex together is part of the thrill. It’s the exclusivity that makes it special.

      And to say that if a woman was a virgin before marriage, that she is frigid or that she will never be “kinky” is just so wrong. Such sexual shaming toward girls goes on today … in the USASSR if you are 20 and you are still a virgin you are considered a weirdo and that something is wrong with you, because you should join all other sluts in having sex with boys who have no interest in prolonging a relationship with you anyway.

      Yep, notice how the same people who complain about slut shaming are the worst virgin shamers? Plus, the idea of a “frigid virgin” is laughable, virgin wives are chomping at the bit to “lose it” – I hear sometimes they can’t even wait long enough to get to the hotel, I’m sure plenty of limo drivers have stories to tell.

      It’s just that these women want to “lose it” to a man they love. Won’t it be fun to share all your kinky fantasies with your future husband, and live them out?

      I’ve known plenty of women that didn’t have sex until they were 21 or older. It’s not unusual at all, despite what the empowered sluts say. If they were so empowered they would have no need to shame other people for their choices.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s