Saturday, May 28, 2016

Quickies: The Hatred Of Sex

     Long ago I reached the conclusion that the Left is determined to destroy every last vestige of freedom. However, it’s taken me even longer to reach an even more important conclusion: Despite all its statements seemingly to the contrary, despite all its “liberations,” its “slut walks,” and its embrace of every perversion known to Man (and a few it had to invent to keep us hopping):

The Left Hates Sex.

     I submit this article as the most recent evidence:

     Marvel seems to think it has to have its heroes in heterosexual love affairs in order to maximize audience appeal. But with the franchise slowly making room for women to be more than girlfriends and sidekicks (seriously, Sharon should have been on that tarmac), a love story just for the sake of some kisses and yearning seems out of place in these spirited adventures. Sure, the Sharon and Steve connection served a narrative purpose. It showed that Cap was finally willing to close the door on Peggy. Something he could never do while his Agent Carter was alive. But, honestly, there was more juice in Bucky ogling Steve’s bulging bicep as Cap struggled to ground a helicopter using only gumption and sinew.

     So while Marvel was likely never going to make the homoerotic subtext of Cap and Bucky into text, would it really have hurt to keep their relationship more ambiguous? As if to put the nail in the coffin of speculation, Bucky and Cap paused for a moment in the middle of snowy Siberia to reminisce about their days chasing skirts in pre-War Brooklyn. It’s a sweet, human bonding moment but one that also bristles with heterosexual virility. If Disney isn’t inclined to give audiences a gay superhero, couldn’t they have at least left us the dream of Bucky and Cap?

     I know, I know: Who pays any attention to the nonsense vented in an upmarket Manhattan shopping circular? It’s a good point as regards the article’s probable influence on those who take a serious interest in comic-book heroes and the movies made about them. But I maintain that it reveals something important that normal, emotionally healthy people overlook all too easily – by design.

     Sex – real sex, the sort that adult men have with adult women, that can produce more than infections and hemorrhoids – is absolutely anathema to the Left. They harp on sex because it’s the indispensable foundation stone of erotic union and family bonding. But they don’t do so because they want us thinking about our beloved (heterosexual) spouses. They do so to pervert it, to strip away its essential eroticism, to politicize its occasions, and to render it repulsive to normal persons.

     The Left’s endless nattering about sex isn’t about sex at all; it’s about destroying sexual normality in the name of “political correctness.”

     Ninety-seven percent of the human race is heterosexual. A similar percentage love children and want to see them protected and nurtured. There’s this as well: the overwhelming majority of humans are repelled by the idea of sexual contact with members of a different race. Bear that in mind the next time you see a prime-time TV show incorporate sexual motifs that involve homosexuality, miscegenation, or both.


Unknown said...

As I've said elsewhen, if 'they' can't destroy Genesis (and they can't) they are all doomed. They understand that in the very core of their being, so why they keep trying is the demonic part I don't understand.
But most of my optimism originates in that belief, and even if it's difficult, the Lord says we must pray for them to see the Light.

T said...

"the overwhelming majority of humans are repelled by the idea of sexual contact with members of a different race."

uhhh. . . . . . . . . . . ???

I guess you may be correct. I've never seen any data. I may be a perv, but I'll look at any attractive girl. (Yeah, I mean "woman" or "female" - *I* don't mean to equate a 35 year old with a teenager.)

I guesss I'm a male at a deeper level than I'm a race. :)

Tim Turner said...

Darn, that "T" is me. Sorry, Fran.

Tim Turner said...

Rats, again! I wish these comments could be edited. I just realized my first comment above makes it sound as if I *wouldn't* look at an attractive teenager.

(Yeah, I'll shut up now.)

daniel_day said...

What Tim Turner, alias "T", said.

Grandpa said...

..."I'll look at any attractive girl..." I hope so, since we are 'wired' that way. Which is also why, when members of the gay community (yes, be a community - somewhere else) who proclaim "God made me this way" should be advised "no, He didn't." In point of fact, He calls you an "abomination". (or, perhaps, "an Obama nation"). In any case, they should prepare their argument/defense for Him. Not that it will change Him, but at least then we wouldn't have to hear it...
"God said it, I believe it, that settles it." Enough said.

MissAnthropy said...

"I'll look at any attractive girl."

Perhaps more to the point of this article, how many of those would you imagine yourself engaging in more than a brief physical conquest? I think it remains true that most people are more interested in marrying and producing children with someone of their own race -- and there's lots of reasons for that. If that weren't the case, it's unlikely that humanity would be as differentiated as it is.

Tim Turner said...

MissAnthropy, I'm going to answer you as honestly as I can. I'm gonna use plain language in an attempt to be clear. I mean no disrepect.

During my years of sexual activity, I thought of myelf as a nice guy and not a predator. Although I thought about girls almost all the time, I was not approaching every female I met with a line to get her into bed. I had some one-night stands as the result of going to bars, but only 2 or 3. Most of the women I "hooked up with" were from college, or other social contact.

1) When I was younger - in high, school, college and beginning my career, there was no internet porn. And I didn't travel all that much. My high school had 2 black kids in it. My STEM courses at Berkeley had none. When I came back from Viet Nam and went to SF State, there were almost no non-white students in my Broadcast Journalism classes. Thus I found myself "sniffing after" and engaging white girls, not because of race but because of availability.

2) There were two exceptions to that. The first was a black woman at SF State who was from Liberia. She came on to me HARD and she was attractive as hell - not because she was sultry or sexy, but because she was more goddamned honest with me than I had ever been used to. And she was giving and open at the same time. But yes, I was only 21 then, and shied away from her blackness. The second exception was an oriental girl I met in my 2nd year of my career. Again, she was everything I LATER thought I was looking for but the night we tried to spend together just didn't work. That was probably mostly because I suck at intimacy, but I'm sure some of it was because, as you point out, at the time I couldn't imagine myself marrying or being in a long-tern relationship with that girl.

3) But here's the thing. There's a difference between "strangeness" or "unfamiliarity" and "a prediliction for one's own race." Now that I've paused "You Only Live Twice" on the bikini-clad oriental woman, I bet I could be a lot more relaxed and comfortable in bed with the next oriental woman I lust after. And after being in Viet Nam for a year, I have a little more experience being intimate with someone who not only doesn't look like me, but has a different cultural outlook.

HOWEVER! I grant you that I'm predisposed to girls of my own "tribe" - whether by hard-wiring or social predisposition almost doesn't matter. But I still find fault with Fran's statement that, "the overwhelming majority of humans are repelled by the idea of sexual contact with members of a different race."

And as to your point: "I think it remains true that most people are more interested in marrying and producing children with someone of their own race. . ." If I'd known then what I know now, I might have clung a lot harder to that black Nigerian or the oriental woman. I have literally been "in the act" with white women and realized, "This isn't gonna last. Why am I here?" Well, DUH, I was there because I'm a guy. Love and real intimacy is dependent (I think) on so many different interpersonal connections and interior understandings. Comfort with the RACE of one's partner seems fairly minor once you understand all the other problems there are of being intimate.

By the way, I realize this is all fairly modern. As I alluded to, back in the days when all you saw was a lone white woman of your age on the prarie, or the Indian or oriental girl you had been promised im marriage to by your family, you probably just screwed her on your marriage night and hoped for the best.

My own experience is that random sex seldom works out well, race-compatibility or not. But then, I'm a wuss from California. :)