Chapter 3: Hooking Up is Hard to Do

by Stephanie on February 21, 2012 · 5 comments

Post image for Chapter 3: Hooking Up is Hard to Do

Thanks to Neil Sedaka and his 1962 Billboard No. 1 song, everyone knows that “Breaking Up is Hard to Do.” What they don’t seem to know is that hooking-up is even harder, intuitive though it seems. Sadly, millions of parents failed to teach their children the truth about promiscuous sex, either because they wanted to be thought “cool” by their kids or because they were afraid to make a value judgment in an area where they failed. This mentality is the product of the leftist feminine agenda and their desire to eradicate traditional Judeo-Christian sexual mores, mores that protect women not oppress them.

Feminists claim that waiting for sex until marriage is repressive and protecting sex within marriage confining. It’s odd though that the empirical data proves otherwise, as discussed in Chapter 3 of the Flip Side of Feminism: Hook-ups and Heartache. This discussion on the sexual flippancy of our culture is helpful, though most conservative women will have heard some angle of their argument. I did appreciate their very clear statement that girls don’t have sex for personal satisfaction; they have sex because they want to belong and/or be loved, a truth which ought to be universally acknowledged.

Reading Mrs. Venker and Schlafly’s discussion on sex feels like a caring chat with a kind grandmother or aunt who cares enough to tell it like it is, in spite of the feminist lies on the subject. I appreciated that they did not get bogged down in too much detail, leaving the medical facts to an appendix. I was encouraged that they concluded their chapter by mentioning the counter-sexual revolution and the desire of young girls to have boundaries. Though much has been lost, there is a glimmer of hope. Most women do want to get married, though the modern generation has found it hard to do so. Tune in next week for Chapter Four to find out why.

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

EK February 22, 2012 at 4:39 pm

“I did appreciate their very clear statement that girls don’t have sex for personal satisfaction; they have sex because they want to belong and/or be loved, a truth which ought to be universally acknowledged.”

As a strong conservative woman, I’m perplexed and offended by this statement. Given the reams of scientific and empirical evidence to the contrary, I can’t imagine anyone making this claim, let alone declaring it should be ‘universally acknowledged.’ This statement requires either a retraction or a clarification, as I’m sincerely hoping it’s an inaccurate reflection of the authors’ intent.

Is this really a declaration that women do not experience physical satisfaction from sex? Is this being applied to women having sex within the confines of marriage? A clarification of the term “personal satisfaction” is needed here, especially as I had planned on purchasing this book and am now rapidly losing interest in what appears to be sweeping generalizations with little to no practical application in my life or the lives of the women I know.

Reply

S. Perrault February 24, 2012 at 10:35 am

They are not referring to married women. The statement is part of a discussion on promiscuous youth sex and why young girls engage in it even though they really don’t want to.

The authors are pointing out that young girls are primarily looking for love and acceptance and think sex is the way to get it. They are not saying physical satisfaction is absent. They are pointing out that young girls are trying to fill an emotional gap in their life with a physical act that has no lasting meaning outside of marriage.

Reply

Josh February 27, 2012 at 5:00 pm

I think the meaning would have been perfectly clear if a “merely” had been inserted before “personal satisfaction.” That’s all.

Reply

EK February 24, 2012 at 5:16 pm

Thanks – I appreciate the clarification. Given the narrower context, the statement makes a lot more sense.

Reply

Josh February 27, 2012 at 5:09 pm

Thank you for this. I will have to purchase and read the book!

Regarding “Judeo-Christian sexual mores,” it is worth considering that a great many non-Judeo-Christian civilizations have had fundamentally the same ideas about sexual mores. In other words, there is a more universal basis for being stricter; one need not accept Judeo-Christian beliefs in order to follow the traditional path.

As an example, here is passage by Tacitus, describing the Germanic tribes who were enemies of ancient Rome:

“Clandestine correspondence is equally unknown to men and women… The loss of chastity meets with no indulgence; neither beauty, youth, nor wealth will procure the culprit a husband. No one in Germany laughs at vice, nor do they call it the fashion to corrupt and to be corrupted. Still better is the condition of those states in which only maidens are given in marriage, and where the hopes and expectations of a bride are then finally terminated. They receive one husband, as having one body and one life, that they may have no thoughts beyond, no further-reaching desires, that they may love not so much the husband as the married state. To limit the number of children or to destroy any of their subsequent offspring is accounted infamous, and good habits are here more effectual than good laws elsewhere.”

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html

Reply

Leave a Comment