Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Prude: New Book Rolls Sexuality Back Centuries

By Rachel Kramer Bussel, AlterNet. Posted December 14, 2007.


Carol Platt Liebau's new book is the worst in a recent spate of teen-sex-shockfests.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Rachel Kramer Bussel

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Carol Platt Liebau is proud to be a prude. In fact, "Proudly, A Prude," is the concluding chapter in her teen-sex-shockfest Prude: How the Sex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls (and America, Too!) (Center Street). What sets Liebau, an attorney, political analyst and commentator, and self-professed "voice from the right," apart from the spate of other recent books decrying the ills of teen sexual exploration, is her unabashed conservatism and real desire to roll back the clock -- sometimes as far as previous centuries.

Nostalgia is omnipresent in Prude, which reluctantly reckons that the sexual revolution did, in some ways, overhaul bedroom mores in this country: "With so many sexual taboos having been effectively dismantled, perhaps it's no surprise that sexual experimentation doesn't carry the stigma it used to, especially for young girls. Previously unacceptable sexual behavior, like same-sex relationships, is increasingly common, and at younger ages." (Emphasis mine.)

This is a typical Liebau sentiment, one that does nothing to distance itself from its clearly homophobic message. For Liebau is not simply bemoaning the fact that it's easier, and more socially acceptable, for young girls to be sexually active, but also that adult women dare to act this way as well.

In her chapter "Between the Covers," which laments that "sex between teenagers is treated as a given," she blithely glosses over a major issue affecting students' access to information and simply states, "Given its sexual content, it's not surprising that Seventeen was one of the magazines banned from a middle school in 1998." As far as I'm concerned, her follow-up to that (that the magazine's content "was at odds with school policy teaching that abstinence constitutes the best way of preventing the spread of STDs") only serves to infantilize young people. Denying them information will only lead them to seek it out from other, possibly less reputable, sources. But this is of no concern to Liebau.

Liebau is just the latest in a series of writers essentially pitting the good girls against the bad girls -- the good girls being the ones we need to protect, the slutty, bad girls being the ones who are ruining things for the good girls. Her examples are unoriginal and largely unconvincing. While Wendy Shalit cited Bratz dolls and Abercrombie and Fitch in her more nuanced Girls Gone Mild, Liebau's original research leaves much to be desired. (She concludes that R.A. Nelson's YA novel Teach Me "encourages young girls to fantasize about their teachers as sexual objects, thereby ripening them for exploitation by real-life classroom Lotharios." In fact, the student, Nine, almost winds up getting herself and her best friend killed due to her obsessed stalking. It would be quite difficult to read the book and want to emulate her.)

Both books come after a wave of tomes telling us how far we haven't come, baby, from Ariel Levy's feminist take in Female Chauvinist Pigs to Laura Sessions Stepp's supposedly objective journalistic take in Unhooked, and from Jillian Strauss's you-waited-too-long scold The Unhooked Generation, to Hayley DiMarco, who has made a cottage industry of selling girls insecurity around sex (tag line on the back cover of Sexy Girls: How Hot Is too Hot?: "If it ain't on the menu, keep it covered up!")

To be fair, the issue of girls being marketed sex-related products at increasingly young ages should be of concern to everyone -- feminists and conservatives alike. Naomi Wolf zeroed in on a Liebau target, Gossip Girl, in the pages of the New York Times. The shifting sexual landscape, threats of STDs, and reports of younger and younger children becoming sexually active are important issues, but as even Liebau herself points out, simply harping on the twin horrors of pregnancy and STDs is not the best approach.

But Liebau's arguments throughout the book show that she doesn't want to shield only girls from sex, but adults, too. Liebau is horrified that burlesque performer Dita Von Teese was featured in the Los Angeles Times's calendar section as "fashion's 'it' girl" when she's known for "stripping down to her pasties." She is not just talking about girls when she writes, " ... the idea that everyone has his or her own, individual sexual morality -- which no one else is entitled to challenge -- has contributed immeasurably to the sexualization of American culture. It's also contributed to the death of the concept of sexual shame, which is nothing more than an inner recognition that one has violated established standards of propriety, good taste, and morals." Whose standards? Whose morals? Liebau's? George W. Bush's? Mine? To pretend that Americans can all agree about anything, let alone sex, is preposterous.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: sexuality, teen sexuality, sex, relationships, prude

Rachel Kramer Bussel is a New York-based author, editor and blogger. She is the editor of Best Sex Writing 2008, Hide and Seek, Crossdressing, He’s on Top, and She’s on Top, and host and curator of In The Flesh Reading Series.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
ah the good ol' days
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Dec 14, 2007 1:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
liebau is living in that nostalgic fairyland that claims things were "better back then"...choose whichever "back then" you wish...by her thinking girls were better off when they weren't allowed to go to school beyond the 6th grade (if they were allowed to go at all), got married at 13, had no rights to private property (because they were private property), burned out their bodies having a baby every year or so until they died in childbirth or of exhaustion, had no voice and no right to vote...yeah, things were better back then. Better think again, Carol. Go back far enough and you don't get to write your bullsh*t book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ah the good ol' days Posted by: munchkinpup
no one reads anymore
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Dec 14, 2007 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this crap is destined for the dustbin anyway.

the only people interested in such writing are those 'believers' anyway. reaffirmation of a differently-principled life, nothing more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yawn
Posted by: halweiner on Dec 14, 2007 4:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
THESE are the" good old days." And they are getting
better, not worse. The more education, the more choices,
the more teen agers ( and their up-tight parents and
grandparents) get, the better their lives will be. Ignorance
is not bliss. It is just, in the end, ignorance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

commerce combined with sex is a core issue
Posted by: kenhymes on Dec 14, 2007 5:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems that neither the author or the reviewer (the article here is excellent and thoughtful, at a higher standard than many pieces on Alternet, so I mean no disrespect to her) put much focus on the marketnig of sex, or rather the use of sexuality as an aura, a fantasy with which to sell merchandise. My experience with my kids tells me this is where things have gone awry, not in the area of personal choices "in a vacuum."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yup. And speaking of commerce and sex... Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
How is the availability of information a bad thing?
Posted by: defrag on Dec 14, 2007 5:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Liebau decries the existence of teen sex information online, claiming that this "intimate advice ... in an earlier day might have been solicited only in the darkest hallways of the roughest schools -- if there."

Really? I wonder what planet she grew up on. I was a withdrawn boy from a religious family, but I was certainly a reader. Most of the basics about sex, in the abstract, I figured out by the age of 14 from Ann Landers' newspaper column, the public library, and even my parents' Readers' Digests. Only a very dumb kid would have had a sense that society was conspiring to withhold all that mysterious information.

She might legitimately be concerned about the accuracy of info that teens read now on the Internet, but I suppose she couldn't delve into that in her research without fainting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The power of young women
Posted by: VannaLaRoche on Dec 14, 2007 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
girls today don't have to choose between sex and power -- they know they can have both

Unfortunately, the message many girls are getting is that the route to personal power is through sex appeal and calculated sexual acts (qv. any soap opera vixen). And I don't agree that girls "know they can have both"--far from it. Some girls see their sexuality as the ONLY power they have or ever will have.

Not only that, it's probably the only power they will ever have that is beyond their control and needs no particular genius to project. Nubile women are attractive, period. It's biological.

Every young woman acquires this incredible attractive power--before she may have developed any other talent or skill, and long before she may have made plans for her life.

To a young woman with a poor education and limited options for raising herself out of poverty, the "Pretty Woman" plan may be her only hope, and the sooner she cashes in on it, the better.

And how evil can it be? After all, on a young girl's television set every day and every night are stories of women who parlay their kittenish glances and swinging booty into a perch on top of fabulous wealth and love true-and-eternal. All the girl ever had to be, really, was pretty and just sexual enough.

There's always time for regret and reversal and restoration. You see the redeemed on Oprah all the time, how big a problem can that be?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

grouping authors?
Posted by: efpatter on Dec 14, 2007 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why does the author group ariel levy's good book with session-stepp's terrible one, and wendy shalit's even worse one?

ariel levy has gone head-to-head with these abstinence only morons and emerged the intellectual victor, as anyone could have guessed...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh no, not another Dr. Laura!
Posted by: yale on Dec 14, 2007 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Were are all these media sharks, who claim to care so much about the sexual directions of our young people coming from? Hey, church lady, what are you trying to turn our country of hard fought free thinkers into? All you right wing religious folks need to get with the program. If Jesus came back here today, Iam sure you and your group would be the first bunch he would condemn. Instead of trying to brainwash our young, you need to concentrate on brainwashing the the man you most certianly voted for. Tell me what Jesus would think of you if he knew you supported the most evil and corrupt political system in American history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

last gasp of a ridiculous idea
Posted by: Don Garb on Dec 14, 2007 7:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I was just a kid in the 60's, the unspoken but prevailing view was that when a boy and a girl had sex, the boy became richer and the girl became poorer. He had "taken" something from her, and she had become "cheapened."

It's like the boy stole something that he shouldn't have, and the girl had lost value, given something away that she should have held onto.

I'm sure you can see that even our vocabulary and language idioms are filled with this idea. But I find the concept of "boy-richer girl-poorer" to be so ridiculously stupid, that I feel that no-one needs to exercise their brain coming up with sensible refutation.

The idea is just plain dumb and anyone who subscribes to it is way too stupid to bother with. Just let those retards continue to slobber all over their chastity belts and move on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You can KEEP the past
Posted by: wireup on Dec 14, 2007 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I was growing up, there were good girls and there were bad girls. The bad girls "did it", the good girls didn't "do it".

There was petting and there was necking. The good girls necked (anything from the neck up was okay). The bad girls petted (from the neck down - NOT OK).

Ridiculous? Stupid? Absurd? You bet. Would I ever want to return to such nonsense. No way!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bad to the bone Posted by: gellero
Garbage in, etc
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Dec 14, 2007 9:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These pundits(should we call them "poundits") are ignorant and sexually frustrated.

We can read all the stories about various subject and, more often than not, those who are dissing a given subject are those who are the most ignorant of the truths.
I have no doubt that this one has a hidden agenda borne of frustration and anger from something which she will NEVER admit, especially to herself.

Here is something about guns which is pertinent to this latest rant:

"Why is it that those who are against guns know so little about them?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Taking our "selves" back
Posted by: donnee on Dec 14, 2007 9:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an incest and rape survivor, I agree with many of the above comments. The ancient adages "Do as I say not as I do" and "Children shall be seen and not heard" perpetuates the fear that keeps young girls under patriarchal control (read easier to control their need to procreate and keep them enslaved as valuable livestock). Not any different than the way all of us are treated by our government.

It took me years to get beyond the feeling of having been victimized due to so many of the reasons already cited, to a more wholesome view of sex, pleasure and personal power.

My wish for all of our young people would be, to be fearlessly awake and involved in their world. Knowing that it is their right to make their own choices about what they do with their bodies and free of shame and guilt. Idealistic? Yep.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Taking our "selves" back Posted by: talkville
One way to sell a lot of books
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Dec 14, 2007 10:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is to pander to an insecure constituency that knows it is out of step with the mainstream and wants reassurance that their silly viewpoint is actually the only valid one.

Confronted with irrefutable evidence that the more, earlier and better a child's exposure to sex education, the later the onset of sexual activity and with the fact that abstinence pledges are useless in the prevention of STDs, they desperately seek reassurance that what is obviously counterproductive is nonetheless worthwhile.

The human animal was designed to be obsessed with sex. In fact, the more sexually repressed a society is, the more obsessed with sex that society becomes. It is no fluke, IMO, that societies in which women are required to cover themselves from head to toe also spawn young men willing to murder themselves and as many others as possible for the lure of unlimited sex in the afterlife.

It is ironic that statements such as this quotation from the book: "So-called sexual freedom is really just proclaiming oneself to be available for free, and therefore without value. To 'choose' such freedom is tantamount to saying that one is worth nothing." actually promote the idea that sex should be paid for and women should extract the ultimate price (Marriage) for their consent. Marriage should not be a form of prostitution. Mine is not.

When children reach puberty they are just gonna be horny as hell - trying to turn back that tide by pretending they are still in their infancy is doomed to failure. The notion that exploring sexuality is "robbing them of their childhood' ignores basic human biology. Adolescents are in fact, young adults. By accepting that obvious fact and preparing them to deal with reality rather than an artificial construct based entirely on wishful thinking, we can prepare them to make responsible choices.

Then - whether we like it or not - it's up to them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sex happens....
Posted by: morticia on Dec 14, 2007 11:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Teenagers have been kissing, petting, making out and 'going all the way' for decades...",

Decades? How about eons?

The human sex drive is a force of nature. This is why there are almost 7 billion of us. Nature wires us for it, because nature wants sperm and egg to meet, whenever possible and wherever possible. We don't have sex; sex has us. There's no one way to handle this force; with luck, we can bring our personal desires in line with it. Education, education, education.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Dear Morticia......... Posted by: gellero
» RE: Dear Morticia......... Posted by: morticia
» P.S. Posted by: morticia
slutty bad girls have messed things up
Posted by: zooeyhall on Dec 14, 2007 11:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"the slutty, bad girls being the ones who are ruining things for the good girls"

and worse yet, the "slutty" girls are the free thinkers, the authority challengers, the ones who ask "why?" when confronted by authority and gender-imposed restrictions. This clearly will not do! How else can we ever establish God's Own True Vision in this country? No way if we have these types around, challenging the minister and the family male patriarch-boss.

After all it was these types of loose FREE THINKING (emphasize those last two words!) women who were behind the Woman's Suffrage and Women's Rights Movement! (what nonsense..women's rights?!?.. a DANGEROUS idea!)

Come to think of it, those free thinking slutty women also played a prominent role in the abolition of Negro Slavery. Another danger stemming from these slutty loose women! The very idea that "coloreds" were somehow actually human and deserving of equal rights!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whoa ! there Headcase
Posted by: Belegandir on Dec 14, 2007 11:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IT seems to me that she may not be getting any in the sack herself, that is probably why the need for the book... So other Women can be as miserable as she is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sexually Repressed Posted by: Jo1028
The tip-off...
Posted by: morticia on Dec 14, 2007 12:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....is the "And America, too!" in the subtitle. Like Anne Coulter's title GODLESS, these are irresistible buzzwords cynically calculated to arouse a Pavlovian response and sell "books."

Just because words printed on paper are enclosed between two covers doesn't mean the result is a "book." Here's an actual book, and the perfect antidote to PRUDE. It's LADY CHATTERLY'S LOVER, by D.H. Lawrence. Hot, hot, hot, and best of all, written by a genius. Read it when I was 12, and never looked back.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hamster dick
Posted by: zooeyhall on Dec 14, 2007 12:51 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quite obviously, Liebau has a husband or whatever with a hamster dick. She needs to experience my 9 inches and the artistry of "the world's greatest lover" to realize what she's been missing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hamster dick Posted by: stina723
» RE: Hamster dick Posted by: morticia
» RE: Hamster dick Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» squeals of delight Posted by: zooeyhall
» RE: And Now People!! Posted by: Stoney 12+1
Idiocy
Posted by: Ahimsa on Dec 14, 2007 3:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As if sex were a drug or a bad movie one can avoid seeing.
It is between our legs, and it talks to us. To all of us.
We can repress it, ignore it (yeah, right) or live double lives (Hi Senator...!)
Or we can enkoy it, learn about it and be happy.
Are these people sexual psychos, because as far as I know, when speaking of nature, the only sexual aberration is abstinence...
The medieval invention of sex as sin has been an effective tool of fear and mass domination for enough time now. When do we come to our senses? When do we demolish this idiocy?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Puritans
Posted by: wwittman on Dec 14, 2007 3:17 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the country was founded by puritans, and other religious nuts encouraged to get the hell out of Europe.

so big shock.. they STILL hate sex

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Puritan does not Equal "Pure" Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» RE: Fear, Not Hate Posted by: Jo1028
Genealogical Discoveries about Teenage Sex
Posted by: dudelette on Dec 14, 2007 4:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Several years ago, a relative told me that, in her genealogical hunts through our ancestry over the last two centuries (the farming branch in the Midwest), she found that first babies in marriages often arrived only six or seven months after the wedding.

I don't really find this surprising. Raging hormones, curious kids with no sex education beyond what they might have seen among the animals in the barn, and these sames kids with not much to do besides work and church, often add up to sexual behavior. And babies on the way lead to quick marriages. Of course, this also means that these kids stay in the communities, become farmers themselves, bring up their children the same way, and forward unto the next generation. Community continuity and status quo tied to the sexual control of teenagers. Nothing changes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gender bias once again rears its ugly head
Posted by: Kym525 on Dec 14, 2007 4:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Granted there is a very serious problem about the sexualization of young girls, and women on all sides of the political fence have a duty to not only be concerned, but to offer real and workable solutions. Bringing back shame and guilt is NOT a solution. It is punishing half the human race for basically being human. Then again, I'm not surprised that this message is coming from women. Sexual freedom goes hand in hand with sexual responsibilty--both of these are heady concepts. For some women, it just seems easier to relegate control to men because they simply cannot handle being in control of their own destiny.

However, has there ever been this level of prudishness ever ascribed to the sexualization of young boys? Of course not. Men have the "right" to have rampaging libidos. Women do not. So-called "proud prudes" seldom, if ever address the fact that our society denigrates male virginity, even questioning their sexuality--if you're not doing it you must be gay. Why would any boy when faced with unrealistic expectations ever admit to being a virgin? Maybe what they should be doing is creating a safe space for boys and men who have made the conscious choice to be celibate--regardless of belief system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anyone who is a virgin at marriage or marries one is a damn fool.
Posted by: LeaveMeAlone on Dec 14, 2007 7:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My wife was a 31 year old virgin when I met her. I should have run like hell. I should have known that any woman who thought so little of sex and felt so little sexual impulse that she could do without sex into her thirties must have something wrong with her. But I was a fool in love and convinced that once we were married and she was comfortable with me she would be the wonderful, responsive lover I dreamed about. Now 12 years later I have given up hope. Orgasms? Forget it. She doesn't even breath hard. According to her it is beneath her dignity to be a lover. She will not touch me unless I put her hand on me. Oral sex? Too disgusting to even discuss. When I try to talk about it with her she says I should have married a whore. I only wish I had. This is the result of being the good girl this idiot author extols. Young girls should taught to love their bodies and their sexuality. They should not be exploited by anyone, not by those using their sexuality to sell shit and not by those bible-thumping morons who poison young minds with their iron-age nonsense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It depends on the woman Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: It depends on the woman Posted by: morticia
» Virgin??? Posted by: gellero
» RE: It depends on the woman Posted by: Knot_Rich
TRAINING
Posted by: gellero on Dec 14, 2007 11:51 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All girls should be trained by a good lover in their teens. Better in the long run for them. If their first few lovers are not sensitive and good, hopefully their parents will have imbued them with the strength of character to move on. Lack of sexual-ego strength is one of the main character flaws of the females of our species.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: TRAINING Posted by: donnee
» Obvious Posted by: gellero
» RE: TRAINING Posted by: morticia
» P.S. Posted by: morticia
» Never had the pleasure Posted by: gellero
» RE: Never had the pleasure Posted by: morticia
Blame the Other, Always....
Posted by: talkville on Dec 15, 2007 1:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How interesting, as pointed out in the review of these Manichean Prudes, that misogyny, a cultural and social characteristic of the USA in general and in all aspects of our lives, exists not only amongst males in our populations. Simply one more indication that the ruling classes of this country have returned to rest upon the principles of the 17th century settlers and colonizers who first embarked to this country from England.

Anything to maintain the prosperity of the few based on the misery of the many. Perhaps some wily feminist might arrange a meeting between the author of this book and Mr. O'Reilly of Fox news in the hopes they may hit it off and abscond together to Bermuda, there to disappear in mutual bliss and virtuous exaltation!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RULING CLASSES.... Posted by: gellero
» RE: ULING CLASSES.... Posted by: talkville
» Ho Hummm.............. Posted by: gellero
» RE: Ho Hummm.............. Posted by: talkville
prude&proud - why?
Posted by: ankhet on Dec 15, 2007 10:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like Liebau is afraid of everything. Best to ignore her till she feels better.
Maybe Coulter can help...but in a totally non-homo way of course...maybe a jellied salad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sex Sex Sex!! I don't see what it has to do with the Jews, Palestine, the FED, or the Persian Gulf!!
Posted by: yellow on Dec 15, 2007 7:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's get relevant. Just Kidding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great review, Rachel
Posted by: A.M.Bishop on Jan 5, 2008 10:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, at least I know who to avoid now. Wendy Shallit it is then! Just to thrown in my two cents, what I find most offensive about the sex ed is that it fails to create individualities for kids. They should of course be told that sex is dangerous, but that it's a responsibility to look out for the other person you're with. Being a good lover isn't just the finish, but the way you make them feel about their sexiness and their bodies. Little wonder that gets left out! If guys would be more considerate of young women's insecurities there'd be better women as lovers. Instead, the focus is on the hormones and not the self-respect one can cultivate. I think both sides have it terribly mixed up. Anyway, keep doing good stuff like this, Rachel, and good luck with the novels.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]