Feminist Folly: "Sexuality is good. Unless you're "normal."

[givebirthathome]

I'm pro-feminist, but there is too much "political correctness". If you want to read

some feminists who are more pro-normal, read Jeannine Parvati Baker, or people in the birth community.. such as Nancy Wainer Cohen's Open Season. Also check out obstetrician Michel Odent. Wendy Shalit's A Return to Modesty, is good too.

[p717]

Bottom line. It shouldn't be a religion anymore than one's preferred diet should be a religion. It just is.

[spiderbaby1958]

There's no such thing as normal sexuality, or natural sexuality. Sexuality is a fucked up irrational business, which culture has made more fucked up and more irrational. Now, I'm not getting any, so this is all theory, but unconditional love is probably required for healthy joyous sexuality. But is unconditional love the essense of sexuality (as in "unconditional love is so hot!")? Maybe it is on your planet wonderwhaz. If so, I promise to let you probe me anally if you take me with you.

[wonderwhaz797]

I hear a lot of talk about biology, but many rules made up in society have absolutely nothing to do with biology. Yes, biology can explain that animals are sexual, but what it doesn't explain is human love and relationship. To say that you're straight or gay because of biology is a cop out. So, is superficiality biology? I'll have sex with you only if you're(insert condition here) Biology can't explain why I have fallen in love with a person regardless of their gender, and it's not bisexuality.

[xx13moons]

@wonderwhaz797, um.... you talk about biology as if it applies to animals but not humans. Humans ARE animals. See, I can tell that there's no point in having this discussing with you because we're on a completely different page. This will be the teller, let me ask you; do you accept, fully, micro and macro evolution, and its mechanisms of natural selection, sexual selection, mutation and genetic drift; as laid down by Charles Darwin?

[xx13moons]

@wonderwhaz797, and no, Biology probably wont be able to tell you why you've fallen in "love" with any one specific person - but evolutionary psychology is quite capable of explaining why certain people go for certain other types of people; this all has to do with sexual selection. Genetics is the main determining factor in our behavior, above all else.

[wonderwhaz797]

Evolution could be the very thing that is leading us out of the divisions. In other words, IF our sexual preference behaviour is genetic, then it is quite possible that the objective awareness of that divisive behaviour can lead us beyond "natural" division, that's IF such a thing exists. Genetics is not a green light for our behaviour. Even genetics has to be challenged, so that you can evolve and the human being changes and grows out of division.

The goal is unconditional love.

[wonderwhaz797]

One more thing, it is amazing how conditioned we have all become, where we actually believe the divisions in humanity to be natural. Does the maker of this video look into the eyes of the humans he loves, or does he look at the gender, or the race, or the creed? Sexuality is an embellishment to the communion you have with an intimate partner. Unserious, casual sex is dysfunction, along with people who get married to an image. Choosing a gender is choosing an image, and that's not love.

[xx13moons]

I mean I don't mean to sound like an ass or anything. But our sexuality is determined mostly by one factor: genetics, i.e. biological hard-wiring. Beyond that, cultural and religious factors play a role. Too be honest, I really don't have a clue as to what you're really talking about...., "example: choosing a gender is choosing an image," LOL. What? We don't "choose" anything - we're attracted to what we're attracted to.... it's instinctual.

[xx13moons]

the only way I can make sense of your comments is if I assume that you are speaking from a religious perspective, i.e. trying to say that certain forms of sexuality aren't "normal" or something. Otherwise, I find this to be quite baffling.

[wonderwhaz797]

Certain things said in this video just aren't accurate or are contradicted. For instance, "normal sexuality" which is the most popular, actually is due to one's conditioning or brainwashing. Sexual preference whether "straight" or "gay" is a choice made, due to one's own mental conditioning. Division is not natural or else it negates unconditional love. Simply put, you love a human, not a gender. The mainstream view is a result of religious dogma. Natural sexuality has no gender preference.

[xx13moons]

Wow, you're way off the mark, aren't you? "Normal sex" is due to conditioning or brainwashing? Yeah. Ok. Please, do yourself and me a favor and go read a biology textbook before you come on here and drone on about all this rather...... speculative nonsense. Mind proving evidence for even ONE of the many claims you just made?

[xx13moons]

"Sexual preference whether "straight" or "gay" is a choice made, due to one's own mental conditioning." Like this, the biggest bunch of nonsense I've ever read in my life. Really? You choose to be attracted to whoever you want? I don't know about you, but that sure isn't a talent that I possess. Nor have I heard of that before. Interesting concept - good luck backing it up.

[wonderwhaz797]

Why are you so angry?

[xx13moons]

@wonderwhaz797 What are you talking about, angry? You must have some great abilities if you are able to infer someones state of mind simply by reading a few sentences?!?!?

[wonderwhaz797]

I'll put it very simply. You don't love a gender, you love a human being. That is unconditional love.

[AntiPornographyBlog]

"Western porn is having a shocking effect in the developing world. Porn is turning some young men into rapists, with villagers relating chilling stories of assaults taking place after the film's end. Other young men are buying copies of the condom-free porn, copying what they see & contracting HIV. The head of the country's Aids commission says porn risks destroying all the achievements they've made: "It's a timebomb.""

Tim Samuels, Producer "Hardcore Profits." Doc at PornHurtsEveryone channel.

[lilithinfidelpoet]

I dont think that feminists are trying to demonize more " traditional" forms of sexuality. I think their aim is to open peoples minds to the fact that their are lots of different types of sexulaity out there which are either misunderstood or are demononised within society.

[lilithinfidelpoet]

I think the aim, is not to criticise individual peoples sexual preferances but rather to critique a society in which only one form of sexuality is focused upon. It is also to explore the ways in which our sexaulity is shaped by our culture and the media. Personally think hetrosexuality, male dominance and female submissivness is championed enough :)

[xx13moons]

No, I get that, which is why I said that I agree with about 90% of what feminists have to say. I don't think they really intentionally try to demonize traditional forms of sexuality; but sometimes that is how it seems.

[antiquelens]

I agree - i think other types of sexuality are overlooked.

[nuclearnight]

I've never attacked anyone.

[nuclearnight]

SOME men are naturally dominant, SOME women are naturally submissive, what has given you the idea that I disagree with that?

I think the status quo sexuality needs to be challenged. I don't think our sexuality is inherent, I really believe its a construct and we can make choices about how we live our lives.

AND EXCUSE ME, I've never mocked or belittled anyone for being traditional. Sorry if I am taking this personally but I happen to be the person you called out in name.

[xx13moons]

OK. Even more interesting, if I'm interpreting this statement correctly. Now it seems like you're implying that those who choose to sexually express themselves in a way that "fits" the status-quo should be challenged? For what? Their choices? Personally, I don't that anyone should have to answer to anyone else, as to why they are a certain way sexually. Unless it is harming someone or infringing upon individual rights.

[nuclearnight]

You're interpreting it the way you want to obviously. I don't have a problem with people actually being a certain way, I have a problem with it being compulsory.

[xx13moons]

and just because I cited your channel at the beginning of my video does not mean that every statement from that point on was specifically directed at you or at something you previously said. I've just noticed lately that, while watching certain videos by feminists, I have to sit there and grit my teeth as I watch them carry on about the so-called "evils" of status-quo sexually. I would label myself a feminist; yet I do fit the status-quo.

[antiquelens]

We're trying to look at things "as a whole" on that level... not so much every individual, i just don't see anything wrong with questioning norms and wondering how they got there.

[nuclearnight]

You can be a heterosexual and also be a feminist, I don't know where you're getting the idea that any of us who are critical of the dominant sex culture are against heterosexuality.

[xx13moons]

and of course we can make choices about our sexuality to a certain degree. But a lot of it is innate. You'd be arguing with a hell of a lot of biology to deny that. Like, I couldn't choose to be homosexual; nor would I think that a homosexual could choose to be straight. So I'm not too sure what you mean when you say that people can "choose." I can't think of even one example.

[antiquelens]

It feels like everyone thinks we're on some biblical crusade to kill sex. I don't understand why questioning the way things are, and wondering why they are that way is so awful?

[DarkSta77]

Put simply antiquelens - The war on sexual expression and freedom is about using morality as the criterion for gonveremnce thereby undermining secular democracy.

[xx13moons]

BTW, you have a TON of videos and I'd be lying if I said that I watched all of them... off-subject, quick question, where do you stand on Climate-change, environmentalism? I see that as one of the most pressing issues, what do you think?

[xx13moons]

hmm. the freedom in and of itself is always a good thing. The question to be asked is, "isn't it rather sad that a woman can make more money by having sex with strangers than she can working full-time at a blue collar job?" If we had a living-wage, and circumstances were better for more people, do you REALLY think that most women, IF they had other viable options, would still choose to engage in porn? I tend to think that the majority of women get involved in porn due to utter lack of options

[xx13moons]

so, more than just having knee-jerk reactions, or blindly supporting the anti-porn crusade. I'm more interested in looking at the statistics, (like the fact that 90% of children under the age of 12 have seen porn) and asking, "what effect might this have on our sexual perceptions, as individuals, and as a culture?" I tend to think that overall, this may have a negative impact, and continue the leftover misogyny. But that's just my opinion, time might prove me wrong.

[xx13moons]

I agree with what you've said. It's an interest I've taken on lately; been reading and studying a lot about porn. See, I'm more interested in what effects porn might have on the culture-at-large, causation. Porn is huge now, not like it was even 20 years ago, regulated to back-alley smut-shops and XXX movie theaters. So now we have an entire generation of children being sexually educated by internet porn (porn which more often than not portrays women in an exploitative fashion.)