Saturday, 07 July 2012
-
The Politics of Sex
The love affair between sex and politics is nothing new. The road to political success is littered with scorned wives, sexy mistresses and the odd secretary thrown in for those long weekends on the campaign trail. I’m not someone usually found with their nose in the politics section of the paper, eagerly anticipating the “Run to the Whitehouse.” With that said, I want to know if your political beliefs climb into bed with you at night?
As a disclaimer, as I’m using a weheartit.com infographic as the basis of my argument, I've applied the term “political allegiances” rather loosely. So where do you pitch your tent on the politics of sex?
Are you Liberales, where the act of sex doesn’t equal love? After all, if sex is the same as love, surely we should just drop the word sex and “have love” a couple of times a week. Or at least that’s what the Conservadores amongst us think. Are you a Ninfomanos where sex is God, and love is, I don’t know, the donkey in the Nativity scene? Are you a little Cursis, roughly translated as a “prissy”, where the very thought of getting sperm on your premarital bedsheets is positively unholy? Or do you keep out of all the sexual mud slinging, and camp out in the Friends Zone?
Any one that knows me would say I am Liberales: as in fuck what you want, but try to keep it to one at a time. I don’t understand why same sex marriage is even a topic of discussion (love is love, my voting public), or why the Conservadores believe they should have any input on my decision to use birth control or have an abortion. Especially when it turns out their loyalty to their wife’s vagina is questionable, at best.
Speaking of loyality, is your sex life fully committed to your “political” allegiances, or a just a load of spin? Do you preach the virtues of abstinence by day, only to drop your Cursis pants after two too many vodkas? Do you masquerade as a Ninfomanos, but wouldn’t dream of putting your penis inside anyone but Margaret, your high school sweatheart?
Wether your interest in politics is that of a campaign trailer, an unaffiliated, or a "depends-how-close-the-polling-station-is-kind-of-citizen," what kind of sex politics gets your vote? Ninfomanos reveal yourselves.
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to datingish's Datingish Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in datingish's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: lovelife
- Name: Iona
- About Me: I love lots of things, although at the top of my list is Harper Beckham, possibly the best dressed baby ever. Aside from creeping Harper I love Stumbling, running, weight training, and eating chocolate pudding whenever possible. I'm not a relationship expert but I'm happy to throw my two cents in
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 53 Views: 0 214129 Comments: 0 1547 View all posts by lovelife
Comments (26)
I'd be perfectly willing to answer the question if any part of this post made an ounce of sense.
@GodlessLiberal@xanga - I have no idea what they're talking about either.
@TheSecretLifeOfPandas@xanga - @GodlessLiberal@xanga - Don't worry. You two aren't the only ones. This one's a head scratcher.
can I have this last three minutes of my life back, please?
I have a rather different perspective than the amusing but simplistic ones supplied in the graphic. For me, sexual expression is a subset of the set of expressions of love, much like the set of integers is a subset of the set of rational numbers.
If it helps in any way, I actually understood your question and your post. Apparently it was a little obscure for some, so it might worth making more accessible if you'd like to prompt more replies.
i think i understand what your asking and then i dont. i want love and i pretty much want to be with one person for the rest of my life. if i was in a relationship i would still glance at other girls but probably never act on it. if i did id break up my sig other for them. i guess that makes me a ninfomanos but im not sure
Newsflash: People don't "camp out" in the friend zone out of their will, it is more like a concentration camp; one day you're minding your own business, and then you wake up in a sad unfamiliar place.
Good post. It was admittedly over most of the reader's heads due to the use of obscure terminology. but I followed it.
@Anon - @TheSecretLifeOfPandas@xanga - @GodlessLiberal@xanga - long story short, whats your opinion of sex before marriage.
I have no issue with it, as long as its not someone new every night. That gets a little dirty. And sex can be so beautiful when emotions are involved, so why waste it just doing an animal act every night with someone new.
You could of course try ENGLISH, and accepted spelling, instead of that drek....but then you couldn't claim to be cool.
Hint: Literacy is ALWAYS a plus.
i'm a total ninfomanos in disguise. except, instead of the "high school sweetheart" to whom you allude, it's that singaporean chick from ucla who blew me on my birthday in vegas last year. even my then-wife was never so passionate about her work.
of the 3 languages i have studied outside of english, spanish (which i gather is the language used in this post) was not one of them, so this is just a stab in the dark...but doesn't the "s" at the end of every word mean it's plural? in other words, is one a ninfomano, or a ninfomanos?
i am also curious as to why you are interested in the ninfomanos "revealing" themselves.
@Nous_Apeiron@xanga - you're wrong. i would say that at most, there is an intersection between sexual expression and expressions of love. but you still get my respect for using a math analogy. i didn't know there were other math dorks on here. i can die knowing i've found a true confidant.
What the FUCK are you talking about?
Wow. Thanks for this post. It made me realize something really important: One reason people tend to demonize the other side is that we subdivide our own group ("That's just THAT kind of ***Conservative/Liberal/Christian/Atheist**, but not the TRUE kind") , and then we assign all the worst attributes of the other side to the other side without giving them the benefit of the subdivisions that we give to our own group.
Either that, or I suppose that we completely ignore our own side's problems and notice ALL the other side's problems.
I think the most important thing here is, regardless of who you think you are, when it comes to sex and relationships- dont get involved with people you KNOW are bad juju. Its sounds so obvious however you hear it ALL THE TIME. People are in consistant conflict because the other person they want to have relations with is not on board with them in some way.The EASIEST solution? Stop interacting with that person COMPLETELY... but you might say,"There is a possibility they will change. If not for me then for the kids or because I love that person the most. Or I'm clearly the better choice!" Blah blah blah.
Someone once said when someone shows you their true face, believe them, the FIRST time.
Too many of us put relationships of any kind on a pedastal and become gobsmacked when our IDEA of them crashes into reality. Emotional attachment (to an idea, concept, person) can be an unhealthy thing and you've got to use your brain at some point.
@TheNotoriousGOD@xanga - Hehe. I appreciate the respect. I'm just not sure you would enjoy having me as a confidant.
Whether I'm wrong or not very much depends on whether I was making an empirical statement or a statement of ideals. Hint: I was not making an empirical statement. If I were I'd obviously be wrong. The question was about the politics of sex, and politics has always been a battle of ideals rather than the empirical facts that so rarely enter into the equation.
I guess my feelings on the subject are a bit more complex than the graphic. I've lived long enough to know that not everyone who wants to have sex with you also loves you. I also know we live in a world where STDs (some of them incurable) are a reality and that condoms aren't 100% effective in stopping them. And I sure as fuck don't want to be pregnant by someone I never much cared for. But I also see waiting for marriage as impractical. So the way I see it, wait for love, but get both of you tested first. And even then, use protection.
So, what does that make me?
I'd pick the papi chulo, not the pinche puto.
what the fuck
@GodlessLiberal@xanga - I made it through the first two sentences and gave up before my head exploded.
wut
@P0RCELA1N_D0LL@xanga - LMFAO!! I love your comment!!
Say what....
@GodlessLiberal@xanga - If you knew anything about math, you'd know that what they are saying is, the vagina = 0.
And we all know that division by zero is impossible.
You need to repeat your intro to calculus course.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - [the vagina = 0]
This explains SO MUCH of your (closeted) homophobic behavior.
@Nous_Apeiron@xanga - [If it helps in any way, I actually understood
your question and your post. Apparently it was a little obscure for
some, so it might worth making more accessible if you'd like to prompt
more replies.]
Care to explain it to the rest of us?
@GodlessLiberal@xanga - I can give it a try. In the first part of the post, she's asking about the relationship between your ideals (politics) and your practice when it comes to sexuality. The graphic above that lists a series of what we might call archetypes of sexual ideals, with the conservatives, liberals, sex addicts, prudes, and those in the friend zone being represented by their theorized (and for the most part horrifically and unfairly oversimplified) views on the relationship between love and sex.
After the graphic and introduction to the question, she very rightly goes back to the first part of her question and asks what your ideals are regarding sex, using the archetypes previously mentioned as a framework for interpreting answers to that question and providing examples of what she believes to be each archetypal perspective.
She then declares herself a liberal on the topic of the relationship between sex and love and proceeds to poke fun at conservatives, unsurprisingly.
After the declaration of her own views, she returns to the second part of her original question, which is to ask how consistent you are in living out your professed ideals about sex, giving examples using the archetypes once again, though in this case the example is of a prude who can't keep their pants on while liquored up and someone pretending to be a sex addict while secretly being quite faithful to one person.
At the end, she asks you to declare your own ideals with regard to sex and discuss your consistency in living them out (just reiterating the original question) and specifically wants to know if you're a sex addict for some reason. I'm loathe to speculate as to what that reason might be.