I’m not sure why conservatives would be bothered by this anyway. After all, whenever women raise the topics of contraception and abortion as key elements in women’s health and family planning, the conservative response has tended to be “WHY DON’T YOU JUST KEEP YOUR LEGS TOGETHER, YOU DISGUSTING SLUTS! MAYBE IF YOU WEREN’T SUCH WANTON HARLOTS THIS WOULDN’T BE AN ISSUE!”.
So, you know, this is what they’ve been asking for all along.
Well, asking you to write your legislator before sex might be too much, but what about a conversation about birth control before sex?
Would you tell a potential mate that if she got pregnant, you would expect her to carry the child to term or would you tell her the choice would be up to her?
I think that’s really the point.
Just what I was thinking.
Politics aside, without access to abortion, there’s no way I’d engage in PiV sex with anyone who hadn’t signed on to help rear my children. (nor with anyone I wasn’t comfortable partnering with for the ~20 years it takes to fledge a young human.) So yeah, if I were younger and unmarried, this law would put a pretty big damper on my sex life. But I imagine the people who support the law are fine with that.
I really think you guys are oversimplifying this into some sort of transactional event.
It should, instead, be perceived as one of values. Just this simple:
“Girls don’t bang boys who hate girls.”
It really is as simple as that. Want to control women? It’s possible women might not want to be around you. Want to punish women for seeking autonomy? It’s just a thing that might not be a turn on for some women.
Perceiving it, as so many seem to, as ‘they’re trying to make us do something’ is to again fall into the trap that women somehow owe men sex and are therefore denying men something they should have.
Yes, women enjoy sex. So I have been lucky enough to be informed. But it’s just likely women might also enjoy fundamental rights and freedoms to control their own destiny. Is it really a surprise that those who would deny those rights might be found less attractive to some women?
Seriously, are we really having this discussion? Would it be a surprise if some women didn’t want to fuck a neo-nazi? Or an avowed racist? No, that would absolutely be their perogative, wouldn’t it?
Really, the backlash to Milano’s statement strikes me as some people getting upset that there could, possibly, maybe, in a sort of way, be consequences for their actions. I find myself unsympathetic to that view.
I’ve told before how I would have lost my virginity several years before when I actually did if it wasn’t for this:
He: … some variant of “wanna go someplace we can take our clothes off?”
Me: your condoms or mine?
He: oh, I don’t use that shit.
Me: Oh. OK then. Bye.
He: Uh? Oh! Uh, don’t leave, I’ll go get some!
Me: No, no, don’t bother. Not interested.
Fastest way to cool yours truly down.
They aren’t. Milano is a fruitcake; no one is taking her seriously, or needs to.
Regards,
Shodan
So, who’s the boss?
I wouldn’t say I am upset about this latest example of liberal foolishness, like it reveals a deep flaw in Dems chances. Let’s just say “concerned”. Leave it at that.
To be specific - they (for a given value of “they”) are not by and large considering “giving up sex” because of the legislation. They are, however, upset about the legislation.
A very wise man once told me this anecdote: “My wife said she was gonna cut me off if I spend any more money on the car. I told her she couldn’t cut me off if she didn’t know where I was getting it.”
Where there is a Strike, there will always be Scabs.
Quite the opposite. As it is, women generally have standards; they aren’t gonna have sex with just anybody. (Sorry, incels; you’re out of luck.) This is, “if you’re not against this Georgia law, you flunk my standards.”
Seriously? Tucker Carlson?
You been slumming, Covfefe?
Exactly, why is it so hard for people to see that this is really a matter of women revealing the standards they’re setting?
Aren’t those a symptom that suggests you really shouldn’t be getting too carried away?
Lesions are a dealbreaker for me though.
In one fell swoop, Milano got people talking about the Georgia law that otherwise might have slid under the national radar, calculated to make the incels and the pro-life froth at the mouth (oh, they say they are "LMAO"ing and rolling their eyes. Don’t you believe it. They are pissed as hell.) People are going to take a second (or first) look at this law now. Mission accomplished.
It’s simplistic and grossly inaccurate to state that the only folks who are opposed to abortion are women hating men.
I’m married and political concessions for sexual transactions has never been brought up and either of us would think the other a tad bit nutty if it were.
And that’s fine. But the choice to sleep with you is your wife’s and no one else’s. But she has the choice just as you have the choice - based on any criteria you choose - to decide not to sleep with her.
And yes, the concept of women-hating-men is fanciful. But it’s a quick and dirty way to define things. It could as easily be ‘women don’t want to sleep with men who want to control women or deny them autonomy’.
We as a society - and in this discussion - continuing to define sex as transactional when instead it should be a matter of personal preference. It’s not a matter of a man getting laid because he says the right thing and that means women will sleep with him. It’s a matter of women finding attractive men who respect their ability to be their own people.
I understand that. It’s just that all law restricts someone’s ability to do something and that’s a loss of autonomy. These forms of control or restrictions are not all motivated by hate. Even concerning abortion a lot of the feelings about the subject don’t originate from hate. They originate because of a value system either imposed by religious belief or as a logical conclusion from a set of moral axioms that fetal life has intrinsic value. I think that different opinions can be had that are absent of hatred as an origin.
The reason sex in this thread is being treated as transactional is because that is what Ms. Milano started. Not exactly in those terms but there is a clear quid pro quo. Sex is to be used as an incentive. Those aren’t my words. Now, realistically, there is commonly a transactional element to sex so I’m not sure why that aspect of sexual relations is dismissed.
But Milano is talking about withholding sex from all men, not just ones who support the new Georgia law. That’s what make the whole idea seem a little nutty to me.
Or maybe not. Good point, Captain.