I don’t dispute that Stepp thinks as you describe (I haven’t read the book and don’t plan to) but I don’t quite see how the quote you highlight necessarily illustrates that she think this:

“Of course, sexual intercourse is presumed to be something all women do equally well (lay there and be pronged is all there is to it, right?), so you have to make that skill more enticing by withholding and making him want it because he can’t have it. “

Can you elaborate a bit?

APS

It’s very nice that Clark-Flory is not a wackaloon theocratic abstinence freakazoid, but for fuck’s sake, her writing is cringe-inducingly boring. Her turgid recounting of her hook-up foibles reads like a litany of mystery-meat high-school cafeteria lunches.

I get that she’s very young, and still apparently under the delusion that her sex life is of interest to anyone other than herself and her partners, but sheesh. There are much better writers out there who make an effective case against patriarchal romance.

Salon has devolved into Parade magazine for liberals, and--with a few exceptions--has the writers to show for it. I’m waiting for Salon to pick up Marilyn Vos Savant off the waiver wire.

I think what men are most afraid of is that a promiscuous woman knows that ‘In the dark, all men are basically the same’.  Oh, some are a bit more athletic, and some are a bit more sensitive, but sex is basically sex.  They will no longer be able to feel special because you have sex with them.  This is profoundly disconcerting, and I think you underestimate this effect.  Men call women ‘sluts’ not only to shame them out of enjoying sex, but to shame them out of trying too many partners.  It’s a misguided attempt to maintain their own specialness, but I think that’s where they’re coming from.

In fact, the ordinariness of everyday sex serves the opposite purpose.  Security is enhanced if one knows one’s partner won’t leave for sex that’s better, but only by a bit.

Your secretary analogy has given me the idea for a brilliant art film. It would steal the plot from some cheap victorian-era morality novel about the dangers of sexual freedom, except all sexual imagery would be replaced with the imagery of typing.

Shot director. Who wants Leading Secretary?

I’m not sure of what generation the “anti hookup” crowd comes from, but honestly, when have things ever been different?  I went to high school/college in the 90’s, and “hook ups” were what we called casual dating.  “Going out” is what you called it after it became an official pairing.  “Hooking up” wasn’t always sexual, it was literally two people getting together for the first time.  I think the abstinance scolds are just taking the terminology and freaking out about what they think it means, as opposed to what it actually means.  And I’m sorry, even women of my mother’s generation (60’s) were hooking up, even if they didn’t call it that. My mom would tell stories about it.  It’s a function of being in college, and having the freedom to experiment, nothing more, nothing less.  That people are delaying marriage and continuing the experimentation for longer IS new, but I would hardly call extending something people all ready have been doing Earth-shattering.  But then, logic doesn’t sell many books to freaked-out fundie parents, does it?

Great Horny Toads - stereotypic women are starting to think about sex the way that stereotypic men do?  If they start agitating for equal pay as well, can the collapse of Civilization be far away?

This all reminds me of the song ”Goodnight and Thank You” from Evita as she seduces and abandons various men on her way to stardom:

[Lovers:]
This is a club I should never have joined
Someone has made us look fools
Argentine men call the sexual shots
Someone has altered the rules

Why aren’t these men called “sluts”?

Leah wrote:

“I think what men are most afraid of is that a promiscuous woman knows that ‘In the dark, all men are basically the same’.  Oh, some are a bit more athletic, and some are a bit more sensitive, but sex is basically sex.  They will no longer be able to feel special because you have sex with them.  This is profoundly disconcerting, and I think you underestimate this effect.  Men call women ‘sluts’ not only to shame them out of enjoying sex, but to shame them out of trying too many partners.  It’s a misguided attempt to maintain their own specialness, but I think that’s where they’re coming from.”

True.  However, this fear and disconcerted feeling causes men to select from a population of women who do not cause them to have such feelings.  Specialness maintained, problem solved.

The thing is, the abstinence argument doesn’t even make sense within a job interview model of relationships/husband hunting.  It only makes sense from a “God says submit, bitch,” model.  In every job interview, one of the chief things you need to demonstrate is either experience successfully accomplishing the tasks the job requires, or some set of skills and attributes that leads your employer to believe you’re going to be able to do the job well.  If the job is fucking your husband, how is it even conceivable that virgins are considered top candidates?  It doesn’t make any sense because the whole premise is bullshit vomited forth to make patriarchal religious norms seem more intellectual and less dishonest.

Salon has devolved into Parade magazine for liberals, and--with a few exceptions--has the writers to show for it

Yes! My God, they’re terrible. I don’t know why, or, in other words, that is, I can’t understand why, there aren’t, you know, more people, or should I say, any people, who don’t, or won’t, instruct them on, as we learned in school, or as most of us learned in school, or should have learned in school, how to use commas.

Or to put it in terms a Salon writer might understand: “comma much?”

The one exception is Heather Havrilesky, who I like very much.

“I think what men are most afraid of is that a promiscuous woman knows that ‘In the dark, all men are basically the same’.  Oh, some are a bit more athletic, and some are a bit more sensitive, but sex is basically sex.  They will no longer be able to feel special because you have sex with them.  This is profoundly disconcerting, and I think you underestimate this effect.  Men call women ‘sluts’ not only to shame them out of enjoying sex, but to shame them out of trying too many partners.  It’s a misguided attempt to maintain their own specialness, but I think that’s where they’re coming from.

I feel the same way about woman; all women have sex equally well (lay there and be pronged is all there is to it, right?)

I would disagree that hooking up is dating.

Hooking up is going to a party, finding somebody who meets your minimum attractiveness criteria, and going back to their place to fool around.  It’s basically the straight version of cruising.

In my experience, and the experience of my friends, hooking up rarely leads to meaningful long-term relationships.  Considering that people hooking up aren’t choosing partners based on any deep compatibility, that isn’t surprising.

If your experience in college (and maybe high school) consisted entirely of hooking up with people then you’re going to have some trouble dating later.  The pace and the norms are completely different.  So in that respect, cautioning people who want long term relationships against hooking up might be justified.

As for taking advantage of people: attractive people of either gender tend to be terrible assholes to their partners (or in general).  Something about the constant stream of validation they receive irrespective of their actions.

libdevil:Because their value isn’t in the quality of sex...in their two-pump chump minds there’s nothing a woman can do to make it better, it’s about the status of it. It’s about being the “first”. Conquering the domain. As well it’s about having the better woman you conquered in order to show off to all your buddies.

In short, it’s about domination.

“I think what men are most afraid of is that a promiscuous woman knows that ‘In the dark, all men are basically the same’.  Oh, some are a bit more athletic, and some are a bit more sensitive, but sex is basically sex.  They will no longer be able to feel special because you have sex with them.  This is profoundly disconcerting, and I think you underestimate this effect.  Men call women ‘sluts’ not only to shame them out of enjoying sex, but to shame them out of trying too many partners.  It’s a misguided attempt to maintain their own specialness, but I think that’s where they’re coming from.”

Again, the above is irrelevant.  Well, it is relevant if you self-impose the limits of your world to the United States, Canada, and some parts of Western Europe and Australia.  Remove those places and you have nearly 75% of the world’s women to choose from and among those you will find very few who are promiscuous, very few who will not make you feel special, and even fewer who will leave you profoundly disconcerted.  Women being equal to men when it comes to “hooking up” is only possible if men choose to buy into the concept and enough men do so don’t feel compelled to stick around.  Grab your Access Card (US Passport) and go and leave us to our happy social experiment.

.

How will these girls learn how to be loving couples in this hook-up culture?

In gay bars, just like their mothers and grandmothers did. Duh.

Look, I didn’t ask the question…

I’m waiting for Salon to pick up Marilyn Vos Savant off the waiver wire.

I did and she promptly went 0-for-16, with 1 RBI and an OPS in the cellar.  Fat lot of good that pick-up did me.

How I usually shut these folks up is to point out that the “hook-up culture” as well as the “teen pregnancy” problem are directly caused by the stagnation of wages in recent decades.  A male used to be able to get a job out of college (or high school) that could support a wife and child.  Do these people think that because employers don’’t pay a living wage, workers won’t have sex?  I think they really would prefer the model of “no sex if you can’t afford to have a child.” If people feel trapped in their jobs because of health insurance, imagine if you were supposed to be celibate unless you had a “good” job.  That’s what they are aiming for - something like Egypt today or pre-tiger Ireland.

Mo, the fundies I know do think that way. For them, it simply is “can’t afford a child? Don’t have sex.” Period, end of story, done thinking. They don’t care that abstinence has never ever worked as social policy, it’s simply our own moral failings.

I even have a ‘friend’ who honestly believes that if you don’t want kids for whatever reason (it’ll kill you, childfree, whatever), you should have a full hysterectomy. Thankfully she supports birth control.

I would also guess a big part of the pearl clutching is that the culture of “hooking up” goes hand in hand with the fact that women (and by extension, men, too) aren’t expected to be married off by 20-22 anymore. 

Because that’s really the only thing that’s different between now and, say, 1962.  Now the assumption is that you’ll not only date around in high school and perhaps into college, but through your 20’s and probably even into your 30’s.  Which obviously adds a lot more partners to the mix, unless you are unusually committed to the Virgin Bride thing.  A woman who is married off by 20 is unlikely to date more than 2 or 3 people before getting married, and is not likely to have slept with anyone but her future husband.  A woman who waits till she’s 35 and has a whole life of her own up to that point might get ideas…

I sort of liked the paragraph about the things one says to people with whom one has gone on a date or two or had sex but does not particularly like.

A romantic might deplore the picture she paints of a world of people who don’t like one another having sex nonetheless, but a cynic might respond that that resembles rather a lot of human history.

Ashley - tell your “friend” to make that accessable! i would LOVE to get my tubes tied, and i have a huge chance of dying if i try to have a kid, AND i’m 31. but i’ve never had kids so no one will do it because i might “change my mind”. because i can DO that. if i’m suicidal.

“hook up culture” heh. serial monogomy seems closer. i’ve slept with something like 30 people in my life. i have had ONE one night stand. one. and i’ve never cheated on ANYONE. how? serial monogomy, and a couple of “friends” here and there.

and none of this has mess up my ability to have a relationship… we are getting to ready to move in together, and have discussed everything including marriage and adoption.

Hooking up is going to a party, finding somebody who meets your minimum attractiveness criteria, and going back to their place to fool around.  It’s basically the straight version of cruising.
In my experience, and the experience of my friends, hooking up rarely leads to meaningful long-term relationships.  Considering that people hooking up aren’t choosing partners based on any deep compatibility, that isn’t surprising.

If your experience in college (and maybe high school) consisted entirely of hooking up with people then you’re going to have some trouble dating later.

I find all of the above to be absolute bullshit.

1.  OK, yes, that happens every so often, but in that sense the expression “hooking up” is just the latest slang to describe what the previous generation described as “a one-night-stand”.  There’s nothing new about it.  It wasn’t even invented in the 60’s.  Or the 20’s.  Or any of the supposed sexual revolutions we’ve had in the last century or so.  People had random hookups back in the pagan dark ages, and probably for all of history.  If this is what the pearl-clutchers and slut shamers are referring to, why did they wait till approximately 2002 to get worked up over it, and/or why do they think our generation is more obsessed with this behavior than any of the thousands of generations which divide us from the australopithecines?

2.  I, for one, would like to believe that young people nowadays can tell the difference between someone you had casual sex with once or twice but are otherwise uninterested in, and someone you want a lasting relationship with.  It’s not rocket science.  This is also not new, as a concept.  See also the 50’s cliche of “the one you marry vs. the one you fool around with”. 

3.  I guess I can’t generalize to all my peers, but I had casual sex in college and yet have thus far managed to establish exactly the sort of relationships I’ve wanted to establish.  I’m single by choice, and if one day I wake up and want to be with someone long-term, I’m sure I’ll be able to manage it.  I also have to say that looking around, I don’t notice that a lot of people I know have a hard time establishing strong long-term relationships.  Though I think that might be a convenient rationale for sex-negative anti-feminist types who don’t want to admit that sexual freedom and increased independence for women go hand in hand.  “Oh, well, they’re only waiting till 30 to marry because they CAN’T FIND A MAN!  BECAUSE THEY’RE SLUTS!  Hah!  Beat that, feminazis!”

Ape Man, it’s not complicated.  Right wingers believe that women’s job is to lure men into marriage by withholding sex.  It’s a belief born of two ideas: a) marriage is women’s profession and b) men wouldn’t marry to marry, but need to be baited with what they really want, which is sex.  All these condemnations of women having sex outside of marriage go back to this idea.

PhysioProf, you’ve proved my point---half will say she’s a slut, and the other half that she’s bragging.  And that silencing technique---no one wants to hear about your sex life, because you’re bragging---is how stories of women who have casual sex and aren’t ashamed are effectively silenced, leaving only the moral scolds in the conversation.

They will no longer be able to feel special because you have sex with them.  This is profoundly disconcerting, and I think you underestimate this effect.

That’s ridiculous, though, and anyone who feels that way should be ashamed to admit it. Everyone has silly, childish feelings like that sometimes, but men have the privilege of having their childish feelings treated as something other than what they are. Let them get the hell over it.

Sex with an inexperienced partner is so awful that I think you have to be pretty fucked up to seek out virgins on a regular basis in hopes that they won’t have anyone to compare you to.  I mean, wow.  Do that many people really have such low self-esteem that they’re afraid to have even vaguely enjoyable sex lest their partner notice what a loser/failure/fuckup they are?

I have to say that it has not been my (old head) experience that all men are pretty much the same, or at least on a very narrow range continuum, in their ability, willingness, and compatibility at sex. It’s probably the reason I stopped hooking up. If a guy was really good, I was disappointed it wouldn’t happen again, but the basic contract set it up that it was a one-time experience. I found it frustrating.

It is also interesting to me that someone would assume all young-to-marry women are virgins or relatively inexperienced. There are still pockets of U.S. culture, in small towns, in certain neighborhoods in big cities, wherever, where young women marry fairly soon after dropping out of or graduating from high school. It is expected. And often it is expected because they’re pregnant. Assuming that all young-to-marry women in our culture are red-state Stepfords in training seems to be a very blinkered perspective.

I disagree, Opoponax; sex with a virgin can be good, as long as said virgin has a sound theoretical basis to work from and some experience with the stuff that comes before sex. 

That said, purposefully seeking out virgins would be creepy.

It is also interesting to me that someone would assume all young-to-marry women are virgins or relatively inexperienced. There are still pockets of U.S. culture, in small towns, in certain neighborhoods in big cities, wherever, where young women marry fairly soon after dropping out of or graduating from high school. It is expected. And often it is expected because they’re pregnant. Assuming that all young-to-marry women in our culture are red-state Stepfords in training seems to be a very blinkered perspective.

I think you read a lot into my post that was in no way intended (or even there to begin with).

The bottom line is that unless you start having sex at 13 and have a ton of partners very early on, it’s very, very difficult to have the level of sexual experience at 20 that is expected of a single woman in her 30’s.  I lost my virginity at 14 and never had any intention of being in any way “chaste” but still had only slept with 3 people by my 20th birthday. 

It only takes once to get pregnant, btw.  And you only have to sleep with one guy to do it.

Denelian, the thing about this woman is that she doesn’t believe tubals are enough. There’s still a chance that you can get pregnant, so she would recommend you have a full hysterectomy. She’s the type of person who says “I’m pro-choice. I just think the choice happens when you have sex.” Life-threatening conditions be damned.

(She’s in my infertility support group and we argue about abortion like it’s a past time. It’s a strange relationship to say the least)

Comments from a U.S News and World Report article.

What have we become?

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/07/28/a-growing-trend-of-leaving-america/comments/3

In America:

- US women are generally paranoid, anti-social, and stuck up toward others, especially strangers. They interact with others only on an “as needed” basis and do not like to meet new people, and if they do, it’s only through mutual friends.

- They have an off-the-chart sense of entitlement that makes them think they’re too good for most guys. The majority of available women are gunning for the 20 percent of men at the top, thinking they deserve no less. This leaves around 80 percent of men without choices, forced to be either alone or settle for someone (fat, ugly, plain) that isn’t their top pick.

- Women in America nowadays have a negative general view of men and hatred toward them, which is condoned and supported by the media. In fact, some women meet a different man every week and end up hating every single one of them, regardless of their looks or personality.

- Feminism and political correctness have taken over the nation, corrupting women and giving them a false sense of pseudo-power. And the political correctness that shields women from criticism allows them to get away with almost anything with no accountability.

- Deep down, they are not pleasant or happy people. Rather than being tender, soft and feminine, they act overly tough and behave like Nordic warriors.

- To make things even worse, obesity has become an epidemic, and fashion standards have dropped, decreasing the number of attractive women so that unattractive females now outnumber attractive ones.

- The whole US social scene is cliquish, closed, exclusive, and isolationist by nature, with work and consumerism being the only constants. A weird “ice barrier” exists between strangers in the US. People are disconnected from each other and interact on an “as needed” basis only. They do not generally like to meet people, and if they do, it’s only through mutual friends. Hence, the average person’s social circle is severely limited to a few. (In fact, the US is the only country I know of where you can be outgoing and sociable yet have no friends)

So as you can see, it’s a losing battle and sinking ship, as well as a waste of time and life.

But in most of the other 200 countries outside the US, most or all of these factors are reversed.

- They have an off-the-chart sense of entitlement that makes them think they’re too good for most guys. The majority of available women are gunning for the 20 percent of men at the top, thinking they deserve no less. This leaves around 80 percent of men without choices, forced to be either alone or settle for someone (fat, ugly, plain) that isn’t their top pick.

I think I’ve found the Platonic ideal of inane, hypocritical statements.

Denelian, the thing about this woman is that she doesn’t believe tubals are enough. There’s still a chance that you can get pregnant, so she would recommend you have a full hysterectomy.

So she thinks that if you don’t want children, you should put yourself at high risk for osteoporosis and coronary disease by removing your ovaries?

A lot of people have this weird idea that your ovaries do nothing but emit eggs, but removing a woman’s ovaries is basically equivalent to removing a man’s testicles because you’re removing all of the protective health benefits of estrogen. 

If a man doesn’t want children, she suggests he get castrated instead of getting a vasectomy, right?  Because that’s exactly what she’s recommending for women.  It astounds me sometimes how ignorant some women are about their own bodies.

Why am I not surprised that US News & World Report commenters are such losers that they can’t find an American woman who’s willing to put up with them?

Here’s an idea, dude—if all of the women you meet don’t like your attitude, maybe it’s time to change your attitude.  A woman you buy from overseas is still going to think you’re an asshole—she’ll just be desperate enough to put up with it.

Bands:  Go with Ginger Lee.  Not as hot as when whe was partnered with Sarah Dashew, but still real good, and real Austin.

The sex-shit?  Fundies and Conservatives are, as a group, asshats and hypocrites.
I get that they seem to dominate the argument, but srsly?

Here’s an idea, dude—if all of the women you meet don’t like your attitude, maybe it’s time to change your attitude.
I’ve been saying this for years!

The fact that men are “up for fun, but if they do have fun, they’re interested in making more of it” is one of those obvious things that demolishes a whole stupid way of looking at the world. 

A few months ago I hooked up with a very smart girl who was in town for only two nights.  Then I spent the next few months daydreaming about her whenever I was alone in a restaurant or on public transit.  There was an iTunes playlist of songs to play when thinking about her, as well as other embarrassing lovelorn boy symptoms. 

The fact that she decided to take me back to her hotel room within 12 hours of meeting me and then moved her stuff into my apartment the next day only intensified this process.  It was confirmation that she wanted me, and after my nerdy and frustrated adolescence that’s something about which I tend to be pathologically skeptical about. 

Then I took a job in Singapore and she told me that she was traveling through Thailand.  So I flew out to visit her and we had an awesome romantic week together involving beaches and exotic food and making out in dark corners of the National Museum.  The day I left she asked me for the playlist, which I was very happy to give to her.  Since she’s starting her PhD at Harvard, we’re switching sides of the planet. 

Now, there might be guys out there who won’t think well of you if you sleep with them within 12 hours of meeting them.  But do you really want to end up with those assholes anyway?  Any guy who gives you shit about that deserves to be used for sex and thrown away.  Good men will be encouraged by the fact that you like them, and regard that as a major asset in addition to the fact that you’re the kind of smart liberal girl who reads Pandagon.

n my experience, and the experience of my friends, hooking up rarely leads to meaningful long-term relationships. 

Not my experience at all. In my experience, a lot of great long term love affairs began with falling into bed on the first date.

So she thinks that if you don’t want children, you should put yourself at high risk for osteoporosis and coronary disease by removing your ovaries?

With anti-choicers, it always, always comes back to this idea that women should suffer and pay for the high crime of being female, especially if you don’t conform to a code of behavior you prescribe for them.  So yes, a woman who doesn’t want children/any more children is a hag from hell who deserves to suffer.

PhysioProf, you’ve proved my point---half will say she’s a slut, and the other half that she’s bragging.  And that silencing technique---no one wants to hear about your sex life, because you’re bragging---is how stories of women who have casual sex and aren’t ashamed are effectively silenced, leaving only the moral scolds in the conversation.

I said her descriptions of her sex life were painfully boring, which is neither that she’s a slut nor that she’s bragging. Thus, I fail to see how what I wrote proves your point, which I agree with. I am all for people being open about their sex lives. But if you are going to write a column about it, make the writing interesting.

her writing is cringe-inducingly boring. Her turgid recounting of her hook-up foibles reads like a litany of mystery-meat high-school cafeteria lunches

Seems like that’s part of the point--that hooking up, trying out partners, etc., is normal, and pretty boring if it’s not you.

I did laugh at her description of the first time she had sex though, particularly her boyfriend’s expectation of “ceremonial crying.”

Her stories were boring because she’s not Violet Blue, but that’s the point.  Dismissing someone else’s sex stories for being boring seems to be a form of scolding the braggart---the assumption being that the only reason to tell sex stories is to impress others and she failed at that, but it seems to me that she was telling her boring sex stories in service of making a larger point.  If she wasn’t making that point, I hardly think she’d bore us with her middling sex life.  But her point was that right wingers make it seem like high scandal to rack up the sex partners, but it’s actually deeply boring.  If her story was more exciting, it would undermine her point that there’s nothing to get excited about, don’t you think?

American women can do what they want to do, an have proven that.  But the reason the author wrote the article and why its even discussed is because there does not seem to be an acceptance, from many men, of women acting free in terms of sex.  That is bothersome and quite frankly, that attitude has blossomed in unexpected places.  Namely in foreign countries.

I have traveled widely to Europe and Asia and I want to share this unfortunate observation - American women have a terrible reputation among men around the world. They are widely perceived as obese, selfish, spoiled, promiscuous, boorish and emotionally demanding. They are also considered rather overbearing and hysterical. It’s well known amongst expat communities around the world that American feminist women are shunned by men outside of U.S.A. 

We can continue to discuss how free we should be but if the target audience in need of attitude change is running for the hills (or the border, as it were), then what will be accomplished?

“It’s well known amongst expat communities around the world that American feminist women are shunned by men outside of U.S.A.”

Ain’t the case out here in Singapore or anywhere else I’ve been.  Stick a phone in a cow’s ass, because I’m calling bullshit.

We can continue to discuss how free we should be but if the target audience in need of attitude change is running for the hills (or the border, as it were), then what will be accomplished?

“Marxine” sounds exactly like an MRA asshole who got mad that no one cared when he threatened to leave the country to find a foreign wife. Stop pretending to be a woman, dude, and just get on a fucking plane already.

I have traveled widely to Europe and Asia and I want to share this unfortunate observation - American women have a terrible reputation among men around the world. They are widely perceived as obese, selfish, spoiled, promiscuous, boorish and emotionally demanding. They are also considered rather overbearing and hysterical. It’s well known amongst expat communities around the world that American feminist women are shunned by men outside of U.S.A.

Wait.  But I thought the conventional wisdom worldwide was that everyone loves an American feminist woman because she’s liberated enough to be sexually available in a no-strings-attached kind of way, or at least enough to wear a low cut top and not be afraid to bend over in your presence.  I went on a huge international trip earlier this year and was told time and again that I had to be really careful around the men in said country because they would inevitably either lust after my wanton liberal bootay or want to marry me for the greencard alone, or possibly both.  This does not mesh well with the idea that the real conventional wisdom is that American women are reviled globally for being so sexless and uppity.

Also, I hardly think that “expat communities” are anywhere near equivalent to “men around the world”.  The people you’re referring to are not really good equivalents to “men everywhere”, they’re really more like “men who left their liberal western home countries because they realized affluent white men paying for sex is a valid part of the economy in the developing world, thus they would be hailed as a lynchpin of the local economy rather than reviled as the dysfunctional brutes they are.”

Not that all expat men are like that (I’d guess most male expats are expats because their work, family, etc led to living abroad, not so they can act out sexually).  But the ones you’re talking about, ummm, yeah.

Ah, Opoponax—now I see which dudes (s)he was talking about, and why they’d be likely to fall outside my social circles. 

Nice cooking blog, btw.

I have traveled widely to Europe and Asia and I want to share this unfortunate observation

oh really? i live in europe, being, you know, european, which i feel gives me the edge in long-term and varied exposure to european attitudes. and i would gently suggest that you are Making Shit Up. (or copy/pasting from americanwomensuck or similar, whichever!)

Typing this into Google:

“It’s well known amongst expat communities around the world that American feminist women are shunned by men outside of U.S.A.”

Gets you this:

http://forums.forbes.com/forbes/board/print?board.id=respond_marry_career_woman&message;.id=11099&page=1&format=page

Why this is doing on Forbes is a mystery.
________________________________________

American Feminists Scorned And Ignored

I have travelled widely to Europe and Asia and I want to share this well-known observation - American feminist women have a terrible reputation among men around the world. They are widely perceived as obese, selfish, spoiled, boorish and emotionally demanding. They are also viewed as rather overbearing and hysterical. It’s a well known fact amongst expat communities around the world that American feminist women are widely shunned by men outside of U.S.A.

On the contrary, decent and affluent American men (in general) are viewed as the “cream of the crop” - highly coveted and desirable.... These gentlemen enjoy a great reputation among foreign ladies who perceive them to be respectful, nurturing, responsible, well-educated and financially secure. In addition, these women believe that American men make great husbands, especially in contrast to native men, who are often disrespectful, abusive and unfaithful.

The problem in this country is that the “best in the world” are often paired up with the “worst in the world”.... a complete mismatch. It’s like a highschool Prom King dating an ugly, overbearing and boorish girl. It’s very unlikely that this type of relationship will work out. Sadly, this seems to be the case, as the marriages “made in America” have a much higher divorce rate (55 to 60 percent) than in the cross-cultural marriages (15 to 20 percent). So, why is risk of divorce so much lower when an American gentleman marries a “mail-order bride”? In a nutshell, it’s because our Prom King is marrying a Prom Queen, who is beautiful, intelligent, feminine, and devoted.

A growing number of affluent American men are rejecting American feminist women and going overseas to embrace loverly, young foreign brides. A nearly fourfold increase in foreign women entering the U.S. on fiance(e) visas (over the last 7 years) supports this contention. It’s no secret that by pursuing foreign women, men can find much younger, more attractive and devoted women than what’s available at home.

Take Tiger Woods, for example. This man has essentially rejected all American women who wants to be with him and instead, he went overseas and married a lovely Swedish woman. Tiger is a one very smart gentleman.... I bet he knows that marriage to a foreign lady would mean a lower risk of future divorce.

Let me tell you about my relationship with my loverly Russian wife. Despite our 21 year age difference, our relationship is built upon mutual love and admiration.... our love is real and valid. Also, our bond is strengthened by our common interests, continual romance and mutual respect for each other. As with most Russian women, my wife is independent and has a strong will. Our relationship is a 50-50 equal partnership. There is no control and no domination.

And why am I telling you this? It’s because my experience is very typical of most marriages to “mail-order brides” - in contrast to many marriages “made in America”, there are no bitchiness or nagging, no hysteria or drama and no belligerant or confrontational behavior.... only mutual love and admiration.

When a decent and well-off American gentleman marries a young, loverly foreign bride, what’s created is truely, a match made in heaven - the best matched with the best....

IMBRA is really a scornful feminist response to this growing international romance.
http://www.online-dating-rights.com/blog/lestat/index.php?

If the Swedes I’ve met are anything like the norm, I’d say the Nice Guys of the world are probably misdirecting their international antifeminist ire.

Not to mention that from a cursory skim of Wikipedia, it seems that Ms. Nordegren Woods was already living in the US when they met.  Which sort of implies that if he was trying to show the world that American Women Suck, hez doin it rong.

Nice catch, Abbs!  But I think the best part is that the name is ‘albert1962’ and he responds to someone calling him ‘my man’ with no correction.  So we should not allow the name ‘marxine’ to mislead us

It gets better (or worse?)

The last sentence

IMBRA is really a scornful feminist response to this growing international romance.
http://www.online-dating-rights.com/blog/lestat/index.php?

leads to a semi-broken link and then onto this site:

http://www.online-dating-rights.com/forum/index.php#36

and from there, the theme seems to be all about defying and mocking the “feminist paradigm” (as stated by one of the members) and how easy that is just by going abroad and dating foreign women.

Disgusting.  Its almost like foreign women are being used as pawns to prove some demented point. Its one thing if MRA’s are limited to blogging, but these guys are actually injecting their world view into other societies.  One member of the site wrote this scary piece:

“American men can make a difference for themselves and the next generation.  Practice self-genocide and honor the marriage strike at home and stop the transfer of wealth to American women.  Earn locally.  Then marry and breed globally.”

and this one:

“The goal is to expatriate with a critical mass of men who share the same vision, marry foreign women and establish a subculture with strong taboos and social ostracism for violating those taboos.  This new Patriotopia will be a beacon; an experiment and shining example of community life that will offer hope to Western men AND women.”

and thats it.  My eyes are burning.

These dudes want to ‘practice self-genocide’ to selectively breed themselves a new antifeminist state which they’ll call ‘Patriotopia’ (I guess they realized that ‘Patriarchy’ was already taken as a common noun) and ostracize people who don’t properly follow their demands. 

It’s always special when you realize that your plans constitute a full-blown science fiction dystopia.  I hope some of these guys were self-aware enough that they had that moment.

If her story was more exciting, it would undermine her point that there’s nothing to get excited about, don’t you think?

I guess that could be true, and she is purposefully making her stories about her sex life boring to make a point. Underlying my opinion, however, are also my experiences having read a bunch of her writing during the year I had a Salon Premium subscription. I found it uniformly boring.

To me everything she writes reads like a painful college freshman essay in some intro to expository writing course. Amanda, your writing is very different: it “pops”.

Allison Kasic will be freaking out any minute now.

Thanks, Physio.  I’m sorry I overreacted if it was just a writing thing.  I thought it was actually a pretty good piece, but yeah, precisely because Clark-Flory has a sex life I consider conservative, but would make Laura Sessions Stepp pass out from choking herself with her own pearls.  I had this weird reaction reading it, like the first half I was rolling my eyes like, “OMG, bragging about that sex life is so weird, since it’s so boring,” and then the second half I realized that the very boringness made the point.  Someone who actually does have one night stands would have probably had better stories, but it would have undermined the point. 

But I see your point and concede that it’s just a long term reaction to her writing.

Salon has devolved into Parade magazine for liberals, and--with a few exceptions--has the writers to show for it.

Sad but true. I especially dislike how they’re going through a phase of running one article after another by some handwringing scientist who’s also a religious believer, and although he’s not sure just who or what God is it’s all so mysterious and wonderful that blah blah yakety-yak Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are so rude.

I don’t really believe in dating either. It is simply a mating ritual. We can create relationships just

Thanks, Physio.  I’m sorry I overreacted if it was just a writing thing.

It’s nice of you to say so, Amanda. I think we are on the same page here: (1) in favor of good writing; (2) against scolding women for fucking.