Shock! Horror! That one night stand I didn’t have but nearly did, but could have if I’d wanted to and wasn’t a little too drunk and tired, on the weekend would have been “emotionally unsafe”.
And I would have only been doing it to keep up with the boys. (As an aside, does that make me a woman who thinks like a woman, or like a man – because I have no plan to vote ACT.)
Look. It’s the family first conference. None of these things are a surprise. Women need to stop sleeping around, shut the fuck up and get their sweet asses back into the kitchen. Abortion is a huge problem, women behaving like slappers is the root of all evil. Families are one man, one woman and a bevy of sprogs and a cat. My life, and those of my friends are anathema to the Bob McCroskies of the world, and frankly I’m OK with that. I’m unlikely to ever meet him, and I suspect even if I did, I’d be able to resist being saved by he and his ilk.
I’d rather ignore them, but since I can’t, let’s set a few things straight. I don’t have casual sex because I want to keep up with the boys. I do it because I LIKE SEX. It’s nice. It’s good exercise. It makes me feel, for a short time, slightly less bitter about the world. Kissing is one of my favourite past-times. Sometimes I have sex “very soon after meeting a partner – often on the same night as meeting someone in a pub – rather than taking the time to get to know them and form a relationship first”. And sometimes that turns into a relationship, and sometimes it doesn’t. But you see, I’m not in the business of competing with or for men, so that’s OK, really. Though I doubt either Mary Hodson or Dr Albert Makary would agree.
(Also, who do they think all these women are having sex WITH? And if it is so bad for the laydeez, why is it not bad for the men? Those cold-hearted, un-emotional, little scamps. And once again, the gays don’t exist, right?)
But honestly, this isn’t what really annoys me. What really annoys me, is why is the damn New Zealand Herald so credulous? I would rather they didn’t report on conferences like this at all. Do they cover the annual NZ catholics conference? I don’t know.) But since they do, could their reporters and editors apply a tiny bit of critical thinking? Mary Hodson is a SEX THERAPIST. She’s shilling a damn product. It is in her interest for women to be fucked up over sex and relationships. And Dr Albert Makary cited a 4 year old durex survey whose methodology is dodgy at best. I mean, it’s fantastic that the women of Timaru know what doctor to avoid now. But could we not just run free ads for these people and their views? Or is it that their argument is so powerful it’s not necessary to talk about it?