Will NATO bomb in future?

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

At 11:14 AM 6/11/99 -0400, kelley wrote:
>hilarity, huh?  but then, ian suggested an article about testosterone and
>male aggression which suggested that a real erection is one that could
>achieve vaginal penetration.  funny that everyone ha ha laughs at clinton
>when, in fact, all kinds of sex frequency surveys reveal that  hets, in
>fact, very often do define sex as vaginal penetration.  indeed, the
>implicit assumption is that real sex is that in which someone has an
>orgasm.  i'll bet any number of folks on this list, were they asked how
>many times they had sex in the past week, wouldn't define sex as fooling
>around on the sofa in front of ally mcbeal before interrupted by a phone
>call.  i mean honestly, think about it:  is it sex if no one comes?  is it
>sex if only one person comes?  finally, the idea that vaginal penetration
>is "real sex" is thrown about all the time, many a teenage girl will tell
>you she's a virgin even though she's done everything else imaginable.  so
>you know, funny ha ha about clinton using the same criterion. 

kelley, darling, methinks you are confusing sex with chastity - which is a
patriarchal test of woman's worth as chattel, or more precisely,
child-bearing property.  From the patriarchal point of view, she could do
"evrything else imaginable" and that was just fine (the more the better
from a male point of view - I may add) - but the vaginal penetration was
different because it jeopardized her male owner's err... husband's his
property right to the child (or children) she bore. Children being income
producing labour power these days, they were the property of men - so
whoever impregnated the woman had the property right to the children.
Nothing ambiguous about it - patriarchy enshrined in chirstianity, pure and
simple (the myth of divine rape err... impregnation of virgin mary and all
that dirty old man fantasy that permeates religion).

now that children lost its income producing status (they are actually
income consuming) they also lost their value to men - and presto our
wonderfully impartial courts award custody to mothers, for "child's
benefit" of course.  But the old test of chastity - meaning proof of not
being penetrated - still lives its ritualistic life.

But let me reitearte time and again - it has nothing to do with sex, but
with property rights and "family values" i.e. the worthiness of a woman as
a wife (i.e. child-producing chattel).

smooches

wojtek