The Democrats War on Women makes Women Dissatisfied with their Vaginas

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 5th, 2014

Week in Review

Some people with big noses get nose jobs.  To reduce the size of their noses.  Pretty much the first thing you look at when you see someone with a big schnoz.  So one can understand the anxiety some people may suffer after a life of undo attention on their proboscis.  And a lifetime being called ‘big nose’.

Women are especially prone to getting plastic surgery to correct what they view as defects.  A tummy tuck so they look slimmer and more appealing.  Face lifts so they look younger and more appealing.  Boob jobs.  For a bigger rack to give the guys something to look at.  And to look more appealing.  In fact, anything that men see a lot they want to use surgery to make it look more appealing.  Even things that take some disrobing to see (see Designer vaginas are ruining our idea of what women’s bodies should look like, doctors warn by Anna Hodgekiss posted 12/31/2013 on the Daily Mail).

Women are getting increasingly distorted ideas of what their genitalia should look like, with many wrongly thinking their bodies are ‘abnormal’.

New research has found that those who looked at ‘designer vaginas’ were more more [sic] likely to consider them ‘normal’ and ‘ideal’ when later comparing them to unaltered genitalia…

The number of labiaplasties performed by the NHS has risen five-fold since 2001, according to the study’s Australian authors.

The surgery involves reducing the size of a woman’s labia minora to make them more symmetrical and smaller than the labia majora…

Generally, there are no health reasons to have the surgery – it is only for the sake of appearance. So the researchers wanted to know what drives women’s perceptions of what looks good…

‘This is due to airbrushing, lack of exposure to normal women’s genitals, greater genital visibility due to Brazilian and genital waxing and the general taboo around discussing genitals and genital appearance…’

Sarah Calabrese, a clinical psychologist at Yale University, added: ‘[These findings are] especially disconcerting given that for many women, the narrow and unrealistic range of vulvas presented in mainstream U.S. pornography may be the only images that they see,’ she said.

‘The vulva is unlike most other body parts, which remain visible even when clothed; while a woman can look around and see the size and shape of other women’s waists, breasts, and so on, they don’t have the same opportunity to view other women’s vulvas and therefore are less likely to have a realistic sense of the natural diversity of vulvas in the female population.’

The Democrats/liberals keep saying Republicans/conservatives have a war on women.  Because they don’t want to hand out free birth control.  And provide access to abortion.  While Democrats do everything within their power to make it easier for a woman to go out and have a lot of casual sex.  Apparently liberals everywhere are, too.  Turning women into such sexual objects that they watch pornography to see how men want a vagina to look.  And then have surgery to get their vagina to look like what would please a connoisseur of pornography.  Yet it’s Republicans/conservatives that have a war on women.

But the bigger question is why are women trying to make every part of their body so appealing?  Well, who finds women appealing?  That’s right.  Men.  And why do women look their best for men?  To attract a guy.  And it’s just not for a hookup (i.e., casual sex).  For there probably isn’t a guy who would refuse to have sex with a woman after getting her naked regardless of what her vagina looked like.  For if a guy is looking at a woman’s vagina he’s probably thinking it’s the most beautiful thing he’s ever seen.  Because he’s about to have sex.  And nothing short of an earthquake or a tornado is going to get him to say anything that might spoil the mood.

No.  Women try to attract men to find Mr. Right.  For despite the Democrat war on women with their free birth control and access to abortion to keep them free and single women want to get married.  They don’t want to live alone.  Just being sexual objects for men to enjoy.  So desperate to find Mr. Right they will go to any length to make their looks ideal.  Based on pornographic images.  Something else Democrats fight to protect.  For there probably isn’t a pornographer out there that votes Republican.  Yet it’s Republicans/conservatives that have a war on women.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Liberals’ War on Women is Causing Women and Teenage Girls to have Genital Cosmetic Surgery

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 15th, 2013

Week in Review

A large part in Mitt Romney’s loss to President Obama in the 2012 presidential election was the Republicans’ so-called war on women.  All started by that question from George Stephanopoulos.  If Mitt Romney wanted to take women’s birth control away.  Completely out of the blue.  Something never included in any Republican platform.

But from that question the mantra on the left was if you elect conservatives they will take away a woman’s birth control and her access to abortion.  Which, according to the left, is the only thing women care about.  Using their vaginas.  And with this emphasis on vaginas women are going to great lengths to make their vaginas as pretty as possible (see British gynaecologists express shock over five-fold rise in female genital cosmetic surgery cases by Agence France-Presse posted 11/16/2013 on South China Morning Post).

British gynaecologists warned yesterday that increasing numbers of teenage girls and women are undergoing genital cosmetic surgery, driven in part by unrealistic images of how they should look based on pornography.

You can’t blame pornography on conservatives.  That’s something the left says is a free speech issue.  The objectification and exploitation of women.  Liberals say that there is nothing wrong with women being sexy.  And fight any attempts to censor television.  Or the movies.  What harm can come from consenting adults enjoying a women’s nudity?  Or enjoying her sexual objectification?  Well, as it turns out, it’s not just men using pornography as the standard for women.  Women are, too.  Even teenage girls.

Yet it’s conservatives who have a war on women.  Go figure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Objectifying Women was once Bad but now may be Good according to a Yale Professor

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 8th, 2013

Week in Review

Objectifying women is bad.  For it dehumanizes a woman.  Makes her a thing.  And not a person.  Then again, some are now saying that objectifying women actually humanizes them.  For when we see women in pornography we ascribe them feelings.  Feel empathy for them as they writhe in sexual ecstasy.  And feel compassion for them as they end a sex scene in the classic porn ending.  Which is why men watch pornography, I guess.  To feel closer to these women.  And lament that they can’t ask them how they feel.  And what they’re thinking.  At least according to a Yale professor (see New York Times Op-Ed Finds the Upside to Objectifying Women. What a Relief. by Amanda Hess posted 12/3/2013 on Slate).

What do we think about when we think about naked people? In the New York Times this weekend, Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom says that it’s time to rethink the theory of objectification. The feminist argument is that when people are depicted in sexualized contexts, “the objectifier (typically a man) thinks of the target of his desire (typically a woman) as a mere thing, lacking autonomy, individuality and subjective experience.” Bloom argues that the objectification process is actually more complicated: While focusing on people’s bodies as opposed to their minds does decrease our perceptions of their ability “to act, plan and exert self-control,” he writes, it can actually increase our perceptions of their capacity to “feel pain, pleasure and emotions.” When we look at people in a sexual context (or catch a peek at them without their clothes on), we’re less likely to ascribe them agency, but we’re more likely to ascribe them feelings. That could actually inspire greater empathy toward the objectified party—a silver lining to the focus on flesh…

To Bloom, the findings are hopeful. “Part of the effect of nudity that our study found is morally positive—it’s usually a good thing to be more attuned to someone else’s ability to experience,” he writes. Bloom’s interpretation of human psychology could even make us feel less bad about ourselves for watching porn. “It’s not literally true that women in pornography are thought of as inanimate and unfeeling objects; if they were, then they would just as effectively be depicted as unconscious or unresponsive, as opposed to (as is more often the case) aroused and compliant,” he writes. Looking at naked people can “trigger disgust, fear, and hatred,” Bloom says, but it can also “elicit empathy and compassion.”

Interestingly, the same week this article appeared this article was published (see ‘She wanted to be a superstar’: Never-before-seen photographs of Linda Lovelace, aged 24, reveal her attempts at becoming ‘a legitimate actress’ by Sadie Whitelocks posted 12/4/2013 on the Daily Mail).

Despite the two movies making her a household name, Lovelace later spoke out against pornography in speeches to universities and governments.

‘When you see the movie Deep Throat, you are watching me being raped,’ she boldly stated in a 1986 official inquiry into the sex industry. ‘It is a crime that movie is still showing. There was a gun to my head the entire time.’

For her old friends in the business, though, she was labeled a traitor; they sneeringly coined the term ‘Linda Syndrome’ to describe former porn stars who later try to disown their seedy careers.

The exhibition’s photographs reveal, even before Lovelace made Deep Throat II, that she was keen to get out of the adult entertainment industry.

If you’re unfamiliar with the film Deep Throat you can look it up on IMDB or Wikipedia or some other online source.  Suffice it to say that this movie objectified Linda Susan Boreman (who was Linda Lovelace).  And then some.  Sadly she passed away in 2002 after a serious auto accident at the age of 53.

Boreman would probably not have agreed with this Yale professor.  Of course, she might have done so only because she wanted to disown her seedy career in the adult entertainment industry that objectified her.  But it does beg the question why is Yale studying naked women?  A bastion of liberalism.  And feminism.  I mean, this is the kind of thing you would expect to read in Playboy.  Not in a paper from an Ivy League university.  Then again Playboy has a special relationship with the Ivy League.  Putting out a few pictorial specials objectifying women of the Ivy League.  Maybe they’re planning a return to Yale.  And this is just to make the coeds comfortable in shedding their clothes in front of the camera.  So we can study their nude bodies.  Feel empathy for them.  And compassion.  As we study their nakedness.  For socio-scientific purposes, of course.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Buying the Morning-After Pill without a Prescription or Parental Notification is OK but Porn Stars without Condoms is Not

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 14th, 2013

Week in Review

When it comes to safe-sex there probably isn’t anyplace safer than the world of pornography based in Los Angeles.  No one tests more for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) than porn stars.  Because they can’t work if they have one.  So they’re careful to remain disease-free.  Granted some disease slips through.  But if you calculated the incidence of STDs per sex act it’s not the porn world that will frighten you.  But that’s the place the good people of California want to make safer when they’re having their sex (see Porn Producers Say Unprotected Sex Is Free Speech Right by Edvard Pettersson posted 7/12/2013 on Bloomberg).

Pornographic movie makers told a judge that a Los Angeles County voter-approved measure requiring adult-film actors to wear condoms violates their constitutional right to free speech…

Los Angeles County voters in November approved the measure, the Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act, which seeks to minimize the spread of sexually transmitted diseases through the making of porn movies.

The explosion of STDs is not in pornography.  It’s with our young people.  Who are more sexually active than ever thanks to free birth control passed out at high schools.  Access to abortion.  And now girls as young as 15 (or younger) can walk into most any pharmacy and buy the morning-after pill without a prescription or parental notification.  An especially dangerous change in the law as it will encourage girls to have more unprotected sex because they can take a pill the morning after.  Increasing sexual activity among our young people.  And with increased sexual activity comes an increase in sexually transmitted diseases.

But we can’t tell these kids to stop having sex.  Because they won’t listen to us.  So we must do the best we can do.  And make it easier for them to have even more sex.  With the free birth control, access to abortion and the morning-after pill.  Somehow that makes sense to some.  Even to those who think the men in the porn industry should wear condoms in all their movies.  While the morning-after pill will no doubt decrease the use of condoms among sexually active high school kids.  Encouraging ever more risky sexual behavior.

It’s a pity our kids can’t be as safe and disease-free as some of our porn stars.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,