I think what she was doing was seeking protection from men, but it went the other way, she was often beaten up, abused and she simply used herself up,"
Yeah, the men had nothing to do with that. Damn sexual freedom for making my sister beat herself up.
@J.D.Regent: On the one hand, we're uptight boner-killers who need to be more "sex positive", on the other, we're forcing women to have so much sex we end up all messed up.
One personality disorder ... er "trait" that many ultra-conservatives have is that they tend to be able to hold two opposing and contradictory thoughts in their head at the same time without cognitive dissidence. Go figure.
@shevralay: I guess it's good for her sake, then, that he waited until after her death to be so offensively dismissive of both her personal experiences and those of women in general
@whats_in_a_name: In context, this can pretty clearly be read as "It would've taken the Taliban to protect her." Which is one of the most common wordings around.
I agree that there's a definite possibility the end result might be problematic, but I wouldn't be able to tell it from this article. It's just a snip job that doesn't really say anything conclusive about the book.
Hell, the quote you're taking so uncharitably is trying to make precisely the point that it wasn't the 'fault' of the sexual revolution or the feminists that she ended up as she did, and that a simple 'return' to some unrealistic-yet-imagined "earlier, better time" wouldn't have saved her.
To the extent that we know anything from this article, it sounds pretty clear that he's making a book about how people fared in the sexual revolution, for good and for ill, *without* blaming the sexual revolution itself or claiming that society should have collectively 'done something else'.
What, exactly, is novel or controversial about the idea that with more freedom often comes new and different pressures, for better or for worse? Isn't this the basic idea behind schools that institute school uniforms?
I think a lot hinges on the book's portrayal of men -- whether or not their bad behavior is put under the microscope, subjected to real analysis.
If anyone deserves not to have pointlessly snarky conclusions jumped to, it's Martin Amis.
I'm an Amis fan. I put off reading the Guardian article until just now - mostly because I had little faith in the Guardian's ability to deal with Amis objectively given their general distaste for him but also because I didn't want to have to defend Amis for another poorly thought-out declaration. I was pleasantly surprised on both counts. For the most part.
I've read most of his stuff and I'd be quite surprised if he didn't put his men under the microscope. I don't think he protects any of his characters and certainly not his male characters - they are unreliable, violent and desperate in London Fields ; unreliable, violent and untrustworthy in Other People; inhumane, violent and delusional in Time's Arrow. He is just in the treatment of his characters and I look forward to his commentary on the sexual revolution. Though, really, he's commented on it all along and what I really look forward to is a synthesis of this commentary.
And anyway, this isn't the first time he's written about his sister. There's a little Sally Amis in all of his female characters.
@save jinger: When it's love you give
I'll be a vibe of good faith
Then in love you live,
I'll make a stand. I won't break
I'll be the rock you can build on,
Be there when you're old,
To have and to hold.
It's hard for me, a 24 year old woman, to imagine what it was like to live in pre-1969 America and not really be able to talk about sex or access the knowledge of how to make sex more about the woman's pleasure.
Personally, I think the greatest feminist revolution took place much earlier, when in the course of evolution human females developed the clitoris. After having spent most of the modern centuries thinking that sticking their penises into a woman's vagina was all it would take for women to experience sexual pleasure, men discovering that female orgasms mostly came from the clitoris (which has no reproductive function) must have been like God popping out from underneath the covers and saying "Gotcha!"
@LikeALady:the female orgasm, contrary to your hypothesis, is extremely important to conception and reproduction. Orgasm dramatically increases the likelihood of conception (drawing semen towards the uterus, among other things), and the neurochemical reactions lead to bonding between the woman and her mate (encouraging repeat performance).
@Vancougar: no, it's no, as I already explained. It's integral to the female orgasm, and the orgasm has an integral component in reproductive function. Saying it has no reproductive function is like saying the female orgasm has no reproductive function. Statistically, of the women who orgasm during sex, almost all of them require some clitoral contact (including indirect, e.g. through the interior wall).
@mattharvest: I'm pretty sure the point was that it isn't intrinsically biologically linked to reproductive function. Women don't *have* to have an orgasm to reproduce, although it's much more fun to do so.
So, although its function is CONDUCIVE to orgasm, it's not a part of the reproductive system. Kind of like how, for instance, taking prenatal vitamins can HELP you conceive, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient for reproduction (and usually have benefits aside from helping conception).
@LikeALady: how important female orgasm is to conception is a debatable topic, but I was focusing more on the old (and unfortunately still present) assumption that p-i-v sex was all that was necessary for a woman to orgasm (and if you couldn't you were therefore frigid or defective) and thus the realization that the clitoris, which is outside the vagina, is the biggest tool for female orgasm was a huge blow to the proponents of the 'women aren't sexual beings their only purpose is to breed' belief.
@mattharvest: I think what people are saying is that while it may *assist* conception, the female orgasm is completely unnecessary in order for reproduction to take place. Conception may occur with or without female orgasm, thus making it unnecessary for reproduction.
I happen to think this makes female orgasm especially awesome, because then one of its primary functions is to give women pleasure!
@MilointheMeadow: The so-called "up-suck" hypothesis has been disproved. Female orgasms do not make conception any more (or less) likely from that instance of copulation. They may, however, make a female more likely to mate with the orgasm-inducing male again.
One adaptationist theory holds that female orgasms require something in addition to p-in-v as a mechanism for females to test male investment. If he makes you come, he must care. Maybe he'll even care enough to help feed your children!
does anyone else notice how most of the 'sex' programs (also, 'The History of Sex') on the history channel actually explore things like feminism and gender and race roles, like more than any other program on the channel?
That was kind of a long-winded question, but I guess I find it interesting, for a few different reasons. Anyway, I watched last night, and it was pretty interesting
@RainyDayWoman: It's a nice change from their typical macho-heavy programming, which is all about wars and biker gangs and other "boy" things I find terribly tedious.
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
Parents who use contrarian sexist banalities have children who use contrarian sexist banalities.
11/20/09
Yeah, the men had nothing to do with that. Damn sexual freedom for making my sister beat herself up.
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
One personality disorder ... er "trait" that many ultra-conservatives have is that they tend to be able to hold two opposing and contradictory thoughts in their head at the same time without cognitive dissidence. Go figure.
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
Am I just misunderstanding that sentence, or did he just refer to his sister as "It"?
11/20/09
11/20/09
I agree that there's a definite possibility the end result might be problematic, but I wouldn't be able to tell it from this article. It's just a snip job that doesn't really say anything conclusive about the book.
Hell, the quote you're taking so uncharitably is trying to make precisely the point that it wasn't the 'fault' of the sexual revolution or the feminists that she ended up as she did, and that a simple 'return' to some unrealistic-yet-imagined "earlier, better time" wouldn't have saved her.
To the extent that we know anything from this article, it sounds pretty clear that he's making a book about how people fared in the sexual revolution, for good and for ill, *without* blaming the sexual revolution itself or claiming that society should have collectively 'done something else'.
What, exactly, is novel or controversial about the idea that with more freedom often comes new and different pressures, for better or for worse? Isn't this the basic idea behind schools that institute school uniforms?
I think a lot hinges on the book's portrayal of men -- whether or not their bad behavior is put under the microscope, subjected to real analysis.
If anyone deserves not to have pointlessly snarky conclusions jumped to, it's Martin Amis.
11/21/09
I'm an Amis fan. I put off reading the Guardian article until just now - mostly because I had little faith in the Guardian's ability to deal with Amis objectively given their general distaste for him but also because I didn't want to have to defend Amis for another poorly thought-out declaration. I was pleasantly surprised on both counts. For the most part.
I've read most of his stuff and I'd be quite surprised if he didn't put his men under the microscope. I don't think he protects any of his characters and certainly not his male characters - they are unreliable, violent and desperate in London Fields ; unreliable, violent and untrustworthy in Other People; inhumane, violent and delusional in Time's Arrow. He is just in the treatment of his characters and I look forward to his commentary on the sexual revolution. Though, really, he's commented on it all along and what I really look forward to is a synthesis of this commentary.
And anyway, this isn't the first time he's written about his sister. There's a little Sally Amis in all of his female characters.
.
07/29/09
07/28/09
Just do.
Then be so thankful.
07/28/09
Bought it at the five-and-dime
Used it 'till my fingers bled
It was the summer of 69
07/28/09
Me and some guys from school
Had an orgy and we "tried" real hard
Jimmy's gay, Joey got married
Shoulda known, they'd never want more
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
I'll be a vibe of good faith
Then in love you live,
I'll make a stand. I won't break
I'll be the rock you can build on,
Be there when you're old,
To have and to hold.
07/28/09
Personally, I think the greatest feminist revolution took place much earlier, when in the course of evolution human females developed the clitoris. After having spent most of the modern centuries thinking that sticking their penises into a woman's vagina was all it would take for women to experience sexual pleasure, men discovering that female orgasms mostly came from the clitoris (which has no reproductive function) must have been like God popping out from underneath the covers and saying "Gotcha!"
07/28/09
07/28/09
I believe she was saying that the clitoris has no reproductive function, which I think is true...
07/28/09
07/28/09
So, although its function is CONDUCIVE to orgasm, it's not a part of the reproductive system. Kind of like how, for instance, taking prenatal vitamins can HELP you conceive, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient for reproduction (and usually have benefits aside from helping conception).
07/28/09
07/28/09
I happen to think this makes female orgasm especially awesome, because then one of its primary functions is to give women pleasure!
07/28/09
One adaptationist theory holds that female orgasms require something in addition to p-in-v as a mechanism for females to test male investment. If he makes you come, he must care. Maybe he'll even care enough to help feed your children!
07/28/09
07/28/09
That was kind of a long-winded question, but I guess I find it interesting, for a few different reasons. Anyway, I watched last night, and it was pretty interesting
07/29/09