The Gum Tree for 2007 September 10

I know this article, is from four years ago, but I just can't help pointing out that traditional values have time and again proven much more durable and wholesome than those progressives had thought in their heady, campus protest days. Among other things, I can't help but feel a little glib that one of the Feminists torch-bearers has finally come to her senses and discovered that that liberation of female se*uality was nothing more than a cleverly disguised prison door (remember, p*rn doesn't generally exist without women's tacit approval). You can imagine how satisfied I was after reading this line especially: "I am noting that the power and charge of se* are maintained when there is some sacredness to it." Gee wilikers! Does that mean that women should be modest and that their bodies are sacred? Alas, my hopes are in vain; like most of the facile progressive thinkers, the dots are there, but the line between them is too much of a leap; "I am not advocating a return to the days of hiding female sexuality." With suprising myopia and scotoma (typical of post-modern liberal thinkers), it is asserted that men should restrain themselves because women had healthier se* lives when p*rn wasn't in play. Of course women can still flaunt their se*uality however they see fit, but womens liberation means women's dictation of the sexual lives of men. Or more simply, 'you can't have yours, but we can have all we want, whenever we want!' Unfortunately that is exactly what the White Slave Traffickers (i.e. those peddlers of filth) would have women believe. What a sad, disillusioned feminist fantasy. I suppose that is the depth and quality of socio-historical scholarship that a Magna Cum Laude graduate from Yale is capable of. --Depressing. As a consolation, the article (albeit unconsciously) admits fundamental differences between men and women, and that is an victory for true feminism.