Posted on 02/21/2007 3:39:28 PM PST by HarmlessLovableFuzzball
Newly bald Britney Spears has checked herself back into rehab after a weekend of excessive partying and unsavoury exhibitionism, just another young woman self-destructing in front of our eyes.
There has been no sign of the 25-year-old singer's two young sons amid the crotch-flashing, mascara-smeared, vomit-specked nightclubbing that preceded her impulsive head-shave at a Los Angeles salon - an act psychologists have interpreted as an existential cry for help.
But Spears's meltdown is more than just her personal tragedy. Sexualised almost since her days as a Disney child star, she is the canary in the coalmine of troubled young womanhood.
As other celebrity car crashes - Lindsay Lohan, Nicole Richie, Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith - pile up, it is clear something is terribly wrong with the fairer sex.
Lohan, who has also flashed her shaven crotch at the paparazzi during partying binges, was last week spotted leaving an Los Angeles rehab clinic to go straight to a nightclub. Yet, like the sad minxes in Sex and the City, she has declared she just wants to get married and have a child.
As for Smith, who spent the last few years of her life in a substance-addled stupor before dying two weeks ago, aged 39, she had become a cartoon sex object, used and abused by everyone who came in contact with her. We watched helplessly, if we cared at all, as she committed slow suicide in public.
Spears inhabits the same space, her increasingly desperate exhibitionism, non-stop inebriation and casual couplings with numerous forgettable men chronicled in lascivious detail by gossip websites and magazines. We have so normalised self-destructive slutty behaviour that Spears's antics were considered the natural reaction of a young woman letting down her hair after a marriage breakdown.
Until it all got too much. One witness to the shearing scene claimed Spears said she was shaving her hair off because she was "sick of people touching her". One psychologist said the act was an attempt to repel male attention.
In a world saturated with pornography, when women treat themselves like sluts, why would men treat them any differently? Mutual respect between the sexes, romance and a legacy of chivalry by men entranced by the feminine mystique have been trashed in the name of female equality and sexual liberation.
Now Valentine's Day, once a time for love hearts, flowers and romantic cards, has been hijacked by radical feminists in the United States as V-Day - either a day to celebrate vaginas or to raise awareness of violence against women.
And judging by Cleo magazine, a one-night stand is almost elaborate courtship. Next month's Cleo catalogues a new sex trend: "The curiosity shag: dying to know what he's like in bed? This could be the way to find out. No strings attached." But the problem is, with women, there invariably are emotional strings attached to sexual encounters.
Evolutionary psychology is providing confirmation of what most people instinctively know - men are hard-wired to want more sex than women, more casual sex, more often, and with more partners, because there is an evolutionary advantage to spreading their sperm far and wide and fathering lots of children.
Women, who need nine months to produce a child, have no such biological imperative, goes the theory. Instead they are hard-wired to form emotional attachments with a male who will protect them and their children.
Launching straight into sex before even the first date was a hallmark of the sexual revolution, a way women could emulate men and jettison the emotional baggage of romantic love that had supposedly held them back for generations.
But no matter how hard they try to live up to the old feminist ideal of "zipless f---s", invariably women get hurt.
Take the celebrated "mile high club" scandal on Qantas. A flight attendant, Lisa Robertson, has told how she initiated sex with the actor Ralph Fiennes on a flight from Darwin to Mumbai, leading him into a toilet cubicle for a quickie.
"I'm going to have to kick you out now," Fiennes said suavely after a later rendezvous in his hotel room, according to the account of events she sold to the Daily Mail newspaper. "See you on the next Qantas flight." But for a woman who seems to embody the liberated female's attitude to casual sex, Robertson seemed overly concerned with feelings.
She said she had hoped the relationship would continue and was "hurt and disappointed" that Fiennes wouldn't support her when she was sacked. To Robertson "the experience was a lot more than just about sex". But men are wired differently. No amount of brainwashing and SNAG-ification will change that.
A study released this week by the American Psychological Association warned of the psychological harm being done to women by the increasing sexualisation of society.
"Sexualisation of girls is a broad and increasing problem," said the study, and it could cause psychological and physical harm to young women and girls as young as four. Imagery of "sexed-up" little girls and women posing as adolescents could lead to depression, eating disorders and poor academic performance.
If you ever needed proof that women were the losers in the sexual revolution here it is. It is time women seized back their inner prude.
And judging by Cleo magazine, a one-night stand is almost elaborate courtship. Next month's Cleo catalogues a new sex trend: "The curiosity shag: dying to know what he's like in bed? This could be the way to find out. No strings attached." But the problem is, with women, there invariably are emotional strings attached to sexual encounters.
Evolutionary psychology is providing confirmation of what most people instinctively know - men are hard-wired to want more sex than women, more casual sex, more often, and with more partners, because there is an evolutionary advantage to spreading their sperm far and wide and fathering lots of children.
Women, who need nine months to produce a child, have no such biological imperative, goes the theory. Instead they are hard-wired to form emotional attachments with a male who will protect them and their children.
Launching straight into sex before even the first date was a hallmark of the sexual revolution, a way women could emulate men and jettison the emotional baggage of romantic love that had supposedly held them back for generations.
But no matter how hard they try to live up to the old feminist ideal of "zipless f---s", invariably women get hurt.
Take the celebrated "mile high club" scandal on Qantas. A flight attendant, Lisa Robertson, has told how she initiated sex with the actor Ralph Fiennes on a flight from Darwin to Mumbai, leading him into a toilet cubicle for a quickie.
"I'm going to have to kick you out now," Fiennes said suavely after a later rendezvous in his hotel room, according to the account of events she sold to the Daily Mail newspaper. "See you on the next Qantas flight." But for a woman who seems to embody the liberated female's attitude to casual sex, Robertson seemed overly concerned with feelings.
She said she had hoped the relationship would continue and was "hurt and disappointed" that Fiennes wouldn't support her when she was sacked. To Robertson "the experience was a lot more than just about sex". But men are wired differently. No amount of brainwashing and SNAG-ification will change that.
A study released this week by the American Psychological Association warned of the psychological harm being done to women by the increasing sexualisation of society.
"Sexualisation of girls is a broad and increasing problem," said the study, and it could cause psychological and physical harm to young women and girls as young as four. Imagery of "sexed-up" little girls and women posing as adolescents could lead to depression, eating disorders and poor academic performance.
If you ever needed proof that women were the losers in the sexual revolution here it is. It is time women seized back their inner prude.
Spears is clearly suffers from clinical depression and is very likely bipolar. Classic symptoms of both.
I can hardly wait for her and T. O. to get together.
What evolutionary advantage is inherent in the practice of spreading our sperm far and wide, then abandoning the children conceived to a less than desireable situation? It is very hard to raise a child well as a single parent. It is done, but the stress can overwhelm both the parent and child.
I think this is another cultural stereotype that should be disposed of, the "manly man sperm donor".
"As other celebrity car crashes - Lindsay Lohan, Nicole Richie, Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith - pile up, it is clear something is terribly wrong with the fairer sex."
Why is it that I cannot have much pity on these women? All their problems are self-inflicted. They are financially secure and can buy anything they want in this life. They have had their moment in the sun, which is more than many in this world have experienced.
"I think this is another cultural stereotype that should be disposed of, the "manly man sperm donor".
I agree with you 100%. It's a stereotype that allows men to rationalize wrongdoing.
"Spears is clearly suffers from clinical depression and is very likely bipolar. Classic symptoms of both."
No she isn't. She got kicked in the head and has absolutely no clue how to handle it. She thought she could do the Paris, Lohan and Ritchie thing but she forgot something. She has a family and she probably thought life isn't being fair to her.
"Evolutionary psychology is providing confirmation of what most people instinctively know - men are hard-wired to want more sex than women, more casual sex, more often, and with more partners, because there is an evolutionary advantage to spreading their sperm far and wide and fathering lots of children.
Women, who need nine months to produce a child, have no such biological imperative, goes the theory. Instead they are hard-wired to form emotional attachments with a male who will protect them and their children.
Launching straight into sex before even the first date was a hallmark of the sexual revolution, a way women could emulate men and jettison the emotional baggage of romantic love that had supposedly held them back for generations."
This is why they needed abortion legalized. In the name of "equality."
There are only two lasting bequests we can hope to give our children. One is roots; the other, wings. ~ Author Unknown
No roots, no wings. It's really that simple.
Animal life form, maybe even plants, came into existence on earth (in whatever way) under the assumption that there would be a high infant mortality rate, and that most wouldn't live long enough to reproduce. 'Spreading the seeds far & wide' increases the likelihood that they do.
If you prefer the Darwinian route, those that were 'horny all the time' left behind the most successors.
Has Paris Hilton crashed? That would be a disappointment. She has the strongest act of all of them.
She did have that kick in the head (probably her divorce). That's called a "triggering event" in the life of someone bipolar. That plus her depression lead to her current manic episode. I've seen it happen before. I also would not be surprised for her to attempt suicide. That's something we may even hear about in the next few days. Suicide is probably her family's and friends' biggest fear right now.
Too bad they never absorbed any words from the wise.
Tragic for girls who were once beautifull and mildly innocent.
Now one has a shaved head with lice and the other has herpes. Both have continual episodes of paranoia.
Just go to a nunnery girls, and check in for at least 3 years. Then maybe you each will get your life back.
I caught a picture of her on the TV news earlier this evening, checking herself out of rehab for the 2nd time in a week, and I thought to myself that she was a good example of what the Sexual Revolution does to its devotees. Problem is, she's not the real loser here. It's those "two young sons" of whom, the author says, there was no sign.
Of course, it's no doubt true that these kids are well provided for financially. The same is not true of the many thousands of other American kids whose mothers act out their sexual fantasies without regard to the all-too-likely consequences.
Very true. However, I think that humans do better when there is a father who is willing to stick around to ensure that his half of the DNA is protected. Humans are not like most other animals, because we form cooperative "packs" and have so much invested in ensuring that our children are safe. In primitive societies, there is tribal affinity and also individual bonds that increase the chance that one's own DNA will continue on.
What our modern society is doing is attempting to break these bonds. Promiscuity, by either sex, is degenerate, in the truest sense of the word. I am teaching my son that "wild oats" grow weeds.
Obviously now there is a much better case to be made for monagamous relationships where both parents are deeply involved in raising the children. But the advances in medicine that have made it better are still relatively new. Kind of hard to just switch off those drives. And today's society isn't really teaching to repress things, even things that are better off repressed or at least controlled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.