Skip to comments.The Revolution Should Not be Cosmogenized
Posted on 08/18/2012 2:57:59 AM PDT by Kaslin
"The Puritan ice may be melting in most Americans' veins, but not in Mother's."
A nude model fretted in Cosmopolitan over her worried mother's nagging more than three decades ago.
The young woman went on to explain: "How did the modeling affect my love life? It didn't. During that period I went with (numerous men). They weren't put off by my profession."
All positively normal, you see. Getting what you want when you want it, unencumbered by pesky things like biology.
"They gobbled her up," National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr. observed in a 1970 article on the Cosmo phenomenon, "just like they'll gobble you up, if you do what Helen Gurley Brown tells you."
And so the great cultural gobbling continues. Not quite the cause for celebration or thanksgiving.
"Who needs a church?" he wrote. "Not the Cosmopolitan Girl. She needs Helen Gurley Brown. Who will tell her everything."
The Cosmo church is one that was always a bit too satisfy-your-man for feminists, and yet the spirit of faux empowerment has been at the core of the sexual bible.
"Mrs. Brown is quite aware," Buckley wrote, "that some people believe there are things people should do and things people shouldn't do. She just wants to help you if it happens that you want to do the things you shouldn't do. Mrs. Brown is always helping people out."
Fast-forward to the September 2012 issue, in which we discover there's a virgin working at Cosmo. (You can almost here a "Bingo!" as an editor makes the discovery of such a novelty in her midst.) The 23-year-old subject explains: "I'm not religious, so I'm not saving myself, and I've come close to having sex. But when it got down to it, I was never with anyone who I really felt like doing it with."
Could it be that somehow, amidst the bombardment, she's retained a sense of self-respect and intuits, if not a sacred quality, a purpose to sex beyond immediate gratification?
And yet, she defensively explains that she's at least "fairly normal," despite her virgin status. And, as if not to worry readers, she makes clear that she is prepared: "I take birth control," she writes, "own a vibrator, and enjoy flirting as much as any sexually active female. I always figured I'd lose my V card when the time was right, and I've never pressured myself about it."
There's something of the legacy of Helen Gurley Brown, the founder of Cosmo who died at the age of 90 on Aug. 13, in the magazine's virgin; Brown was about maintaining an upper hand in relations with men. And yet despite her sexual pioneering, she herself was married to the same man for 51 years.
Cosmo's virgin is also an embodiment, however, of the widespread realization of sexual revolutionary values. She may not be having sex, but she's pilled up and pleasured, as if that's the universal standard for single women.
Here is where the Obama administration has stepped in to make sure no woman has reason to worry about responsibility and consequences, as it mandates employers to cover abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception, even if employers have moral objections to these things (read: puritanical hang-ups). The move, billed as basic women's health care, is an official institutionalization of the Cosmogenization of America. We're all Cosmo girls now.
The federal government may not have established this church, but it is an acolyte. Even the virgin has the faith. There's a whole new "adult" view of religious liberty here. It may still be your mother's Cosmo, but America has experienced the change.
Why would they be put off? Its not like they loved her or wanted to marry her. They just wanted sex and she was giving away what they probably would have been paying for otherwise.
Interesting as well that she speaks of her mother's disapproval, but nothing of her father.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
The “Sexual REvolution” and its assault on the sweetness of womanhood was a front for turning women into willing female cattle to serve as sexual playthings for
exploitive Progressive men.
The “Reproductive Rights” movement was nothing but the establishment of a sanitation department to remove the dehumanized and murdered refuse from the Progressive playground in order to keep it clean and non-judgemental.
Long live the revolution comrades!!! (sarc)
Your two sentence summary of one of the most destructive movements in American history is brilliant. That is really all there is to it.
“You need to do a bit more research on the history of the concept of “the sweetness of womanhood”.”
Try to tell a man who works for his family, sees to it that they’re sheltered, housed, clothed, taken care of, protected and nurtured, who looks forward to the sweetness of the wife at the end of the day that he thinks is the most beautiful in the world, that the concept of the “sweetness of womanhood” is a sham and a delusional product of the bourgoisie.
Then see what happens when the same man finds out that one of his daughters has been exploited by an irresponsible
punk who thinks that sex is nothing but a playground for his genitals which he exalts above all things.
Yeah, women’s liberation where we won’t need a man to make it in this world! Yet most will vote for the “man” who has promised to take care of them from womb (if they make it out) to tomb (Julia). And most of them are single, fat, gray haired and clueless.
Sexuality, like most things, fits on the Standard Distribution (bell-shaped) Curve. And to know this is very empowering to people, because it answers questions, dispels some ugly illusions, and enlarges understanding and acceptance.
To start with, on one end of the curve are people who are hypersexual and capable of hypersexuality, which are not the same things. Importantly, these two things are also *exclusive* with reproduction and child-rearing. That is, someone can have lots of sex with numerous partners, *or* they can have and raise children.
On the other extreme of the curve are people who are not sexual much at all. They do not want to do what is needed to have sex, and they do not want children, often because they know they just do not have the energy for either.
So both extremes, think of them as ‘A’ and ‘F’ grades, are pretty sterile.
Moving towards the mean of the curve, think of them as the ‘B’ and ‘D’ grades, on the more sexual side are people who have *some* sexual partners, but eventually just want to marry one, and have and raise children. On the non-sexual side of the curve are those who only want sex when married, to make children.
Then there is the large, ‘C’ grade. People with average sexuality. They might have a few sexual partners, or just one or two, and they might want and have children or not.
However, most of the people on the curve are under the illusion that they want more sex than they have, and that other people are having a lot more sex than they are. A lot of this is based in cultural propaganda, and yes, pornography.
They have been raised to feel cheated that they did not get the sex and romance they thought was normal and deserved. And every hypersexual person did much to reinforce this illusion, wanting numerous partners instead of commitment or reproduction.
Yet at the same time, the non-sexual people are so ignored that they are to a great extent locked out of society, and looked down upon.
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.