Perfect timing after yesterday’s post:
The only person I know who uses the term sex positive sucks dick for money. Which I’m sure you’d want your daughter to do in spite of the risks. Or rather, you’d blame the pervading nature of our sex negative society for the consequences rather than the seedy act of selling oneself. Personally I find the term idiotic. Sex is like any other powerful thing, it can be used in both positive and negative ways. Fucking for pleasure=positive. Fucking your sisters’ boyfriend because you’re pissed at her=negative. It’s a serious act with consequences. Seriously, grow up you chowderhead. Oh, and atheists are nothing but the photographic negative of religious zealots. And most gender and race issues only serve the purpose of dividing people and distracting them from more important economic issues.
I figured I should share, instead of be greedy and keep the hilarity to myself.
The scary part is that this is probably a real person, not a troll.
If this is the result of evolution I’m almost thinking about converting to stupidit.. creationism! ;-)
“Hi, I have a cogent, persuasive argument to relate, which I will cleverly demonstrate by tacitly accusing you and/or future offspring of being whores. Also, you like chowder and your head is made of chowder. Atheists are basically religious. Except for the whole ‘rejecting religion’ thing. YOUR MOTHER IS A WHORE.”
In fairness, Ivar’s clam chowder is pretty tasty. I definitely would call myself a chowderhead. Maybe he is a fellow Seattle-ite and it is a term of endearment?
I wish you and other liberal/feminist/atheist bloggers I read would start publishing the full emails these cretins send. I’d really like to know who these people are so that I can avoid them. I’d hate to help someone out and then discover they’re a total scumbag.
They didn’t bother to actually look up the definition of sex-positive did they? And I love the completely unrelated segue into “Boo, atheists suck” just for good measure.
Out of interest though…If we weren’t in an economic downtime right now, what do you think the ‘more important issue’ would have been? Because I’m pretty sure suggesting everyone must talk about the economy and not any other issue is a new development.
It’s a strange line of thinking that usually goes:
-I disagree with X
-Therefore: ‘Quick, look, the economy’ *runs off*
That one’s a fair contender for an aliased version of Pharyngula bingo.
Reinterpreting terminology to suit their own argument? Check. (Though, clearly, s/he understands the concept: “…nature of our sex-negative society…”)
Insult the author in a fashion irrelevant to the discussion? Check.
“Atheism is just another religion”? Check.
“I’m not racist/sexist. I’m past that.”? Check.
Ick.
Well.
There it is.
“And most gender and race issues only serve the purpose of dividing people and distracting them from more important economic issues.”
It is true you know, all part of the Socialist-Illuminati-Islamic-GLTB-Obama-nazi agenda.
Now, I admit this is a guess, but that sounds like it’s spoken by a true white, Christian, heterosexual male. Anyone want to take that bet?
Privilege at its finest, folks. Clearly your oppression isn’t nearly as important as figuring out new ways that he can get something for nothing.
I thought only sitcom writers used the word “chowderhead”.
That sounds exactly like something a chowderhead would say.
I like the way PZ displays his hate mail in Comic Sans so it looks extra idiotic. You should find a “stupid hate mail” font of your own!
That has to be a troll, please?
Another of these “I have no idea what these words mean so I make up a meaning for myself and then attack this made up meaning”. Happened to the selfish gene, happens to sex positive.
Does it make me stupid if I didn’t understand what the hell that was? I mean, yes I’m doped up on cold medicine and just got done with a sadistic test, but still. It should make some semblance of sense.
No, not the cold meds, In fact I think you have a better chance of understanding this on drugs.
But how will she find a font as universally hated as Comic Sans?
I guess Papyrus would do in a pinch . . .
Oh, good. I guess I should just jab my brain with a q-tip. It will either make sense after that or I’ll forget about it.
I think Arial is pretty well hated in the graphical design field.
what does it say that the first thing I noticed was the apostrophe placement in “sisters’ boyfriend”
Why do these multiple sisters share one boyfriend? Maybe the sister who fucks the boyfriend just assumed all the sisters were allowed to fuck him?
What the hell am I saying
I always suspected I was secretly a funky blue colour.
Well he got one thing right but not in the way he means it. How much more divided can you get than “white’s only”? It’s not the people against racism and sexism that cause the divides.
Chowderhead… that takes me back.
Stuart, I was right there too, although I did manage to spare a little attention for the odd notion that selling sex is a problem, but buying it is…fine, I guess?
Holy nonfucking blue balls, Batman. O.o
Although, sex-positive IS kind of a bad term, insofar as if you connect sex-positive to sex-negative you don’t get a spark…
Actually I think the odds are about 1:1 whether the author is male or female. Why do you think the author is more likely to be male?
Brain A’splody!
Forget the economy bit.
Well, that’s a tautology, isn’t it?
As if the people who notice the problems and cogently formulate there observations into well-described issues are the problem, not the bigots and privilege crowd.
Dude, I’m stoned. And I can’t make heads or tails of … whatever the fuck that was supposed to be.
But now I can’t stop giggling at “chowderhead”…
In my experience, “spark” is a bit of an understatement.
I thought it would be fun to break this down line by line. Sorry about the length.
This to me says one of two things. Either the author uses the term himself (I’m working on the assumption that the author is male from the tone and phraseology) and sells oral sex for money or he has a very small circle of friends. There are other options (he’s lying or exaggerating for effect) but they aren’t as much fun so I’m going to ignore them.
I’m very impressed that the author is aware of the risks of engaging in unprotected oral sex. Many people, particularly those raised in an abstinence only educational background, are ignorant of sexually transmitted infections. The familial reference though is telling. It discounts immediately the reasons that someone would have sex for money and tacitly assumes that it is a product of childhood limitations. Does this tell us something of the author’s childhood?
This is very informative. A social commentary that indicates that he believes that society is sex negative coupled with a dismissing judgement on those employed in the sex industry. A sex negative society is one that views sex as dirty and seek to repress and control the sex drive. This is stereotypical of fundamentalist Christianity in the US, as well as Sharia societies in the Middle East. The author demonstrates his own stance on the sex positive\negative question by blaming a perceived prostitution of daughters (the implication is that they are also children) on society’s attitude to sex.
A judgement that is clear from the build up so far. Why though does the term illicit such an emotional response. Sex positive merely looks upon sex as fundamentally healthy and pleasurable and advocates experimentation and sexual pleasure as worthwhile pursuits in human happiness. What is it that is so “idiotic” about that. The author has already expressed concern about the health implication of a sex positive culture but nowhere in the movement is safety dismissed.
This line is indicative of the authors opinion on sex. See how he says that sex can be used in certain ways. He clearly view sex as a transaction, a price that is paid to achieve something. Earlier comments regarding prostitution support this idea and indicate a repressive upbringing perhaps under a dogmatic religious parentage.
Well I’m not going to disagree with that. However the use of the pejorative “fucking” does further support the notion that the author views sex in a negative light.
As others have pointed out the authors sisters seem to share a boyfriend. I’m not going to make any judgement on polyamorous relationships here. If it works for them then I see no issue with it. Nor am I going to dismiss the bisexual relationship that the author (assumed to be a male) indicates he has considered with his siblings’ partner. Again if it works for them then I see no issue with it. However this line does further support the idea that the author sees sexual acts as a form of currency. In this case sex is being used as a way to hit out at others. This is, as the author indicates, a negative use of sex but it is not sex negative as that would be more concerned with sexual repression than sexual revenge.
Once more the author demonstrates that he views sex in negative terms. Why is a sex act serious? Clearly the author believes that sex should be reserved as sacred, perhaps even for the marital bed alone. The hint of “consequences” goes back to the earlier mention of risks like disease but also hints at unwanted pregnancy. This is interesting as reproduction has so far not been brought up. How does the author view reproduction? We are unfortunately left with no further information.
Being a Brit “chowder” is something of an alien term so I had to look it up. Apparently “Chowder is a generic name for a wide variety of seafood and/or vegetable stews and thickened soups, often with milk- and/or cream” so that refers to someone who is presumably thick headed or dim witted.
That’s clearly a bad thing to call someone but still quite mild. The mild use of language here is in contrast to the use of the expletive “fucking” used earlier. This further supports the sex negative attitude of the author that doesn’t extend to comments regarding intelligence or maturity.
The marriage of “grow up” to a dismissal of Jen’s intelligence might be a reference to her age and achievements to date. Jen’s involvement in atheist and feminist activities throughout college and her public profile show her to be an extremely accomplished and intelligent woman despite her youth. Perhaps the author feels slighted by the juxtaposition with his own achievements if they have been meagre in comparison. We are unfortunately limited in our data but this hostility must stem from something.
I like the imagery used here. It clearly states a relational opposite between religious zealously and atheism though it is apparently supposed to paint atheists and zealots as the same rather than opposites. What has this to do with the sex positive movement glibly dismissed in the earlier text? The author is drawing a relationship to liberal sexual attitudes and atheism, between positive sexual attitudes and atheism and between sexual oppression and control with religion. Does this hint at the author’s own upbringing where his sexual nature (perhaps his bi or homosexuality) were ruthlessly suppressed by religious dogmatism? We has little to go on but from what we have this does seem to be the case.
Clearly the author has been schooled to separate sex, gender and race from economic issues. A brief look at suffrage though shows even the casual observer that economics are closely linked with social freedoms afforded to minorities. When women (for example) work and earn a wage they enjoy economic freedoms that translate to social freedoms. Social freedoms allow greater economic movement as women move into traditionally male dominated careers. The economy is intrinsically connected with the social freedoms and attitudes that we, as society, permit and encourage. The author has clearly compartmentalised sex, race, gender as social issues and separated them from economic issues as if society and the economy function independently.
Perhaps this further hints at the author’s low self esteem and attitude to high achievers and successful women like Jen. His own sexual repression is clearly seen as a separate issue to his success as a man in a society that values achievement over membership to any group. My advice is to embrace his sexuality and sexual nature so that he becomes more self aware and then more comfortable as the person that he is. This will give him greater confidence so that he no longer seeks to blame those on the outside for his shortcomings and allow him to work past his own perceived inadequacies.
It’ll also stop him being such an offensive troll.
It is “Socialist-Illuminati-Islamic-GLTB-Obama-nazi-commie” agenda.
This spell check doesn’t recognize nazi but does recognize commie
I believe everytime I need to tell Jen she’s being silly, I shall use the term “chowderhead” going forward. Unless it is some sort of squid-based chowder. I don’t want PZ getting upset at me.
We need an experiment here where a man sells sex to a woman just to be sure that it’s definitely the selling and not the gender.
As a monogamous married fellow, I can’t offer myself to market, but I’m sure there must be someone out there.
It’s “chow-dah”. Say it!
Wow, somebody was really so offended by the term “sex-positive” that they bothered to write hate mail about it? Seriously? I mean, if you had used a term like “lemony fresh” or “outer perimeter,” I could see it.
” And most gender and race issues only serve the purpose of dividing people and distracting them from more important economic issues.”
Wait… there are economic issues that are totally free from race/gender/disability/etc issues ?
I would have never guessed !
Mmmm, the seared scallop chowder at Pike Place Chowder. I am so definitely a chowderhead! Methinks he needs to rethink his insults – and insulting you, my dear Jen, is just a ticket to swift pain and humiliation!
I always considered sucking dick for money a more sensible option than praying for money or sucking dick for any god.
I mean only one out of these three events is actually useful to you (particularly if you require money). Praying for money doesn’t work and sucking dick for a god is just prone to abuse (See Catholic Church).
I wonder if it’s actually worthwhile posting hate mail like this, I wonder if it doesn’t just give people a reason to send it to you in the first place, in the hopes of 5 minutes of fame on your blog for saying something stupid…
“Nazi” probably needs to be capitalized.
I’m gonna have to side with the hater–using the term “sex positive” doesn’t make you come across as a well-rounded human being. It depresses me to think of how young you probably were when you lost it. And since then you haven’t slowed down your tampin’ around, clearly
I’m all about liberalism, but a slut is a slut, even if you do have good politics. Sex has ruined a lot of people. Be an infidel if you want, but God does exist–I’m sure of it, honey. And if you’re not with God, well, you’re with…
Entertaining comment, but you don’t seem to be much higher of a person than our interesting hate mailer. You’re an atheistic hedonist like the blog author
I wonder why your god has such an interest in billions of human’s sex lives.
Does not sound very godlike to me. Sounds petty and incompetent.