Joe Bageant: Deer in the headlights of America: I went to coffee houses, listened to poets, felt the dynamic beating heart of a great America city—got my first blowjob from a wonderful hipster chick who took it upon herself to educate me about a life of the mind.
Needless to say, given her opening act, I became pretty enthusiastic about improving my intellectual life.
Honey, you betray your age and its ingrained, forever sexism with this post. No “wonderful hipster chick” gave you a blow job for free. Out of the goodness of her heart.
When will men get it.
Let me put it another way. Your daughter, Joe? If she had done so, would you feel that you’d raised her real good?
{ fin }
“When will men get it.”
Let me know when you find out the answer to this, okay? As if.
If you find it first … I’m here.
are you suggesting the hipster chick was a hooker?
and what is it that men are meant to get?
are men meant to get what is un’get’able only because it is unmentionable by the aggrieved class of being?
if you were able perhaps to lay it out explicitly men might be provided an op to cop. any chance of getting it – whatever it is – is nullified by the offsides committed by the shorter rounder sex.
i have always suspected that women do not want men to get it. a power thing. kinda the way a bank treats customers: getting on your tits with vague condescending looks and hidden service fees.
or, maybe there is nothing to get. just a lot of whispering and gossip.
quite happy here in the dark.
dearest bmo,
no, only that young girls don’t know themselves well enough to say no, and the more unfathered the girl, the more likely this is to be the case. this may not explain it well enough, but the sixties worked out *real* good for guys, you know? all that free love, love the one you’re with? not that i saw this at the time. the women’s movement, like, happened for a reason? not that the sex problem is worked out, no way.
sorry, i was a sex-child of the eighties, where herpes was the fear and, unlike other dread diseases, of other times, visible.
but other than that…
are you suggesting that blow jobs are a guy’s idea?
I certainly am. As is true of the opposite. Wouldn’t that kinda naturally be the case?
not really, no.
the opposite of fellatio being cunnilingus, I assume, not anal sex, which is its own opposite.
i guess i’ve only ever met well-fathered girls in my life.
of course all of this is becoming a distant memory
isn’t there some satisfaction in giving pleasure, though?
is oral always seen as a demand?
as someone who was once a (too) young girl, my recollection is that blow jobs were typically forced, expected, or both.
well, yes, and that’s what i’m saying, and i hear it’s terribly common now, in lieu of “real” sex … but i don’t see that this diminishes the sadness one damn bit. men think only of themselves (too much) and are—i generalize a tad—predatory in their wants—and women think of others too much and surrender … and adapt to a society in no position to acquaint girls, first, with a genuine sense of who they are. which is the only way to act in free choice—and now we are back to my post.
how can anyone be seen to have a genuine sense of self when they – each and all – have been lumped together, in this case, as girls.
that’s nuts.
and what are we left with? an argument that offers up the opposite, that girls have been taught too well, and have a very strong and clear sense of self, and take exactly what they want in life and play it off as giving?
that’s nuts too.
there are too many people who think only of themselves, selves highly developed and keenly honed in the predatory arts – men and women.
still not sure why J’s little sex/mind joke is provoking such a singular reaction about self and adapting to the norms of society and the rules of sexual engagement.
of course i don’t get it. i am a man.
easy out.
i expect you do get it, some of it, anyway. that you do know an under-parented girl is going to make poor choices in the face of the horrific pressures from young men. so what’s yr, bitch, dear? bageant’s little “joke” was funny only if one overlooks the human female side of things, which is precisely my point. it seemed rather objectifying, no? (right, like you’re going to change my mind on this.)