That's the title of a post I've been writing on and off over the past decade, because the trend keeps getting worse. Here is the last one on the topic, and a follow-up showing that it held even among "conservatives" (meaning libertarians, not regular church-going types).
Since then, there have been two more waves of data from the General Social Survey, and sure enough, there's no stopping the bi-curiosity of young women (here, ages 18-29).
Among whites, about 20% have "had sex" with at least one girl since they turned 18. That's up from 10-15% in the earlier part of the decade. And far above the less than 5% circa the 1990s, when the data begin.
Among blacks, just over 25% have experimented with other girls, way up from the 10-15% earlier in the decade.
There's no clear pattern for Asians or Hispanics, due to smaller sample sizes. For "other" races overall, though, bi-experimentation is holding steady at 5-10%.
Without repeating all the details of the earlier posts, suffice it to say that the main source of this rise in bi-curiosity is among the younger ages of this group, and the rise doesn't show up so much when you ask about their regular partners, e.g. who they've had sex with in the past year rather than anyone since turning 18. So, this trend reflects occasional experimenting during the college years, rather than a lifelong predilection for pussy.
But to contract HPV and get oral cancer, you only have to munch one rug. And now guys have to worry not only about getting it from going down on a girl, but perhaps just making out with her, if she's gone down on a girl who had it. Dangerous, on top of gross, on top of boring.
(And no, there is still no trend toward greater gayness or bi-curiosity among men. You're either gay or straight, and that settles in at an early age.)
The laissez-faire morality that has accompanied neoliberal economic changes has delivered what even the old-school Marxists recognized as bourgeois decadence. But we are only getting started, since the Reagan era is a parallel of the Jacksonian (early Victorian) era -- the opening act for the Gilded Age and Fin de Siecle that prevailed during the later part of the 19th century.
That will echo this time around, where the Reagan era just got the ball rolling by ending the New Deal-era practice of vice squads raiding gay bars, deregulating bath-houses and creating the ecosystem for AIDS etc. to arise, striking down sodomy laws, upholding gay marriage, and whatever else the Reaganites are going to achieve during their final years.
Just wait until it's the Democrats who are the dominant party in the next era. They'll allow even greater deregulation of sexuality, and bring on even greater levels of epidemics, atomization, and joyless addiction treadmills.
GSS variables: numwomen, year, sex, age, race
Disease epidemics are getting worse among homos, evidently, because there are now so many clinics devoted specifically to handing out meds for preventing/suppressing/"curing" STDs among gays(including HIV). I heard an analyst of the gay scene say that around 2005 the taboo sourrounding HIV/AIDS began to fade away, while simultaneously the typical "party drugs" of the 80's and 90's (outgoing eras, one wonders?) like ecstasy and coke started to seem passe, and crystal meth/GHB became more common. He said that overdoses, sleepless sex binges, drug induced psychosis, drug injecting, and bad addictions have all gotten much more common since the mid-2000's. He said that young gays frequently get tested for HIV before the disease can be detected, and by the time it's been detected they've glibly had sex with dozens of people.ReplyDelete
As if that wasn't enough, each presidential term since Carter has been more conspicuously lazy on the subject of vice control, thereby enabling perverts and drug addicts to further commit to their "life-style".
The already shaky individualism of "just say no", preached by Silents and Boomers in the late 70's-early 90's, (as if one's peers and leaders can't be trusted to protect you) isn't really preached anymore, instead we get "harm-reduction" where condoms and clean needles are supposed to "help" people. The Gen X-ers who came of age being told to feel sorry for AIDS cases while their generation's celebrities frequently died of heroin overdoses really do seem to have bought into the "harm-reduction" myth.
N-Gramming harm reduction shows the first appearance of the term in the late 80's, then it sky-rockets thru the 90's and 2000's.
"But to contract HPV and get oral cancer, you only have to munch one rug."ReplyDelete
Ha ha ha ha ha!
"They'll allow even greater deregulation of sexuality, and bring on even greater levels of epidemics, atomization, and joyless addiction treadmills."
Prostitution deregulation, we love our sex workers, don't we? Is there anything more lacking in empathy than this push? I guess with such loneliness, it's easy to see just the benefits and not the costs. I have a close relative our family saw descend into this for reasons stemming from childhood and we were the ones who pulled her out of it. It was an emotional drain that went on for years. So much financial sacrifice, too; she's married now and has her child in a Christian school. He is gifted, with her high IQ, but is failure-to-thrive as a result of this period. I hear these people drone on and on about how much they respect "sex workers" and I think to the time I swabbed this child's feeding tube area and my children asked what it was and the little guy's voice broke as he told them he didn't want to talk about it. Her best friend, also a "sex workers" OD'd in her early 30s. Love our "sex workers"? Give me a break. They don't know what love is, they really don't.
People who have ever been intimately involved in trying to save a loved one like this, we see what an absolute farce the pro-sex worker movement is. There are the vultures and the "rescuers", probably the least bad types of people you'll find in their orbits, but they bring their own problems. It's the sociopathic intellectuals I have special contempt for. We've seen the inside of a crack house, have they? The list is so long and devastating, but these people...they weren't there, they never are. Or just being there when they ask you to pray for them or they're just looking for extra encouragement or to hear simply that you're proud of them: we were there, and good friends, but not those other people. Researching rehab places, A.A. visits, tattoo removal, finding employment...it goes on and on. These people who "love" the sex workers and are just oh-so concerned? Give me a break, they're the absolute worst and I want them as far away from me and mine as possible. They're never there and they make our jobs harder. Not good people.Delete
Carter's term prefigured Reagan with laissez-faire econ and morality, most notoriously the disco scene. That was the end of the wholesome New Deal, as it began shifting into degenerate neoliberalism.ReplyDelete
The anti-IDpol Left also hates sex work boosterism, you'll be pleased to know. See the "stupidpol" reddit, for example. They don't shy away from calling it exploitative, not empowering.ReplyDelete
And they're keen to point out that most of the "sex worker defenders" are not even talking about working-class streetwalkers who face real danger, but downwardly mobile professional-class 20-somethings who sell pics of their feet on the internet to afford living in a poser nest like Brooklyn or Seattle.
During the closest thing we've had to socialism, women did not have to degrade themselves like that just to make ends meet -- wages were so high that they could get married, and their husbands earned enough for them to stay out of the wage labor market.
The period that saw widespread sex work was the most ANTI-socialist of scenarios -- the Gilded Age and Fin de Siecle. All those brothels in the Wild West, and red light districts in every city -- sometimes multiple districts within a single city.
They only closed them down during the 1910s, also when immigration began its long decline through the middle 20th C. That was the Progressive Era, which was about purifying the rotten stench that the laissez-faire Gilded Age had allowed to fester and spread.
Again, we see the so-called socialists of today are really just a bunch of radlibs -- stylistically radical, but substantively liberals and libertarians who'd be at home in Dickensian and Victorian England, where streetwalkers were deregulated (they just had to check with public health inspectors to make sure they weren't too riddled with disease).
That's the surest sign that we aren't headed back to the New Deal when the Dems realign the system. It will take us forward into the next stage of Gilded Age degeneracy, inequality, atomization, and immiseration.
Still, have to fight them like hell in the meantime, to make sure they get their way the least, and that they're forced to make as many concessions as possible to wholesome New Deal-ism.
"That's the surest sign that we aren't headed back to the New Deal when the Dems realign the system. It will take us forward into the next stage of Gilded Age degeneracy, inequality, atomization, and immiseration."Delete
As much as I have not wanted to accept this, it's been the prostitution deregulation push, above everything else, that says this analysis has been correct. A people that believes in being their brother's (and sister's) keeper would see it for the exploitation it is and find it abhorrent. It's like, they never think of, are bothered by, why the vast majority of these people degrade themselves so. They just want to???
Although full responsibility cannot be accorded them, partial responsibility goes to the douchebags who cheer on such nonsense. But then, they are such good parents, observe:ReplyDelete
The intellectuals should explain that one to us.