The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘Huge Disappointment’: @LenaDunham Laments Her Own Heterosexuality

Posted on | April 10, 2014 | 76 Comments

 

Where does a lifetime of liberal indoctrination about “inclusivity” lead young women? Feminist Heterosexual Guilt Syndrome:

Dunham shared her views on her lesbian sister and sexual attraction during an appearance at the Point Honors Gala at the New York Public Library Monday.

The “Girls” star thanked her sister Grace, now 22, saying, “I have always felt a strong and emotional connection to members of the LGBTQ community. It was actually a huge disappointment for me when I came of age and realized that I was sexually attracted to men. So when my sister came out, I thought, ‘Thank God, now someone in this family can truly represent my beliefs and passions.'”

It’s easy enough to wisecrack about this, but the sad reality is that feminist ideology does celebrate lesbianism as the ultimate in liberation and equality, so that Lena Dunham’s feminist “beliefs and passions” — the core tenets of her intellectual loyalty — are at odds with her personal preference for penis-in-vagina (PIV) intercourse that feminism condemns as violent oppression. (“PIV is always rape, OK?”) Perhaps you’ve forgotten the radical feminist who explained that their ideology is based on a rejection of the “sex role as fuckholes, breeders and slaves has been forced on us by men, and that this role is wholly unnatural to us.”

This pejorative description of women’s “sex role” may inspire mocking laughter, but it deserves serious critical scrutiny. What the radical feminist rejects is the idea of sexual dimorphism as a natural basis for the division of labor between the sexes. Students of design are taught that form follows function, and the observable differences between male and female constitute a sort of scientific argument for a differentiation of roles between them. The biological purpose of sex is procreation, and if we expect both parents to contribute to the survival of their offspring, the pair-bonding of parents into a permanent unit — the basis of the family — requires a system of cooperation. Viewing sex roles from this natural or biological perspective, we see that child-bearing and breast-feeding tend to inhibit the ability of mothers to work outside the home, at least until their children reach a certain level of maturity.

 

Advances in technology and the pervasive affluence of developed industrial economies permit us to ignore sexual differences — and the natural or biological basis of sex roles — to a great extent. If “work” consists mainly of sitting in front of a computer terminal, after all, there is no obvious reason that men and women should not be equally capable of such work, whereas in earlier societies, the male role as breadwinner depended largely on physical labor for which men’s greater upper-body strength made them especially suitable. Modernity makes it easy (especially for college-educated professionals who have never earned their living by manual labor) to forget that the superiority of masculine physical strength still matters, just as the development of technology — including cheap, reliable contraception — obscures the centrality of childbearing to women’s biological characteristics.

Anthropology, neuroscience and evolutionary theory all point in the same direction, namely that the differences between men and woman are not merely physical, but that the biology of the brain — including the influence of hormones on our behavior and emotions — also predisposes men and women toward different roles. Radical feminism rejects this view, claiming that apparent differences (e.g., women’s greater tendency toward nurturing) are “social constructs,” imposed on women by the oppressive patriarchy.

 

‘Please Be My Breeder-Slave’?

If you consider sexual desire and romantic love between men and women to be natural and healthy, you are not a feminist. Because male sexuality is violent and harmful, feminism teaches, women’s “emotional bond to men” is in fact a reaction to men’s “inescapable violence and oppression,” enabling men “to ensure our long-term submission” by “using us as their dick receptacles.”  There is nothing natural about sex, according to feminist ideology, no biological urge that causes women to be attracted to men. Indeed, feminism teaches, most women’s belief that they enjoy sex with men is the result of patriarchal brainwashing:

No woman is heterosexual. What men call heterosexuality is an institution where men make women captive for PIV, to control our reproductive functions and steal our labour. Heterosexuality, or sexuality with men does not exist, because the only relationship to men that exists is men’s violence, physical and mental invasion — one that men have so well crafted and disguised for so long that we can mistake it for attraction, sexual urges or love.  . . .
It’s part of the global male infrastructure that ensures men a constant supply of ready-tamed and pre-possessed women to effortlessly stick their dicks in, impregnate and abuse.

The penis is an instrument of male violence and intercourse is the means by which women are forcibly oppressed, according to feminism. If any woman believes she has “attraction, sexual urges or love” for a man, this belief results from a “mental invasion” by which “the global male infrastructure” trains a supply of women who can be “effortlessly” obtained as “penis receptacles” to impregnate.

 

Perceiving male sexuality as intrinsically harmful, and believing that normal women are victims of “heteronormative” brainwashing, feminists imagine the male proposition thus:

Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Please be my breeder-slave
And dick receptacle, too.

Such a crude derogation of men’s sexual desire is an insult to every woman who takes pleasure in her distinctly feminine role as wife and mother — and the insult is quite intentional, once we realize the extent to which feminism has been dominated by lesbians and abortion fanatics for decades. Overt hostility to men, marriage and motherhood are not recent developments in feminist doctrine, nor is feminism’s philosophical antipathy toward heterosexuality a “fringe” phenomenon.

Why else would Lena Dunham feel the need to express apologetic shame for her heterosexuality, if her feminist professors at Oberlin College had not taught her this sense of embarrassment at being helplessly brainwashed and voluntarily oppressed as a “dick receptacle”?

The War on Sexual Biology

Yet this phenomenon — Feminist Heterosexual Guilt Syndrome — is implicit in contemporary liberal culture, which holds that sex is merely a form of pleasure, without any spiritual or moral dimension, to be regulated only by mutual consent. Liberalism’s apparent neutrality toward the sexual preferences of consenting adults, however, is belied by the incessant cheerleading for contraception, abortion and homosexuality. Contraception and abortion are necessary to the liberal project of diverting women from the path toward marriage and motherhood by suppressing their natural fertility. And homosexuality is celebrated by liberals as part of the same project, to delegitimize the traditional family as a normative social institution.

As I said, feminist hostility toward heterosexuality “deserves serious critical scrutiny,” and this means asking ourselves what the consequences would be if, as they say, sexuality and sex roles are merely “social constructs.” Consider as a hypothetical that there is no biological impulse toward heterosexuality, no natural instinct or innate drive that directs us toward marriage and procreation.

If this were so — if sexuality is a “social construct” — then there would be no reason why, in a society free of “heteronormative patriarchy,” everybody should not be homosexual. Of course, that would result in rapid extinction of such a society, but if it is only social influences that shape our sexual behaviors, an entirely homosexual population is a theoretical possibility, at least for one final generation.

However, despite decades of pro-gay propaganda, a Gallup poll found that only 3.4 percent of the population identifies as gay.

It appears, therefore, that there may be some biological resistance to the gay agenda, some innate tendency toward heterosexuality. What has resulted from this gay propaganda is a situation in which the overwhelming majority of Americans — 96.6 percent — are subjected to routine and ubiquitous cultural celebrations of a sexual preference they do not share.  And this produces Feminist Heterosexual Guilt Syndrome, where straight women like Lena Dunham feel obligated to publicly denounce themselves for desiring sex with men.

This strange hostility toward viewing heterosexual behavior as natural, as a function of basic biology, also explains the attitude that led a Massachusetts college sex educator to complain:

I suppose I’ve been relying on students to find their own way to embracing biology as a valuable way to think about sex. But this point of view is so foreign to many of them, many of them Sociology or Women’s Studies majors who have never thought about sex in terms of biology or reproduction . . . And I suppose it was too much to ask that they get there on their own.
I wanted them to find their way to the notion that it’s not “heteronormative” to recognize that sex is an evolutionarily adaptive reproduction strategy that, in humans, involves males and females; it’s just our biology, and there’s a complex, mutually interacting relationship between the biological and the social. I’ve been working toward that all semester. But they have not gotten there.

Amazing! A biological view of sex — as simple as “Me Tarzan, you Jane” — is nowadays so alien to the worldview of college students that they reject it as being somehow anti-gay.

Given the prevalence of these weird ideas in academia, it’s  not surprising that many students are deeply confused about sex. If campus performances of “How to Be a Lesbian in 10 Days or Less” are regarded as routine at universities, how many more young women feel the same kind of “huge disappointment” as Lena Dunham? Alas, they still crave men who will use their vaginas as “penis receptacles”!

Well, form follows function. That’s what I learned in college.

“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Matthew 19:4-6 (KJV)

 

Comments

76 Responses to “‘Huge Disappointment’: @LenaDunham Laments Her Own Heterosexuality”

  1. Anchovy
    April 10th, 2014 @ 7:19 pm

    Guy down the street passes himself off as Mexican. Has to be part of an oppressed minority. I met his parents. He is Italian. 100% Italian. Parents have never been near Mexico.

    Oh… yeah….. he works for the local NPR station.

    Claiming to be homosexual is one of the few ways middle class white kids can achieve the badge of victimhood. The left loves them victims. Victims are holy.

  2. M. Thompson
    April 10th, 2014 @ 7:31 pm

    Man, I’m not surprised at all. It’s part of the Special Snowflake Syndrome. It’s a problem too many have.

  3. Anamika
    April 10th, 2014 @ 7:34 pm

    “The author of the sizzling new nonfiction bestseller, The Vagina Whisperer is making the rounds of the talk-show circuit and taking Manhattan by storm. The OB/GYN turned sex therapist has penned a self-help book that’s part memoir and part “how-to” guide that is empowering women all over the city to talk to their vaginas.

    ” What? Huh?

    “Yes. Says the good Doctor Carol, “Women need to reassure their vaginas that they are loved. Masturbation is a way in which we can love ourselves, but vaginas crave more than just pleasure: they crave affection.” […]

    “Take my vagina to lunch? It’s not as far-fetched as one might imagine. Beginning in May, restaurant Daniel and Thomas Keller’s Per Se are offering $19.95 three-course lunches every Thursday as part of a promotion with Dr. Carol’s publisher, Grove/Atlantic, for “Take Your Vagina to Lunch Day.” […]

    “Who needs Valentine’s Day, ladies? I’m looking forward to Vagina Day, and for once I won’t have to worry about having a date. I just hope my vagina and I can get a reservation at Daniel. ”

    Read the rest here

  4. jenny2
    April 10th, 2014 @ 7:45 pm

    It really is so sad that their need to be a victim overrides their ability to enjoy life; always distraught over some oppression. Ugh!

  5. ajpwriter
    April 10th, 2014 @ 7:56 pm

    Lena Dunham is protected by a +3 Cloak of Dullness, that renders her invulnerable to my attempts to give a moldy crap about her, no matter how significant to the culture people tell me she is.

  6. Gary
    April 10th, 2014 @ 8:10 pm

    …..That does it. I’m taking my cock out, not to lunch but to a 7 course dinner and writing a book about it:

    “Confessions of a Cock Whisperer”

    National Cock Day…Stand up and salute!.

    Have you hugged your cock today?

    Men..learn to love that part of you that you have been trained to believe is evil, smelly and just plain bad. We must take the situation back into

    our own hands and empower our cocks to be all they can be. Every day is Cock Day really and men need to get back in touch with the sacredness of their cocks. I guess if no one else will worship our cocks, we’ll have to do it ourselves.

  7. Mm
    April 10th, 2014 @ 8:14 pm

    Another nonsensical comment, which is how you appear to get your thrills.

  8. GVK
    April 10th, 2014 @ 8:19 pm

    Beginning in May, restaurant Daniel and Thomas Keller’s Per Se are
    offering $19.95 three-course lunches every Thursday as part of a
    promotion with Dr. Carol’s publisher, Grove/Atlantic, for “Take Your
    Vagina to Lunch Day.”

    With your choice of either vulva salad with arugula, or cream of labia soup.

    It’s a way for us to boost the vaginal ego and harness the positive
    energy within. We need to let our vaginas know that we love them.

    Yes, vaginas are very loveable, but how about a National Foreskin Day?

    To honor the Weenie* within.

    –GVK

    *”Weenie is a very sensitive guy, and it angers and saddens him that
    everyone isn’t just as sensitive as he. An admitted male feminist, Weenie is ever vigilant against anti-progressive attitudes. Though he
    seldom comes into personal contact with the working classes, he keenly
    feels the pain of their oppression nonetheless.”

  9. Anamika
    April 10th, 2014 @ 8:21 pm

    there’s a place for us,
    somewhere a place for us,
    where any cock will do,
    cockadoodledo.

    signed,
    Va gina

  10. Rosalie
    April 10th, 2014 @ 8:28 pm

    Anyone who thinks she’s significant is as crazy as she is.

  11. GVK
    April 10th, 2014 @ 8:29 pm

    Excuse me, but the Cock is NOTHING without the Balls and, as a matter of fact, they have written to complain they are starting to get extremely offended at this point, (especially the French ones, for some reason, something about Hail to the Chief, i don’t know).

    Haven’t you ever seen the books “1,000 things to do with Cock and Balls”, or “Cock and Balls for Dummies”?

    There is a good one in there about how to put on a play, skit or puppet show, with all three.

    This way, no body gets left out! YAY! and ya didn’t even have to take ‘m out to dinner.

  12. Julie Pascal
    April 10th, 2014 @ 8:36 pm

    LOL!

  13. RS
    April 10th, 2014 @ 8:49 pm

    I write only to note that the argument you posit–quite cogent and persuasive–will be ignored, simply because the Progressive Left will dismiss it with an ad hominem “Christianist” explanation, paying attention only to your last paragraph.

  14. Rubix's Cube
    April 10th, 2014 @ 9:03 pm

    It’s not LGBTQ, didn’t you know? The correct terminology, now, is LGBTQIAWXYZ123.

  15. Stanley
    April 10th, 2014 @ 9:30 pm

    Hmm… I see you are, once again, posting bizarre and unsolicited nonsense.

    Anamika, what could this posting possibly mean? Not one sane and responsible commentator knows. But then again, I shouldn’t be asking you.

  16. Käthe
    April 10th, 2014 @ 9:58 pm

    I’ve heard radical lesbians actually *routinely* refer to women as “cum dumpsters” and “dick riders,” a level of vileness usually reserved for drunken cowards in speeding cars. And I mean routinely, like, just because, all the time, not because they are especially angry about any particular incident.

    Anyhow this is a real thing. It’s easy to laugh, because it’s ridiculous. And for the left, it’s easy to dismiss, because “straight women are less oppressed than lesbians so who cares.” But on the other hand, earnest and impressionable young women–VERY young, more like teenagers–who are gentle at heart and don’t want to heart anyone sometimes take this stuff very much to heart. And then they start to try to find some way they could be just a little bit not straight. Not so they can be “oppressed” but so they can be not-a-bad-guy and not vilified. On college campuses and in the youth culture of many big cities, this stuff is pervasive, and it can really screw with a young woman’s head. Being “bi” becomes like being a kind of nominal member of the communist party in China, the cost of doing business and not being a pariah.

  17. anemone blooming
    April 10th, 2014 @ 10:01 pm

    "Gay internet activists, or LGBTHTTP" – Colbert Report Lol, I can live with that one.— Tiffany Rose (@FromPawnToQueen) April 10, 2014

  18. concern00
    April 10th, 2014 @ 10:12 pm

    There is far to much fun to be had here.

    LGBTQIQOMGWTFBBQ

  19. concern00
    April 10th, 2014 @ 10:13 pm

    She’d certainly get far more action as a lesbian. She fits their body shape and attractiveness requirements.

  20. Anamika
    April 10th, 2014 @ 10:17 pm

    The pharaohs buried in the pyramids of Egypt..their penis being aligned with Orion though a tiny window for the beam of that constellation to shine on it, so Orion copulate with these creatures each year… to ensure divinity for the land.. 😉

  21. Anamika
    April 10th, 2014 @ 10:21 pm

    There is the notion that this idealization of women, goddesses, shaktis and fairy princesses, arose from a loathing of women’s bodies — dirty and dangerous things they are.

    Doesn’t seem that long ago women were supposed to suffer not only from ‘hysteria’, “wandering womb,” but penis envy as well; wot?

  22. robertstacymccain
    April 10th, 2014 @ 10:38 pm

    My point is that one can argue the same thing either from scientific or a religious perspective. The universality of marriage as a cultural institution has to be seen as evidence that male-female pair bonding is part of the natural order.

  23. Kirby McCain
    April 10th, 2014 @ 10:38 pm

    Is there some kind of contest to be the most pitiful and pathetic woman on the planet?

  24. RS
    April 10th, 2014 @ 11:07 pm

    My point is that one can argue the same thing either from scientific or a religious perspective.

    No argument from me. The problem is that the Left has done quite well convincing younger generations that the only motivation for questioning homosexual behavior/”rights” is bigotry supported by Christian theology. I may (actually, I do) believe that Marriage and The Family are divinely ordained institutions and that the natural order evidences that. But toss out God, and you still have the Natural Order. My belief in God as Creator is irrelevant to the rest of the argument.

    Some months back, I had an argument with a concern troll on these pages–a recent convert to lesbianism–that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end. Yet even when you refuse to use an appeal to the Divine for support, the proponents will infer it, simply because they realize how weak their case is from a biological and evolutionary standpoint.

  25. Rob Crawford
    April 10th, 2014 @ 11:11 pm

    Well, for Leon’s sake he’ll find plenty of action once he’s started that Village People cover band…

    What?

    LENA?

    FEMALE?!

  26. Rob Crawford
    April 10th, 2014 @ 11:12 pm

    The Cloak of Dullness is the only method of concealment stronger than a Somebody Else’s Problem Field.

  27. Kirby McCain
    April 10th, 2014 @ 11:15 pm

    @lenadunham laments her own heterosexuality I’m not particularly happy about her sexuality either, but there’s still time.

  28. Ben Franklin
    April 10th, 2014 @ 11:16 pm

    She is not alone in lamenting her sexuality. I think all red-blooded, American males lament the fact that Lena might be interested in bedding them. Personally, I think I am afraid to leave the house now.

  29. Rob Crawford
    April 10th, 2014 @ 11:18 pm

    “The universality of marriage as a cultural institution has to be seen as evidence that male-female pair bonding is part of the natural order.”

    Ancient Greece is often pointed to as being “more tolerant” of homosexuality. What they leave out is that marriage was still a man and a woman, and inheritance was solely through the wife and children.

  30. M. Thompson
    April 10th, 2014 @ 11:20 pm

    Nah, with types like her, just send her to where guys are REALLY desperate.

  31. Zohydro
    April 10th, 2014 @ 11:21 pm

    And the tattoos…

  32. concern00
    April 10th, 2014 @ 11:23 pm

    She’ll probably have one of those all too common ‘not born this way’ epiphanies and switch sides.

  33. robertstacymccain
    April 10th, 2014 @ 11:29 pm

    I dunno. Does she make sandwiches?

    As I get older, a woman’s sandwich-making aptitude becomes more important.

  34. Bob Belvedere
    April 10th, 2014 @ 11:50 pm

    Quite more important!

  35. Ben Franklin
    April 10th, 2014 @ 11:55 pm

    Thanks, now I am afraid to look in the cupboard.

  36. Adjoran
    April 11th, 2014 @ 12:18 am

    Only her psychiatrist knows for sure.

  37. Adjoran
    April 11th, 2014 @ 12:24 am

    Quite so. Marriage as a cultural institution is older than any surviving religion. It was a case of social Darwinism – allowing the “state of nature” where males seek the maximum number of partners and females have full responsibility for their children kept the human race small. Mothers couldn’t gather enough food for themselves and their children, especially with an infant. Infant and child mortality was high.

    When the tradition of marriage began, children and mothers began surviving longer, tribes and villages became stronger, populations surged. Because it was the groups and cultures which adopted a marriage format that prospered, marriage became an almost universal tradition.

    And in all the artifacts of all the societies and cultures before and after written history began, there was no record of “gay marriage” being accepted by anyone.

  38. Adjoran
    April 11th, 2014 @ 12:29 am

    My guess would be her repertoire is limited to gluten-free sandwiches of watercress, bean sprouts, and tofu. Organic, of course.

    And to those who say there is no difference in “organic” produce, science says otherwise. You are three times more likely to get an e coli infection from organic produce than from non-organic.

  39. SineWaveII
    April 11th, 2014 @ 12:54 am

    Lena Dunham suddenly discovers she’s a bisexual in 5, 4, 3, 2….

  40. Funeral guy
    April 11th, 2014 @ 1:59 am

    Go Lena…please. Forget that voice that makes you want a high, hard one. I know we’ll be losing one to the other team, but we’ll try to manage without out your brainy hotness.

  41. Funeral guy
    April 11th, 2014 @ 2:08 am

    I’ve never heard of a bunch of people so obsessed with their genitalia. I tried to tie my di** into a knot once, but I was twelve and gave up after a couple of tries. Maybe I should take it out to lunch and apologize.

  42. Dana
    April 11th, 2014 @ 6:35 am

    There are many, many men who are also disappointed that Miss Dunham is sexually normal.

  43. Dana
    April 11th, 2014 @ 6:38 am

    Yeah, but what if they’re ever asked to prove it?

    During my college days, when many male students were fearing the possibility of conscription, there were plenty of discussions about how to fail the physical. Somehow, no one ever mentioned the obvious bar at the time, just tell the Army that you’re queer; no one wanted to go that far; maybe they were afraid that they’d be asked to prove it.

  44. Dana
    April 11th, 2014 @ 6:39 am

    Clearly, it wasn’t long enough. 🙂

  45. Quartermaster
    April 11th, 2014 @ 6:43 am

    He gave up in despair.

  46. Paul H. Lemmen
    April 11th, 2014 @ 7:23 am

    As well as their abilities in back rubs and scratches … The superiority thereof results often in increased ability and frequency in male to female foot-rubs.
    Just a personal observation.

  47. Zohydro
    April 11th, 2014 @ 7:30 am

    But if just two of ’em walked into Room 604, sang a bar of “Alice’s Restaurant” in harmony, and walked out, the Army would think they were both a couple of [gay men] and they wouldn’t want either one of them…

  48. Paul H. Lemmen
    April 11th, 2014 @ 7:38 am

    Heh. We are all products of the society we grew up in.

  49. Dana
    April 11th, 2014 @ 7:59 am

    More, while men were given the latitude to take a walk on the Wilde side, they were expected to marry a woman and sire children.

  50. Jeanette Victoria
    April 11th, 2014 @ 8:55 am

    And she makes them naked