"It turns out that everything is the opposite of what I remember. Under the old model, you dated a few times and, if you really liked the person, you might consider having sex. Under the new model, you hook up a few times and, if you really like the person, you might consider going on a date."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Atom Feed (xml)
4 comments:
i'm thinking the NYT piece was written by andy rooney. nobody under age 70 wrote it, anyway. if y'all could time-travel back to Woodstock/Haight days, you'd find that the exchange of bodily fluids often took place without even the exchange of names (never mind phone numbers). quite random. tsk tsk. (yep, i'm talkin bout your nasty moms and dads here)
if you went back 30 years before that, you'd find the same thing.
if you went back 30 years before that, you'd find the same thing.
if you went back 30 years before that.... there wouldn't be phone numbers to exchange... but little has changed in the way people exchange fluids with strangers.
the sex-history museum is the greatest thing to explain to the world that nothing is new... anal, throat fucking, bondage, gang-bangs, bestiality, mock-bestiality with costumes, shemales.... it is all older than most archaic myths you know... and better documented; because these things were important.
What about the "If you like him don't sleep with him" model. What era is that from?
"if you like him, don't sleep with him" was the norm throughout the 30s-early 60s. of course, people have been doing just about everything imaginable forever; however, certain acts, like certain foods, gain popularity in particular eras. bjs were cutting edge (perversely, i like the image of cutting edge bjs) up until Clinton made them commonplace for gradeschoolers. boomers' kids have trended toward bisexuality (and self-mutilation). fashionable fuckers a few years back were all about anal.
the irony, june, is that requiring a chosen male to wait for sex actually does hold his interest and attention (if he's actually interested in You to begin with).
at least that's what i've read.
Post a Comment