If it’s gay men doing it, it’s disgusting. If it’s attractive women doing it, it’s late night entertainment.
Bingo. Hold on there; there's a ton of women, chicks who love the romantic sex, or Sex In the City thing. Let's not exclude the largest consumer group of all consumer groups.
The whole open "sex" thing needs to go back into the closet and in brown paper wrapped bags times.
We've 40 years since the Libertine liberal Sex Freedom movement and all it's proven is that "adults" can't handle sex - it's too hot for them to handle responsibly. They can't handle it.
Open borders, so to speak, just doesn't work.
I don't concur with the Nanny state, either. But the sexual revolution was a complete and utter bust. (no pun intended)
The Castro District in San Francisco was the beginning, the precursor of the Sanctuary City of San Francisco. The Castro was the first "sanctuary" of the socialist left.
I agree with you. The sexual “revolution” has failed. And it should go back to brown paper wrapping. Partly, in my opinion, because sex is way more “sexy” when it’s a bit mysterious and dare I say, hard to get. Of course, sex and pornography and access to either are separate issues for most folks. But when you think about it, both are more valuable when access takes some work.
Part of the problem with in-your-face sex, aside from people not being able to handle it, is that the novelty eventually wears off and you need something more extreme to keep it exciting. And it’s a downhill slide from there.
Latent? Sounds like what a whole slew of analysts from that era were preaching. And it’s bogus.
I believe Sex & the City is pushing the limits for mainstream women. It’s sexual, but it’s not graphic, meaning there’s no actual penetration depicted and no male nudity. I think that’s fine for most women. We can “handle” verbal/written sex - talking about it, reading about it, but when it comes to actually watching the act graphically, many draw the line.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on the Sanctuary City thing, too.