THE IDEA that women suffered sexual frustration for millennia is central to feminism, as I mentioned here. The human race lived in darkness for thousands of years. Then a few enlightened men and women came along and introduced pleasure to half of humanity. Before that sex was just glorified rape.

Lawrence Auster writes:

Here’s a typical example of the attitude you discuss. In the painfully bad but very successful movie, “Shakespeare in Love,” the female protagonist, played by Gwyneth Paltrow, has just spent her first night with a man. In the morning, her elderly maid servant knocks on her chamber door, and Paltrow opens it and declares, “It’s a new world!” (Of course she pronounces “world” in the English, not the American, manner.) 

The suggestion is that sex never existed before and she has just discovered it. In reality, the human experience of having sexual relations for the first time is not that one is discovering something that no one has ever known before, but that one is now, at last, joining in something that the rest of humanity has been doing all along. But that simple reality doesn’t fit the liberal view, in which a thing can be affirmed only insofar as it is experienced as a revolutionary overturning of the dead, oppressive past. The notion of participating in a good that has been there all along is alien to the liberal mind, or at least it must be translated into liberal terms in order to be acceptable.

Laura writes:

An immense amount of propaganda is necessary to make sex revolutionary. Our ancestors were not only wrong about most everything, they hardly had any fun. We needed people like Dr. Laura Berman to come along and free us. 

 James H. writes:

I grew up, and am still, a Catholic. I can’t tell you how many gatherings I’ve attended where, after extolling the virtues of abortion and the epicurean lifestyle, I’ve been told by lapsed Catholics, too sophisticated to be constrained by the troglodytes in Rome, that the Catholic Church instilled guilt in them thereby forever crushing their sexual expression and enjoyment. When I suggested the possibility that perhaps their behavior warranted guilt I was invariably met with cries of outrage, disdain and disgust. 

It occurs to me that the capacity for sexual enjoyment varies considerably from person to person, as does the capacity for happiness and contentment. We’ve been sold a bill of goods by the purveyors of illicit sexual pleasures. We’ve been told we’re sexual animals and should be rutting 24/7, women should be multi-orgasmic and men should be sexual athletes capable of delivering euphoric pleasures at the drop of a hat. 

Of course, as is everything promoted by the left, this is just another deceit. As I mentioned, some people have a greater capacity for enjoyment of sexual pleasures than others. If you happen to be lower on the scale of sexual enjoyment, what better scapegoat than religion and the hoary old goblin, guilt, to blame for what is rightfully your birthright! Why, if it wasn’t for religion you’d be one of those sexual pleasure machines. It was guilt promoted by your parents, culture and religion that are to blame. Instead of discovering, appreciating and being grateful for what they’ve been given, instead of being thankful to a merciful God these folks nurture feelings of seething resentment towards just about any target imaginable because they’re not the sexual pleasure machines they see every single day on TV and in the movies. 

Same goes for happiness. If you’re not deliriously happy 24/7 then, darn it, someone’s to blame. Maybe it’s that wife who has stifled your happiness quotient. Maybe it’s the kids. Or your job. No need to cultivate an attitude of gratitude and thankfulness when you can gripe and grouse about being denied that to which you are so clearly entitled – happiness and fulfillment seen every day on TV and in the movies by those courageous enough to shed the shackles of bourgeois society. ALL these pleasures can be yours if you simply reject all that’s gone before, the accumulated wisdom of the past. 

There is no more potent and toxic a dissolver of culture and society than the promise of unlimited sexual pleasure and happiness for resentment and entitlement necessarily ensue. The suggestion that sex is more enjoyable today than it was in the past is precisely the opposite of the truth as our reason and historical analysis (through literature) inform us. Just in my own life, I can tell you that the pleasure associated with discovering sex for the first time as though it was my own personal discovery far outweighs the mechanized coupling taking place today. It is precisely our capacity for imbuing our sexuality with spirituality and mystery that elevates it to the sublime. These kids today have no idea what they missed and are missing. They are being consciously stripped of their humanity in an effort to render them more malleable for the Utopians and social engineers.

Laura writes:

If sex were only a matter of mechanics, then this might be one of the most enlightened periods in history. But as James H. says,”It is precisely our capacity for imbuing our sexuality with spirituality and mystery that elevates it to the sublime.”

Jacob M. writes:

I’ve been reading your recent entries on feminism and sex, and I thought you might like to know, if you didn’t already, that Laura Berman is not a physician. I went to her website, read the About page, and learned that she is a social worker with a Ph.D. in “Health Education and Therapy.” I’m not opposed to Ph.D.’s being called “doctor” in the relevant setting, e.g., college professors interacting with their students, but it irks me as a medical student when non-physicians strut around hospitals wearing white coats and calling themselves “doctor,” because you know they’re trying to appropriate the authority traditionally accorded to physicians.

Laura writes:

Yes, I did know that about her and agree that it is an outrage. I should have put her title in quotes. It merely adds to her sham persona. 

Shyla LeFever writes:

Jacob M. is mistaken about the history and authority of the title “Dr.”

Without getting into too much detail of the long–and interesting only to some–history of the title “Dr.”, the title originates from the Latin doctoris, which means “teacher.” It has been used for more than 1,000 years in Europe as a title for academics studying law, theology, and medicine. These three fields are the historical division of university study, the nature of which has changed since its inception (for example, the first academic degrees were all law degrees, and the first degrees were all doctorates). Because of the change of the nature of study in these three areas, the titles of degrees have evolved, so that the Ph.D. is actually in the tradition of the earliest doctorates, while the M.D. is for those who want to work in a particular capacity in the medical profession. The title “Dr.” was traditionally reserved for academics who were in middle age, indicating a life dedicated to knowledge and the spread of knowledge.

In a nutshell, the Ph.D. is an academic and research degree, while an M.D. is a professional degree. Ph.D.s teach M.D.s. I might agree with Jacob M.’s idea that it is appropriate to address Ph.Ds. as “Dr.” only in the context of their professional settings–and as one who has a Ph.D., I would add that I am often addressed as “Mrs.,” which suits me fine–if Mr. M. is prepared to be addressed as “Dr.” only when he is practicing medicine.

Laura writes:

Thank you for that clarification.

It is true that Laura Berman’s use of the title does not violate its traditional meaning. You are right. The real problem in connection with the title is that white lab coat Berman wears, and the nature of the advice she dispenses.

Given her field of sex treatment and research, and given that “Dr.” is so often equated with the M.D. in common usage, the title gives the impression that she has been to medical school and has had clinical medical experience. When she tells women to, say, have sex with themselves for their health or couples to play sex games, it comes with an aura of authority it might not have in a world where “Dr.” is more often used for Ph.D.’s.

Dr. LeFever writes:

I completely agree with you that the lab coat is objectionable. I find it difficult to believe that Laura Berman does not know people will believe she is speaking from a medical perspective. Frankly, I find her bio alarming–she is an assistant professor in clinical psychiatry and obstetrics/gynecology? What does that even mean? Does she perform gynecological exams? Teach them? Stand back and watch them? And, how many people are taking her advice about sexual behavior and wondering why their relationships are still unsatisfying? 

John Purdy writes:

One further small note on the title “Doctor.” The historical background provided was interesting but up here in Canada the title academics in non-medical fields use is “Professor.” It seems to be an American custom to call all Ph.D.s doctor. Calling yourself a “Doctor” when you are not a physician is considered pretentious.

Please follow and like us: