Comments on: The rich eroticism of the Song of Solomon http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/07/08/the-rich-eroticism-of-the-song-of-solomon/ Men's Rights Activism, MRA Politics, Analysis, Commentary and Global News Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:40:53 -1000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: lieweary http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/07/08/the-rich-eroticism-of-the-song-of-solomon/comment-page-1/#comment-64505 lieweary Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:52:49 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/?p=80315#comment-64505 I'm not sure I approve of this blatant display of heteronormativization. After all, it doesn't even have a five page discussion of whether or not the sex is consentual. There is no certified feminist social worker present to chaparone the groom "betwixt my breasts" to ensure he doesn't degrade her on his way to her "milk and honey beneath my tongue." This is yet another exercise in capitalism, patriarchy, and good old-fashioned jackoffery. These hoary-beared old men will never grow up. Save the wimmins! I’m not sure I approve of this blatant display of heteronormativization. After all, it doesn’t even have a five page discussion of whether or not the sex is consentual. There is no certified feminist social worker present to chaparone the groom “betwixt my breasts” to ensure he doesn’t degrade her on his way to her “milk and honey beneath my tongue.”

This is yet another exercise in capitalism, patriarchy, and good old-fashioned jackoffery. These hoary-beared old men will never grow up.

Save the wimmins!

]]> By: amfortas http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/07/08/the-rich-eroticism-of-the-song-of-solomon/comment-page-1/#comment-64482 amfortas Sat, 12 Jul 2008 06:27:54 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/?p=80315#comment-64482 Pornographic is an overstatement, of course, despite the "has been described as" by un-named sources - maybe even the ubiquitous 'they' of renown. But it sure is saucy. Even 'racy'. But not 'racial' or it would be banned. But it does glorify what feminists call 'Rape'. It is an incitement to men to cavort in the garden, making furrows and putting in their seed-prodders. And of course it is 'Patriarchal', softening up women to think it normal to have her bush trimmed and its 'purfume' (Hah !) sniffed when any scholar can see it is oppressive restriction on her natural growth and ability to be anything she wants. It treats women like an orchard, to be Exploited by Rapacious Capitalist canneries. For that reason it should be banned. Nay, burned. And there are other completely compelling reasons too. It completely marginalises homosexuals. There is not one literary allusion to collective seed-prod use and Stakhanovite teamwork. Such discriminatory passages must be edited out before another copy of this odious book is allowed on our library shelves. I mean, would you want your son to read this? Pornographic is an overstatement, of course, despite the “has been described as” by un-named sources – maybe even the ubiquitous ‘they’ of renown. But it sure is saucy. Even ‘racy’.

But not ‘racial’ or it would be banned.

But it does glorify what feminists call ‘Rape’. It is an incitement to men to cavort in the garden, making furrows and putting in their seed-prodders. And of course it is ‘Patriarchal’, softening up women to think it normal to have her bush trimmed and its ‘purfume’ (Hah !) sniffed when any scholar can see it is oppressive restriction on her natural growth and ability to be anything she wants. It treats women like an orchard, to be Exploited by Rapacious Capitalist canneries. For that reason it should be banned. Nay, burned.

And there are other completely compelling reasons too. It completely marginalises homosexuals. There is not one literary allusion to collective seed-prod use and Stakhanovite teamwork. Such discriminatory passages must be edited out before another copy of this odious book is allowed on our library shelves.

I mean, would you want your son to read this?

]]>