that it has never NOT been around. There are only variations in emphasis.

As far as I'm concerned, a mandatory "Thou Shalt Not" is just as damaging as a mandatory "Thou Shall."

The important thing, as I see it, is for women to make their own decisions sensibly and by inalienable right, then follow through as carefully as possible.

Whatever those decisions happen to be.

The important thing, as I see it, is for women to make their own decisions sensibly and by inalienable right, then follow through as carefully as possible.

Hah! I wish I had an inalienable right to choose to have sex. The choice that should be inalienable is only the choice to say "no" - "yes" requires a partner, who should also be able to say "no"...

I read the article, and came away with a knot in the pit of my stomach for the Fredell girl. I just can't imagine spending years preaching the spiritual magic of intercourse, then finally getting to my wedding night and experiencing...well, reality. Not that it can't be all that they are making it out to be, but in my experience, that takes time and practice. Sometimes a lot of time. And in the meantime it's messy and sometimes boring and often uncomfortable and occasionally painful. I imagine she will feel seriously betrayed.

I would respect this movement a lot more if they would just say, "this is what my religion demands of me; it's a high price, but worth it." Virgins preaching the wonders of marital sex are profoundly ridiculous.

Cuz that's where Ted Haggard used to preside.

I'm just sayin', those with their noses highest up in the air are the ones having meth-head butt sex in private.

I read this article this morning and couldn't tear myself away from it, even though I had finished my coffee by page 3 out of 7. I think I know what Tracy is talking about with the brain bleeding. This is one of those pieces of writing that I can't help but argue with and resist with every fiber of my being as I'm reading it. It makes it physically difficult to read.

A few thoughts: Why does Janie Fredell think that she can make a more reasoned decision about whom to marry if she doesn't bond with them emotionally first? I hate to make the tired test-drive analogy, but doesn't everyone have a friend who waited until marriage, and then thought she was no good at sex until she had an affair? No? OK, how about this, raise your hand if you had the best sex of your life with your first partner? Anybody? Oh wait, now I'm preaching to the choir... of godless sodomites.

That argument aside, if she doesn't have that physical-emotional bonding to her future husband, the one induced by the oxcytocin, what guarantees that she ever will? You just have sex, and that will instantly induce feelings of love and warmth and attachment? She brags that if she goes through a breakup, she gets over it quickly, and she thinks that's less emotionally deadening than the alternative?

OK, and how about masturbation? She's never had an orgasm, and she thinks that she'll suddenly, magically, be having great sex when she gets married? Boy, is she in for disappointment. That's another reason that, at least for Fredell, the idea that this is feminist is a fallacy. She is not taking charge of her sexuality, she's avoiding it, because she's frightened of it, or disinterested. In either case, she's giving up control to her future husband, putting her entire sexuality on his shoulders.

Anyway, the thing I really wanted to talk about, before getting sidetracked, was, was this a balanced article? Or, perhaps I should ask, was this article fair? As I said, I simply was unable to read it objectively. As I was reading, I first asked myself why we weren't hearing from the people who could prove this was all BS. We are finally told that the arguments of True Love Revolution are not based on accurate information, and we get a few glib comments from the Harvard sex blogger, but did two paragraphs make up for the pages and pages of misinformation and completely backwards thinking? Or is TLR so obviously wrong that the author didn't even need to point it out? I did get a subtle wink-wink nudge-nudge feeling from the author, and a few juxtapositions toward the end, such as the comparison of Fredell's experience with her male counterpart's, felt like they might have been intentionally embarrassing. But I don't know if I would have been satisfied with anything less than outright editorial condemnation.

Anyway, I'm curious what others' thoughts on the bias or lack thereof in the Times article. Thanks for letting me hemorrhage all over the site.

Why on earth are so many people obsessing about how other woman manage their vaginas? If whatshername doesn't want to have sex, what does that have to do with me or anyone else? I'm not interested in having sex with her.

I notice that those who trumpet that safe sex still carries a risk of pregnancy fail to point out that correctly using two methods...say, a condom and foam, both easily available OTC...carries only a miniscule risk of pregnancy. But this "advocacy' isn't about pregnancy, I suppose; it's about winning some sort of control contest.

There was a study that demonstrated that having sex at an early age was associated with health/social problems later in life. (It didn't prove causation--just a correlation.) However, by "early sex" they meant kids who were having sex before they were 15. The same study also found a link between losing one's virginity at a later age (early 20s and up) and (gasp!) health/social problems. The kids who ended up being the healthiest adults were those who first started having sex in their mid-late teens (16-18). So it turns out that many of the peers they are criticizing might have the right idea after all! And since when is having sex in college considered early?

I agree with the other poster who commented that if she is expecting her first time (presumably her wedding night) to be some magical wonderful experience, she is in for major disappointment. Also, I was appalled by the abstinence groups' disapproval of gay sex and gay marriage. Although maybe I shouldn't have been surprised.