I can't believe it, but two of the last three posts on BS discuss sex, completely absent any "sex is icky" or "men are disgusting" comments at all.

I'm stunned. Has a new day arrived for BS where I can enthusiastically agree with the feminism without having to defend my gender against "dirty old perverts" attacks?

I'm very hopeful!

are more fun to be around?

All those in favor?

laughs.

What great idea have Ms Maria! For sure she should be Broadsheet woman for week!

But why back off from orgasm decree? Say all women have right for orgasm and if no have then can give man yellow card like in soccer. If get three yellow card for no orgasm get red card and have for take remedial course on woman satisfy at Department of Sexual Transport.

I think this woman is smart enough to know that putting a woman's right to sexual pleasure into the nation's Constitution is ridiculous and bound to generate outrage -- and that's exactly the point. To shake up the status quo, you need to do some shaking. It gets people talking and arguing and, in the end, thinking. That's part of how you make change.

I'm all for a national policy of highlighting that sex should be pleasurable for women. Sounds like a fantastic idea, every country should do this. Men who disagree are complete idiots (presumably they've never brought a woman to orgasm, so they don't know the difference).

But in the constitution? I mean, next to "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." (or whatever the Equadorian version is)? Make it a federal law or part of the school curriculum or something, but save the constitution for, you know, the form of government and the inherent rights of a free society and stuff like that (and yes, I know female sexual pleasure could be said to be a inherent right, but it's awfully specific to be enumerated, don't you think?) Maybe a more general "Everyone has a right to make decisions about their own body"-clause, that ensures includes the right to abortion, having consensual sex with anyone you want, etc. etc.

Then she has her sexual satisfaction.

Or are they meaning EVERY MAN IN THE COUNTRY also gets free and easy access to prostitutes who will guarantee the men 'sexual satisfaction'?

The problem with these retarded laws is they begin well meaning (or PRETEND to be well meaning) then their TRUE FANGS come out and they become cudgels with which to beat men (and ONLY MEN) over the head with.

This is one way women sneak shit past men then force the issue over and over while the men suffer inder a law they have not a clue how or why it got there in the first place. (and of course the women try to derail the questioning, pretending it was the men who wanted this law. TWISTED and EVIL, I know..)

Then again, make the law GENDER NEUTRAL and we can talk about setting up the legions of free whores in order to guarantee that ALL the men are sexually satisfied, EVEN the ugly nasty ones nobody wants.

Every time, I think Tracy Hyphenated-Lastname has bottomed out. Every time, I think she's surely written the dumbest thing she possibly can.

Wrong, every time!

n/t

she wants to educate people that women should enjoy orgasms? Ok...what if the guy takes the class, disagrees and doesn't worry about the woman's orgasm? Aside from not getting any anymore, does he go to jail?

What if the woman is frigid? Is that a punishable offense?

This is just plain stupid.

Just as in cases of maternal child abuse or domestic violence inflicted by a women on a man, the man is responsible.

No need for accountability and agency when you can blame a man for your bad decisions.

Welcome to the post-feminist utopia.

Politicians Fight AGAINST Men's Pleasure

This much is self evident, that unless you have enough money to bribe your government into making laws in your favor, if you are MALE, you are shit out of luck.

Silly Tracy, Ecudor is currently experiencing one of the most radical moments in its modern history under Evo Morales (who I happen to think rocks). Still, the one thing I agree with the Conservatives on is keeping the government out of the bedroom. It's kind of a silly idea to write pleasure into a country's constitution, no?

I totally mixed up Ecuador and Bolivia today... that's what happens when you mix lack of sleep with too much of the Brian Lehrer show... but Rafael Correa is still a bit of a radical (wants to cancel IMF debt, sided with Chavez and Morales vs. Colombia, etc)... and I still think it's a bad idea to legislate pleasure.

In conservative Ecuador, that's a dangerous political platform; and that's why, even though I realize it's only Monday, I'm nominating Maria Soledad Vela as Broadsheet's woman of the week.

Because Ecuador has solved all its other problems. This politician sounds about as serious as Cicciolina and likely to have as good a career. Anybody remember Pat Paulsen?

This is your 2nd post about oral sex. Do you eat with that mouth? YUCK! Hope you're keeping Listerine plenty of Listerine on hand...

Being blamed for everything is SOP for any husband...starts when he gets married and just goes downhill from there.

My only question is, what are the penalites? Heck, this may do away with marriage forever. Yep, the post-feminist utopia, indeed.

...in Jewish marriage. Sexual satisfaction is one of a married woman's rights according to Judaism; it's in the kesuba (marriage contract observant Jews use) and everything. Traditionally, husbands have different requirements based on if their jobs are physically strenuous or not. But it a husband doesn't do his duty, so to speak, it's grounds for his wife to ask for a divorce.

"But it a husband doesn't do his duty, so to speak, it's grounds for his wife to ask for a divorce."

And can she take half (or MORE) of everything if she DOES divorce him under Jewish law?