Why Do So Many In This Society Hate Sex?

This goes for both conservatives as well as liberals.  Extreme religious conservatives, as ludicrously displayed in the media, obviously hate sex.  They think sex is wrong, dirty, evil, sinful, rotten, and that you'll go to hell for it.  They don't even mention sex within a lawful marriage.

Why do liberals hate sex?  When it is in a healthy, mutually beneficial relationship?

Don’t know if anyone noticed, but liberals' opinions of sex are astoundingly similar to that of conservatives.’  Liberals also think sex is something dirty, shameful that one should be ashamed of doing.  They harbor a deep shame and resentment and self-hatred.  They manifest this self-resentment in their attitudes toward sex.

Liberals only approve of sex if it is in an unhealthy, sneaking around, fling, uncommitted, emotionless, unattached situation.  One-night stands, random drunken gropes in club bathrooms with strangers.  Sure, they have a lot of sex, but they carry over and display their deep shameful attitude into the sex they’re having.  They cringe and are incredibly embarrassed any time sex is mentioned within the context of marriage.  They cannot stand the idea that people in a sustained, monogamous, long-term relationship are having sex.

They embody this [[shame]]] so much that they take a perverse pride in this self-torture.  They roll around in its filth.  They wallow in it and claim that sex is never something that a happy couple would enjoy who are one hundred percent committed to each other.

Liberals hate sex that takes place within a loving, affectionate, and importantly, committed arrangement.  They cannot stand the idea that people in a sustained, monogamous, long-term relationship, preferably marriage, are having sex.  They are embarrassed whenever a married person talks about sex.  Look at all the comedians and the rag mags and the lad rags.  They expect people to think that promiscuity is the be-all and the end-all of sexual “freedom.”
If anyone ever does get married, this is a requiem bell of sex.

According to most liberals, if a person is pro-marriage this must mean they hate sex.  According to libs, a person could not possibly be pro-marriage and also enjoy sex.  Liberals absolutely cannot stand talking about sex within the context of marriage.  It is too uncool, it is too unsexy, it makes them feel too uncomfortable.

Liberals only approve of sex in damaged, unhealthy instances.  A one-night stand.  A casual booty call.  A casual encounter in which the two people do not look each other in the eye.  They do not acknowledge each other as fully-formed, flesh and blood human beings.  They do not regard the other's presence as a person with thoughts and feelings.

Extremist liberals say that marriage demeans women.  That family structure and values are demeaning and degrading to women.  That having sex with the same man every night is backwards, unprogressive, blah blah blah.  Holds females back, holds them down, oppresses them, keeps them from reaching their true potential or some sh’t.  It traps them.  It puts them in a cage, etc.

So many liberals are vehemently anti-marriage.  I don't quite get why.  Is this due to their own perceptions and experiences in life?  Are most liberals incapable of sustaining long-term healthy relationships, preferably marriage?
--
Liberals are worse than conservatives.  They say they like sex.  But then they only have it with a flash-in-the-pan encounter, a person they will never see again. 

They hate it so much that they can't bear to have it with the same person more than a few times.  They are so ashamed of it that they cannot stand to look at the same person many more times.  They distance themselves from sex emotionally, and they distance themselves from the sex partner.  They perform it, but they are so filled with fear that they cannot reconcile the sex with the emotional perception of it.

They are distraught, absolutely horrified, at the notion of a husband and wife actually having sex with each other.  It is a sort of perverse self-flagellation.  They internalize the guilt and fear and shame that extreme conservative society instilled in them while growing up.  It is really quite sad.  Sex without emotion, sex without feelings.

Interesting and Complex Women Characters In Storybooks

I have noticed this in a lot of stories.

The author is really gunning for the audience to think that the main character is someone that is absolutely perfect, angelic, popular, well-loved by everyone, well-liked by everyone, gets along with absolutely everyone, absolutely no one hates this person.  This person always has perfect social graces, never says anything that accidentally offends anyone, no one ever misinterprets this person's words and therefore has a mild vendetta against this person for life.

This is all mostly rubbish in the author's imagination.  This is simplistic, juvenile writing.  Nobody is that nice.  I have noticed that unbeknownst to the author, their main character in this situation is usually an insufferable, mealy-mouthed (not really sure what that expression means, but it probably fits) pain in the ass.

Example:  Elizabeth Wakefield from the Sweet Valley High books.

There are only a few times that a side character does not like the main character. If someone does not like the main character, it is revealed to be part of a huge evil plot to overthrow the main character's hypnotic psychological hold over the general population.  The general population is supposed to be in awe and fawn all over the main character.  And if they waiver for even one moment, this must be a sign that something is horribly wrong.
to throw [[[ cast aspersions??__chracter witness nonono ]]] on the main character's content of theri character.

Sorry, but nope.  I guess this is what is called a "deux ex machina."  The author thinks the only reason an auxiliary character would not get along with the main character is that there must be something horribly wrong with the auxiliary character.  This is amateurish, unsophisticated building of characters.

Now, if the writers breathed life into the main character by making her this way on purpose, then that would be perfectly fine.  A character could be incredibly judgmental, elitist, snobbish, nosy, and meddling -- all of which is okay if the character is aware of all that.  And the character could be happy with herself.  They don’t have to change who they are.

Or at least, the writers could make all the other characters aware of this, and the other characters, in their own stupidity, rebuke the main character's offers of help and support.  And that is okay if the character is meant to be that way.  As long as the story-makers keep the human interaction realistic.

But this appalling lack of self-awareness on the part of the authors is ingratiating.  Yes, being a good writer who has a firm grasp on all of these human behaviors is a form of self-awareness.  A person has to know human psychology to write believable characters and situations.

An excess of authors seem to be unaware of certain complexities, nuances, and truths of human behavior.  Two people who are perfectly nice, pleasant, good people simply might not get along with each other for whatever reason.  Maybe minor little mannerisms, little tiny inconsequential behaviors just rub some people the wrong way.

Shrug.  That's life.  Not everyone you meet is going to be your Best Friend Forever.  You can still be civil and polite towards them because that is required to maintain orderly society.  But you don't have to have anything to do with that person.

Authors don't seem to realize certain points about human behavior.

=====
Many authors also do not know how to make female characters intelligent nor interesting.

Sometimes they attempt to make their female characters a "sympathetic character" by making them "flawed."  The "flaw" is usually some dangerous self-destructive idiocy such as being a drunkard, being a druggie, being a slut.  Bleh.  Recall my essay here. [[link to grow up for real essay.||||||

The only methodology authors or entertainers employ to make a woman character a villain is that she is a slut.  That's it.  Due to the market overflow and gernal surplus of a lot of "strong female [*cough*] characters," I am guessing that a lot of the writers themselves are female.  Unfortunately this canned writing policy simply goes to show the dearth of originality, complete emptiness of imagination possessing the authors.  The only tactic they can cough up is that of the hackneyed "the only thing interesting about a female is sex.  And nothing else.  She does not need any other personalty traits; she does not need any personal morals, she does not need to be hell-bent on world domination.  Nope.  The only defining trait that a villainous woman should have is having self-destructive sexuality.

If they want to make a "complex, imperfect" good guy female character, they typically make her a slut.  Example:  the slut from "Men In Black."  If they want to create an "interesting, complex villain with lots of back story," they typically make her a slut with no career ambitions.  That's it.  They seem incapable of straying even half a millimeter away from this cookie-cutter mold of the slut.

Recall Anne Rice.  Even Anne Rice, the great vampire writer lady, did not dare venture away from making an interesting character that was staunchly male.  Her female characters were weak throwaway sluts.

Can we for once have a female villain whose sole defining qualifier for "villain" to not be "skank?"
What would really be interesting is if there were a powerful female villain who is married to her high school sweetheart.___]]]

I happened to catch the "Final Fantasy" movie on cable once.  I don't really remember the plot of the film, but I recall that the villain guy was pretty interesting.  He
Well, it was pretty cool that a scientist lady was one of the main characters in that movie, so I'm not going to complain about that.

Buffy the Vampire slayer.  Buffy is, frankly, boring.  Yeah, she is definitely, staunchly one of the "good guys."  The audience must love her or else.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with this character, or so we are told.

I don't ever watch the show.  (Wait, no, that's not entirely true.  I watched an episode once in 1999 I think, but I digress.)  I am tuned in enough to pop culture that I know the character of Angel exists.  I hate to admit it, but I approve of this character.  Now <that> is an interesting character that has a profound, complex personal dilemma.  He has a test of character and strength that he has to work through, from what I've heard.  That is a well-written character who struggles to try to maintain his humanity; who must wrestle with the fact that humans are his chow.  but humans are sentient, self-aware beings with whom he has to learn to interact and alongside whom he must live.  It is a profound moral conflict that he has to work thorough.

Buffy has no such complex moral dilemma that even comes close.  Kill vampires and that's it.  Vampires are evil and she is good.  End of thinking.  What exactly is supposed to make Buffy interesting?  What moral dilemma must Buffy face?  whether or not to have sex with vampires?  That's it?  Are we supposed to find it fascinating that she has sex with vampires?  Seriously?

So again, here we see yet another demonstration that when asked about interesting female characters, people's minds automatically go to only one place.

Here is how they could have made the Buffy character truly complex.  Have her have a sickening hatred of vampires.

She could be prejudiced to the point that she could be considered "racist" against vampires.  She would dismiss suggestions of trying to get to know one on a human level -- as being foolhardy, naive, dangerous.  You're kidding, right?  "Get to know one?"  They kill humans for a living, for Christ's sake.  She would never entertain the idea of becoming friends with one, and she sure as hell would never sleep with one.
--to the point that sheh has become a totalitarion all-powerful governemtn.

You're getting uncomfortable, aren't you?  <Noooo Buffy is not allowed to be racist, i.e., she not allowed to have flaws of character that truly are seen as flaws in the liberal-bent minds of the people.  She should be too caring and too welcoming.... blah blah.>

A pox on that.  I say that if she ever were to meet a character like Angel, they could possibly reach an uneasy truce.  But it would never blossom into a summer romance or romantic comedy or romance novel or any of that simple-mindedness.

Are there any interesting, complex female characters on the show?  I know that Buffy has a slutty, bitchy friend who wears really short skirts and tons of makeup.  (Crickets chirping.)  That's it?  A female that has no defining personality characteristics other than being an irritating slut?  This is the extent to which the writers think__

See, this is exactly what I was writing about earlier.  Authors rarely concoct a female character that is genuinely interesting.  Authors' typical stockroom [[[polymer nono __]] go-to is a female that

There is a hot lady character on CSI that I am guessing they attempt to make her interesting, and they did this by making her a former... stripper.  They did this by noting that the character used to be ...a stripper.  (Rolling my eyes.)

They could have instead tried strengthening and working their creative muscles, you know, by actually making a multilayered woman character.

You know what would really make a woman character flawed in an interesting way?  Make her a political double-crosser.  Have her be someone who has allied with the rebel base and lets the rebels think they are gaining independence.  But this woman used to work for the regime in power, and she still has secret ties with them.  And this person is feeding information to the regime.  This person is doing all of this for the purpose of a giant chess game in which she is truly, at the core, leveraging for power for herself.

But she should have strong personal convictions so that she would in no way compromise her own morals in her own personal life.