Posts By A. Marcotte Re Various Topics E.G.: Pre-Marital Sex, Virginity, Modesty Teachings, Marriage, Divorce, Childfree, Birth Control, Early Marriage, Gender Roles, Sexual Harassment, Female Libido, etc
Please remember that I am right wing and respect people remaining virgins until marriage, but this woman, Marcotte, is left wing, and in at least one of her posts, she slightly mocked the concept of virginity (see, left wing feminists will defend any and all sexual choices to the hilt except for voluntary virginity / celibacy), but, I do agree with her in part in some other areas.
Posts by By Amanda Marcotte:
(Link): The Case Against Marrying Young
(I’m not going to argue the content of this next link to death, but, liberals and some Non Christians are ALSO very SEX OBSESSED, only in the opposite direction from conservative Christians, and some liberal and Non Christian views about sex are just as wrong and damaging to women and society):
(Link): Conservative Sex Obsession Hurts Both Boys and Girls
This is one of her essays where I’m not in total agreement. I do think there is some merit to the conservative “why buy the cow when the milk is free” sex argument, but she spends part of this mocking that concept:
(Link): Are Men Getting Away With Too Much Sex? A New Austin Think Tank Says Yes.
This is about marriage:
(Link): New Study Reveals Secret to Romantic Success, and It Doesn’t Sound So Hard to Achieve
I’m not fine with this next story. My understanding of marriage and divorce is not as strict as that of other Christians – if your marriage is not working out, you’re unhappy, or your spouse is abusing you (mentally, physically or financially), you have a right to divorce the bum, and I wish my fellow conservatives would stop thinking making divorce laws tougher will necessarily equate to strong, happy marriages:
(Link): Republicans Are Quietly Trying to Kill No-Fault Divorce
(Link): You Know What Turns an Unstable Relationship into a Stable One? Not a Wedding Ring.
Excerpts from a few of the pages:
Anna North at BuzzFeed reported Tuesday on a study by psychological researchers Bobbi Carothers and Harry Reis, which demonstrates that, on a series of personality traits that are typically understood as gender-specific, men and women overlap far more than many people and most network TV shows would like to believe.
There were some gender differences—there are more assertive men than women, for instance—but the significant overlap was such that, contrary to public opinion, one could not predict a person’s gender very well based on their personality traits.
- Ever since it became less socially acceptable to argue openly that women—at least white, middle-class women—owe it to men to curtail our professional ambitions in favor of a life as our husbands’ support staff, conservatives started to panic about declining birth rates.
If women don’t start making more babies, they dimly warn, the country is headed for catastrophe as the workplace empties out of workers and retirees suck up all the money and people stop caring about the future. (Because we can’t care about the children we do have unless we have more of them, for some reason.)
To save America, women, especially those aforementioned pesky middle-class, white women, are going to have to start having more babies at a younger age, the argument goes. That this demand means that women will end up curtailing their ambitions and moving into the support-staff role is simply a coincidence, of course. Nothing to see here.
…. I’d argue instead that if the system is set up so that it fails if women don’t start popping out more kids, then it’s a broken system and should be reworked to account for the reality of America today.
If women don’t want to have more children, then instead of abandoning women’s equality as a goal, we should rework our economic system so it doesn’t rely on a steadily growing population to function. After all, the point of society is to serve the people in it, not to reduce us to cogs in a machine that serves no one at all.
- Arizona state Sen. Steve Yarbrough has introduced a bill that would allow businesses that are sued for discrimination to claim an exemption from anti-discrimination law based on their religious beliefs.
Or, put more simply, if a business owner decides not to serve you, he or she can say it’s because your presence offends Jesus and can, if this bill becomes law, get away with that. In fact, the bill may even give employers the right to deny you a job because they think God doesn’t approve of you.
Howard Fischer, interviewing Yarbrough for the Sierra Vista Herald, asked Yarbrough how far-reaching this legislation could get:
But Yarbrough said his legislation could also be interpreted broader than that, allowing motel operators with vacant rooms to refuse to rent to gays.
Potentially more significant, Yarbrough acknowledged there may be individuals [who] have religious beliefs about unmarried women, or even employing people who do not share their same beliefs.
Related posts this blog:
(Link): Stop Rewarding People For Their Failure – Christians Speaking Out of Both Sides of Their Mouths About Sexual Sin – Choices and Actions and How You Teach This Stuff Has Consequences – Allowing Sinners To Re-Define Biblical Terms and Standards
(Link): Typical Erroneous Teaching About Adult Celibacy Rears Its Head Again: To Paraphrase Speaker at Ethics and Public Policy Center: Lifelong Celibacy is “heroic ethical standard that is not expected of heteros, so it should not be expected of homosexuals”