views and thoughts on topics, especially ones pertaining to christianity – with an emphasis on how most christians either ignore or discriminate against unmarried christians – and how christians have turned marriage and parenting into IDOLS and how there is no true support for sexual purity, virginity, or celibacy among christians – this is a blog for me to vent; I seldom permit dissenting views. I don't debate dissenters ————-
It’s something that happened when I began to focus on myself and stopped looking for a Netflix-and-chill buddy.
It happened gradually and I only thought about it every so often ― when couples held on to each other scurrying across a windy parking lot, or when love scenes got a little too vivid during a Friday night movie.
Mostly, though, sex just never occurred to me as something I was missing in my life.
Conservatives Have Now Abandoned All Pretense of Advocating For Sexual Abstinence and They Actually Lament the Lack of Fornication – The Bradford Wilcox Piece, 2019
The following piece at The Atlantic (“The Happiness Recession”) was written by marriage-idolater and anti-singleness bigot of The Institute for Family Studies, W. Bradford Wilcox, and co-writer Lyman Stone.
I’d like to remind any new-comers to this blog that I am a life long conservative. I am not a liberal.
Marriage Is Not A Guarantee For Good or Regular Sex
This moronic essay actually suggests that single adults having less sex is what has led to them reporting higher rates of unhappiness, if I’m understanding things correctly.
This, astonishingly, from a right wing organization, (Link): The Institute For Family Studies, that claims to promote “strong families,” and good Lord knows they are obsessed with promoting marriage, even if that comes at the expense of singleness.
The members of this organization regularly publish materials intended to scare, guilt, shame, or pressure single adults into getting married, because this organization exists to promote the nuclear family: hetero-marriage where the couple have children.
“Bachelor” contestant Ashley Iaconetti on why a girl can act sexy without, you know, having sex.
Apparently I can’t be a virgin because I have my belly-button pierced. Or because I live in New Jersey. Or because I kissed Chris Soules “like that” during my appearance on The Bachelor. During my time on the show, social media was flooded with absurd judgements and arguments as to why I couldn’t possibly be a virgin.
It’s been odd and frustrating to see people debate the status of my hymen (!) on Twitter — seriously, people, that’s what you’re using your time tweeting about? And many people don’t just doubt my claim, but flat-out declare I’m a liar.
….I believe a girl can be sexy without having sex.
by B. Wong
“You can go without sex. That’s much less of a problem than going through life alone, and without affection.”
It’s Not You, It’s Me is a series that looks at dating in America from the perspective of different ethnicities, sexual identities, life experiences and circumstances.
Forget butt play or the pull-out method: The latest trend in sex might be forgoing it altogether.
According to a recent study out of University College London, millennials are waiting longer to have sex than members of previous generations, with 12.5 percent of them abstaining until age 26.
But some wait even longer than that. We recently talked to three people who have remained virgins well into their 30s — one by choice, the other two by happenstance. Below, they tell us more about how they’ve remained abstinent this long and what it’s like to date when you’ve never had sex.
Responses have been edited for clarity and style, with last names withheld for privacy.
People remain virgins for so many different reasons. For you, was it an intentional choice to abstain from sex?
Brianna, a 35-year-old programmer from Indianapolis, Indiana:
My reasons are a bit of a mixed bag.
I was raised very conservatively and was told that sex before marriage was a sin, so that kept me a virgin for a while. Then, when I outgrew that thinking, it was a matter of waiting to find someone I felt comfortable enough with to consider that next step.
It just hasn’t happened. I date and have had a couple of relationships get as far as three months or so, but no one long term. So, I’m still a virgin.
Matt, a tech industry worker in his mid-30s who lives in Lansing, Michigan:
I grew up with fairly severe social anxiety, which I’ve never completely overcome. I had some early rejections in late high school and early college that completely ruined what self-esteem I had.
‘Bachelorette’ Star Shamed For His Virginity Defends Himself
Yeah, see, both secular and (Link):Christian culture mocks, de-values, and shames virginity, celibacy, as well as virgin and celibate people.
So, when I see some Christians or (Link): secular feminists rattling on and on about how society supposedly “slut shames” all women for their sexual behavior, I’m not so sure.
Society has even become a tad more tolerant towards asexual adults.
But God help you if you’re an adult who has voluntarily chosen to sexually abstain for whatever the reason, then both secular and Christian culture will mock you, question you, suspect there’s something weird or freaky or repressed about you.
And, people who do sexually abstain are expected to tolerate and accept any and all sexual behavior by others – we’re supposed to be non-judgmental about people who have a lot of casual sex, or who engage in homosexual behavior, or what have you. But no such tolerance is shown to adult virgins or celibates.
This guy should not be shamed for being a virgin.
He should not have to “defend” himself over this.
All you people out there who may be mocking or insulting this guy for his sexuality status can go get bent.
Colton Underwood, a 26-year-old retired NFL player and ex-boyfriend of Olympian Aly Raisman, has been in the spotlight on the most recent season of the Bachelorette for being the one out-and-proud virgin on the show, and has gotten quite a bit of flack for it.
During Monday night’s “Men tell All” episode, some of the other guys had some particularly nasty comments regarding Underwood’s virginity.
I was reserving sexual activity for marriage. I’ve never had sexual intercourse. I was expecting to be married but never found Mr. Right.
I do have a libido.
Contrary to what Christians ASSUME about older virgins, Celibacy, being sexually abstinent for as long as I’ve been, is not “a gift” where God granted it to me and supernaturally removed my libido and makes it easy-breezy to cope with.
For many years, I was dedicated to remaining a virgin until marriage, due to Christian ethics, (these days I’m semi-agnostic), but also due to other reasons as well, which I shall not get into here but have explained in older posts on the blog.
In the last ten or so years, I’ve seen a disturbing trend where secular, liberal feminist views about sex have trickled into liberal Christian corners, where there is much railing against “slut shaming” and there is strong opposition to judging any woman for her sexual behavior or choices.
This trend became so common that these same views, disturbingly, began appearing on liberal Christian blogs and sites, whose progressive, feminist, Christian authors began writing editorials saying virginity is of no import, God only cares about your heart and spiritual purity, and God does not care so much anyone’s sexual behavior, (Link): intact hymen, or sexual past.
This anti- sexual purity thinking (which includes the down-playing, condemning, or mocking of physical virginity and adult celibacy) has even crept into mainstream moderate- to- conservative churches and Christian writing and thinking, unfortunately.
I don’t agree with all the views of the woman named Kenney who is quoted in this. Kenney wrongly assumes that being a virgin, or choosing to be one due to religious reasons or what have you, makes you repressed, or she assumes you have been brain-washed by the patriarchy.
The article makes a point that people who read about her story on social media were “divided” about it.
If people are touchy about virginity and celibacy it’s because most of the culture is extremely sexualized, puts far too much weight on sex, assumes that having sex is necessary to be “normal” or to be mature. Further, any and all forms of sexual acts have been normalized by broader culture now to the point that anyone who chooses not to partake in the hedonistic sexual free-for-all is thought to be a weirdo, loser, or wet blanket.
I’m expect to support and respect the behavior of people who have kinky sex, homosexual sex, promiscuous sex, etc and what all, but all the people who demand me expect that refuse to respect adult virginity or adult celibacy.
Millennial Explains Why She’s Still A Virgin at 27 Years Old: “It’s Partly Circumstance, It’s Partly Choice’
“I think it’s partly circumstance and partly choice,” she told hosts Holly Willoughby and Phillip Schofield.
“I think when it comes to losing your virginity there are two camps of thought, when one wants it to mean something and wait for the right person, and obviously some people don’t care.
“I guess I was in the first category, I wasn’t looking for the man I was going to marry, but I wanted something that wasn’t going to be a one night stand, a connection more than sex. I guess I just never found the right person.”
Thoughts on the NRO Essay “Advice For Incels” by Kevin D. Williamson
About me and this blog:
If you are new to my blog: I have been a conservative my entire life. I’ve never voted Democrat. I was a Republican until a few years ago. I am no longer in any political party.
I sometimes critique secular, left wing feminists on my blog (such as but not limited to (Link): this post and (Link):this one), but there are times when I believe other conservatives get feminists wrong, and feminists are actually correct on some issues.
I was brought up in a traditional values, conservative, Christian family where my parents brought me to Southern Baptist churches as I was growing up, where I was taught to believe in gender complementarianism, which I did for many years, until I finally realized how (Link): wrong and sexist complementarianism is.
Because I grew up as a complementarian, I am quite familiar with what they think and why they think as they do.
My current religious beliefs are somewhat “up in the air,” as I am waffling between being agnostic, (or a deist), and the Christian faith. (Note: I am not an atheist.)
I am by no means anti- Nuclear Family, anti- motherhood, or anti- marriage, though I do posit that many to most conservatives – especially the religious ones – have gone to un-biblical lengths and have turned the Nuclear Family, marriage, natalism, and motherhood and fatherhood into idols which is wrong of them.
— end introduction to me and this blog —
I saw a link to this essay go through my Twitter feed today:
On one level, this essay – “Advice for Incels” was okay.
However, I think that while the guy who wrote it has his heart in the right place, I think he gets a lot of things wrong and is naive about how Baptist and conservative Protestant and evangelical churches are for adult singles.
I’ve spent the last several years on this blog covering these topics – I’d encourage Williamson and anyone who read his NRO piece to read the books (Link): “Singled Out” by Field and Colon and“Quitting Church” by Christian author Julia Duin for even more information.
A Response to the Editorial “America Needs a New Sexual Revolution” by Melissa Mackenzie
I guess Ms. Mackenzie drank from the Gender Complementarian Kool-Aid, or something like it.
The complementarian world is a world in which one is taught there are only two options concerning women (I know this because (Link): I used to be one myself for many years):
-either be and live as a traditional values person who believes all women are, or should be, passive, dainty, and delicate and should marry young and have children, or, -be and live as a bra-burning, man-hating, liberal feminist.
I present a third option, which is hated by some liberals (when I bring it to their attention), and it’s an option that is never even considered by other conservatives, which is as follows:
I am a right wing woman who rejects sexism, and finds fault in both the left and right wing on some women’s issues, but who also sees some merit to some arguments on either side, depending on the topic.
In this blog post, I am commenting upon this editorial on The American Spectator:
A foundation of the opening of this editorial rests upon a presupposition that, and to paraphrase my understanding of the author’s perspective:
“Everything that is wrong today in regards to culture, sex, marriage, dating, and women, is liberal, secular, FEMINISM, and feminism is EVIL! One can directly trace the downfall of American sexual morality to the feminism of the 1960s!!”
Such thinking is a common trope in about every right wing publication I’ve ever read on these subjects.
To that point, about feminism supposedly being to blame for all of society’s marital or sexual problems, I would ask you to read this off-site post, which is by a Christian (not by a left wing, secular feminist):
There’s a coarsening of relationships between men and women, parents and children, and people with each other.
// end MacKenzie quotes ///
I don’t think secular, left wing feminism was the start of the “coarsening of relationships between men and women” but is a response to it.
One can read the Old Testament of the Bible, which dates back several thousand years, to see men raping their own sisters, owning harems of women (in some cases, women having no choice but to be in a harem, or to be a concubine), and men committing adultery. There was no 1960s, American- style feminism around in Biblical days.
In a post-Christian, secular society in Britain which now supports gay marriage and gay sexuality, the LGBQ (not speaking for I or T) movement no longer sits as the true minority. The angry persecution of people of faith is fundamentalist secularism exposed for all to see.
….I am all for secularity, but not secularism; the ideology that says you are accepted in our value of diversity as long as you agree with me.True secularity says I might not agree with you but I support you in my value for diversity, a value Tim Farron embodied so graciously.
Instead, affirmative views on gay marriage within and outside the walls of the church have such political power that anyone who disagrees has been made the new minority. The Church is so petrified to represent its view, it hides in cowardice. Tim Farron is one of those who didn’t hide and was honest. Tim, I stand with you.
I happen to represent the thousands of British Christians who are gay and celibate.
We, like Farron, often experience vitriolic backlash, not just from secuarlists but now from our own churches.
We don’t belong in all of the ‘happy’ activist Christian societies that are ramming down the walls of the Church for marriage equality. We simply want Jesus Christ to be Lord of the Church, and his Word to be trusted and his Spirit welcomed.
“Jesus Didn’t Die to Save My Hymen” Declares An Anti-Sexual Purity Advocate – My Response
I have addressed topics similar to this before on my blog, so instead of re-hashing all my previous points and arguments, I may just link you to a few of my older posts farther below.
(I should perhaps mention that I’ve had a long day today, am very tired, and currently have a bad headache, so I am not in top form to compose a post right now.)
Here’s the impetus behind this post:
I was reading through my Twitter feed today and saw a post where Janet Mefferd, Christian radio host, shared a comment about how an anti-Sexual Purity article Tweeted by Christian site ‘Relevant’ was Gnostic in nature, in that it talked about ‘sexual soul purity’ vs. ‘sexual bodily purity.’
You can read Mrs. Mefferd’s Tweet (Link): here, with some responses by me below it.
Where-upon an anti-Sexual Purity advocate I follow on Twitter by the name of April, shared Ms. Mefferd’s Tweet or another related Tweet by Mefferd with the comment above it, “Jesus didn’t die to save my hymen.”
This editorial by Bryan, which was originally published on The Washington Post, did not sit well with writer Aimée Lutkin over at left wing feminist site Jezebel. Lutkin spends much of her post summarizing Bryan’s editorial.
Being happy and fulfilled and a woman at the same time does not automatically make one a feminist.
….Considering Bryan’s scholarly pursuits and her immersion in purity culture, it seems likely that her choices are influenced more by her Catholicism than the fight for equality between the sexes.
But hey, if Bryan feels free to disregard the needs of men to pursue goals like learning to scull on the Potomac and working a job she says is the best she’s had in her life, perhaps she has achieved her idea of equality through sexual abstinence.
In a world that frequently feels like it specifically wants to make women miserable, feeling some measure of happiness as an independent woman is a triumph. But although equality is a kind of triumph, triumph is not necessarily equality. Bryan says:
…Personally, my feminist dream definitely includes lots of consensual, joyful, sexual congress outside of marriage, without shame or religious condemnation, but we’re all dreaming a different dream.
Regarding this comment by Lutkin:
But hey, if Bryan feels free to disregard the needs of men…
I’m sorry, but what? Since when is sex a “need,” and who of the female sex cares if men are going without sex? Women are not obligated to give men sex to meet their supposed “need for sex.”
I thought feminists fought against men objectifying women to be used as sex objects? I thought feminists at Jezebel like to say, “Men, we don’t care about your boners.” Now, here we have a feminist writer at Jezebel telling women that they really need to care about men’s boners.
I note that left wing feminists are arrogant enough to think they alone get to determine and define for other women what feminism is.
When Jerome, the Catholic priest and scholar, arrived in Rome in the middle of the fourth century, he discovered a circle of noblewomen living in elaborate homes on the Aventine Hill who were nothing like their neighbors.
They’d given up their silk clothes and pearl earrings, the hairstyles and rouge and musk, even bathing, as signs of vanity, and were now wearing coarse robes made of goat’s hair. They stayed almost entirely in their houses, fasting and praying, discussing Scripture; in secret, they might visit a nearby basilica or martyr’s tomb.
They never allowed themselves to rest on couches or cushions of any kind, and at night they slept on thin mats on the floor— though they hardly slept, spending those hours, instead, crying and praying.
Most importantly, these women—some of them widows, some only recently of marrying age, all converts to Christianity—had each taken a vow of chastity.
…Many of the female leaders of Christianity—in the Catholic Church in particular, with its 1.25 billion followers around the world—are barred from being fully ordained and are closely overseen by men. But this was not always the case. Scores of early Christian women—like Marcella, the desert-dwelling Susan, or the scholars Melania and Paula— embraced radical lives, helping the young religion fan out across the Roman Empire and beyond.
Did Hell Freeze Over?: Liberal Rag Promotes Idea that Celibacy is Acceptable, and a Valid Life Choice / Re: 2016 Study Says Millennials Aren’t Having Much Sex
The following editorial comes from left wing site Salon, known for publishing pieces by left wing feminist Marcotte, who likes to insist everyone respect women’s sexual choices except for virginity and celibacy – she thinks it’s okay to mock those (see this link and this link for more on that).
Most of the time, liberals are loathe to admit that it’s okay for adults (or kids) to be virgins or celibates. They often portray the state of being abstinent as being sexually repressed or weird. They get all judgey-judgemental about it, but at the same time ask us not to “slut shame” the people, especially women, who boink around like dogs in heat.
So, I was quite surprised to see this liberal editorial defending the idea that it’s okay for people to be chaste, and that people need to stop pressuring everyone to have sex. This sort of editorial from a left wing site is very, very rare.
Everyone calm down and stop judging young adults for “missing out on a good time”
….While the study’s findings are of cultural interest about changing sexual practices, an unfortunate side effect is the concurrent media sex panic. To wit: a Washington Post headline asked if this means “(Link): the end of sex?” while (Link): The Cuttouted “Millennials Confirm That Sex Is No Longer Cool.”
How Do We Solve a Problem Like the Singles? by Rachel Kilgore
Before I get to the link to the essay by Kilgore, which is hosted at MOS (Mortificiation of Spin / specifically, Aimee Byrd’s blog, ‘Housewife Theologian’):
For years and years on this blog, here on “Christian Pundit” blog, I have been explaining over and over again that most evangelical, Baptist, Reformed, and Fundamentalist Christian denominations, churches, and groups IGNORE adults singles – the older a single you are, the worse it is – the more ignored you are.
I have also commented on other people’s blogs under the Christian Pundit blog name, and under other names, alerting Christians to how horribly American Christians treat adult singles. I have Tweeted about it.
When Christians aren’t ignoring us older singles, and they do manage to notice our existence, many Christians shame us for being single. They insult us. They try to make us feel like we are losers (seriously, see (Link): this post, (Link): this post, (Link): this post), (Link): this post – I could cite many more examples from my blog of anti-Singles bias by Christians, but that should suffice.)
I used to be what is called a gender complementarian. I am not interested in spending a lot of time explaining what that means.
I am no longer a gender complementarian.
I am linking you here to a post about adult singleness at a blog (the one by A. Byrd) owned by what I would term “soft gender complementarians.”
WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This
This story comes from NewsBusters, which is discussing a column written for Washington Post newspaper by columnist Kristen Page-Kirby about the new Ghostbusters movie.
The original Ghostbusters movie, released in the 1980s, contained four male leads. The reboot version of the movie, which was released July 15, 2016, contains four women leads instead.
Unfortunately, over a year or more ago, when news came out that there would be four women leads in the film, some of the sexist jerkwads who inhabit the internet started lambasting the movie all over You Tube, Twitter, and where ever else – not because the move was bad (it wasn’t even released yet), but because they were incensed that Hollywood was cramming some form of feminism down their throats.
Interestingly, I didn’t see as much backlash over the main character of the new Star Wars film, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” being a woman – Rey.
At any rate, I will be discussing two or three different topics in this post that are related to this new film, or mentioned by the conservative essayist at the NewsBusters site.
This is another story where I am in the middle. I can’t say as though I’m completely on one side or another in regards to some aspects of this story, depending on what is under discussion.
I am currently a moderate right-winger (I used to be more to the right than I am currently. In the last few years, I’ve been reconsidering if some of my former political and Christian beliefs are wrong.)
I’ve been more open the last few years to hearing the criticisms and views of liberals and Non-Christians – which is not to say I agree with everything I see left wingers and Non-Christians espousing or arguing in favor of.
I sometimes think secular, liberal feminists have good points on some topics, but I normally disagree with them.
As far as the Ghostbusters film reboot is concerned, I do think some of the backlash against the movie does in fact stem from sexism. But then, I do think some people may honestly feel that the movie is genuinely bad due to having a poor story line, or what have you.
I have not seen the movie yet. I don’t go to movie theaters that much anymore.
I usually wait until movies air on cable television; I’m willing to bet that this Ghostbusters reboot will probably be shown on F/X channel, or SyFy, or some other cable network in the next two years, and I have cable television, so I don’t know if I want to invest my time and cash into driving down to a theater to see this, since it will eventually be on television.
I saw the original Ghostbusters in a movie theater when it was in theaters in the 1980s. I was a kid at the time.
The original was okay, it was quite enjoyable and plenty of fun, but it was no movie masterpiece, so to all the men online who were griping about the reboot featuring all women leads: get the hell over it already.
And yes, you were, or are, being sexist douche bags about it. I don’t buy for a moment that ALL male griping about the film is based on non-sexist reasons, like shoddy trailers, or supposed poor CG work.
The vast majority of the professional reviews (and I have read a ton of them) for the new Ghostbusters film have deemed it “okay.” -Not terrible. Not great. But just “meh.” It’s so-so, most reviews have said.
What I don’t appreciate is that the columnist for WaPo who was discussing male backlash about the movie is using virginity as an insult.
Abstinence advocacy groups say a new (Link):study criticizing virginity pledges misses the point of abstinence education.
The study, “Broken Promises: Abstinence Pledging and Sexual and Reproductive Health,” published on the website of the Journal for Marriage and Family, reports that the vast majority of virginity pledgers break their promise to save sex for marriage.
Men Aren’t Entitled to Sex: Crybaby Guy Throws Racist Fit at Woman Who Politely Refuses to Hook up by R K Bussel
It sure does seem that a lot of guys think they are owed sex.
A lot of Christian men not only feel that they are entitled sex (once married), but both before and after marriage, they feel entitled to everything from women: they expect to have their egos stroked all the time, for instance.
Do you Christian men who arrogantly expect women to uplift you and tell you how great you are, ever consider encouraging women in your lives, whether they are single or married?
Women sometimes need or want some external validation, yet whiny men (including Christian ones) seldom consider giving any to women. They rudely assume God put women here only to meet men’s needs. Nope: it goes both ways.
Women have needs too. Women have days or phases in their lives when they get tired, discouraged, worn down and could use a kind word or a helping hand.
Even if he buys her dinner, even if she asks him out, even if she flirts—there’s no excuse for this behavior
…That he turned on a dime to insult her should tell us that he only saw her as an object he wanted available for his pleasure, whether to stroke his ego or stroke other body parts. The moment she rejects him, even though she doesn’t say a single negative thing toward him, he interprets that as pretty much the worst thing a woman could do to him. Her not wanting sex automatically means, in his mind, she’s basically an evil bitch who’s wasted his time.
Another obvious statement: her not wanting to have sex with him doesn’t automatically mean she didn’t like him, or didn’t have a good date. Maybe she did, maybe she didn’t, but by treating sex as the one and only arbiter of success, he turned what could have been a fun night into a nightmare.
James Dobson’s Flawed Take on Population Decline (no.1: We’re Not in Decline) by T. Grant
As this report notes (link is much farther down this blog page), more pressure is placed on WOMEN to marry and have children than is placed on MEN.
I know that culture and Christians can treat single / celibate / childless men like trash, but they are TEN TIMES worse on Christian WOMEN in these regards.
Women get far more pressured to marry and have kids than men do or ever will.
Women get more shamed and insulted by Christians (and at times, secular culture) for staying single, celibate, and childless than males ever are.
Just because most women are capable of carrying a baby inside them, society and churches think it’s their DUTY to have a baby (as though women serve no other purpose in life), and if they choose to opt out (or cannot have a kid), they are still marginalized or insulted for it.
Men don’t face nearly as much insult or pressure to have kids as women do.
I am right of center – but I agree with this left wing (liberal) guy that other right wingers such as Dobson’s real goal is to be against what he perceives as liberal threats to the church or culture. That is one very real motivator some right wingers have, in why they do things like harass women to have children.
I also want to say how utterly moronic I find this approach by Dobson.
Christian Blogger About Divorce, Pastor Andrew Webb, Thinks All To Most Mid-Life Never – Married or Single – Again Adults Are Mal-Adjusted, Ugly Losers Who Have Too Much Baggage
Holy guacamole did I ever find a post by a Christian guy who really knows how to slam never-married or “single again” adults.
I was astounded by parts of this guy’s post.
I almost re-tweeted a link to his blog post about divorce from my Twitter page (I saw someone else share it on Twitter), thinking someone may find it helpful (judging from the title alone, it sounded like it might be a good page) but thankfully, I skimmed it first.
I left a reply under the guy’s post, and his blog says my post is awaiting moderation. Who knows if he will approve it to appear or not.
(August 2016 update: my comment on his blog, that I made in April 2016, is STILL tagged with the “awaiting moderation” comment on his blog. Unreal.)
I have copied in my reply farther below. I tried to be civil in my reply.
I’m going to try to be charitable here on my own blog: maybe this guy does not realize how deeply insulting his blog post is – the parts where he talks about divorced people or the never-married.
This guy should realize that upholding marriage or discouraging divorce does not necessitate INSULTING SINGLE PEOPLE.
You do not have to scare married people out of divorce by suggesting that all “single again” or never-married adults out there are great big, scary losers who have a lot of baggage, so if married people divorce, they won’t be able to find a great partner.