Sex Dolls, Robots, and Woman Hating – a Conversation with Author Caitlin Roper (video and other, related material – similar to what Christian Gender Complementarians Teach About Women and Sex)

Sex Dolls, Robots, and Woman Hating – a Conversation with Author Caitlin Roper (video and other, related material – similar to what Christian Gender Complementarians Teach About Women and Sex)

The interview (in the video below) also discusses “pedophile activists” and pedophiles who want “sex dolls” that look like little girls.

There is something terribly, horribly wrong going on with men … and women and feminism are not to blame. And patriarchy and enforced traditional gender roles is not the solution, either (I say this as a conservative).

A lot of what Roper mentions about sex in some of the pieces below (especially this one on ABC) sounds very much like the usual attitude by many complementarian Christian men, such as Doug Wilson
– a lot of complementarian and pro-patriarchal “Christian” men –
continue to falsely teach in their books, blogs, sermons, videos, and pod casts that all men have a need for sex, men are incapable of sexual self control (in distinct contradiction to Galatians 5:22-23, 2 Timothy 1:7, etc), that women are obligated to have sex with men whenever men want sex (especially married women).

On Barnes and Noble:

(Link):  Sex Dolls, Robots and Woman Hating: The Case for Resistance

(Link): Pleasure machines: What sex robots tell us about men and sex

Excerpts:

by Caitlin Roper
December 2017

… The growing popularity of sex robots raises many ethical issues, but it also forces us to ask questions about the very nature of sex.

What is sex? What is it for? Is it merely the “acquisition of pleasure” as Robert Jensen put it, a mechanism for orgasm, or is it something one experiences with another person?

While it’s true that sex does not necessarily involve intimacy or meaningful connection, and it’s certainly not always mutually beneficial – mutuality is a key factor. Sexual relations without mutuality might be more appropriately described as sexual exploitation.

… Some men express their preferences for sex robots over relationships, which require catering to someone else’s needs and “needless drama.” Others, despite being married or in committed relationships, prefer their dolls to their living female partners, who unlike dolls are complex human beings with their own interests, feelings and lives.

Dolls, on the other hand, have no expectation of an equal or mutually beneficial partnership, have no needs to be met and no free will to be exercised.

It is precisely the dolls’ complete lack of autonomy that is the key attraction for many men. “You ALWAYS have their full attention,” said one. “It’s just nice to know that there is someone home waiting on me without the bitching … She can’t talk [but] at least she looks good sitting there watching TV.”

One owner described the bliss of gaming for hours with his devoted sex doll by his side, something his ex-wife “would only do … for a few mins, then find things to be upset about.”

…But what is it female bodied sex robots are providing? What is the appeal?

Rather than simply “better” sex, sex dolls provide men with the means for more selfish sex – sex that is totally one-sided. It is sex predicated on men’s absolute sexual freedom to dominate and use a woman without limitations.

There is no pressure to perform well, no need to reciprocate, no need to consider the other party’s feelings, enjoyment, discomfort, humiliation or pain.

It is sex with a compliant woman that is all about the user’s sexual fantasies – with a woman who never refuses, who can be used over and over again.

Continue reading “Sex Dolls, Robots, and Woman Hating – a Conversation with Author Caitlin Roper (video and other, related material – similar to what Christian Gender Complementarians Teach About Women and Sex)”

Number of ‘Lonely, Single’ Men is on the Rise as Women with Higher Dating Standards Look for Partners Who are ‘Emotionally Available, Good Communicators, and Share Similar Values’, Says Psychologist

Number of ‘Lonely, Single’ Men is on the Rise as Women with Higher Dating Standards Look for Partners Who are ‘Emotionally Available, Good Communicators, and Share Similar Values’, Says Psychologist

If any of the usual conservative commentators, male or female, get wind of this article by this psychologist, they will somehow try to pin the blame for more men going single longer – on all women, or on feminism.

I’m a conservative who doesn’t agree with progressive woke ideology, but I’ve noticed that other conservatives, despite claiming to believe in the concept of ‘personal responsibility’ never- the- less do not want to hold men accountable for the failures of men, whether on the individual level or men as a group.

Then, these same conservatives, who bemoan the “victimhood” mentality of progressivism, go on to depict all men as being poor, put upon victims.

If men of today are finding it more difficult to get dates, they need to take personal responsibility and work on improving themselves, rather than go the usual “blame feminism” or “blame all women” route, which is what they normally do.

I can see secular and Christian conservatives blaming women for this phenomenon – they are going to blame and shame women, and yell at women to lower their standards.

I find it absolutely refreshing to learn from these articles that women are now vastly out-numbered on dating sites.

I think I read the figure is 62%; that is, 62% of the participants on dating sites are male, the rest are female, so that women have the pick of the litter, LOL. This is a nice turn around.

This is the total opposite of churches.

Most churches have gender imbalances that favor single men – most churches have way more single women than single men. If you’re a single, practicing Christian woman that wants marriage, you need to dump the “equally yoked” rule and perhaps giving dating sites a second look.

Not that dating sites and apps are a god-send, because there are weirdos, rapists, and wackos on there, but you have more single men to choose from on dating sites than in many churches.

(Link):  The Rise of Lonely, Single Men by Greg Matos

Excerpts:

Dating apps and a drastically changing relationship landscape.

KEY POINTS

    • Dating opportunities for heterosexual men are diminishing as relationship standards rise.
    • Men represent approximately 62% of dating app users, lowering their chances for matches.
    • Men need to address skills deficits to meet healthier relationship expectations.

(Link): Number of ‘lonely, single’ men is on the rise as women with higher dating standards look for partners who are are ’emotionally available, good communicators, and share similar values’, says psychologist

August 15, 2022
by Jessica Green

Men are lonelier than ever as they struggle to meet the higher dating standards of modern women, according to a psychologist.

American psychologist Greg Matos wrote in a recent Psychology Today article that the current state of young and middle-aged men’s love lives shows they need to ‘address a skills deficit’.

He said: ‘I hear recurring dating themes from women between the ages of 25 and 45: They prefer men who are emotionally available, good communicators, and share similar values’.

Yet, he claimed he’s found that modern men’s biggest problem is communication, which is ‘the lifeblood of healthy, long-term love’.

It comes as data shows dating apps are overrun with men – who represent 62 per cent of users – and figures collected in the US in 2019 showed more men than women were single.

Dr Matos said society fails to teach young boys the importance of communication, which has resulted in growing numbers of unintentionally single men.

Continue reading “Number of ‘Lonely, Single’ Men is on the Rise as Women with Higher Dating Standards Look for Partners Who are ‘Emotionally Available, Good Communicators, and Share Similar Values’, Says Psychologist”

Leftist: We Need to Kill Babies in Abortions So We Can Have “Care-Free Sex Lives”

Leftist: We Need to Kill Babies in Abortions So We Can Have “Care-Free Sex Lives”

Here (first link below) is the original Daily Beast editorial the other author is responding to
(celibacy exists, folks, try it! Earlier feminists said that they were only requesting that abortion be rare and safe, but these days, many of them admit to wanting to use it as birth control, which is immoral and irresponsible):

(Link): I Had a Carefree Sex Life. The Next Generation Will Have Fear.  – The Daily Beast

I had the privilege of coming of age when sex-positive women had more options. That’s why we need to fight the movement that equates “sex” with “shame.”

(Link): Leftist: We Need to Kill Babies in Abortions So We Can Have “Care-Free Sex Lives”

July 26, 2022
by  Tierin-Rose Mandelburg

The overturn of Roe v. Wade is going to impair the next generation’s sex-life according to Sunday’s Daily Beast piece.

Rebecca White, a “culturally white, cis, straight-identifying woman” penned the piece titled “I Had a Carefree Sex Life. The Next Generation Will Have Fear” to talk about how great her sex life is/was without having to worry about limited access to abortion. Ms. White expressed her concern for younger people who will have to “fear” the result of unprotected sex.

Abortion access has supposedly become “a war” and White advocated for women to “manifest on the streets, on the page, and in conversation.” Yes, take to the streets to ensure that you have the “right” to kill your babies after you choose to engage in unprotected sex. That’s the narrative these lunatics want you to buy.

Continue reading “Leftist: We Need to Kill Babies in Abortions So We Can Have “Care-Free Sex Lives””

The Obnoxious Abuse Survivor Community Is Targeting Julie Roys Again – this time begun by R L Stollar

The Obnoxious Abuse Survivor Community Is Targeting Julie Roys Again – this time the witch hunt was begun by R L Stollar

The “abuse survivor community” has taken their pitchforks out again, and again their pitchforks and torches are for journalist Julie Roys.

This time, the bullying is being carried out by a R L Stollar, a name I’ve seen on twitter off and on in the last few years.

I believe he originally began speaking out against harms caused by Christian homeschooling? Good on him for that (I mean that, that was not snark).

Beyond that, though, I’m not familiar with Stollar. He may have even tweeted a few things in the past I saw shared by others I follow on Twitter that I agreed with.

To Julie Anne (“Defend the Sheep” on twitter) – why are you  participating in this continued pile on?

(Edit: I believe Julie Anne “Liked” some of the comments in that thread, or I saw her share it on her Twitter account, which is how I became aware of it in the first place)

Why are you, Julie Anne, continuing to associate with people who behave this way?
I’m sorry if you feel that Roys did not credit you or friends of yours or whatever on older reportage she did (which she tried to discuss with you), but what is the deal with cozying up to the people singling her out every few weeks?

Anyway. Roys is being bullied online again, and this time it was started by Stollar.

Yes, I said “again” – see (Link): my previous post about this weird, disturbing anti-Roys obsession from the Amy Smiths, Ashley Easters, and other so-called abuse survivor advocates.

If you take note of this obnoxious behavior, as I did, (that is, noting their bullying and mob mentality where they target someone), some of them will erroneously misconstrue you as being a “Julie Roys Stan,” or use that as an ad hominem against you (see embedded tweets below for more on that).

Birth Control Movie

Now, the “abuse survivor community” is targeting Roys for having once appeared in a several years old (conservative created, I believe) movie about birth control and the sexual revolution.

I’ve not seen the movie they are referring to, but I did watch and listen to a clip of Roys presumably from the film (that clip located in a tweet by someone else here), and the comments Roys made were pretty conventional.

There was  nothing “far out” there by Roys in that clip, not unless, I suppose, you’re operating from a faulty, far left liberal paradigm, in which case pointing out that sexual behaviors with little- to- no boundaries can result in things like disease or other harmful ramifications will sound judgmental, fuddy duddy, and stodgy.

Speaking of which:

(Link): Monkeypox virus could become entrenched as new STD in the US – via ABC News (warning: auto-playing video file with audio on that page)

Excerpts:

The spread of monkeypox in the U.S. could represent the dawn of a new sexually transmitted disease, though some health officials say the virus that causes pimple-like bumps might yet be contained before it gets firmly established

By Mike Stobbe AP Medical Writer
July 22, 2022

… So far, more than 2,800 U.S. cases have been reported as part of an international outbreak that emerged two months ago. About 99% have been men who reported having sex with other men, health officials say.
— end excerpts —

Secular Criticisms of Birth Control and the Sexual Revolution

In the past year, a few secular books criticizing the consequences of the sexual revolution (including the role of the advent of birth control pills) have been published
(which I’ve blogged about here (Where the Sexual Revolution Went Wrong by Maria Albano) and here (The Sexual Revolution Has Backfired on Women by S. Moore),
so it’s not only those evangelicals all you hipster “Exvangelicals” despise pointing out the flaws and dangers with no-holds-barred sexual behavior.

In the past few years, more and more liberals and feminists have been speaking out about the excesses and harms of loose sexual behavior; these are just a couple of examples on my blog:

(Link): Why Sex-Positive Feminism is Falling Out of Fashion by S. Greenberg – excerpts via New York Times

(Link): 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

Progressives / Abuse Advocates Define Christianity to = Democrat Party, Progressive Values and Views

Many of the abuse advocates under consideration in this blog post I am discussing are politically driven (or some have left-leaning sympathies).

They conflate Christianity with leftism, progressive views, causes, and the Democratic Party, and reject anyone who doesn’t agree with all their socio-political views.

Here is my reaction to what got the ball rolling (tweet link – my comment – and here is a link to the original R L Stollar comment I was replying to):

Link to Tweet embedded below.

So this Stollar guy initially did a tweet with a link to this page (also linked to below, with excerpt) at Right Wing Watch – of course he did.

Does Stollar ever follow sites with names like “Left Wing Watch” (i.e., any accounts that are critical of progressive ideology?) – probably not.

Continue reading “The Obnoxious Abuse Survivor Community Is Targeting Julie Roys Again – this time begun by R L Stollar”

First it Was Christian Complementarians Telling Me To Shut Up, Then Trans Activists, and Now, It’s Intersectional Feminist, Black, Pro-Choice Tik Tokers

First it Was Christian Complementarians Telling Me To Shut Up, Then Trans Activists, and Now, It’s Intersectional Feminist, Black, Pro-Choice Tik Tokers

I actually did a post covering similar territory a few weeks ago – I noted in that post how members of the progressive transgender movement constantly tell women to shut up – as did the Christian gender complementarians I grew up with, or whose teachings I was exposed to, as my parents were Southern Baptists, and Baptists push that sexist tripe but claim it’s “biblical.”

I’ve also seen secular (and religious) conservative men either imply all women should shut up, or they suggest that all women should not have the right to vote (I wrote about that here, among other posts I’ve done on the topic)

Now, here we have a black, pro-choice woman on Tik Tok insisting that white women shut up.

I’m part white but also part Native American. I will not shut up. If I have an opinion and want to express it, I will express it.

I don’t allow church, complementarians, progressives, trans activists, pro choicers, or sexist conservatives to silence me or tell me what to do.

(Link): ‘If you value your life…shut the f*** up’: CRAZY MAD TikToker threatens white women over Roe reversal

‘This is what happens when social media gives people who used to take classes in the basement and wear a helmet a platform’

by BlazeTV Staff
June 30, 2022

On the latest episode of “Fearless,” BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock and contributor Shemeka Michelle try to make sense of a very angry TikToker’s racist rant about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

“So, we all see what has happened with this Roe v. Wade situation. We already knew this was how it was going to go down,” said the blue-lipped TikToker and self-described “Priestess Warrior.”

“Dear white women, listen. Your only play in this, if you value your life, is to shut the f*** up!” she continued.

Continue reading “First it Was Christian Complementarians Telling Me To Shut Up, Then Trans Activists, and Now, It’s Intersectional Feminist, Black, Pro-Choice Tik Tokers”

Leftist Intersectional Feminism is An Anti-White Woman Belief System: Progressives Once More Blame White Women For How They Voted

Leftist Intersectional Feminism is An Anti-White Woman Belief System: Progressives Once More Blame White Women For How They Voted

Women (and men) who believe in and practice Intersectional Feminism hate white women.

Racism, contra progressives and their dippy neo-Marxist beliefs, is not just about who has power in a culture, but it’s also an attitude – and I see plenty of non-whites who are racist against white people.

It doesn’t take a position of power to harbor racism or sexism against others, anyone is capable of it.

Women can be sexist against men, even though men tend to have more authority in culture.

Furthermore, women (and the men) who advocate for Intersectional Feminism fully accept the misogynistic movement known as “Trans Rights Activism,” which consists of a lot of narcissistic biological men who insist every one call them by female pronouns and be permitted into women’s locker rooms, so they can flash their nude penises at actual women, and so they can have access to women’s prisons if arrested, so that they can rape actual women.

The only white women who go along with any of this glaringly obvious sexism  are liberal white women who allow themselves to be gas-light and are easily lured into guilt trips by “POC” women.

As I’ve long pointed out on this blog, (and though I am a conservative), I’ve noted that both the right and left of the American political spectrum are sexist. Both sides each have their own issues and end up mistreating women.

Earlier today, this editorial by Pamela Paul was published by the New York Times:

(Link): The Far Right and Far Left Agree on One Thing: Women Don’t Count – hosted on The New York Times, July 3, 2022, by Pamela Paul

That editorial, which I’m largely in agreement with (though not on the portion where the author laments the over turn Roe V Wade, since I am pro-life, but I do recognize that many conservatives can be sexist on other topics) angered progressive women.

The author, Paul, was hounded off Twitter; her account was suspended.

Anyway, according to this article on Fox News, progressive women began attacking the editorial and/or the author herself, and some even jumped in to bash white women for some having had voted for Trump back in 2016 – more on this below the link and excerpt:

(Link): Washington Posts columnists slam a New York Times op-ed that criticizing the ‘far left’ for erasing women

July 3, 2022

Fellow progressives echoed her criticism of the New York Times op-ed.

By Lindsay Kornick | Fox News

Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah blasted the New York Times on Twitter Sunday for an op-ed that criticized progressives for erasing women.

The Times published a Sunday op-ed titled “The Far Right and Far Left Agree on One Thing: Women Don’t Count” in which, columnist Pamela Paul argued how the far left’s concern for appealing to a transgender minority is belittling and rebuking women.

“Tolerance for one group need not mean intolerance for another. We can respect transgender women without castigating females who point out that biological women still constitute a category of their own — with their own specific needs and prerogatives,” Paul wrote.

Specifically, she called out the insistence of using terms such as “pregnant people” and “menstruators” to avoid using the general word “women” out of fear of offending a small group. Paul even equated this with what she considered to be “stripping women of fundamental rights” by overturning Roe v. Wade.

Although Attiah did not cite or link the article on her account, she blasted this comparison as an example of “both-sides pattycake.”

“That NYT op-ed equating inclusive language to widespread legislative oppression is a reminder that many white, cis women would rather gatekeep and maintain privilege than work in solidarity with other groups. Patriarchy is crushing us, but y’all wanna play both-sides pattycake,” Attiah tweeted.

She also added “I’m a cis woman who is clearly able to see that we are under a system-wide assault on bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. We will need a politics of solidarity and community building to resist this, which is not something that white women have historically had to do.”

She concluded her thread sharing another Twitter thread criticizing the failures of white women to help their communities.

“This tweet thread on white women and their failures with community building is worth a look. Read, then discuss amongst yourselves,” Attiah tweeted.

Other progressive journalists voiced their support for Attiah’s comments.

The Daily Beast’s Wajahat Ali tweeted “Majority of white women voted for Trump both times and have voted Republican since the 1950s. Whenever someone brings this up apparently its very offensive but those are the receipts.”

… Attiah’s thread was also retweeted by far-left commentator Keith Olbermann and failed progressive congressional candidate Nina Turner.
— end excerpts —

So there we have, once again, white women being shamed and blamed for how they voted by liberals and progressives, an activity which white conservative men also periodically engage in.

Continue reading “Leftist Intersectional Feminism is An Anti-White Woman Belief System: Progressives Once More Blame White Women For How They Voted”

Men Rush To Get Vasectomies After Roe V Wade is Overturned

Men Rush To Get Vasectomies After Roe V Wade is Overturned

Update Below

So, men will lob responsibility on to women for preventing pregnancy only unless and until abortion is limited?

Men had the ability the entire time to run off and get a vasectomy – if it takes the over turn of Roe V Wade to push them into this now, this is a sad but not atypical response of most men.

Men always want the burden of sexual responsibility to fall on women.

(Link):  More men getting vasectomies after ‘triggering’ Roe v. Wade decision

Men are hurrying to get vasectomies in the wake of the bombshell Supreme Court decision to overturn the Roe v. Wade abortion ruling, doctors say.

Dr. Alex Shteynshlyuger, director of urology at New York Urology Specialists, said his Manhattan practice has been deluged with vasectomy requests for roughly a month after a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito was leaked in early May.

🚫🍆 (Link): Men rush to get vasectomies after Roe v Wade is overturned

July 1, 2022
By Vanessa Serna

One Florida urologist known as the ‘Vasectomy King’ says men are rushing to get the procedure in light of the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Since the overturn of the 1973 case that guaranteed a right to abortion on June 24, Dr. Doug Stein has received 12 to 18 requests for vasectomies per day, in comparison to a previous four or five requests, he told The Washington Post.

‘It was very noticeable Friday, and then the number that came in over the weekend was huge and the number that is still coming in far exceeds what we have experienced in the past,’ Stein said.

Continue reading “Men Rush To Get Vasectomies After Roe V Wade is Overturned”

Women Threaten to Go On Sex Strike In Protest Over SCOTUS Overturning Roe V Wade

Women Threaten to Go On Sex Strike In Protest Over SCOTUS Overturning Roe V Wade

So, it takes the overturn of Roe Vs Wade to get secular feminists (and probably some progressive religious ones) to think seriously about celibacy now? Are they for real?

I’m in my 50s, still haven’t had sex because I was waiting until marriage to have sex, never got married, so I’m still a virgin. I have a normal libido. There is no such thing as a “gifting of celibacy,” as so many Christians assume; God, if he exists, did not remove my libido.

I discussed in a previous post a couple years ago why I made the choice I did to sexually abstain, but I will repeat one reason of several from that post: I did not want to get pregnant out of wedlock.

Birth control is not totally effective, it costs to maintain, I didn’t want to see a doctor periodically to get check ups to get birth control, etc.

I realized years ago – even as far back as my teen years – that a possible outcome of consensual sex was pregnancy which I didn’t want to happen. I didn’t want to use abortion as birth control (I don’t believe in abortion).

I managed to live my life practicing sexual self control, and I expect others to be capable of the same.

Any time you have sex with another person, that is a choice you’re making. As I’ve said before, sex with another person is a luxury not a necessity.

Having sex is not a biological necessity for you to stay alive – you will continue to live even if you’re abstaining. You can enjoy life without sex with another person.

If you are a woman thinking you can get or keep a boyfriend by giving him sex, think again. That won’t work, and you’ll only attract manipulative, selfish men who don’t make for good boyfriends anyway.

I just find it ludicrous that now that Roe V Wade was overturned, that all these women (many of whom are probably self-identifying feminists who spent years promoting “sex positivity”) are willing to practice celibacy, probably for the first time.

I’ve been celibate my whole life. I never bought into the hedonistic sex messaging of feminists, not even when I was a teen in the 1980s or a college student in the 1990s.

A lot of the “sex positive” feminists always came across to me as though they are really infuriated that men get to have (in some regards) consequence- free sex but not women; some of these feminists assume that all women want to be just as gross and promiscuous as most men are.

Why on earth would it take limitations on abortion to get a woman to think twice about when to have sex, with whom, and so forth?

Abortion will not be out-lawed in all fifty states going forward. Currently, some states still permit abortion, while others still allow it but with more stipulations.

Things should never have gotten to this point in the first place.
Pro Choice feminists reassured all of us pro-lifers back years ago that abortions would be “safe but rare” if it were legalized, but now I see all these air-headed Gen Z or younger Millennial women screaming and yelling on social media about how “proud” they are that they had an abortion.

Some of them are acting like abortion getting limitations strips them of all birth control – were these sexually active young women not already on the pill, or making their boyfriends use condoms? Abortion should never be used as a form of birth control.

Maybe the best things is to abstain and not have ANY sex with another person, unless and until you marry.

I’ve seen a lot of women in the past 30 years write in to advice columnists broken hearted because they wanted a meaningful, lasting, committed relationship but although they were having sex with men, they weren’t getting the marriage proposals they expected to get, as liberal feminists assured them that having free sex anywhere, at any time, with anyone was “empowering.”

But for a lot of women, all that casual sex, or whatever type of sex prior to marriage (outside of a loving, committed relationship), wasn’t fulfilling or empowering.

I just find it so hypocritical that after years and years of seeing so many people, whether secular feminists, or progressive Christians, mock the concept of sexual abstinence and celibacy (or staying a virgin until marriage)
– and yes, I’ve even seen conservative Baptist and evangelical Christians give up on defending purity until marriage –
to suddenly see all these women advocate for celibacy!

Where were all these bitches for the years I’ve been on this blog advocating for celibacy or virginity-until-marriage to at least be respected as a viable life choice for women (and men) instead of something to mock and ridicule?

A lot of you women out there now having conniption fits and screaming about having a Sex Strike should have given sexual abstinence an honest consideration YEARS AGO, prior to the overturn of Roe V Wade.

By the way, I am specifically talking about consensual sex.
Too many feminists have the dishonest tendency to conflate the topics of consensual sex with rape and then condemn any and all discussion of female (or male) sexual restraint as being cruel or victim-blaming.

Links About Pro Choice Women Going on Sex Strikes

(Link): Sex Strike! Abstinence trends on Twitter in wake of Roe v. Wade ruling

June 25, 2022
By Emily Crane and  Irie Sentner

Big Apple abortion protesters were in support of a sex strike Saturday — as “abstinence” started trending on Twitter in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

“If you’re a man who won’t get a vasectomy, even though it’s reversible, and you’re not out in the streets fighting for my rights, you do not deserve to have sex with me,” Brianna Campbell, a 24-year-old EMT, told The Post.

Caroline Healey, a 22-year-old event coordinator, also questioned why sex was more important than women’s rights.

“I think it’s absolutely valid for us to be withholding the Holy Grail that men seem to think is important,” she told The Post at an abortion protest in Manhattan’s Union Square.

…“If this world thinks that they can oppress women forever, then we close our legs.”

Continue reading “Women Threaten to Go On Sex Strike In Protest Over SCOTUS Overturning Roe V Wade”

AITA For Making My Boyfriend Call Me Grandma in Bed?

AITA For Making My Boyfriend Call Me Grandma in Bed?

There’s this advice section on Reddit called AITA (Am I The Asshole), where people write in about disputes they’re having with co-workers, friends, family, or whomever, and they want to know if they’re wrong or if the person they’re having the dispute with is wrong.

The sometimes get questions about dating and marriage.

This woman is NOT the asshole. Her idiot boyfriend is. Well, he’s not just an asshole, but he’s a weirdo sicko. grandmaRockingChair

(Link): AITA For Making My Boyfriend Call Me Grandma in Bed?

If that link doesn’t work, there is a screen cap of it in a tweet embedded below, and here’s another link or two with copies of the inquiry:

(Link): ‘Call Me Grandma In Bed’: The Most Outrageous Stories On Reddit’s Am I The Asshole?

The Bedroom Equaliser

””I’m just going to get right to it — My (25f) boyfriend (28m) likes to be called “daddy” in bed while we’re being intimate.

I’ve obliged this request but it’s starting to creep me out and I’ve decided I don’t want to do it anymore.

He is not happy with this and insists it has nothing to do with the connotation of the word, he just simply enjoys hearing me say it.

Continue reading “AITA For Making My Boyfriend Call Me Grandma in Bed?”

Supreme Court Overturns Roe Vs. Wade, Returns Abortion to the States

Supreme Court Overturns Roe Vs. Wade, Returns Abortion to the States

June 24, 2022

I’ve always been pro-life on abortion, and I’ve never been sexually active (one reason of many: I didn’t want to get pregnant out of wedlock), so I’m not disturbed that Roe V Wade was over-turned.

I’m not sure if abortion pills will still be allowed now, or what the legalities are of that.

Aside from saving the lives of more babies, maybe women will now stop and think more about if, when, and with whom, they have sex.

Too many feminists and liberals went from “abortion should be safe and rare” to some of these scum-buckets BRAGGING on social media about having gotten abortions. Clearly, some women began using abortion as a form of birth control, not as a last resort.

If you’re going to end the human life growing in you because you don’t want it, or you believe it conflicts with your career, you should feel a lot of regret, shame, and humility about it, not go on twitter to scream you’re “proud” of your choice – give me a break.

By the way, only women can become pregnant – not men.

“Transwomen” cannot get pregnant, so this won’t impact those clowns either way.

(Link): Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

June 24, 202

The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday, holding that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion.

The opinion is the most consequential Supreme Court decision in decades and will transform the landscape of women’s reproductive health in America.

Going forward, abortion rights will be determined by states, unless Congress acts.  Already, nearly half of the states have or will pass laws that ban abortion while others have enacted strict measures regulating the procedure.

… The opinion represents the culmination of a decades-long effort on the part of critics of abortion seeking to return more power to the states.  It was made possible by a solid six-member conservative majority – including three of Donald Trump’s nominees.

Continue reading “Supreme Court Overturns Roe Vs. Wade, Returns Abortion to the States”

Critique of Federalist Editorial “There Is One Pro-Women Camp In American Politics, And It’s The Right by Elle Reynolds” – Do Federalist Magazine Members Realize There Are Single, Childless Conservative Women?

Critique of Federalist Editorial “There Is One Pro-Women Camp In American Politics, And It’s The Right by Elle Reynolds” – Do Federalist Magazine Members Realize There Are Single, Childless Conservative Women?

Way below, I will link to and discuss yet another unfortunate editorial from conservative site The Federalist which again incorrectly conflates “womanhood” with motherhood,  as if there’s an assumption that all conservative women are married with children
(hint: we are not. Some of us conservative women are single and childless. I am no less a woman, or no less a conservative, merely because I am childless and single).

It seems as though The Federalist, like many other conservative sites, pumps out at least one of these
“womanhood = motherhood and wife, and if you disagree with this assumption, you must be an abortion-supporting, man-hating, Democrat feminist”
type editorials about once a month to once every three months. And they are so tiresome.

Just a few months ago, I wrote this post:

(Link): Authors at The Federalist Keep Bashing Singleness in the Service of Promoting Marriage – Which Is Not Okay

And now here I am again, having to address another one of their, “rah rah marriage and motherhood, being conservative as a woman means being a wife and a mother!” type pieces.

Some conservative authors may concede that it’s possible to be a woman and be single and also be childless and also be a conservative, but one would not know it, from their unrelenting association of womanhood with marital or parental status.

I’m a conservative woman who was raised a gender complementarian Southern Baptist. I rejected complementarianism years ago and no longer consider myself to be a Southern Baptist.

I am not a progressive, a liberal, or a feminist.

I don’t agree with all views of feminists, but at times, I’ve found that other conservatives, in attempting to “own the libs,” or in arguing against feminist perspectives (some which conservatives occasionally caricaturize, which results in strawman arguments), go too far in the other, and equally wrong, direction.

I have nothing against the nuclear family, marriage, or motherhood. However, there is nothing wrong with a person being single and childless, whether by choice or by circumstance.

Yes, some conservative (and non-conservative) women are single by circumstance, and somehow such women are never considered in these excessively pro-motherhood, pro-nuclear family, pro-marriage pieces. More about that:

(Link):  Otherhood – An overlooked demographic – the Childless and Childfree Women and Singles Especially Women Who Had Hoped to Marry and Have Kids But Never Met Mr. Right (links)

If you’re a Christian – and I think many of the writers at The Federalist are Christian, or at least supportive of Judeo-Christian values – you cannot plausibly defend a hyper-fixation on marriage, the nuclear family, and motherhood (or fatherhood) from the Bible itself.

The Bible actually teaches that spiritual family is of more import than biological family. Jesus of Nazareth taught in the Gospels that if you follow him, you are to place him above your spouse, any children you have, your siblings, your parents, and other biological family.

(See Matthew 12:46-50 and Matthew 10:37,38 for more about how Jesus discouraged his followers from prioritizing biological family or spouse above devotion to God or above spiritual family, as today’s American conservatives tend to do.)

The Bible simply does not teach anyone to “focus on their (biological) family,” nor does the Bible teach that marriage, natalism, parenthood, or the nuclear family will fix a culture or that marriage or parenthood will make a person more godly, ethical, or responsible.

The Bible says that the problem with humanity is sin, that each person is a sinner, and the Bible prescribes belief in Jesus as Savior to be the cure – not marriage or having a baby.

In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul wrote it is better to remain single than to marry:

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do …
(28) …But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided.
An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.
35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

That sure doesn’t sounding like a ringing endorsement of marriage, motherhood, and the nuclear family, the kind I regularly hear from secular and Christian conservatives!

However, too many editorials by conservative sites – Federalist is really bad about this, as are BreakPoint and several others – continue to conflate “godly,” “mature,” patriotic, and good with “being a married mother.”

I’m a conservative woman who never did marry. Not because I am “anti marriage,” but because in spite of all the propaganda I was fed by Southern Baptist and evangelical Christians from the time I was a kid and teen (i.e., if I just had faith, attended church, prayed, etc, that God would send me a husband), and although I followed that evangelical and Baptist teaching, I never-the-less was never sent a spouse.

I did not choose to remain single over my entire life; that is just how my life turned out.

By staying single for as long as I have, and I remain right of center politically, I’ve seen that too many other conservatives, in seeking to correct what they see as liberal or feminist mistakes regarding family and marriage, end up going in error by going in the direct, 180 degree opposite direction, by placing an over-emphasis upon marriage and parenthood.

Here’s a link with excerpts to the editorial from The Federalist, and below, I’ll pick apart where I agree or disagree:

The Editorial by E. Reynolds on The Federalist

(Link): There Is One Pro-Women Camp In American Politics, And It’s The Right

Excerpts:

by Elle Reynolds
June 15, 2022

… Even at the height of the feminist movement, the lies that women must become like men to be real women were damaging — but now, all pretenses are up.
— end excerpt —

Women Must Become Like Men To Be Real Women?

When Reynolds writes, “… the lies that women must become like men to be real women were damaging,” what does she mean? What does she mean by women “becoming like men?”

I think I know what Reynolds means, and if I am correct, she is most likely referring to gender stereotypes, that women are, or should be, great at relationships, free to show emotion, nurturing, warm, passive, be risk averse, and docile.

(Note that many of these stereotypes for women are the same as hallmarks of codependency.)

Continue reading “Critique of Federalist Editorial “There Is One Pro-Women Camp In American Politics, And It’s The Right by Elle Reynolds” – Do Federalist Magazine Members Realize There Are Single, Childless Conservative Women?”

The Bedevilments of Sex: Louise Perry’s “The Case against the Sexual Revolution” by Ralph Leonard

The Bedevilments of Sex: Louise Perry’s “The Case against the Sexual Revolution” by Ralph Leonard

According to the review below – a review of Perry’s book ‘The Case Against the Sexual Revolution,’ she, Perry, to bolster her view, appeals to the concept of ‘evolutionary psychology,’ a discipline or worldview I do not agree with.

(In my understanding of it, evolutionary psychology ends up attributing socially conditioned behaviors to hardwired, in-born traits, and is, and has been used, to practice sexism against women, or to try to explain or justify sexist outcomes against women by men.)

I don’t support the history of, and on-going existence of, sexual double standards, where, for example, women get punished for sexual behaviors that men have routinely engaged in.

However, I also don’t support third wave feminist views or sexual excess, where some portions of society advocate for sexual hedonism.

Sexual hedonism, the “there should be no boundaries on sex” type of attitudes promoted by progressives, comes with its own set of problems which hurt people (especially women and children).

(Link):  The Bedevilments of Sex: Louise Perry’s “The Case against the Sexual Revolution” by Ralph Leonard

Excerpts:

June 3, 2022

[The author begins by explaining what by now should be a familiar refrain: the sexual liberation which was supposed to put women’s sexual behavior and choices on an even playing ground to that of men, has in the decades sense, apparently, resulted not in women’s sexual liberation, but in making a lot of women unhappy and straining relationships between men and women and in introducing a whole new set of problems.
The author says this is some of what the new book “The Case Against the Sexual Revolution” by Louise Perry has set out to tackle.]

… she [Perry] questions the notion that the sexual revolution has been a gain or a liberation for women. Quite the opposite. “Women have been conned,” she declares.

The sexual revolution, Perry emphatically argues, didn’t liberate them. Instead, it liberated the libidos of high-status playboys and lechers such as Hugh Hefner and Harvey Weinstein at the expense of women.

… This isn’t your usual traditional religious moralism.

Perry’s thinking is quite secular. It appeals to science (specifically, evolutionary psychology).

But, like religious moralism, which is based on the idea of man as a fallen being, Perry’s use of evolutionary psychology reveals the supposed limitations of our evolved nature.  …

Perry advertises her book as an attempt to reckon with the immense change the sexual revolution has created throughout society and culture. She proclaims that she does not endorse either “the accounts typically offered by liberals, addicted to a narrative of progress, or conservatives addicted to a narrative of decline.”

Instead, she makes the following arguments.

Continue reading “The Bedevilments of Sex: Louise Perry’s “The Case against the Sexual Revolution” by Ralph Leonard”