Americans Are Cheating More, Are Less Keen on Monogamy – Survey Results – This is One Result of Christians Not Advancing and Defending Sexual Purity – The Slow, Steady Decline of U.S. Christians Defending Celibacy, Virginity, etc

Americans Are Cheating More, Are Less Keen on Monogamy – Survey Results – This is One Result of Christians Not Advancing and Defending Sexual Purity – The Slow, Steady Decline of U.S. Christians Defending Celibacy, Virginity, etc

I don’t know about this – the report says that more America adults are not as into monogamy and so on. This must be a smaller percentage of people.

In the years I’ve run this blog, I’ve seen studies, reports, etc in the last few years that more adults are staying single, and that singles are having less sex, so that ones who are married or coupled up must amount to a small number.

I’ve also seen more and more people, even self proclaimed feminists and liberals, start to write more essays and books in the last few years about how the “sexual revolution” did a lot of harm to people (especially women), how younger women now reject “sex positivity” feminism, and how young men would rather stay at home on Friday nights playing video games than date women or have sex with women.

As to any single, hetero sexual adults who are having sex outside of marriage, if this new report is accurate and true:

I’ve been warning on this blog the last ten or so years that American Christians have dropped the ball on teaching about biblical sexuality.

What I saw as the progression of events concerning this subject are as follows (the first step below seems to have started around 2005 or there abouts):

• (Step 1) Pastors, churches, and Christian authors, bloggers, online influencers and personalities at first stopped preaching on the importance of staying a virgin until marriage and stopped openly, regularly condemning pre-martial sex (they just went silent on the topic),
  while, during or around this time, idiot sex-obsessed pastors (such as Ed Young,  Mark Driscoll, and others) started giving more frequent, inappropriate, salacious, “How to Have Great, Steamy Sex With Your Spouse” type sermons, to,
• (Step 2)… they assumed (wrongly) that because all single adults are fornicating horn dogs, might as well start giving sermons about how God will forgive you of your sexual sins, since, the assumption goes, all adults are fornicating now (no mention of condemning fornication and encouraging and honoring those adults who are chaste to keep on hanging in there and remain chaste), to,
• (Step 3)… when the liberal and progressive Christians, some of whom are self professing feminists, began complaining about 1980s and 1990s era “Purity Culture,”
  the pastors and Christian bloggers and influencers decided to chuck sexual purity out the window altogether as even a possible option,
  all to soothe and placate the offended feelings of (mostly) women who had fornicated,
  and they further disgraced biblical sexual morality standards by disturbingly beginning to fall all over themselves to blog and tweet vomit-worthy, groveling apologies to all the hurt fee-fee’s of any Christian woman who had felt stung or offended by 1980s or 1990s purity culture messages, to,
• (Step 4 – we are now here in this depressing journey)… this gross attitude of, “Let’s re-define sexual purity and virginity in such a way to make purity abstract, to make purity all about loving Jesus and “purity of the heart,” so that for all the adults who have LITERALLY engaged in actual physical sexual activity, they won’t feel so icky, shamed, and guilty about their sexual sins”

So, the church opted to cave in to in-church and out-church (secular society) views and trends on sex.

(Edit and disclaimer: in so far as old school Christian Purity Culture contained things like sexist double standards, no, I do not support all of “Purity Culture,” but I also don’t agree with Christian feminists or other anti-Purity Culture Christians who insist that “virginity is nothing but a patriarchal construct,” that virginity (for men and women) just does not matter, that fornication is a-okay, and that sexual purity is merely an abstract, of being “pure in heart” with regards to Jesus. -Actual, physical virginity, literal sexual purity, is of import as well, not just “purity in Jesus.”)

I am not surprised, therefore, that the culture at large (at least the small percentage that is still dating and marrying) is practicing all sorts of weird, deviant, distasteful, and sinful sexual and relationship behaviors these days.

There is no longer any American Christian voices out there regularly speaking up on behalf of remaining a virgin until marriage, speaking against fornication, and repeating the Bible’s message that self control in all areas, including sexual ones, is possible.

Hey, moderate to conservative Christians, including preachers: the following result is what happens once you give up and cave in and/or neglect to uphold sexual purity messages! You get a nation that drifts more and more off course and into living gross sexual lifestyles and seeing nothing wrong with it.

Instead you idiot preachers either ignored the topic altogether, or else gave “how to have sizzling sex with your spouse” sermons, or, you apologized for churches that actually did the right thing (but carried it out wrongly) of the 1980s and 1990s of preaching that sex before marriage was sin.

In the meantime, virtually nobody in Christendom was speaking up in favor of virginity- until- marriage and its benefits, and pointing out that the Bible condemns pre-marital sex.

(Link): Americans Are Cheating More, Are Less Keen on Monogamy – Survey Results

by James Reinl
February 23, 2023

Americans are increasingly cheating on partners, are more open to multiple lovers, and less keen on monogamy, a new survey on changing attitudes to sex and love has revealed.

YouGov polling this month shows that while most Americans still want a wholly monogamous marriage, the numbers are slipping as people increasingly accept some degree of dallying.

Meanwhile, polygamy — the custom of having more than one spouse at the same time — remains mostly taboo, but nearly a fifth of US adults say it will be legal within 50 years.

For many, the trend is not surprising, echoed in the celebrity cheating scandal involving stars Meghan Fox and Machine Gun Kelly and the open marriage between Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith.

But for others, including conservative DailyMail.com columnist David Marcus, the trajectory is a worrying progression from the collapse of traditional norms about family life.

‘Polygamy will be legal in parts of the US within a decade,’ Marcus posted on social media.

‘There is no logical basis to oppose it once you accept gay marriage.’

Christian Group Denied Service at Virginia Restaurant Over Religious Views

Christian Group Denied Service at Virginia Restaurant Over Religious Views

(Link): Christian group denied service at Virginia restaurant over religious views

by Andrew Mark Miller
December 11, 2022

The head of a conservative Christian group in Virginia is speaking out after members of her organization were turned away from a restaurant based solely on their religious views.

Victoria Cobb, president of the non-profit Christian lobbying organization Family Foundation of Virginia, told Fox News Digital that several members of her group were scheduled to hold a private event at a side room at Metzger Bar and Butchery in Richmond, Virginia when they received a call an hour and a half before the reservation saying their reservation had been canceled.

The reason given for the cancelation, according to Cobb, was that a member of the staff at the restaurant had looked up the organization’s website, which states that the group advocates “for policies based on Biblical principles that enable families to flourish at the state and local level”, prompting the wait staff to refuse to serve the group.

“It’s alarming and disgraceful that a restaurant has a religious or political litmus test for who gets in the door,” Cobb told Fox News Digital. “I think people will find that very disturbing.”

University Hosts ‘Abolish the Family’ Book Talk – Progressives are in Error to Be Opposed to the Nuclear Family Just as Much as Conservatives are in Error for “Over” Promoting It

University Hosts ‘Abolish the Family’ Book Talk – Progressives are in Error to Be Opposed to the Nuclear Family Just as Much as Conservatives are in Error for “Over” Promoting It

Both Progressives and Conservatives hold some incorrect attitudes or feelings about or towards The Nuclear Family.

I’m a conservative.

I can see how too many conservatives have put far too much emphasis upon The Nuclear Family (as well as upon parenthood, marriage, and natalism) to an unhealthy degree, to the point they marginalize or shame any adult who remains single (or childless) into their 30s and older, which is wrong.

The Bible does NOT hold The Nuclear Family (or marriage, natalism) up to the insane degree that so many Christians and secular conservatives do. Secular and religious conservatives have turned parenthood, marriagehood, children, and The Nuclear Family into idols.

On the other hand, the Bible is not opposed to parenthood, marriage, or The Nuclear Family.

Bible or not, I myself am not against parenthood, marriage, or The Nuclear Family and don’t see a good reason to be opposed to any of them.

So I don’t take kindly to any progressive person or group who runs around shaming anyone for being married with children, or for wanting to marry and/or have children, or for promoting arguments insisting that The Nuclear Family should be altogether abolished.

I also do not agree with or support Marxism, either. A lot of this anti-Nuclear Family garbage by leftists is usually under-girded by their promotion of Marxism, identity politics, state control, etc.

(Link): University Hosts ‘Abolish the Family’ Book Talk

(also via (Link): Campus Reform)

Dec 9, 2022
By Georgia Lucas

Sophie Lewis, an author and professor, spoke at UMass Boston on November 16 to discuss her book “Abolish the Family: A Manifesto for Care and Liberation.”

Lewis is a faculty member at the Brooklyn Institute for Social Research where she “teaches courses on feminist, trans and queer politics and philosophy.”

“Abolish the Family” suggests that the nuclear family is racist and sexist.

Her scholarship also argues that children should have more say in healthcare choices such as gender transitions.

Ideas from “Abolish the Family: A Manifesto for Care and Liberation” stem from utopian socialist and sex radical Charles Fourier, communist family abolitionist Alexandra Kollontai, feminist Shulamith Firestone, and “queer marxists bringing family abolition to the twenty-first century” according to Verso Books.

Lewis’ book suggests that “Nobody is more likely to harm you than your family.”

Progressives Are Fine With POC (People of Color) Having POC-Only Spaces, but Not Fine With Natal Woman Having Natal Women Only Spaces. Double Standard!

Progressives Are Fine With POC (People of Color) Having POC-Only Spaces, but Not Fine With Natal Woman Having Natal Women Only Spaces. Double Standard!

In the past several years, I’ve seen news stories off and on about black people and other non-whites who insist on having “POC (people of color) only” spaces on college campuses and where ever else.

Why do far left liberals and progressives promote the idea of “Black Only” spaces, no whites welcome, but they draw the line at women having women-only spaces?

That is, transwomen are biologically male – they are MEN – and no, they should not be permitted into women’s spaces such as women’s locker rooms, women’s prisons, and women’s bathrooms.

This is a huge inconsistency and double standard.

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.

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):

Another witch hunt against Julie Roys by loving, tolerant progressive Christians 🙄
Is Amy Smith in on this one too, or did she put down her pitchfork this time?

You guys still using the goofy #EmptyThePews and #Exvangelical hash tags?#abuseSurvivorCommunity https://t.co/CY3wRfFQc7

— sololoner (@sololoner2) July 23, 2022

Link to Tweet embedded below.

As I told this guy, I'm not a "Julie Roys stan," but most abuse survivor advocates I've seen are more loyal to a leftist political agenda than in actually helping victims. It's gross.
They've been targeting Roys for a couple of months now. That's also gross.#ChurchToo #JulieRoys https://t.co/fciN2nsYJT

— sololoner (@sololoner2) July 23, 2022

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

Actor Ezra Miller, Leftist Identity Politics, Pronouns, and the SBC (Southern Baptists) – Priorities Out of Kilter

Actor Ezra Miller, Leftist Identity Politics, Pronouns, and the SBC (Southern Baptists) Actor Ezra Miller, Leftist Identity Politics, Pronouns, and the SBC (Southern Baptists) – Priorities Out of Kilter

This is sheer lunacy.

Movie actor Ezra Miller has been in trouble for grooming under-aged girls (one of them is now 18 years old), if you’re not aware.

If you’d like more background, you can Google the guy’s name, and here are a few links about it:

(Link): Authorities ‘cannot locate or serve’ Ezra Miller after the actor was accused of grooming a teen, report says

(Link): Ezra Miller taunts police, deletes social media accounts

A string of memes mocking police was the last thing The Flash’s star posted before deleting their Instagram account

(Link): A Protection Order Has Been Issued After Ezra Miller Allegedly Groomed A Teen, But Nobody Can Seem To Locate The Actor To Serve Them 

(Link): Actor Ezra Miller accused of ‘cult-like’ behavior, abuse of indigenous teen 

Progressives on Twitter, though, are currently more concerned that people commenting upon these news stories may not be referring to Miller by “preferred pronouns” of “they” or “them,” which are generally used to refer to groups of people, not an individual (aside from maybe situations where the biological sex of a person is not known, and then “they” is sometimes substituted).

Referring to a person as “he” is not “misgendering,” by the way. “Misgendering” involves acknowledging that there is such a thing as a gender binary (male and female) to start with, which most progressive kooks deny in the first place.

Miller is a biological male, so to call Miller a “she” would be a case of “misgendering.”

The pronoun “they” is not a gender term in and of itself, since it can refer to either a male or female but is usually a plural term used to denote a group of people of one or both (mixed) sexes present; the word is not in and of itself a reference to biological sex either way.

If Miller isn’t comfortable with acknowledging via language that he (yes, I said “he”) is biologically a man, that doesn’t change reality. Miller is still a biological man regardless of what one label slaps on to him. It’s pointless to chuck out perfectly good pronouns such as “he” and “him” that society already has in place.

The woke liberals are more concerned that people refer to Miller as “they” or “them” than they are that Miller is grooming under-aged girls.

The Sexual Revolution Has Backfired on Women by S. Moore

The Sexual Revolution Has Backfired on Women by S. Moore

Before I paste in excerpts from the editorial, and though I’m a conservative, I’d like to say that I don’t agree with the usual conservative response to the “sexual revolution.”

First of all, too often, too many conservatives blame “women’s lib,” and the 1960s “sexual revolution” with any and all societal ills – conservatives will blame sexual promiscuity and so on for all that, but sexual promiscuity existed prior to the 1960s, and in other cultures.

Secondly, while I am not opposed to parenthood, the nuclear family, or marriage – or to the notion of waiting until marriage to have sex – too often, most conservatives instruct people that the way out of cultural rot is for everyone to marry, marry by the time they are 23, and have ten children. I disagree – for several reasons.

Marriage and parenthood do not keep people from sin, sexual or otherwise (see examples of what I mean in this post and in this post).

If you’re a Christian conservative, you should be aware that the Bible does not say that a “cure” for the individual or for society is marriage and parenthood – for more on that topic, please see (Link): this post, (Link): this post, and (Link): this post on this blog.

The Bible actually advises that singleness is preferable to marriage (see 1 Corinthians 7), and recall that Jesus of Nazareth never married, never had children, and he actually made some anti-nuclear-family-esque type comments (see posts linked to in the aforementioned paragraph for examples of that).

There are adults – like myself – who are single by circumstance (I had hoped to marry but it never came to pass). Some adults are single by choice, which is fine – nobody should be shamed or guilt tripped for being single by circumstance or for choosing not to marry.

The problem is not one’s martial status.

A person can remain single and celibate over a life time and manage NOT to rob liquor stores, not participate in looting and rioting, not pelt police officers with rocks, and not rape and murder people.

The problems stem from lack of self control and choice – do you choose to be a law abiding citizen or not? Being a law abiding citizen is not contingent on being married or on having children.

Hopefully, the editorial below does not fall back on the usual tropes of, “Oh dear me, if only everyone would marry young, have kids, and form their own nuclear families, society would be crime and sin free” fairy tale.

If women of any age are having difficulties getting a mate, or in staying married, the answer is NOT always or necessarily to return to stifling, sexist, 1950s American “pro marriage and pro nuclear family” positions.

Things are not always mutually exclusive or do not have to be – life for women does not have to consist of only two choices (this is a false dichotomy):

1. be a “sex positive” feminist lady who has sex with any body and every body or 2. be a traditional, stay-at- home wife and mother

You can cook up a third or fourth way of living life.  Life does not have to be lived by only one or the other parameter above. I don’t know why most on the right and some on the left continue to depict life as though only two avenues for women are possible.

I don’t entirely fit into either the left’s or the right’s notions of how women should live, and the older I get, I resent individuals, groups, or organizations (whether right, left, religious, or secular) condescendingly trying to define me or tell me how they think I should live, and at that, based on my biological sex.

There were a few aspects of this I didn’t agree with, but most of it seems okay enough:

(Link): The sexual revolution has backfired on women

Young women today are more sexually liberal than ever, but this could be extremely damaging – as the modern Mary Whitehouse has warned us

by Suzanne Moore
May 31, 2022

Who wants to be thought of as uncool, uptight and no fun? Certainly not young women who have been brought up to be “sex-positive”. This means being open, tolerant and progressive about sex, removing all judgment and shame and believing anything goes as long as those involved consent to it. It’s a beautiful idea: sexual freedom and enjoyment for all and personally I cannot wait for this revolution to happen.

It’s something of a shock, then, to be reminded that we are supposedly living in post-revolutionary times. As feminist author Louise Perry makes plain in her clear-sighted new book, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century, what this actually means is a flood of pornography and hook-up culture, where a few swipes lead to casual encounters, “rough sex” is seen as routine, prostitution is viewed as just another career choice and we have the lowest rate of conviction for rape in a decade.

… It certainly is “progressive” for some men, who get to sleep with women who have been taught that all desires are acceptable and transgression is erotic, but the number of young women who tell stories of being choked and spat on or pushed into sexual acts they were not sure of, during what used to be called “one night stands”, is disturbing.

…But there is a case to be made that today’s aggressively sexual culture does not make many women happy; indeed quite the opposite. Some are paying such a high price for our so-called freedom that we might question what it all means.