We’re Casual About Sex and Serious About Consent. But Is It Working? by J. Zimmerman

We’re Casual About Sex and Serious About Consent. But Is It Working? by J. Zimmerman

And left wing, secular feminism actually encourages some of the very behavior that so many women find hurtful and damaging that is described in this editorial. This is one area where feminists really do deserve some blame.

There is nothing liberating, feminist, or empowering or freeing about women having casual sex with men at any age.

Nor is there anything feminist about feeling pressured into having sex because some left wing feminists insist women of all ages should be engaging in casual sex to be “real women” or to be sexually liberated, or whatever nonsense they spout.

(Link): We’re casual about sex and serious about consent. But is it working? By Jon Zimmerman /  October 13, 2015

Excerpts:

  • … That’s a question about intimacy, not just about consent. And the discussion about emotional connection and communication is mostly missing from the endless role-plays, workshops and online courses that we foist upon our students when they get to college. In fact, it’s the great contradiction at the heart of our college sex wars.
  • University administrators take it for granted that a certain amount of sex will be “casual,” that is, devoid of intimate emotion or connection. But our rules now require the sharing of feelings, even in an encounter that is by definition divorced from them. We simply assume that virtual strangers will be having sex. But we urge them — or, even legally enjoin them — to communicate openly and explicitly about it.
  • Good luck with that. We might succeed in cajoling more students into some kind of verbal consent. But that’s a script, a bedroom contract between sexual vendors. Yes, it will make the whole transaction legal. But consensual? Really?  If you met somebody an hour ago, how can you tell what they want? And  since you know so little about them, aren’t you more likely to do something that they don’t want, no matter what kind of “consent” they have given?

Continue reading “We’re Casual About Sex and Serious About Consent. But Is It Working? by J. Zimmerman”

Liberals on Paranoia: Right Wing Concern is Simply Paranoia and Hence Supposed Evidence of Conservative Lunacy but Same Behavior Totally Acceptable and Non-Loony from Liberals

Liberals on Paranoia: Right Wing Concern is Simply Paranoia and Hence Supposed Evidence of Conservative Lunacy but Same Behavior Totally Acceptable and Non Loony from Liberals

According to liberals, it’s downright nutty and loony when Christians, social conservatives or right wingers express concern at over-reach by liberals, courts, or the government, or what have you, but it’s not any of those pejorative things when expressed by a left wing person, group, politician, or organization.

Hmm. Let me give you a couple of recent examples.

Right Wing Watch, which is a left wing site, likes to mock conservatives or Christians over homosexual militants – our nation’s very own Gay Gestapo – by tweeting things such as:

  • Matt Barber: gay rights advocates are like a “horde of locusts” that seeks to “homosexualize” kids http://bit.ly/1o0duWDsource)

Obviously, Right Wing Watch feels that homosexual rights proponents are not the least bit like a “horde of locusts” and that it’s craziness to suggest that they are, dog gone it!

Here’s another liberal example:

  • Right Wing Watch @RightWingWatch · 6h
  • Matt Barber and Mat Staver agree that gay marriage is “the brainchild” of Satan himself & the bidding of the Devil: http://bit.ly/TwyPgA (source)

Here’s another example from July 2014:
(Link): Internet Conservatives Flip Out Over Imaginary Immigrant Invasion

The RWW (Right Wing Watch) url in that second tweet will take you to this page at RWW:

(Link): Barber: Gay Marriage Is ‘The Brainchild’ Of Satan

Here is an excerpt from that RWW page:

  • On today’s “Faith and Freedom” radio broadcast, Mat Staver and Matt Barber cited recent remarks made by Pope Francis about how “the Devil wants to destroy” the family in order to declare that gay marriage is “the brainchild” of Satan himself.
  • “Marriage is the cornerstone institution of any healthy society,” Barber asserted, “and so clearly the Father of Lies, the Enemy of the World hates marriage…

I happen to be right wing, and a social conservative who does not agree with homosexuality, and I have a special loathing for the very homosexual militancy that RWW feels is simply a figment of the right wingers’ imagination, but I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say homosexuality is the “brainchild of Satan.”

The Bible, in the book of Romans (Romans 1:21-27), in regards to homosexuality, lesbianism, and other forms of non-hetero sexuality does not attribute these things to Satan but says:

  • 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
  • 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
  • 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
  • 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
  • 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
  • 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Further, if you’ve read this blog for any time at all, you know that although I am not “anti family” that I never- the- less feel that Christians and my fellow conservatives wrongly place too much emphasis on family, marriage, and natalism.

Another RWW tweet (source):

  • Will corporations soon cite biblical objections to minimum wage, collective bargaining and tax laws? http://bit.ly/1kSpMDI #HobbyLobby

Clearly, some liberals believe in a “slippery slope,” and think today’s ruling means that right wingers, or Christians, will try to tinker with minimum wage laws and other issues on the basis of their religious convictions.

Liberals (Link): banned large sodas in New York at one time, but I guess they think “nanny stating” is nothing to be concerned about – or, they don’t mind secular over-reach but panic only over religious-based motivations.

This is another liberal editorial, this one on the recent ruling involving Hobby Lobby, and shows some panic over what today’s ruling might mean in the future:

(Link): In Hobby Lobby Ruling, a Court So Wrong in So Many Ways by Sally Kohn

Here are a few excerpts:

  • Reliance on junk science, backwards ideas about religious freedom—it’s all there in the conservative majority’s awful Hobby Lobby ruling.
  • … The owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cannot be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.
  • But it’s the conflation of these points that is truly frightening: the idea that in continuing to give corporations more and more unchecked power and reign, we are giving them the power of religious tyranny — the ability to wantonly and unilaterally impose religion as they see fit on their workers and perhaps more.
  • Under such a ruling, it’s not far-fetched to imagine companies (genuinely or disingenuously) claiming religious exemptions in refusing to serve gay customers or denying health insurance coverage to the multi-racial child of an employee.
  • In fact, what would stop companies from saying that their religion makes them opposed to taxes or obeying pollution regulations or you name it? Just what we need in America, more corporations with more excuses to not play by the same rules that ordinary Americans have to obey.
  • But in its rulings, this Court repeatedly gives more power to the interests of already-powerful corporations than the needs of the American people.

So, there we have some double standards on display.

If right wingers show concern over the homosexual militants and their allies, who are in the nasty habit of abusing or steamrolling over people, in their quest to cram homosexuality down everyone’s throats (ie, harassing people over it, suing people, getting them fired), see, for instance,

(Link): New Mexico Court: Christian Photographer Cannot Refuse Gay Ceremony

(Link): Florida Teacher Suspended for Anti-Gay Marriage Posts on Personal Facebook Page

(Link): Christian B&B owners who refused to let gay couple stay suffer death threats and are forced to sell up because of a lack of business

(Link): Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Resigns After Protests from Gay Marriage Supporters

– there’s absolutely nothing to be concerned about, but, when the Supreme Court rules that a Christian-owned business does not have to fund all forms of contraception, oh noes, look out, Christians will be sending women into forced labor camps next, or to the electric chair!1111!!!!

But such concern is not loony paranoia when expressed by the left, according to the left against the right, no, it’s only indicative of nuttiness when expressed by the right. See the double standard there?

(Link): The left loses their minds over Hobby Lobby decision BY NOAH ROTHMAN

Excerpts

  • “Just because it was only restricted to women’s health access doesn’t mean that it doesn’t create a devastating precedent which says that women’s health care should be treated differently,” Carmon [journalist with left wing MSNBC.com] added. She added that the Republican Party is the biggest beneficiary of today’s ruling. “So, the context of this is an all-out assault on access to contraception and access to other reproductive health care services.”
  • HotAir’s Karl has accumulated some of the best examples of liberal “schadenfreude,” as he’s dubbed it, in which the left utterly and intentionally misconstrues the scope of this ruling. Incidentally, their reaction also helps to service what appears to be a widely shared victimhood fantasy.
  • We’ve seen indications that the left believes this decision is a prelude to theocracy [what follows are tweets]:

— start Tweets —–
John Fugelsang
✔ @JohnFugelsang (source)
The Supreme Court #HobbyLobby ruling proves once again that Scalia Law is a lot like Sharia Law.

southpaw @nycsouthpaw (source)
“So as not to insult Allah, this accounting firm requires that all female employees wear the hijab.”
—- end Tweets —-

We’ve seen liberal journalists and commentators rending garments over the implications of this ruling which exist only in their own minds:

— start Tweets —-
Brian Beutler ✔ @brianbeutler (source)
This isn’t a win for religious liberty it’s an affirmation of privilege for advocates of conservative sexual morality http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrYmQ7bCcAAu9K1.png#twimg

Jimmy williams @Jimmyspolitics
What Hobby Lobby means is there are now two separate classes of women in America: those who work for privately-owned corps and everyone else

Jim Acosta ✔ @JimAcostaCNN
Pelosi on Hobby Lobby: “Supreme Court took an outrageous step against the rights of America’s women”

Elizabeth Warren ✔ @elizabethforma
Can’t believe we live in a world where we’d even consider letting big corps deny women access to basic care based on vague moral objections.
— end Tweets—

It’s pretty rich of liberals to depict Christians and conservatives as being paranoid nutters over some issues, when they themselves do the same thing on other issues.

Additional material (off site links):

(Link): Hobby Lobby opponents: Supreme Court probably legalized xenophobia, racism

Excerpt:

  • The left has been… animated in their objections to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case which declared the mandate in the Affordable Care Act which forced employers to provide employees with abortifacients drugs over their religious objections to be unconstitutional.
  • In spite of what many have characterized as the narrow and tailored ruling by the Court, some political and legal observers have determined that the ruling is a step toward the legalization of discrimination.
  • One of the more creative arguments in this direction was submitted by NPR’s legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg. On Monday, she suggested that the Court has created a legal pathway for employers to discriminate against their employees on the basis of race, sexual orientation, and even national origin.

(Link): 6 Stupid Arguments About Hobby Lobby From Dumb Liberals

(Link): The Hobby Lobby Decision Shows The Culture War Isn’t Over

October 2014 edit. —EBOLA—

Now I would add the ebola outbreak to the list. It seems to me that many left wingers have been saying ebola is not a serious threat to the USA, while it’s mainly been conservatives calling the alarm and asking the Government to halt all commercial flights from ebola stricken nations.

Your U.S. liberals get up in arms about this, and insist that right wingers are being paranoid and over-hyping ebola’s threat to Americans.

Meanwhile, the ebola situation continually gets worse, as I’ve been keeping tracking of in (Link): this post (at the bottom, under the section entitled “UPDATE”), so it’s not unwarranted or nutty or paranoid for American conservatives to express concern at the situation.
————————
Related posts, this blog:

(Link): Celibate Shaming from an Anti- Slut Shaming Secular Feminist Site (Hypocrisy) Feminists Do Not Support All Choices

(Link): If the Family Is Central, Christ Isn’t

(Link): Why So Much Fornication – Because Christians Have No Expectation of Sexual Purity

(Link): So According to Some Feminists Believing in Female Equality Means Supporting All Actions and Behaviors by All Females Ever – Even their Pubic Hair Photos and Bloody Vagina T Shirt Designs? What?

(Link): Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or Rhetoric

(Link): Inconsistency on Feminist Site – Choices Have Consequences

Posts By A. Marcotte Re Various Topics E.G.: Pre-Marital Sex, Virginity, Modesty Teachings, Marriage, Divorce, Childfree, Birth Control, Early Marriage, Gender Roles, Female Libido, etc

Posts By A. Marcotte Re Various Topics E.G.: Pre-Marital Sex, Virginity, Modesty Teachings, Marriage, Divorce, Childfree, Birth Control, Early Marriage, Gender Roles, Sexual Harassment, Female Libido, etc

Please remember that I am right wing and respect people remaining virgins until marriage, but this woman, Marcotte, is left wing, and in at least one of her posts, she slightly mocked the concept of virginity (see, left wing feminists will defend any and all sexual choices to the hilt except for voluntary virginity / celibacy), but, I do agree with her in part in some other areas.

Posts by By Amanda Marcotte:

(Link): Where Are the Men in Child-Free Trend Pieces?

(Link): The Case Against Marrying Young

(Link): “Slut Pills” Would Work Best for Women Who Don’t Have Lots of Sex

(Link): Family-Friendly Workplaces Are Great, Unless You Don’t Have Kids

(Link): Where Are the Men in Trend Stories About Women?

(Link): Men Are From Mars and Women Are From … Mars [Men and Women Are Not That Different]

Continue reading “Posts By A. Marcotte Re Various Topics E.G.: Pre-Marital Sex, Virginity, Modesty Teachings, Marriage, Divorce, Childfree, Birth Control, Early Marriage, Gender Roles, Female Libido, etc”

Oil Town Where Single Male Population Vastly Outnumbers Females and they practically rape the women – Reflections on the Christian argument that men will treat women better if women in short supply

Oil Town Where Single Male Population Vastly Outnumbers Females and they practically rape the women

This is a creepy story (see link way below), but also odd, in that, one argument I’ve heard from Christians about young single men (or older single males) not “manning up” and being into prolonged adolescence, is that one reason (according to Christians) is that churches make women too readily available to single men.

If the company of single women was kept more rare, it would behoove the single men to date the women and make more marriage proposals. (That is what I’ve read by Christians, I am not arguing that point myself.)

To put the argument another way, rather than the current practice of churches – which is to let the single men hang out with the single women in classes or church dances, thus giving them lots of female companionship – some Christians think churches or parents should limit the time women spend around such men.

In this article, there is a woman shortage in this one town described. But instead of the men stepping up to the plate, treating women with respect, and courting them as gentlemen, most of these men have turned into almost-rapists (I am not exaggerating).

If I remember right, this article, which interviewed female prostitutes, said that some of their clients include MARRIED men.

Some of these married men travel to this city “X” months out the year, leaving their wife back home, and once in City Z, these men hire prossies.

And what do we learn from this? We learn that, contrary to Christian mythos, married people are not immune from sexual sin, nor are they more godly or ethical than adult singles.

(Link): An Oil Town Where Men Are Many, and Women Are Hounded

    By JOHN ELIGON
    Published: January 15, 2013
    WILLISTON, N.D.

…The rich shale oil formation deep below the rolling pastures here has attracted droves of young men to work the labor-intensive jobs that get the wells flowing and often generate six-figure salaries. What the oil boom has not brought, however, are enough single women.

At work, at housing camps and in bars and restaurants, men have been left to mingle with their own. High heels and skirts are as rare around here as veggie burgers. Some men liken the environment to the military or prison.

“It’s bad, dude,” said Jon Kenworthy, 22, who moved to Williston from Indiana in early December. “I was talking to my buddy here. I told him I was going to import from Indiana because there’s nothing here.”

This has complicated life for women in the region as well.

Many said they felt unsafe. Several said they could not even shop at the local Walmart without men following them through the store. Girls’ night out usually becomes an exercise in fending off obnoxious, overzealous suitors who often flaunt their newfound wealth.

“So many people look at you like you’re a piece of meat,” said Megan Dye, 28, a nearly lifelong Williston resident. “It’s disgusting. It’s gross.”

Continue reading “Oil Town Where Single Male Population Vastly Outnumbers Females and they practically rape the women – Reflections on the Christian argument that men will treat women better if women in short supply”

College Women, Don’t Listen to Marriage Concern Trolls

College Women, Don’t Listen to Marriage Concern Trolls

Hat tip to Shawna R B Atteberry ((Link): visit her blog here), which is where I think I may have first seen this. It does seem familiar. I may have read it before but don’t recall blogging about it here.

(Link): College Women, Don’t Listen to Marriage Concern Trolls

Excerpt:

    February 18, 2014 – 7:49 am

    • by Amanda Marcotte
  • Susan Patton may be the only person in the history of the world to get a book deal by being a crank who writes nutty letters to the editor. Back in March, Patton wrote a letter to the editor of the Daily Princetonian—both her sons went to Princeton—warning college women that they best find a husband before graduating college or, well, she didn’t exactly say they’d be dried-up old hags who would only have a handful of uneducated boors left to marry, but that was the general gist of it.
  • …. The letter went viral, feeding off widespread cultural anxieties that young, well-educated women are shirking their duty to put men and marriage before their own ambitions, and so now she’s back with a book and an editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

Continue reading “College Women, Don’t Listen to Marriage Concern Trolls”

Just Say No – For white working-class women, it makes sense to stay single mothers. (Not enough eligible single men for women to marry) by N. Cahn and J. Carbone

Just Say No – For white working-class women, it makes sense to stay single mothers. (Not enough eligible single men for women to marry) by N. Cahn and J. Carbone

In this article, the authors point out that marriage rates are very low for some groups, because there are not enough eligible men to go around for all the women who want to marry. The article is also filled with lots of links to other articles about singleness and marriage you may want to check out.

(Link): Just Say No – For white working-class women, it makes sense to stay single mothers. by N. Cahn and J. Carbone

Excerpts:

    The following is based on Marriage Markets: How Inequality Is Remaking the American Family, out in May 2014 from Oxford University Press.
    By Naomi Cahn and June Carbone

    …But now we have to conclude that it makes a lot of sense. Although it defies logic, socioeconomic, cultural, and economic changes have brought white working-class women like Lily to the point where going it alone can be the wiser choice.

    And the final irony: The same changes that have made marriages more equitable and successful among elite couples have made it less likely that marriage will look attractive to Lily [woman in the story who is a single mother who broke up with the baby daddy Carl because he is an unemployed bum who mooches off her].

    …The economy has changed. A higher percentage of men today than 50 years ago have trouble finding steady employment, securing raises and promotions, or remaining sober and productive.

    Continue reading “Just Say No – For white working-class women, it makes sense to stay single mothers. (Not enough eligible single men for women to marry) by N. Cahn and J. Carbone”

Sex After Christianity by R. Dreher

Sex After Christianity

This starts out discussing homosexuality or homosexual marriage and moves on to broader sexual topics, and how Christianity impacts societal views of sex and so forth. Very interesting read.

(Link): Sex After Christianity by R. Dreher

Excerpts:

    Gay marriage is not just a social revolution but a cosmological one.

    By ROD DREHER • April 11, 2013

    … In a dinner conversation not long after the publication of American Grace, Putnam told me that Christian churches would have to liberalize on sexual teaching if they hoped to retain the loyalty of younger generations.

    This seems at first like a reasonable conclusion, but the experience of America’s liberal denominations belies that prescription. Mainline Protestant churches, which have been far more accepting of homosexuality and sexual liberation in general, have continued their stark membership decline.

    It seems that when people decide that historically normative Christianity is wrong about sex, they typically don’t find a church that endorses their liberal views. They quit going to church altogether.

    This raises a critically important question: is sex the linchpin of Christian cultural order? Is it really the case that to cast off Christian teaching on sex and sexuality is to remove the factor that gives—or gave— Christianity its power as a social force?

    Though he might not have put it quite that way, the eminent sociologist Philip Rieff would probably have said yes. Rieff’s landmark 1966 book The Triumph Of the Therapeutic analyzes what he calls the “deconversion” of the West from Christianity.

    Nearly everyone recognizes that this process has been underway since the Enlightenment, but Rieff showed that it had reached a more advanced stage than most people—least of all Christians—recognized.

    Rieff, who died in 2006, was an unbeliever, but he understood that religion is the key to understanding any culture.

    For Rieff, the essence of any and every culture can be identified by what it forbids.

    Each imposes a series of moral demands on its members, for the sake of serving communal purposes, and helps them cope with these demands. A culture requires a cultus—a sense of sacred order, a cosmology that roots these moral demands within a metaphysical framework.

    … Rieff, writing in the 1960s, identified the sexual revolution—though he did not use that term—as a leading indicator of Christianity’s death as a culturally determinative force.

    In classical Christian culture, he wrote, “the rejection of sexual individualism” was “very near the center of the symbolic that has not held.” He meant that renouncing the sexual autonomy and sensuality of pagan culture was at the core of Christian culture—a culture that, crucially, did not merely renounce but redirected the erotic instinct.

    That the West was rapidly re-paganizing around sensuality and sexual liberation was a powerful sign of Christianity’s demise.

    It is nearly impossible for contemporary Americans to grasp why sex was a central concern of early Christianity. Sarah Ruden, the Yale-trained classics translator, explains the culture into which Christianity appeared in her 2010 book Paul Among The People.

    Ruden contends that it’s profoundly ignorant to think of the Apostle Paul as a dour proto-Puritan descending upon happy-go-lucky pagan hippies, ordering them to stop having fun.

    In fact, Paul’s teachings on sexual purity and marriage were adopted as liberating in the pornographic, sexually exploitive Greco-Roman culture of the time—exploitive especially of slaves and women, whose value to pagan males lay chiefly in their ability to produce children and provide sexual pleasure.

    Christianity, as articulated by Paul, worked a cultural revolution, restraining and channeling male eros, elevating the status of both women and of the human body, and infusing marriage—and marital sexuality—with love.

    Christian marriage, Ruden writes, was “as different from anything before or since as the command to turn the other cheek.”

    The point is not that Christianity was only, or primarily, about redefining and revaluing sexuality, but that within a Christian anthropology sex takes on a new and different meaning, one that mandated a radical change of behavior and cultural norms.

    Continue reading “Sex After Christianity by R. Dreher”

The Sex Economy – Why Buy The Cow When The Milk is Free – Or, When Sex is Free and Easy Why Should Men Bother to Commit to Marriage

The Sex Economy – Why Buy The Cow When The Milk is Free – Or, When Sex is Free and Easy Why Should Men Bother to Commit to Marriage
—————————————————————–
✦ This is one of those posts on my blog that contains strong, adult language. As in the “F” word is used several times, so if you are a dainty, wilting Christian flower who faints at the sight or sound of cuss words, have your smelling salts handy. I do not always issue warnings like this when strong language is in the content.
—————————————————————–
The Sex Economy – Why Buy The Cow When The Milk is Free – Or, When Sex is Free and Easy Why Should Men Bother to Commit to Marriage

It seems like once every year, or every other year or two, a right wing, conservative type of writer comes up with an editorial explaining to women about the sex economy, and why the expression “why buy the cow when the milk is free” still rings true.

Then your secular feminists get angry and write rebuttals to those editorials. I’m not quite sure why secular feminists so deeply object to the concept (though I do have a theory or two), but mainly, I find their objections vague and unmemorable, and I’ve read several of their anti-sex-economy editorials over the years. Despite having read some of their rebuttals, I’ve yet to make sense of why they object.

Here are the links:

✦ 1. The liberal / left wing/ secular feminist perspective ✦

(Link): Sex is Not An Economy And You Are Not Merchandise from the Jezebel site (author unknown; possibly Lindy West)

✦ 2. The conservative position ✦

2A  (Link): The economics of sex: Has the price gotten too cheap? by Naomi Schaefer Riley

2b (Link): Cheap Dates and How the ‘price’ of sex has dropped to record lows

EXCERPTS

✦ 1. The liberal / left wing / secular feminist perspective ✦

(Link): Sex is Not An Economy And You Are Not Merchandise

It’s hard to know what sections of what to excerpt from this liberal essay from Jezebel, because its author (who is perhaps Lindy West?) largely engages in ad hominem and a lot of snark.

For example, after quoting a long portion of conservative Riley’s piece where Riley says:

The “price” [of sex] varies widely. But if women are the gatekeepers, why don’t very many women “charge more” so to speak?

Because pricing is not entirely up to women. The “market value” of sex is part of a social system of exchange, an “economy” if you will, wherein men and women learn from each other—and from others—what they ought to expect from each other sexually.

So sex is not entirely a private matter between two consenting adults. Think of it as basic supply and demand.

When supplies are high, prices drop, since people won’t pay more for something that’s easy to find. But if it’s hard to find, people will pay a premium.

—[end excerpt]—

The Jezebel writer’s response to that view consists only of these words:

Oh, shut the fuck up.

—[end excerpt]—

Seriously. That is all the writer had to say in response.

Go click the link I gave to the page and read it if yourself you don’t believe me.

Much of the rest of the page consists of that sort of rebuttal. Which might be fine on a casual blog such as mine, but Jezebel is a main stream publication which I presume has a wide readership, and if the Jezebel writer is trying to change minds, she is not going to have much success by saying, “fuck you” and not much else.

Here I am, still pretty conservative in regards to sexual ethics, or pretty sympathetic to conservative views about sex, and I’m really, honestly trying to understand her liberal, feminist objections to why she is opposed to the conservative “sex economics” genre of editorial, but how can I arrive at an understanding of her view, when it consists of nothing but a “fuck you” to her ideological opponent?

Here are more excerpts from the Jezebel page (and the only name I see associated with this page is Lindy West, so I assume she is the author, but I may be mistaken about that):

If anything, sex is less commodified now than when my great-grandparents were courting. Before divorce; before reliable, effective birth control; before women’s advancements into the higher levels of the workforce; marriage was ALL about economics.

Now that women are able to leave abusive and unhappy relationships, support themselves financially, and choose when/if to have children, we don’t need marriage anymore.

It’s no longer an economic imperative, which means that people are free to be choosy about who they marry. So you’re damn right marriage rates are dropping and people are marrying later. It’s because we’re getting better at it.

[conservative Riley wrote:]
We now have a split mating market: One corner where people are largely interested in sex, and one corner where people are largely pursuing marriage. And there are more men looking for sex than women, and more women looking to marry than men.

[Jezebel author responds:]
Okay. Wait. So women are banging dudes willy-nilly on the singles scene and it’s lowering their “market value,” but women are also “vastly” outnumbering men “in the marriage market”? Which is it? I’m confused.

—[end excerpt]—

My response to the Jezebel author’s supposed confusion on this point: there are some women, who are celibate and waiting until marriage to have sex, such as me.

And yes, women such as myself, find it harder to get married, as we are virgins and are (or were) waiting until marriage to have sex. We find it more difficult meeting men who respect our celibacy- until- marriage lifestyle.

Many men these days (even a lot of Christian ones) now expect or demand sex prior to marriage, because a lot of other women, women such as yourself, have been too happy to have sex before marriage, which gives the men little incentive to respect my wishes (i.e., no sex before marriage, and I’d like to marry).

A lot of people – the ones who scoff at virginity and sexual purity – have this weird-ass view that you should “test drive” your partner prior to marriage to make sure the two of you are “sexually compatible,” see this post,

(Link): Weak Argument Against Celibacy / Virginity / Sexual Purity by the Anti Sexual Purity Gestapo – Sexual Compatibility or Incompatibility – (ie, Taking Human Beings For Test Spins – Humans As Sexual Commodities) (Part 2)

And yes, views such as that make it very difficult for people who believe in staying a virgin until marriage to get many marital prospects.

Continue reading “The Sex Economy – Why Buy The Cow When The Milk is Free – Or, When Sex is Free and Easy Why Should Men Bother to Commit to Marriage”