What happens when cheap sex replaces love?

Everything has a price, and yes, the hook up culture has had a price. It is costing us things like romance, love, real intimacy, and made dating, and being single much more difficult than it should be. It has cheapened, male/female relations, and twisted how we think about sex, traditional gender roles, marriage, and I believe has robbed us of a beautiful thing. Hey, as The Other McCain points out messing with nature has consequences and yes, quoting Jimmy Buffet helps prove the point

I really do appreciate the fact you’re sitting here.
Your voice sounds so wonderful,
But you face don’t look too clear.
So bar maid bring a pitcher, another round of brew.
Honey, why don’t we get drunk and screw?

Is this what they’re teaching in Women’s Studies classes nowadays? Evidently so, according to one young British feminist:

The idea that my generation are unhappy and sexually unfulfilled because, thanks to the dwindling of traditional gender roles, we’ve been able to have sex on our own terms, makes absolutely no sense to me. Especially as in Britain, we never really had a dating culture to begin with. Americans are complaining because “dinner and a movie” has been replaced with “hanging out”, when on this side of the Atlantic people have been flinging themselves at one another outside the pub following last orders since time immemorial, and it’s worked fine. Likewise, while the Americans see the classic “are u out?” fishing text as evidence of shallow promiscuity, we see it as a convenient way of minimising social embarrassment by ensuring both parties are too drunk to attempt a conversation capable of, let’s face it, shattering the illusion whose maintenance is so essential for successful coitus.

OK, so if getting “too drunk to attempt a conversation . . . is so essential for successful coitus,” how is this a triumph for women? Is this what being “able to have sex on our own terms” means?

Or does it mean, you’re getting played?

Making the bar/club/party scene your native habitat makes you a potential prey for the practicioners of “game.” And if he’s good at it, you won’t realize you’ve been played until it’s too late. Ladies, if want to know what the players really think of you, you should read their blogs:

What is a bar? It’s a social venue where women can receive attention from men at predictably constant rates. Every approach performed will increase her worth. Every hot stud who lays pipe inside her via a one-night stand will reinforce in her mind that she deserves Mr. Perfect. These men feed her ego like an IV bag nourishes a surgery patient.
The effect of all this is cumulative so that a 30 year old woman who is well past her prime will put out attitude multiple times higher than a hot 18 year old who just started going to clubs. Since the older woman simply can’t forget all those men who have approached her and wanted to take her home, she won’t receive your approach unless you’re nearly the best of what has attempted to f–k her in the past, even though the number of guys willing to wife her up has decreased exponentially. Nightlife venues give average women near unlimited choice and attention, causing a sharp degradation in her attitude, warmth, and even her appearance. . . .

More at the link. I am no Puritan, never will be. I am not condemning pre-marital sex either.What I am saying is that society has lowered its standards for women and their behavior. And that has resulted in too many women lowering their standards for themselves, both in who they date, and how they conduct themselves. And this really bad for men, and even worse for women. If you are happily married you might not notice, but, if like me, you are single, and dating, trust me you have noticed.

Possibly the most morally retarded opinion I have ever heard

 

Fritz is blogging today about Gawker defending the indefensible

An article in the liberal Gawker attempts to normalize pedophiles: Born This Way: Sympathy and Science for Those Who Want to Have Sex with Children

Imagine a world in which admitting your attraction to busty women or tall men led to alienation, jail time, or your murder. Older gay men can probably remember such an era, but nowadays most sexual appetites have been mainstreamed to the point of banality. Pedophiles, for obvious reasons, don’t enjoy the same kind of tolerance, and thus it seems as if they may be locked forever in a sexual prison from the moment they’re born….

No, I do not wish to imagine such a world, who the Hell would? Attraction between adults is natural, and normal, and quite necessary for the species to continue. Teens being attracted to each other is normal as well. An adult looking at a teen and saying they are handsome, or pretty, nothing wrong there either. But an adult, looking at a child and wanting to have sex with them? Not normal, not healthy, and no rational person would argue that it is.

The old adage is that the true mark of a society is how it treats the weakest in its ranks. Blacks, women, Latinos, gays and lesbians, and others are still in no way on wholly equal footing in America. But they’re also not nearly as lowly and cursed as men attracted to children. One imagines that if Jesus ever came to Earth, he’d embrace the poor, the blind, the lepers, and, yes, the pedophiles. As a self-professed “progressive,” when I think of the world I’d like to live in, I like to imagine that one day I’d be OK with a man like Terry moving next door to me and my children. I like to think that I could welcome him in for dinner, break bread with him, and offer him the same blessings he’s offered me time and again. And what hurts to admit, even knowing all I know now, is that I’m not positive I could do that.

That last part is what really gets me. What kind of fool would ever allow a pedophile near their children? Frankly, that is simply NOT normal. The normal reaction to such an idea for a parent would be, Hell no! Even if you truly believed that such a person might have changed, the risk to your child would disallow any parent to even weigh the option. There is a line between forgiveness and stupidity, any parent who could pen such gibberish has clearly crossed that line. To be brutally clear here, the author of this piece Cord Jefferson, is so morally retarded that they long for a world where a “reformed” child molester might be welcomed in their home, near their kids? I guess it might be OK if they were truly “reformed” but sorry, some actions are so heinous as to preclude the perpetrator ever being trusted again. Of course, to expect a Liberal to grasp that is beyond hope I guess.

The details of what “Terry” the Pedophile did, with a seven-year-old girl, are at the link, I refuse to publish that here. It is graphic, and extremely disturbing, in fact, it is fair to say the acts “Terry” committed were evil. And “Terry” ought never be allowed near any child again.

 

What if indeed!

J.E. Dyer at the Hot Air Greenroom posts a very interesting piece about food and sex and the government

The left’s governmental approach to sex today involves, among other things, the following:

1.  Advertising it to children through the public schools and encouraging them to explore and participate in it.

2.  Basing policy on the assumption that no solution to any problem lies in individuals restraining or channeling their sexual urges, and therefore even the intractable facts of nature should not be left, with their powerful incentives, to encourage that posture.  It is important, instead, to create an environment conducive to sex unfettered by its natural consequences.

3.  Providing, at public expense, the means to have sex on one’s own terms, but avoid procreation and sexually transmitted diseases.

4.  Providing, at public expense, the means to support children who are born nevertheless.

5.  To adjust the balance between 3 and 4, encouraging and advocating the use of contraception and the resort to abortion.

The suite of policies advocated by the left is designed to encourage sex but limit procreation and STDs.  The social “good,” therefore, is deemed to be unfettered sex, while the social “ills” are the birth of children and the suffering (and infectiousness) incident to STDs.

Let’s compare this moral view and its program construct to the left’s policy attitude toward eating.  In this latter realm, the social “ills” are thought to be obesity and the medical problems that come with it.  But what is the social “good”?  Is there one?  It’s hard to say, because eating – which can be a most enjoyable activity, and far less avoidable than sex – is not, in the left’s moral view, considered a “good” to be promoted on whatever terms the individual prefers.

The left’s governmental treatment of eating is very different from its treatment of sex.  It runs on these lines:

1.  Advertising to children (as well as adults) the evils of certain kinds of food.

2.  Basing policy on the assumption that the people must be nudged or even coerced to eat according to whatever principle is suggested by the most recent studies It is important to create an environment in which eaters have to go well out of their way to avoid the choices made for them by government authorities.  The ideal, in fact, is an environment in which eaters can’t avoid the dictates of the government.

3.  Ensuring that the expenses of obesity are, increasingly, born by the public, while fanning political resentment of those expenses, and of the condition of the obese.

4.  Proclaiming that the solution in every case is controlling what people eat, rather than providing for the obese the same publicly-funded relief offered to the sexually promiscuous.

Quite amazing when you think about it. There is no consistency in these approaches is there? Or is there? Maybe some of y’all can come up with an explanation here. Frankly, right now, I am battling a sinus infection and my head feels like a balloon, so deep thought is beyond my abilities