It's Sunday and the sermon for today is, "How to Have Sex" by Andrew Klavan.
"What?" you ask with open-mouthed shock at the indelicacy of that title. "How can THAT be a Sunday sermon?"
Well, first because it happens to be Sunday and I want to post this. But second, and most important, sex is one of the most defining and important aspects of determining the shared moral values of society. So we all need a lecture about it once in a while. There are very few experiences in life that are virtually universal, that are as potentially powerful, and that have as many life-changing (both beginning and ending) consequences as sex. Try as we might, it is impossible to remove the moral component from sex. Can't be done. Sex is either moral or immoral; it is never neutral.
This video by Klavan was made three years ago, but it is more relevant now than ever. The recent Democratic National Convention put sex front and center with its WAR ON WOMEN campaign slogan. 30-something co-eds from prestigious universities pounded the podium and paraded before us all their right to have sex promiscuously and without consequence. Anything less constituted WAR!
But, as Mr. Klavan points out, there is no such thing as sex without consequence. To pretend otherwise leaves people broken, damaged and destroyed -- it's like being a Democrat!
I'm still convinced this whole feminism, sex without consequences thing was dreamed up by a group of frat boys to get lucky more often. I don't get why women buy into it.
ReplyDeleteMargaret Mead said in her study of mankind that, "men look for someone who will say yes. Women look for someone to say yes to."
DeleteThere was great power in that statement. Women controlled the future by controlling sex. We abandoned that power to compete with men on men's terms. Stupid.
Feminism was doomed to destroy women from the beginning because it was always shaped and animated by a feeling of inferiority to men, a sense that women and their role in the world were insufficient. Since there are only two ways to be - male or female - and feminists had determined that the female was the loser - they simply tried to make women behave just like men.
And you're right. Men loved it. Why not? Suddenly their roles as provider, defender, protector, which can be demanding and require sacrifice, were no longer necessary to "win" the female. A drink was all she needed. Yeah, baby! And even WINNING her for good, as in marriage, meant that she was going to be willing to shoulder the same burdens as the man in the workplace, happily wading out into the world to "make a living." Easy sex and she pays her own way. WOW! What a DEAL!
But we never needed more men. We NEED women to be women. They have always been the cultural harbor, the keeper of the home fires, the ones who maintained the niceties and pleasantries of life. It's no surprise to me that life has become coarse and unpleasant in the last 50 years. Without women being women, life quickly descends into a "Lord of the Flies" kind of baseness. Not that I don't love men, but they are simply NOT the ones entrusted with writing thank you letters and remembering everyone's birthdays, organizing parties and decorating the home.
Feminism robbed women of being women and sold them on the idea that they could be men. We've all paid a dear price for that. But at least more men are getting laid. HAHA!