Have been catching up a bit today on some articles I had bookmarked over the last week to read, and the one that caught my attention the most was one by conservative writer/comedian/actor Steven Crowder on the issue of abstinence.
First, you’ve got to give credit to ANY guy who will admit he is in a happy, fulfilling long-term relationship and is abstinent. Not trying to be stereotypical (keep that in mind as you continue to read this, please! ), but most guys who are in long-term relationships do not talk about their’s and their girlfriend’s sexual relationship at all around other people, let alone the fact that they aren’t having it. It is just “assumed” it is taking place when conversations turn to that particular topic. So for Crowder to say, yeah, I’m not having sex but I’m still in a great relationship earns him major props in my book. He writes:
Listen, one doesn’t need to be religious (nor a rocket scientist) to see the value of abstinence. Let’s disregard the immediately eliminated risk of increasingly popular STD’ and STI’s. Heck, let’s even discount the statistical data showing that sexual exclusivity seems overwhelmingly conducive to a successful marriage. Abstinence also provides an incomparable bond of trust in a relationship.
Yes, I admit it, I’m in a long-term relationship and I’m abstinent. Scandalous, I know. It’s an incredibly difficult thing to do (mostly for me, because she’s way out of my league), and that’s what makes it so important.
I can tell you beyond any doubt, that my lady is able to control herself and stick to her values regardless of circumstance. Just as surely, she can say the same about me (Ben&Jerry’s benders notwithstanding). It is that display of self-control, that tangible example of living your principles through your life’s walk that ensures her that I won’t be jumping on the first well-proportioned opportunity that comes my way.
By the same token, I can rest easy knowing that my dame won’t be trying to bed Jersey Shore’s “The Situation” anytime soon. — Though he does have great abs.
Strong trust is the result. Constantly we hear cries of women aimed at their supposedly overly jealous boyfriends, “What’s the matter? Don’t you trust me?”
No, he doesn’t. You slept with him on the first date and there is no reason for him to think that you wouldn’t do the same when a better offer comes along.
Exactly! And that goes both ways, of course.
What Crowder is getting at here isn’t even so much not having sex at all before marriage but instead being in a long-term committed relationship before deciding to make love for the first time. Even though I’ve written on the concept of abstinence many a time on this blog (example here) and feel that, ideally it’s better to wait until marriage, I’m practical about the issue and realize that even those who don’t treat sex as a casual matter probably won’t do that. But, thankfully, most people who don’t treat sex as a casual matter won’t sleep with someone they are dating after just the first few dates. They’ll wait a while to assess the relationship before taking that leap of faith by sharing their body with their significant other.
My issue when it comes to casual sex is how our culture promotes it as something that shouldn’t be frowned on, that there shouldn’t be any responsiblity associated with just “having a good time” by hopping into bed with someone whose name you don’t even know, and then moving on. This is, to elites, the “mature” and “progressive” way to be in modern times. As you’ve probably guessed, though, I’m not a member of this “elite” group, nor am I “progressive.” As I wrote in July 2007:
As [Mona] Charen noted, women’s magazines promote the casual sex lifestyle in the name of ‘maturity’ for women, but as I’ve said before, there’s nothing mature – nor responsible – about sharing your body with someone just because you feel like ‘hooking up.’ It takes more maturity, and a more responsible person, whether they be a man or a woman, to say, “No thanks” rather than, “Cool! Your place or mine?”
Our ‘progressive’ culture promotes this type of self-esteem destroying behavior for both sexes, but more so on women than men since men have traditionally been known as the more sexually aggressive since – well, the beginning of time – thus these ‘progressives,’ including large numbers of uber-fems, have vigorously sought to promote a guilt-free lifestyle of casual sex with a de-emphasis on parenthood and/or the two parent family, a lifestyle that women are not hardwired for. Also, society’s demand for ‘instant gratification,’ whether it be for swinging through a Wendy’s drive-thru for a burger in the evening rather than coming home and cooking something more savory or getting your ‘groove on’ with the person you just met at a friend’s party rather than finding long term fulfillment – emotionally and sexually – in a serious, committed relationship, is another contributor to the moral decline we witness more and more each day.
Don’t believe me? Well then listen to actress Raquel Welch, one of the few women in Hollywood who “get it” when it comes to men and women both being responsible with their bodies and waiting a while before they begin the sexual part of their relationship.
When conservatives talk about issues like this, the assumption from the left is that people who advocate that a couple be in a long-term committed relationship before having sex are frigid, prudish, and backwards. I admit to none of the above, but I will admit to being just a little bit old-fashioned (and unashamedly so) when it comes to sex and relationships, and I suspect a fair number of men and women out there agree with me. Though there may be a “sexual spark” there when two people first start seeing each other, it’s still wise to wait a while and really get to know the person before you decide whether or not share yourself with that person, because when you share your body with someone else, you are sharing everything with them. You aren’t just naked physically, but you’re also naked emotionally and you should be very particular about who you reveal this side of yourself with because if you’re not careful, you could get burned in the end. Sure, you can still get burned even when you have been in a long-term relationship before you decide to have sex, but the instances of it are much less in a long-term relationship than one that is just dipping its toes into the water.
I understand that in today’s society we are stressed to the brink, have a lot on our plates, don’t want to put in the time and effort it takes to develop a relationship into a sexual relationship, and sometimes need a quick outlet for “release” from every day pressures, and some use one or more of those excuses to form strictly sexual relationships with others. This is problematic for numerous reasons, namely there is always the issue of disease or pregnancy in the event that one person didn’t properly protect themselves. Also, it’s not uncommon for at least one half of the sexual relationship to become emotionally attached to the other – who does not return the favor, which leads to resentment and bitterness. Also, it presents the human body as little more than a dispensable “commodity” of sorts to use as one pleases until they tire of it.
Isn’t a sexual relationship with someone you have known, trusted, and loved for a long time so much more fulfilling than that? Yes, it takes effort to build the relationship and build the trust, but as Crowder suggests in his article:
I’d also have to imagine that sex with someone whom you share trust, loyalty and open communication would be far more liberating than the thrill of any one-night stand you could enjoy.
Absolutely! And you know what? I’m even not crazy about using the term “sex” to describe what people in long-term committed relationships/marriages do when they’re in love. I prefer the term “making love.” Isn’t it so much more rewarding to make love? To “have sex” with someone you barely know is easy and provides only temporary enjoyment. Investing yourself in a long-term relationship with someone who you see yourself as having a future with, and that relationship developing into so much more makes the eventual consumation so much more fulfilling. Think about it: When you are in the throes of passion, which is more exciting for you to have in the back of your mind? That your partner completely trusts you and you completely trust them, or that in the morning you and your partner will go your separate ways to never see each other again?
All that said, just because you don’t start out having sex in a relationship doesn’t mean you can’t have fun in the process. I shouldn’t have to explain this. We are all adults here. Of course, the “fun” I’m talking about doesn’t all revolve around intimate activity but it’s certainly a part of it.
Right. So now that I’ve turned about 17 shades of red from writing this, I’ll wrap this up on that note, and say that I look forward to your comments on the matter. :”>
I wish I could say I’m surprised by this, but I’m not:
RICHMOND – President Obama walked into the back yard of one of his chief congressional critics on Wednesday to continue his blunt assault on Republicans and their policies.
At a recreation center in House Whip Eric Cantor’s district, Obama accused the Republican of proposing intellectually dishonest policies as part of the GOP’s recently released “Pledge to America.”
“I know your congressman here I think has strong ideas about what he says he wants to do,” Obama said. But, he said, the math behind the Republican proposal – which includes keeping the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans while balancing the budget – “doesn’t add up.”
Taking the argument directly to Cantor and other Republican leaders is part of a new, aggressive approach for Obama, who has been criticized by members of his party for being too cautious and concerned about offending his opponents.
With five weeks until the midterm elections, Obama seems to be shedding some of that caution in favor of a sharper tone aimed at Republicans – and even Democrats.
On Monday, the president dismissed Republicans as “not serious.” At a rally before more than 20,000 people in Madison, Wis., on Tuesday night, Obama accused the GOP of working to “hoodwink a whole bunch of folks all across the country” about his governmental philosophy. And he twice sarcastically dismissed Republicans as not “interested in facts.”
Some of Obama’s recent moves, such as a trio of casual, backyard-style events this week, are part of a tactical plan to put a stronger focus on his Republican rivals and demonstrate what their leadership would look like if they won control of Congress.
Earlier this month, Obama gave an economic speech in Cleveland in direct response to an address there by House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who would probably become speaker if the House switched hands.
Obama has also chided members of his own party for going wobbly before the election. In an interview in Rolling Stone published this week, he told Democrats that it is time to “wake up” and pay attention to the administration’s accomplishments.
In Madison, Obama seemed at times like he was testing new material, making wry remarks and tossing in a little sarcasm, as if he were letting the largely college-age audience in on a joke.
At one point, responding to criticism that he hasn’t done enough yet, he said, “I’ve only been here two years, guys. . . . I figured I needed to have something to do for the next couple of years.”
At another point, he told Democrats upset at a perceived lack of progress to think of the patience of onetime slaves. “You know, the slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs, they weren’t sure when slavery would end, but they understood it was going to end,” he said.
You know what offends me the most about that quote? Not so much that our nation’s first black president would try to sell a political agenda in and of itself on the backs of what was a very pure human rights movement, but that he’s using a movement that was based on demanding the equal right to be FREE to be in charge of your own destiny to sell an agenda where you will be, in effect, not be free if he and his allies in Congress have their say about it.
Now, I’m sure this kind of talk will play well to the liberal white guilt sufferers in his base as well as the racemongers like the Revs. Jesse and Al, but hopefully the rest of America will find the use of a freedom movement to sell an enslavement agenda just as offensive as I do.
This man really has no shame whatsoever.
Cross-posted to Right Wing News.
It’s a short list, really. While I expect good returns overall for Republicans and conservatives, there are a few races that, if I only got these, I would consider it a very good night. One, of course, is the defeat of Barbara Boxer by Carly Fiorina. Boxer, an unintelligent, corrupt, and reactionary statist, has been an embarrassment her whole time in the House and Senate; I’d vote for day-old roadkill before I’d vote for her.
But, perhaps even more than my desire to see Boxer turfed out, I want to see Barney Frank sent home. This arrogant, piggish fathead is one of the key villains in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle that lead to the mortgage and financial crises. And he wants more power, still. A guy like this should be nowhere near the halls of power. Let him go back to providing office space for gay escort services.
Fortunately, the damage Frank and his fellow progressives have done to the nation have left even him, a 14-term incumbent, vulnerable. He has a serious opponent in Sean Bielat, a Marine reservist and small businessman. Byron York profiles his surprising challenge:
Bielat is 35 years old, a Marine who spent four years on active duty and is now a major in the Reserve. He’s a graduate of Georgetown University with a master’s from Harvard and an MBA from Wharton. He’s devoted a good portion of his professional life to manufacturing the high-tech robots that defuse improvised explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, he’s a serious man.
In the spring and summer of 2009, Bielat watched in dismay as Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress pursued one big-government initiative after another. He began to think about running but didn’t make a final decision until Jan. 19, when a certain Republican won election to the Senate from Massachusetts — and did it by winning in Frank’s district. “When Scott Brown won the 4th Congressional District, it became clear that not only could a Republican win here,” says Bielat, “but there was a case to be made nationally to donors and supporters that this is winnable.”
National support is key, Bielat believes, given that his opponent is chairman of one of the most powerful committees on Capitol Hill and can raise virtually all the money he wants. But Frank is also one of those liberal Democrats who conservative Republicans love to hate. If GOP donors across the country think there’s a chance to beat him, they’ll start giving. So far, support has been steady but not overwhelming. Bielat has raised about $600,000; Frank has pulled in many times that.
Read the whole thing. It’s still a long shot, but Bawney Fwank is awfully nervous for a guy who usually wins 75% of the vote; he’s had Bill Clinton come to campaign for him in this supposedly deep-blue district. And if you want to help strike a blow for good government at the federal level, give Sean some money. Now.
(Crossposted at Public Secrets)
Readers of Public Secrets know that I’ve been highly critical (and contemptuous and mocking) of the anthropogenic global warming movement and its silly thesis that mankind is turning this planet into a Steam Bath of Doom. But there’s a larger environmental movement than just the global warming sector, and its goals are ambitious. Far beyond what we would think of as prudent conservation and good stewardship of the land, water, and air, the broader environmental movement seeks the centralization of authority over the environment (and thus us) in Washington and in transnational regulatory agencies. It is well-funded (often with our tax dollars), it is politically powerful, and it is a danger to our prosperity and liberty.
PJTV has begun a series that looks at the environmental movement. Hosted by Joe Hicks, it examines who the players are, where they get their money, and what their goals are. I think it’s well-worth watching for an alternative and critical point of view:
I’ll post follow-up episodes as they appear on PJTV’s YouTube channel.
(Crossposted at Public Secrets)
UPDATE: I missed this until late today, but apparently some eco-fascist group in Britain made a short film to convince people of the need to combat global warming… by showing children who doubt the AGW truth being blown up. Graphically and messily. You can read all about it at Hot Air, but Iowahawk has the best take on it. James Delingpole calls this a massive “own goal” for the Green Statists. Just amazing.
CNN has a sobering but must-read piece this morning on the sickening issue of child-brides in Yemen:
Sana’a, Yemen (CNN) — Reem al Numeri is 14-years-old and recently divorced. She was 11 when she says her father forced her to marry a cousin more than twice her age.
Reem says she has been stigmatized by her divorce and now lives the life of an outcast. Without a husband or father to support her, she cannot attend school.
Her story has echoes of Nujood Ali — the Yemeni girl whose story sparked an international outrage that many thought would force change in the country.
But a bill to outlaw child marriages got blocked and the practice continues. On Saturday, Yemen’s parliament will look again at child marriage.
Reem’s desperate pleas to stay a child fell on deaf ears as her father forced her to marry a 32-year-old cousin. “He said you need to go into the room where the judge is and tell him you agree to the marriage,” Reem said. “I said I won’t go in there – he took out his dagger and said he’d cut me in half if I didn’t go in there and agree.”
For Reem, the terror and the trauma were just beginning. She said she was told to sleep with her husband, but refused. She locked herself in a bedroom every night to ensure her safety but, according to Reem, he managed to sneak in and raped her.
Reem said members of her family first ordered her to submit, then expected her to celebrate. “They chose not to buy me any bridal dresses until they were sure I’d had sex with him because they didn’t want their money to go to waste,” she said. “Once they were sure, they bought me the bridal clothes and threw me a party. After that, I burned the white bridal dress I was given and then I used a razor to try to kill myself.” Reem’s father and ex-husband did not return CNN’s calls.
Two years ago, 10-year-old Nujood Ali shocked the world when she took herself to court in Yemen’s capital city of Sana’a and asked a judge for a divorce.
After a well publicized trial, she was granted one — and became a heroine to those trying to shine a spotlight on the issue of child brides in Yemen, where more than half of all young girls are married before age 18, mostly to older men.
In 2009, Yemen’s parliament passed legislation raising the minimum age of marriage to 17. But conservative parliamentarians argued the bill violated Sharia, or Islamic law, which does not stipulate a minimum age of marriage.
And because of a parliamentary maneuver the bill was never signed into law.
More than 100 leading religious clerics called the attempt to restrict the age of marriage “un-Islamic”.
Reem’s attorney, Shada Nasser, is one of Yemen’s most well known advocates for children’s rights.
Nasser has represented several child brides seeking divorce, including Ali. She doesn’t even think the practice should be called marriage. “I think it is rape,” she said.
But Nasser also has hope that Reem’s generation will help build a new Yemen, free of child marriages.
“Who can build this Yemen?” asked Nasser. “Me? No – all these small girls — they must build Yemen. But all these girls need a good law – a family law.” Nasser begs the clerics standing in the way: “I ask them to give these girls mercy.”
A prominent Yemeni human rights activist, Amal Albasha, is also outraged the practice continues. Her organization, Sisters Arab Forum, tries to intervene on behalf of child brides, to stop the marriages from taking place. Albasha added that nothing will change until people in Yemen try to fully understand the horror a child bride goes through.
“You know, just two days ago, a 9-year-old girl got married in Taiz.” she said. “Just think about the pain, the fear — just think about a 9-year-old with a 50-year-old in a closed room,” said Albasha. “The experience remains until the day of death.”
These stories are both heartbreaking and infuriating – but to see these young girls fighting back against Sharia law is also inspiring. We can fight in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan until the end of time, killing and capturing the bad guys day and night. But until there is a cultural change in Islamofascistic countries like Yemen and, ultimately, a rejection of Islam altogether, the brutality against and subjugation of Muslim women will continue. I’ve noted before that it may very well be Muslim women who are the key to this cultural shift as they are the ones who suffer the most from laws based on the Koran and, along with their children, stand to gain the most from reversing the centuries old cycle of “tolerated abuse” courtesy of Islamic law.
My personal belief is that Muslim women who are also Islamic have the most to gain by abandoning Islam altogether (as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Dr. Wafa Sultan have done) rather than trying to simply “reform” it – because you can’t reform a religion whose “holy book” enshrines the enslavement of women and teaches believers to use whatever means necessary to make “infidels” submit – and if they don’t submit to Islam, the Koran advocates their murder.
That said, whether or not these child brides end up rejecting Islam later in life, I wish them all the success in the world in getting their respective countries to overturn their child bride laws while at the same time raising the minumum age for marriage. Children should be allowed to be children – to grow and play, be happy and carefree, and they should be allowed to grow into teenagers who are given the opportunity to experience life as a those in free countries like America do. They should not be forced into marriage and sex at any age. Sex and marriage should be a choice, not an obligation, not a demand, not a duty and, of course, it should be with someone you love and who loves you, not with someone 40 years older than you who you’ve been “promised to” since birth.
God be with them.