As I've navigated social media the last couple of days, I've been struck by the number of women (many of them incredibly unattractive and off-putting) who have decided that they should stop indiscriminately sleeping with men in an irresponsible way. One put it that they should "decimate hook up culture". I say you go girls.
Whoever convinced girls/women that the way to gain empowerment was to sexualize themselves, flaunt their sexuality on social media, use various apps to hook up with random guys who aren't responsible, and focus on themselves, was one of the most brilliant guys ever. To be able to ensure that irresponsible, immature, underemployed, guys have a steady stream of sex without attachment has been a bonanza for the guys who swim in that pool. But to convince girls/women that it's their feminist duty to screw these guys was brilliant.
By all means ladies, decimate hookup culture. Just say no to booty calls. Find guys who value you for more than your looks and willingness to have sex. What's the old saying, "Why buy the cow, if you can get the milk for free?". Well a glance at social media, and the proliferation of apps like Fanhouse, and the rest of the amateur porn apps, makes it look like there's a lot of free milk out there.
Lest anyone get the wrong idea. I am NOT advocating preventing women from being promiscuous, sexualizing themselves, hooking up with hot losers, on any other behaviors. You go girls. What I am saying is that you've been convinced that giving guys (not all of us, but a lot) exactly what they want in terms of unlimited sex with no strings or responsibilities, might not be the wonderland of empowerment that you've been told. There are plenty of media stories of women in their 30' and 40's that might serve as cautionary tales.
But ultimately y'all do whatever you want.
41 comments:
"One put it that they should "decimate hook up culture""
Good! That might be the best thing that ever happens to all the sl*ts, short of repenting and trusting in Jesus. They believed the feminist lies and have given themselves away to countless guys and lost their ability to pair bond. Their chances of a decent marriage - or any marriage - are near zero.
And their comments also expose the lie that abortion bans don't change behavior and reduce abortions. Thanks for proving our point, Molech-worshipers.
You have such a low, piggish view of women. Why ANY women vote with conservatives/GOP is amazing to me.
Dan,
What a bizarre comment, completely unrelated to any mooring in the real world. The general vagueness and lack of specificity in your ad hom attacks aren't anything new. It must be strange to think that women publicly sexualizing themselves, and hooking up with large numbers of men (who aren't interested in anything more than sex without commitment) is actually empowering to women. While the conservative position (that "hook up culture" is not healthy) is portrayed as "low and piggish", is simply beyond belief.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
Neil,
Obviously the unintended consequences of "decimating hook up culture" would virtually all be beneficial to women and society. The lack of self awareness among the pro Roe crowd is stunning.
Craig,
Exactly. They are poster children for Romans 1. God gave them over to their madness. He didn’t give them over to square dancing, He gave them *and their supporters (v. 32)* over to LGBTQX perversions, rampant soul-destroying fornication, killing their own children while demanding that we pay for it, and more. What extreme examples of people becoming futile in their thinking and having their foolish hearts darkened!
Neil,
I think that we can learn something about Hell from that verse also. I think that there is an aspect to Hell that looks like people getting exactly what they want/value/worship and getting it in abundance along with all of the consequences. I suspect that if people want to put sex/sexuality/pleasure/self/etc in front of God, that He's eventually going to give them exactly what they sought.
Craig,
Yes, it is like a couple passages in Revelation where the people know they are rebelling against God and causing the plagues, but they still rebel against him. People engaged in various perversions and killing their children do it out of rebellion against God.
Revelation 16:9 (ESV): They were scorched by the fierce heat, and they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give him glory.
Yes. It also reminds me of what Lewis said about no one going to Hell that didn't want to be there.
I haven't been to your blog in a while, how's your health?
There seems no form or level of sexual immorality Dan does not defend.
The sexual anarchy which began in the early 1960s has really destroyed the family, has led men to see women as toys, has led to all sorts of sexual diseases, has led even to pedophilia and same sex fake-marriage. The culture is being destroyed by the LEFT and Trabue has the audacity to say conservatives have a "low, piggish view of women" while he continues to support all the anti-woman sexual anarchy!
"Why ANY women vote with conservatives/GOP is amazing to me."
This isn't the first time you've proven yourself baffled by intelligence.
Good points, Glenn!
Glenn,
I completely agree that the "free love" ethos of the 60's followed by the hedonism of the 70's has pushed our culture further to the left. As we're seeing now with the increased push to label MAPs as just one more "sexual orientation", it's continuing. Yes, Dan tends to either support various examples of sexual excess or to pretend that they really don't exist.
Craig...
"What a bizarre comment, completely unrelated to any mooring in the real world. The general vagueness and lack of specificity in your ad hom attacks aren't anything new."
Also Craig...
"many of them incredibly unattractive and off-putting..."
That you didn't recognize right away what you said that was so piggish is further evidence of what a pig you are. Here's a hint, pig. Most women don't care what you think of their looks And the ones who do are probably the ones who've been bullied and oppressed into self loathing by pigs like you.
Or to suggest God approves.
"There seems no form or level of sexual immorality Dan does not defend."
Dan (Repeatedly, endlessly over the last six years...)
Trump is a sexual Deviant and pervert who boasted about sexually harassing and assaulting women and ogling teenage girls who are dressing. Such a man - especially such an unrepentant pervert - does not belong in the White House or any public office. That is a sexual perversion too far. And the reason why is because it's unwanted and harmful, according to his very own testimony . He is a Deviant... why in the world are christians of any stripe supporting this sexual pervert?
(Maybe you missed it...??)
Also Marshal... I'm more than glad to vote for him. Twice!
Also Dan...
Bill Clinton's abuse of power in the Lewinsky case is a deviant perversion.. Given her age and his position of power. Such a man does not belong in public office.
Perhaps you missed that, too?
No, only one of us have been consistently opposed to abusive it's to abusive sexual preversions.. And it's not me. Much to your shame..
So let's run down that list. Dan is consistently opposed to and greatly caused out...
Rape
Sexual assault
Sexual harassment
Ogling teenage girls
Dating teenagers (that is an older man or woman dating dating someone under 18)
Older men or women using their positions of power to date interns or underlings
Using abusive language to talk about women, you know the words
Boasting or laughing about betting down women
Boasting or laughing about using your position of power or wealth to bed down women
Getting black out level drunk and maybe sexually assaulting a woman
... of the two of us Marshal, who has consistently voted against men who committed or likely committed these actions and who's consistently supported them and defended them?
On the other hand, too sweet grandmother lesbians finally getting married and living a loving respectful life together as marriage partners? Yes I support that beautiful action. What kind of pervert wouldn't?
Two beautiful young men committing themselves in marriage for life, and then adopting a child and taking that child into their home? Yes, of course I support that. what kind of sick deviant wouldn't? What kind of anti-human rights person would oppose such beautiful actions? Are you not able to see how sexually perverted it is to oppose such such noble, pure and beautiful actions?
"Dan tends to either support various examples of sexual excess or to pretend that they really don't exist."
The irony of modern Trump-defending "conservatives" who have endlessly defended the most overt sexual predator and pervert (defending either directly or by your silence and refusal to condemn him and his supporters) Treating progressives as immoral when we're the ones fighting for marriage and just basic human decency, letting little transgender girls go to the girl's bathroom and the like.. That is what you're considered perverse but your corrupt and hedonist king he denies to king is acceptable. Can you at least see how it looks like you are the bad guys in the story?
Re: MAP. You mean like Trump?
In the absence of any evidence suggesting that Trump actually is MA, I'll stick with meaning the folx who are laying the groundwork ("academically" and societally) for MA to be just one more "normal sexual orientation".
But I respect your obsession with spreading gossip about Trump in order to demonstrate your hatred of him.
"That you didn't recognize right away what you said that was so piggish is further evidence of what a pig you are. Here's a hint, pig. Most women don't care what you think of their looks And the ones who do are probably the ones who've been bullied and oppressed into self loathing by pigs like you."
What a strange, desperate, and weak attempt to make your ad hom stick.
1. My comment never mentioned "looks".
2. "attractiveness" and "off-putting" cover a multitude of aspects of how humans present themselves.
3. For example, I would consider a "woman" who chooses to scream uncontrollably in front of a camera about whatever they're currently offended by to be "unattractive" and "off-putting". This conclusion has everything to do with their actions, and virtually nothing to do with their appearance.
4. Many women are beautiful by some standard, yet may not be "attractive".
But a really creative attempt to justify your jumping to a bullshit conclusion and trying to put words in my mouth.
For an example, I think I linked to the video of a "woman" who insists that she's a cat and that her pronouns are kit and kitty (or something equally bizarre), that's the sort of thing I', talking about.
While it's enlightening to have Dan post a list of sexual behaviors he claims to have problem's with, I have a couple of things.
1. I'll note that he didn't mention the one specific issue mentioned in the post of women believing that sexualizing themselves and sleeping with multiple random dudes is somehow empowering.
2. Most of his list seems to be in the context of behaviors he attributes to Trump. Which makes one wonder if he's that concerned about those behaviors when it's leftys with engage in them.
3. His choosing to ignore the fact that our current sexual climate is directly resultant from the sexual revolution, which was pushed hardest from the left.
Well, Dan thinks by criticizing Trump's behaviors, it makes him moral. He wants to put as much focus on Trump in order to allow liberty to champion actual perversion. While few who supported Trump politically did so because he's lecherous, Dan believes what best for the nation is unimportant if it means electing someone like Trump to resolve the nation's problems. He can't argue Trump's abilities and beneficial achievements as president. All he can do is focus on what might not even be true.
Not having been on the blogs during the Clinton years, as I don't believe there was such a thing yet, I'm not impressed that Dan would claim to have opposed Clinton because of his lechery. I wonder if he did a moment's research into the stories about him before voting for him the first time. In any case and even so, I've never seen a damned thing about his opposition to Clinton until AFTER someone brought up Clinton while Dan was obsessed with Trump.
I have a few things to say about his list, too. It'll have to wait.
"So let's run down that list. Dan is consistently opposed to and greatly caused out...
Rape
Sexual assault
Sexual harassment
Ogling teenage girls"
Regarding these four areas, Dan opposes encouraging women and girls from presenting themselves in a provocative manner, avoiding areas where they put themselves at risk and other such common sense, pro-active actions for their own benefit. Instead, he chooses to "teach males not to rape" and other such incredibly moronic idiocies which do nothing. Thus, it's hard to say he truly opposes these things if he won't go all the way to prevent them.
"Dating teenagers (that is an older man or woman dating dating someone under 18)"
This must be a reference to Roy Moore, who did nothing wrong given the time and place and the conditions and attitudes of the time. In the meantime, I've known plenty of teen girls and boys far more mature and intelligent..to say nothing of more Christian...than the likes of Dan. In general, I oppose adults dating teens. But what if the adult is 20? Or 22? I guess it's up to Dan as to what is appropriate for any given situation. What I oppose is adults taking advantage. Can a man in his thirties be a great match for a 17 year old? Sure. Why not? Dan thinks men can be women, and this seems "perverse" to Dan? Good gosh!
"Older men or women using their positions of power to date interns or underlings"
Again, it's a matter of taking advantage, not simply dating interns or underlings. Dan's point suggests taking advantage. Wow. He's really stepping out on a limb with this one!!
"Using abusive language to talk about women, you know the words"
But what if the women in question are known whores and sluts? This one comes from Dan when he was caught including two women just as immoral as Trump. But because he was trying to make Trump to be as evil as possible, he pretended to care about two actual and proven whores and sluts alleged to have had affairs with a married man. But Dan doesn't give a flying rat's ass about Stormy Daniels and the other chick who sold her body for naked pics.
"Boasting or laughing about betting down women"
Again, Dan's really posturing here, too.
"Boasting or laughing about using your position of power or wealth to bed down women"
Ditto this one, but it's really about believing the guy he says is such a liar one can't believe a word he says...unless it's about this type of thing.
"Getting black out level drunk and maybe sexually assaulting a woman"
Because blacking out means one can walk and maybe even sexually assault a woman. What of women who get black out drunk in the company of drunken assholes? Women can't get assaulted if they're not in the company of assholes. But hey, women can expose themselves to all manner of abuse and never be held accountable for what happens to them. That's great compassion Dan has for women. What a dickhead!
"... of the two of us Marshal, who has consistently voted against men who committed or likely committed these actions and who's consistently supported them and defended them?"
Of the two of us, Danny-boy, who has consistently praised Joe Biden as a better man of character? Why has he never taken up Tara Reid's challenge of a side-by-side lie detector test? I voted for Trump because the nation would have suffered for not doing so, as the nation is now suffering because of all the asshats who refused to vote for him in 2020. Some think they're on morally firm ground for having allowed our country to suffer. I'm not one of them. If the Dems had any real people of character...and Tulsi Gabbard may have been the only one to qualify...you might have an argument. But supported a woman whose husband was a creep and then you praised and voted for a creep who picked Legs Up Harris as a running mate. So piss off, hypocrite!
"On the other hand, too sweet grandmother lesbians finally getting married and living a loving respectful life together as marriage partners? Yes I support that beautiful action. What kind of pervert wouldn't?"
That's the point. Perverts won't oppose two lesbians pretending to be married. So I can't answer that question for you...Perv.
"Two beautiful young men committing themselves in marriage for life, and then adopting a child and taking that child into their home? Yes, of course I support that. what kind of sick deviant wouldn't?"
Again, sick deviates won't because they promote that deviancy. Worse, adopting a child and exposing that child to that ideology is child abuse and oppressive since the kid has no say in too many instances. It takes a really twisted Trabue (redundant, I know) to pretend that's a good thing.
"What kind of anti-human rights person would oppose such beautiful actions? Are you not able to see how sexually perverted it is to oppose such such noble, pure and beautiful actions?"
Only the sexually perverted would support such things. Those who truly care about the Will of God, the welfare of children and the health of perverted adults such as those you pretend are normal do not support such things. They're not "beautiful". They're literally abominations. And so are you.
Given the beginnings of the APL to normalize MAPs, one wonders how long Dan's objections to dating teenagers will last. I know he likes to hold on to that one taboo so he sounds like he's got some standards, but I suspect that he'll be on the MAP bandwagon as soon as the APA or some other "experts" declare that it's one more "sexual orientation".
I was 22 and was dating an 18-yr-old who just graduated high school. 47 1/2 years later we still "date," this year celebrating our 46th Anniversary. (We would have married earlier but I was still in the Army when we met and after the 10-day leave we had a long-distance relationship with letters and phone calls.). So according to Dan, it seems he is saying this is improper for me to date a teenager.
What's interesting is that Dan is vehement about the whole dating teenagers thing, without realizing that the age of consent ranges down as low as 14 (maybe 12) in some EU countries, and I've never heard him say anything specifically negative about the practices in Muslim countries involving men taking very young girls (and boys) for their sexual satisfaction. I'm sure he doesn't approve, but I've never heard him ever address theses sorts of things within the Muslim world. Because telling the truth about what is accepted in Islamic countries is a bad thing.
Marshal...
"Dan opposes encouraging women and girls from presenting themselves in a provocative manner, avoiding areas where they put themselves at risk ..."
Are there no decent men on the right anymore? A woman wearing a bikini is not dressing provocatively or putting themselves at risk. MEN who would attack and rape them or otherwise sexually prey up on them, those MEN are the ones who put them at risk. You have to stop blaming the victims. That is what is truly perverse!
Does no one here understand this?
"I'll note that he didn't mention the one specific issue mentioned in the post of women believing that sexualizing themselves and sleeping with multiple random dudes is somehow empowering."
And I'll note that we have no serious reason to believe this is a serious reality in any serious numbers. The very phrasing of Craig's accusation is demeaning to women.
Women do not live to please you with their personal decisions. Get over yourselves, boys.
" I've never heard him ever address theses sorts of things within the Muslim world."
That's the advantage of being relatively consistent on your moral positions por oppositions. When I say I am opposed to rape, you can know that I am opposed to rape. It doesn't matter if it happens in the US or in Iran or Morocco or anywhere I am opposed to it and you can know it because I've already said that I'm opposed to it.
I say I am opposed to forced marriages or child brides, you can know that I am opposed to it wherever it happens.. I'm opposed to it in Pakistan and when Roy Moore starts grooming a 14 year old girl when hes 32 so that he can date her when she's 16, you can know I'm opposed to it.
And when I say a leader who would bed down a 20 year old intern Or boast and laugh about ogling teenagers or bedding downor assaulting women, such people are not fit for office, it doesn't matter if it's Bill Clinton or Donald Trump. I'm consistently opposed to it.
I'm consistent that way.
Marshall and many conservatives? Not so much.
Given all of what I've said in the last few comments and awful comments like this from Marshal...
" Perverts won't oppose two lesbians pretending to be married. So I can't answer that question for you...Perv."
...can you all at least understand why you all are being viewed as villainous and perverted and anti-decency?
I could list real world examples all day, but just to fill in your awareness with a few examples:
I know two elderly lesbians, retired but they were Sunday School teachers and social workers. Sweet, kind-hearted, one of them playing old church hymns for us in a rather grand style at church on Sundays often times. They don't hurt anyone, they are nurturers, caretakers, givers, supporters. They are the EPITOME of sweet, kind, grandmotherly beauty and grace. Again, doing NO harm to anyone and always providing support however they can (though as their bodies age, they're able to do less direct support, but still they try).
I know two gay fellas, attended their wedding with our church friends, who've been married for well over ten years. They are kind, compassionate, considerate and committed to one another. They volunteer their time doing community gardening and are generous to a fault. Never do they speak harshly of others (even the people who are condemning of them for being gay) and they are patient, kind, loving, pure and respectfully committed to one another, taking their dog for walks in the park and just being good guys.
I know two middle age lesbian moms. They adopted FOUR children in need of a home - siblings that are hard to place (because many families are not prepared to adopt FOUR siblings relatively all at once. But these are perfect moms - one is a stay at home mom and the other an AMAZING HS Biology teacher (I've had friends who have taken her classes). Both are as intelligent as Einstein and you could not hope to find better parents for those four kids. They are committed to one another and their children whose lives they saved. They do NO harm to anyone and are just typical (but fantastic) parent-citizens and church-goers, who love God and humanity and are committed to walking in the steps of Jesus.
I point all of that out because I think many conservatives are just generally distrustful of LGBTQ folk and think they're out there having wild orgies and sacrificing children to Moloch. But no, these are just decent, good, noble, pure, loving, Godly humans in beautiful, committed families. (Not that there aren't more hedonistic LGBTQ people out there, just like there are hedonistic straight folk out there).
The point being: Do you understand how people look at such upright moral people and they look at Marshal and his perverse attacks on them WHILE defending Trump as an acceptable leader and you all just come across as very bad and upside down people, calling Good, "Bad" and Beautiful, "perverse..."? Can you understand how very hateful and deviant comments like Marshal's and Glenn (and sometimes, you, Craig) come across to rational people of good will?
A woman wearing a bikini is not dressing provocatively
Um, it is very, very immodest dress and therefore provocative. It provokes lust, which is in itself a sin. However, it does not justify sexual assault.
I's argue that a women who dresses "in a bikini" (given the wide variety of what constitutes a bikini) might be dressing or acting provocatively. I'd also argue that men should be prepared to deal with their lust or avoid temptation.
Unfortunately, I'm not talking about someone on a beach wearing a bikini, I'm talking abut women who CHOOSE to intentionally dress in a way that is provocative, who choose to act in ways that accentuate what their wearing (or not wearing), and who choose to monetize their actions through the sale of these sorts of images, or who choose to use this provocative behavior to engage in promiscuous sexual activity.
In a world of Grinder, Ashley Madison, AFF, One Night Stand, Fling, BeNaughty, and other hook up apps, and of Fanhouse, Only Fans, Porn Hub, and the like, we've gone way past talking abuout women wearing bikinis on the beach. This doesn't even address the tamer ones IG, SnapChat, etc.
It's amazing how many men are making millions off of young women serializing themselves publicly in the name of female empowerment.
I;m not saying that women shouldn't be able to exploit and sexualize themselves for fun and profit, I am saying that doing so has consequences and that they have no reason to complain when those consequences materialize. No, I'm not saying that rape is a reasonable consequence. However, pregnancy is.
Bikinis do not cause pregnancy, you know?
And you have Marshal and Glenn (and maybe you) calling women wearing clothes that you all consider "too revealing" ... calling it "provocative," and "putting themselves at risk" (Marshal, at least) and you can't call them out on it this objectification of women by men and blaming of the victim for men's behavior?
No one said Bikinis cause pregnancy.
Again, I don't speak for anyone but myself, and I don't censor anyone when I don't agree with them (you'll note that your comments regularly get posted no matter what you say), therefore I see no reason to address what they said.
What I said, is that I'm not a fan of women sexualizing and objectifying themselves, then complaining when things don't work out the way they were told they would.
Trabue, No one is blamimng the victim for assault. What we point out is that those who dress provocatively do still up those with uncontrolled lust and if not in a large public setting can be the target.
Ever notice how provacatively prositutes dress? They want men to want them.
Bikinis do not cause pregnancy, you know?
Um, no one has suggested such nonsense.
Those who have promiscuous sex are the majority of the women wanting abortions. They need to take responsibility for not getting pregnant. Their choice is to have sex or not.
But if you think that women objectifying themselves, reducing their worth to their sexual desirability, and engaging in hookup culture is a healthy lifestyle, then you go for it.
"And you have Marshal and Glenn (and maybe you) calling women wearing clothes that you all consider "too revealing" ... calling it "provocative," and "putting themselves at risk" (Marshal, at least) and you can't call them out on it this objectification of women by men and blaming of the victim for men's behavior?"
(There's that stupid/deceitful confusion I referenced elsewhere.)
With regard to clothing choices, "provocative" is often in the eye of the beholder. Other times, it's quite obvious. Between a burka and nudity, which would a normal person categorize as "provocative"? Thus, a bikini is provocative, and some bikinis more than others. Some are simply a two piece suit as compared to a one piece, while others are just enough material to satisfy civil law. Of the two, which would normal people regard as "provocative"?
And this isn't a matter of men objectifying women, as moral women of virtue regard as provocative the very types of clothing of what I speak when I encourage females to dress in a manner which is less likely to arouse the prurient interests of immoral men. To be more precise, it to lessen the interests of those men who do indeed objectify women. Dan's too stupid or deceitful to acknowledge the distinction, preferring instead to pretend there's something wrong with those of us who truly care about what's in the best interests of any who might likely be victimized by others.
In the same lying manner, Dan continues to insist this concern equates to "blaming the victim". But that's actually true if a given chick disregards logic and common sense and chooses to dress as a slut to turn dudes on, and does so in an area rife with low-lifes who would regard her doing so as an explicit invitation....i.e. the "she wanted it" assholes. To pretend such people don't exist and then to behave or dress as if they don't is just reason to blame them for the consequences their choices bring about.
Doing so doesn't lessen the crime of the attacker/harasser/rapist. Saying so is also a lie Dan likes to tell to disparage better people. If one was to walk into a lion's den and then get ripped to shreds, by Dan's logic, it would be wrong to criticize the fool. Dan's logic say doing so is "blaming the victim" of the lion attack. This is what passes for "reason" in Dan's fevered imaginings, and it's talking out both sides of his crap-spewing mouth. One victim is responsible for the consequences which befall him and the other isn't because Dan thinks a woman has the right to choose to be stupid and the rest of the world must honor her stupid choices. But hey, if a chick wants to be stupid, she's on her own. Another argument against socialized medicine.
"Bikinis do not cause pregnancy, you know?"
In light of the realities I presented in this comment above, the claim is false. Technically, the cloth which is referred to as "a bikini" does not cause pregnancy. But wearing one can, both because of rapists, as well as by the woman successfully attracting a mate. It's extremely common for women (and men too, really) to do what they think makes them more attractive. The downside is attracting the wrong people.
I missed this.
"And I'll note that we have no serious reason to believe this is a serious reality in any serious numbers. The very phrasing of Craig's accusation is demeaning to women."
It's so amusing when Dan takes the "Since I don't see something, it therefore doesn't exist." position. As if OnlyFans, Fanhouse, IG, Snapchat, and the like aren't pervasive and influential. As if hook up culture isn't a thing, as if feminist leaders aren't advocating sex work as empowering. As long as we aren't aware of what's out there, we don't have to deal with it.
"Women do not live to please you with their personal decisions. Get over yourselves, boys."
Then this gem of falsity. The literal issue is that many young women have been convinced that their value lies only in sexualizing and exploiting their sexuality to earn money or sleep with a lot of dudes. I guess when denial and falsehood are all you have...
Post a Comment