The Truth is That “Sexual Orientation” is NOT Congenital

If we all really believed that sexual orientation was congenital—or present at birth—then no one would every worry that social influences could have an effect on our sexual orientation. But I think that in reality, we all know that sexual desire is deeply subject to social, cultural, and historical forces.

Jane Ward, “No One Is Born Gay (or Straight): Here Are 5 Reasons Why,” cited by Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, pg.55

When You Separate Sex From Reproduction and Kinship

The creation of plastic sexuality, severed from its age-old integration with reproduction, kinship and the generations, was the precondition of the sexual revolution of the past several decades.

Anthony Giddens, The Transformation of Intimacy. Cited by Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, pg.54

The Reason for Rampant Sexual Immorality

But since pregnancy can be easily prevented now—a reality we take for granted today, but one that was unimaginable not so long ago—having sex and thinking about or committing to marry are two very different things today. Now we have a split mating market, one corner of which is for people primarily looking and hoping for sex with no strings attached (NSA) and the other corner of which are people interested in making the strongest of commitments (marriage), with a rather large territory in between comprised of significant relationships of varying commitment and duration. Marriage is still widely considered to be expensive, by which I mean that it is a big deal, not entered into lightly, and is costly in terms of fidelity, time, finances, and personal investment. Sex, meanwhile, has become comparatively cheap. Not that hard to get.

Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, pg.35

Why Are So Many Men Such Losers?

There are 2.4 million more women in college than men. In 2015, 39 percent of 25- to 34-year-old women, but only 33 percent of men, had earned at least a bachelor’s degree. There are now more women than men in the paid labor force.  Documentation of the dismal state of men almost constitutes a genre of literature today. Where exactly are all these missing men? As recently as October 2016, the Bureau of Labor Statistics revealed that over 11 percent of men between the ages of 24 and 54—about seven million people—were neither employed nor seeking work. What are they doing, and why have they come to languish? How, if at all, does some men’s failure to thrive shape not only their own relationship behavior and sexual and marital decision-making but also those of their more successful male counterparts? There are, of course, a variety of reasons that have been floated to explain the plight of men, and the state of marriage and relationships. But few if any have wrestled with the possible sexual sources of these significant shifts. Basically, does cheap sex undermine men’s motivation to achieve? Perhaps.

[In the book, the author proves this is the case.]

Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, pg.11-12

Contradictions Between Sexual Revolution and the #MeToo Movement

There is a deep tension between the premises of the sexual revolution and those of #MeToo. The sexual revolution promises greater availability and enjoyment of sexual pleasure without commitment or guilt. This promise can only be accomplished by the trivialization of the intrinsically personal meaning of sex. It is very difficult to see how we can simultaneously promote the trivialization of sex and treat sexual assault with the seriousness that it deserves. 

But a powerful personal drive like sexual desire cannot really be trivialized, and its personal meaning cannot be completely denied. If sex ceases to be about love, it will necessarily be about war. This is evident in the hook-up culture, which pushes the revolution’s core premise—sex without marital commitment, or “free love”—to its logical conclusion by elevating sex without any commitment at all. In the hook-up culture and its #MeToo reaction, we can see how sex without comprehensive commitment necessarily becomes predatory, thus paving the way for sexual assault.

Elizabeth Schlueter and Nathan Schlueter, What #MeToo and Hooking Up Teach Us About The Meaning of Sex

Sex Needs More Than Just Consent

Certain moral norms follow from the personal meaning of sex. In the first place, there is a need for consent. Sexual contact without consent is a direct assault against the whole person. It is deeply depersonalizing. But sexual assault is only the most extreme kind of sexual depersonalization. Every time a person is used for sexual gratification, he or she is depersonalized. This fact accounts for the true meaning of sexual modesty (and shame), not puritanical repression. It is our natural defense against the “objectifying” gaze, against being used for someone else’s gratification. 

But not just any kind of consent is adequate to the intrinsic and personal language of sex, and thus to the dignity of the person. Because sex is an embodied union of the whole person, consent to sex without total commitment to the whole person contradicts the meaning and language of the body. It makes an act that speaks love between persons into an act of use of persons.

Sex is thus very different from other human activities. In some contexts, the mutual “use” of persons is morally acceptable. In typical market transactions, for example, the parties “use” one another for their own benefit. When someone purchases bread from the baker, each person is unproblematically looking to his or her own advantage, and (unless the transaction involves force or fraud) neither person feels “used.”

Why is it that “feeling used” is a common experience in sexual intercourse, even when it is consented to? And what conditions for sexual intercourse would prevent that feeling? While “affirmative consent” may at least avoid rape, most people have a sense that consent should be broader, that sex should at least be “a part of a relationship.” But what kind of relationship is sufficient to prevent sex from being depersonalizing? A committed one? How committed? Experience leads us to the following conclusion: Nothing short of comprehensive personal consent—in other words, marriage—is adequate to the intrinsic language of sex or the vulnerability it necessarily entails. 

Elizabeth Schlueter and Nathan Schlueter, What #MeToo and Hooking Up Teach Us About The Meaning of Sex

The Uniqueness of Human Sexuality

… human sexuality is somehow bound up with the whole person in a unique way. It has a deeply personal meaning that we cannot simply construct for ourselves. If the meaning of sexuality is wholly conventional—if sex is merely a biological event—then the seriousness of sexual assault and ubiquity of sexual shame make no sense.

In fact, in human experience, the meaning of sexuality is closely connected with a particular desire, the desire for embodied union with another person. … This desire is not simply reducible to biology, although it is certainly inseparable from it. Each of our other organs can fulfill its complete organic function within our own bodies. The genitals alone, as reproductive organs, can be organically actualized only in sexual intercourse, when a man and a woman become a single, complete organism.

This reality suggests that sexual intercourse will always mean a wholly personal union, whatever the partners to that union may intend or think. In other words, sexuality has its own language, which human beings cannot completely change. They can only choose to live the truth of their bodies with integrity or to contradict and falsify that truth with their bodies, damaging their own integrity as well as that of their sexual partners. In sexual intercourse, the body uniquely says “I give my whole self to you, and I receive your whole self, which you are giving me.” 

Elizabeth Schlueter and Nathan Schlueter, What #MeToo and Hooking Up Teach Us About The Meaning of Sex

It’s Just the Emperor’s New Clothes Updated

We're living through a strange era, one in which logic and reason has been turned on its head, forcing us to view the world through the lens of the seriously deranged.  These insidious distortions of reality come in many forms, but, in this instance, I'd like to address the issue of biological sex.  A mere few decades ago, who would have imagined that one day we'd be told that there are more than two sexes?  With a plethora of scientific and commonsense evidence describing a male and female as the necessary ingredients for the continuation of the human species (and non-human species) on this planet, we are now instructed to learn that there have been many other sexes hiding in the shadows. … Unless we want to lose our grip on reality, we should always keep in mind that there's a natural order to the universe.  Yet it's tough to keep an orderly mind when one's cerebral cortex is constantly inundated with some frivolous science made up of whimsical proclamations from politically correct politicians and social theorists.

Bob Weir, Making sexual dysfunction appear normal

There IS an Objective Moral Standard

The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people’s ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something—some Real Morality—for them to be true about.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, pg.25

Virginity IS a Treasure

You cannot laugh at virginity and then act surprised when men act like pigs.

Matt Walsh, when commenting on this article.

Logic and Truth

With Democrats and liberals, “logic is the enemy and truth is a menace.

Rod Serling

We Have an Oligarchy

If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court… the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.

Abraham Lincoln

When Liberals Rule

The Liberal “Word” Ideology

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”  

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean of many different things.” 

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all."

Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

Think how the LEFT has redefined “gay,” “marriage,” “family,” “hate,” “bigot,” “fascism,” “male,” “female,” “gender,” et al. They are controlling the language.

Patriotism American Style

Patriotism in America means loving limited government. It is that simple. You love that America has a constitutionally limited government, or you do not love America.

Jesse Kelly

Keep Sex in the “Fireplace"

In the book of Proverbs, the author takes great strides to warn his son of the dangers of sexual promiscuity and adultery, which could destroy his character and ruin his life. For it is only in the safe pastures of marital fidelity that a man will find joy and satisfaction.  Sexual passion is good, as long as it is kept in its proper context. For once the fire gets out of the fireplace (its proper place), it does nothing but burn everything it touches.

Eric J. Bargerhuff, The Most Misused Verses in the Bible, pg.142

Keep Sex Exclusive

If there is one reason why sex becomes dull and a bore, it is that it is commonplace. It’s available anywhere, everywhere, to everybody who is looking for it.  Nothing is kept in reserve. No pleasures are saved for the wedding night, let alone for the bride and bridegroom exclusively.

Elisabeth Elliot, Passion & Purity, pg.147