WSJ: The New Face of Inifidelity

This is definitely worth a look.

From the things I’ve read, it seems that infidelity rates between the sexes are relatively close until age 45, after which the women tend to cheat less and the men cheat at about the same rate as before.

Someone once asked me why that would be the case? I summed it up in 4 words:

  1. viagra
  2. cialis
  3. levitra
  4. menopause

Stop Light Day?

I got a fb message from my daughter’s high school – one of their “Spirit Days” is going to be “Stop Light Day.” On Stop Light Day, the students are to wear Red if they are in a relationship, Yellow if it’s complicated, or Green if they’re single. A quick google search and I discovered this is, apparently, not un-common.

I told my daughter she should wear Black for This Is Stupid! She laughed and said she’s already planning to wear blue.

For all the anti-bullying, anti-anything-that-demeans-self-esteem, Rachels-challenge, stuff they have in schools … is there not ONE administrator that sees how utterly stupid this is and how horribly harmful this could be to some kids?!

I’m thankful my daughter is one who couldn’t care a less and is willing to wear a different color just to not participate. But I know there have to be other kids out there for whom this would be horrible.

Next We’ll Get Jenna Jameson Propping Obama

I view the recent Lena Dunham ad–which compared her first time voting to her first time having sex, in a pitch for President Obama, and which was approved by the Obama campaign–as both a good thing and a bad thing.

(1) It is a bad thing because it is proof-positive that we have political campaigns appealing to voters via immorality in general. That a candidate feels that such a voting block exists, is troubling.

(2) It is a good thing in that we will find out–once and for all–whether people are stupid enough to vote for a candidate on the basis of a slut promoting him.

And make no mistake: Dunham is a slut. I call her that not simply because she lives a loose lifestyle; I call her that because she actively promotes that lifestyle for others.

I’ve known my share of loose women over the years. They were wrong, and most of them–at least privately–would admit that. A gal who once had been in my youth group conceded to me that, could she do things differently, she would not have had sex as a teen, and would have waited for marriage. She was wrong for what she did, but she did not champion it as a good thing. Dunham, on the other hand, does that in her public life.

Still, she has nothing on Obama. That he approves this ad shows that he is a classless excuse of a human being.

Over the years, I’ve met many a liberal: they were conservative in their personal lives, but believed in handing out condoms to students because they didn’t believe kids were getting responsible sex education at home. They were not trying to promote immorality, but rather saw their role as one of trying to stanch the ramifications of other people’s behavior. They were wrong, but not dirty.

Obama, on the other hand, is pure Kenyan scum to approve an ad like this. That he appeals to the hookup culture to get the youth vote is evidence that he couldn’t care less about women. After all, contrary to the hype, the hookup culture has been an out-and-out disaster for women: it not only makes them less marriageable, it destroys their ability to even enjoy sex. (Heck, one of their biggest promoters–Tracy Clark Flory–confessed to faking most of her orgasms.)

Does this make a compelling reason to support Romney? Don’t kid yourself on that one. While Romney is an otherwise hardworking, moral human being, politically he is a Rockefeller Republican who supports a right-leaning fascism as opposed to Obama’s left-leaning variety. One gives you a red swastika, the other a blue swastika. At the end of the day, they both are for the swastika.

This race is between Stalin and Trotsky. Personally, my vote is for Tolstoy.

Still, the Lena Dunham ad will show us–front and center–the extent to which the hookup culture is a political force. They will either ride Obama to re-election, or they will lead him to quite the downer.

Black Illegitimacy, Civil Rights, Feminism, and the Politics of Blame-Shifting

When it comes to the issues of the black community, there is plenty of blame to go around. In society. In the Church. And, yes, in all levels of Government.

Recently, Captain Capitalism provided an interesting take on black illegitimacy, suggesting that feminism–implemented by government–has effectively given the red pill to black men, and has fostered a disaster expressed that is seen in the illegitimacy rates, which exceed 70% in the black community.

My take on it? This problem is a confluence of factors.

First off, we need to be honest here: illegitimacy among American blacks has been problematic for decades, even before the 1960s. In 1940, the black illegitimacy rate was 19%. It had risen to 22% by the mid-1960s. As of 2010, it’s at 72%.

For a little over 20 years, black illegitimacy was relatively stable, with a slight uptick. It would be fair to ask two questions:

(a) What caused that uptick to 22%?
(b) What caused the spike we have seen since the 1960s?

In 1930, black unemployment was lower than that of whites. Unfortunately, the passage of Depression-era laws that empowered labor unions, and the increase of the minimum wage, had the effect of (a) shutting blacks out of many jobs due to union rules, and (b) raising wages so high that blacks were priced out of the labor market. This had the effect of driving black unemployment up.

Given that illegitimacy rates were already bad, an increase in black unemployment would have led to even more illegitimacy, ceteris paribus. That is because a black man would have more economic incentive to forsake responsibility for a child conceived out of wedlock. That illegitimacy only rose 3% between 1940 and the mid-1960s was probably miraculous.

Enter the Great Society…

At this point, we must concede that government was hardly embracing feminism at the time. In fact, many within government probably had the great intentions of helping to address what was a very real problem in their midst–illegitimacy–even though they weren’t thinking through the actual causes or the potential unintended consequences of what they were doing.

Moreover, the religious leaders in the black community welcomed the intervention of government. And one can fully understand why, given the overt discrimination against blacks in many sectors of society. The Civil Rights era was kicking into high gear, for both better and worse.

Speaking of for better and worse, we cannot leave out the Civil Rights leaders, who themselves were a mixed bag.

For better: Martin Luther King, who–for all his personal issues–was calling blacks and whites to embrace a higher standard.

For worse: the poverty pimps who would use the Civil Rights movement to enrich themselves at the expense of those whose cause they claimed to champion. Examples include Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Now how did this pan out?

First, government intervention only created (a) an economic incentive for those single mothers to have more children out of wedlock and (b) never get married. If he mans up and marries her, she’ll live worse than she does under welfare.

The government became her husband, and shoved the black man into irrelevance.

(Was government thinking in feminist terms at the time? Probably not. But that is–functionally–how it played out.)

Making matters worse, there are now children growing up in that home without a father. Those children are at home with their mother, who receives a check from the government.

Those children may go to school, but–without guidance from a father figure–they don’t have the same incentive that those with a two-parent household have. Nor are they likely to see the connection between work and pay, if their experience involves mother receiving a check from the government every two weeks.

Even worse, those children aren’t likely to see the portrait of marriage, let alone grow up with the expectation of being married.

End-result: children in those homes will repeat the cycle, and in many cases with the complications: delinquency, crime, drugs, and other risky behavior.

As these dynamics have played out, what have the responses been?

From the government: the answer has been more money, more programs, and more help to combat the issues of black Americans.

From the religious leaders: lean on the government to keep the money flowing. That means pledge allegiance to the Democratic Party. Religious leaders get paid by tithes and offerings, and that–over the years–has become dependent on government checks going to their parishioners.

Those few blacks with the responsibility to call a spade a spade–Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas–get dismissed as “Uncle Toms”. (Even Bill Cosby–who is no conservative–received a great amount of flak for ranting against those blacks who are irresponsible.)

What is the way forward here?

There are no easy answers. The illegitimacy rate is 72%, and that represents a whole generation of black children, the majority of whom will grow up without a father in the house. This is a social disaster in the making that requires nothing short of a miracle for a turnaround.

No government program is going to fix this, and–in fact–government intervention will likely only make the problem worse. If anything, government may be the reason that the situation is as bad as it is today.

(1) We need to get the government out the business of doing for people what they ought to be doing for themselves. Toward that end, we need to end government programs that have incentivized illegitimacy.

(2) We need to look long and hard at our justice system and revisit this idea of putting non-violent offenders in jail. The War on Drugs has been an out-and-out disaster, as it has taken non-violent offenders and tagged them for life. I’ve seen it happen to whites, and I’ve seen it happen to blacks. The economic impact is disastrous.

(3) In the absence of government, the Church needs to intervene on behalf of the blacks, even as they call out the black leaders who have shirked their responsibility in the name of politics and personal greed. This is going to require a lot of resources–both people and money. There will be a need for lots of tough love. It won’t be easy, but this is a challenge that the Church in the United States can meet.

(4) We need to become a society that values and promotes marriage. This is not about government programs; in fact, we need to get government out of the business of marriage licensing.

What I mean by that is that the Church needs to do a better job communicating the place of marriage in the witness of the Gospel, calling men and women–so inclined–to embrace it as a good thing, with the men embracing the responsibilities and difficulties just as Christ receives us in our sin, and wives accepting their husbands even if they don’t fit the model of perfection to which they feel entitled.

In that process, we must affirm the value of the husband. In most cases, even a bad father is better than no father. The men have seen their role devalued by society for the last 50 years, and we need to confront that great injustice.

We also must affirm the role of the wife. Husbands have great value, so do the wives. Children need fathers; they also need mothers who are help-meets to their husbands.

We cannot kowtow to the women and blame their plight solely on the men; we cannot kowtow to the men and blame their plight on the women. There is plenty of blame to go around: men who swallowed the red pill; women who rode the carousel; a government that coddled the women; preachers who sat on their tushies and looked the other way.

We must acknowledge the sins of each, and call them, not to the government, but to the cross.

Government has done enough damage here.

Holy Moly!

One of our allies in the blogosphere–Captain Capitalism–has this take on a sector of society that has been overrun by feminism.

While I don’t completely agree with him on this–I’d suggest that the situation in the black community is a confluence of factors that created the perfect storm, and feminism is one of those factors–I’d say he is spot on as to the effect feminism (with government complicity) has had on the black men.

I’ll elaborate more later, but Captain Capitalism’s take is a must-read.

Balance

I read through a post a man wrote on single mom’s today which beat down on women… and glanced through some of the many comments – the ones I read followed suit. Neither the post nor the comments are important … except to make this point: What I like about Amir is that he keeps it balanced and straight. Are men being attacked in our society? Absolutely. But does that mean the depravity of (wo)man is limited to females? Absolutely not.

I totally get trends and groups and generations … I totally do not get lumping EVERYone into the pit of despair and doom and gloom of condemnation.

Men don’t like it when women beat them down … and we women don’t like it when men beat us down, either.

I was a single mom for four, long, hard, tragic, years. I never ever ever want to go through that again. There were many things in this post that the author got right … but the slant he took made him no better than the women who dis men.

Do I know slutty women? Yes. Do I know women who have ripped men? Yes. But I know men who have been equally as depraved toward women. Simply being a man or a woman does not make you better or worse than the other.

As Amir and Mrs. L could attest, if i could share my whole story publicly, I should be one of those women beating the lights outa men. But just because my dad and my ex are the way they are does not mean all men are that way, too. Sure, they’re not the only ones, but they’re only a portion of the population of men. There are lots of good men out there … and there are lots of good women out there. Do we live in a culture where we have to be extra discerning? Absolutely. But that doesn’t mean all men or all women are bad.

 

Assessing Tracy Clark Flory

At this point, the story of Tracy Clark Flory (TCF)–the sex-positive feminist columnist who once defended casual sex and is now sort of revisiting that position–is not news. Susan Walsh and Vox Day–as well as Roissy–provide scathing assessments of TCF.

My intention here is not to pile on TCF about her sexual past. She’s not a professing Christian, I don’t know her, she doesn’t know me, and–if anything–I sort of feel sorry for her. I would have more ire for her if she were a Christian, but–given that she does not claim any such affiliation–my only serious gripe with her is that she spent her most promiscuous years promoting that lifestyle for others.

That said, her story is instructive to both men and women.

For the men, it is important in that it provides a real-life portrait of the discretion that a man needs to have when dating someone. TCF–like Kate Bolick–is not immediately repulsive to men. In fact, both TCF and Kate Bolick are relatively attractive. Bolick, for someone in her 40s, has done an impressive job taking care of her appearance.

And that’s the problem for men here: APPEARANCES! Yes, men hate hearing the admonition about “inner beauty”. They dread the words, “She has a great personality!” And that’s not to say that outer beauty doesn’t or shouldn’t count: it does, and no amount of shaming tactics will change that fact.

At the same time, the men tend to forget about that “beauty is fleeting” clause in Proverbs 31.

The cases of Kate Bolick and TCF underscore the need for the guys to have discernment. This is because there are women life Kate Bolick and TCF in the Church. They have a certain charm, and even the appearance of godliness. They may not be regulars in the singles classes, but they’ll show up at special functions. They’ll dress suggestively enough to appeal to the men who are “looking”, while speaking the right spiritual jargon to make you think they are genuine. They may even play the game so well that you will not be aware of their loose morals.

How do you win against those types if you’re a guy? You have to be honest about your own lusts and desires and motives. The guys who fall for those types are every bit as depraved as the gals for whom they fall. In fact, I would suggest that they don’t “fall” for the loose woman as much as they “swan dive” into sin. They crash–head-first, with a smile–into sin.

Don’t think it can’t happen to you? That’s evidence that it can.

Now how is TCF’s case instructive for the women?

Ladies, her case is a WARNING to you. Wanna know how?

Let’s say you are wanting to get married–to a good, stand-up guy–and have kids with him. Let’s say that have the following pedigree:

(1) You are 28 years old;
(2) You started having sex when you were in your teens;
(3) Your college life was rife with “hookups”, often with alcohol involved;
(4) Even after college, your dating life was a series of short-term sexual relationships with Alpha males;

While everyone is going to have SOME baggage, this type of past is indicative of a lot of the self-inflicted type. While your chances of marrying well aren’t zero, they have gotten worse–not better–with age, due to those choices.

Now, let’s say that, instead, you have the following pedigree:

(1) You are 24 years old;
(2) You are either a virgin or–at worst–have had no more than three partners in your life, none since high school;
(3) Your college life was straight-laced: you did not play the hookup culture, and you dated with good boundaries;
(4) You work hard, and the group with whom you hang is upstanding; you don’t frequent the bar scene.
(5) While you find yourself naturally-attracted to Alpha males, you check yourself because you KNOW that those types, while interesting, are as cunning to the women as the scantily-clad hottie is to the men.

The tragedy is that, while TCF is still young (she’s 28), she has the following working against her:

(1) She probably can’t even count the number of partners she’s had;
(2) She does not seem to grasp what commitment is;
(3) She is in total denial about what she has done with her life;
(4) Her most fertile years were spent riding the carousel.

While I support TCF’s right to destroy her life–and she’s doing a great job of it–I would also point out that she’s reprehensible for teaching others to do as she has done.

And THAT is another area that women need to heed: people like TCF do what they do because THEY NEED YOU TO BE A SLUT IN ORDER FOR THEM TO HAPPY! THIS IS BECAUSE THERE IS STRENGTH IN NUMBERS!

The sluttier you are, the better it is for her ego: it allows her to feel better about herself.

Either You Support Abortion,

or you support beheading women for refusing to become prostitutes, according to Suzanne Nossel of Amnesty International.

While the story is reprehensible, Nossel’s take is insidious in its own right:

In a statement, Nossel said women and girls in the region “are raped, killed, forced into marriage in childhood, prevented from obtaining an education and denied their sexual and reproductive rights. Until basic human rights are guaranteed … these horrible abuses will continue to be committed.”

So unless we let women kill babies, women will be subject to honor killings, forced marriage, forced prostitution, and murder for refusing any of the above.