What Lisa Dierbeck has written here is both priceless and ominous.
Amazing how, even from a secular perspective that is removed from Biblical mores regarding sexual ethics, she’s found herself not far from the truth.
Keep moving rightward, Lisa. You’re almost there.
This should also serve as a warning to college-aged women who are getting pressured from all sides to jump on that carousel. You want to know where that leads? Read Dierbeck.
Lisa, sadly, is now 40.
If she aspires to marriage, her baggage puts her behind the 8-ball.
If she aspires to motherhood, her most fertile years are behind her.
Like Kate Bolick, even if she takes great care of herself, her peak days of attractiveness are also now behind her.
This is the price of parental amorality.
Contrast that with those married, conservative Protestant women, who enjoy sex more than any other demographic group.
WOW. spot on.
God is not afraid of using those who do not know Him when His own ignore the Truth. i’d say this could be preached from the pulpit – and should be.
One of the worst harms of pornography, and our sex-saturated culture generally, is that it has convinced large numbers of men that women can have strings-free sex. They can’t, but the idea that they can encourages men to try. I think if men really knew, like, I mean, really kept it in their minds, that women CAN NOT have strings-free sex, it would help men with some of their lust problems. If it CAN’T happen, there’s no point in even imagining it.
Amen. A lot of guys think in terms of easy, no-strings-attached (NSA) sex. The fraternity culture, and the hookup subculture, certainly contributes to the mindset. Porn doesn’t help, either.
Pornography gives you the impression that (a) NSA sex is available, (b) casual sex is really no big deal.
Sadly, casual sex really is a big deal. Proverbs 6:27 is clear: “Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?” As a pastor friend of mine once put it: you can’t touch a live power line without getting a nasty shock.
Similarly, sex is more than a physiological matter by which one performs a stimulus and gets the intended response. This is because sex is more than a physical transaction. Otherwise, it would be no different than a trip to the YMCA for an hour of cardio.
The folks on the Dark side–I’m referring to the Game/PUA community–will have much to answer for one day.
Even then, let’s not kid ourselves: so will the women who chose to ride the carousel, as will the feministas and their male enablers who drank the Kinseyan Kool-Aid to market their agenda.
we do a huge disservice to women when we tell them they are not responsible for their actions and/or situation b/c men are. the bible is no respecter of gender when it reveals the debase sins of humanity. as a matter of fact, i would guess there are more warnings to the man to stay clear of ‘that kind of woman’ than the other way around.
i think Adam is right in another thread … the foundation is sin, not gender.
“the bible is no respecter of gender when it reveals the debase sins of humanity”
true, I hate reading anything that suggests wimmenz sin is fault of men.
this is interesting
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/4776/209/
“For men, an effect of vasopressin—which floods a man’s brain during intercourse—is that it leads to a bonded feeling with his partner. Research shows that if he has intercourse with multiple partners, the bonded feeling is dissipated, eventually imperiling a man’s ability to form long-term attachments.”
Cyrus – when i read the bible, it doesn’t tell me i must obey God if … it says i must obey God. therefore, i must also take responsibility for my own choices, regardless of what circumstances i find myself in.
this was prevalent in my life in my first marriage. he did many things that, if known, would cause most to think it would have been okay for me to do any number of immoral things … i know that i would have even been able to get away with it inside the church. but i could never get away with it with God. we want to couch our sin within the choices of others, and we cannot.
this seems contradictory to the many verses written in various ways that warn us not to cause another to stumble … and that we are responsible for hurting others. i cannot say i completely understand it all, but i can say that i am responsible to God for my choices, regardless of what anyone else has done to me.
therefore, it matters not whether you are male or female and the gender of who is offending you, we are all individually responsible for our own choices.
this does not mean we do not have to live with and accept the consequences of the sin of others as well as the sin of ourselves, because we do. forgiveness of others, and ourselves, is critical.
I read the protestants and sex article and had a comment about the last paragraph that has been itching at me for so long now:
WHY THE HELL do we ASSUME teenagers are incapable of self-control? Ergo, we don’t even bother teaching it. Seriously…
I think this comment on the article nails it:
—
Here is what really happened…….. A free girl (who obviously likes sex) hits her 40′s and realizes that with her fading looks she is no longer as desirable as she once was. Her energy level is not the same. She can’t party as hard as she used to. Her competition is now less than half her age. She internalizes the diminishing attraction and lashes out at the “system” of free sexual expression as the culprit. Calling herself a “romantic” at the articles end is proof. She obviously wasn’t much of one for the duration of her life experience. Blaming the freedom of sexual self expression for her inability to keep up with change is as uncalled for as it is whiny.
—
I would add to this that the woman in the article is really trying to obtain attention, and this is the way to do it at 40. Kate was the same way. Both of these women want attention, and they are losing it as they age. The new strategy for these old hags is to fake vulnerability and being “used” when they were younger; blaming culture and society for the ills while hoping to receive attention.
One thing men of the past had down that modern men lack: ignoring the obvious attention-whoring. This is what these women are doing and sadly, they are receiving what they want – attention.
These articles also encourage young women to do the same unintentionally: they can have free sex, enjoy their youth in promiscuity and write articles that receive tons of attention much later in their life! Trust me, the effects of articles like this (and Kate’s) will be more promiscuity, not less.
I definitely agree. Ultimately, she’s looking for attention here.
OTOH, I sense a slight difference between her and Kate Bolick.
In Bolick’s case, she seemed to be promoting the idea, “Well…I’ve ridden the carousel during my prime, and now that my marriageability is worse now–and won’t be getting better–we need to rethink the whole marriage paradigm so people like me can feel better about ourselves.”
Dierbeck, OTOH, appears to be less-inclined against marriage paradigm, but rather to be saying, “I really screwed up by riding the carousel during my prime, but, hopefully, by changing my tune, I can salvage what is left of my marriageability.”
But yes, I would otherwise agree: both Bolick and Dierbeck appear to be seeking attention.
Unfortunately, as I pointed out in a thread here about Bolick: all that attention she gets in print and television, won’t hold her hand, push her wheelchair, or change her diaper when she’s 85 years old and can no longer take care of herself.
Yeah, you’re right about Kate in that she wants something to do that for her in her old age. She realized that she missed the boat on marriage and now needs something else.