I came across the following article which posits the idea that the recent “Yes means Yes” round of campus sexual conduct rules is really an attempt to return to the old fashioned morality albeit dressed up in a different outfit.
Sexual liberation is having a nervous breakdown on college campuses. Conservatives should be cheering on its collapse; instead they sometimes sound as if they want to administer the victim smelling salts.
It is impossible to overstate the growing weirdness of the college sex scene. Campus feminists are reimporting selective portions of a traditional sexual code that they have long scorned, in the name of ending what they preposterously call an epidemic of campus rape. They are once again making males the guardians of female safety and are portraying females as fainting, helpless victims of the untrammeled male libido. They are demanding that college administrators write highly technical rules for sex and aggressively enforce them, 50 years after the proponents of sexual liberation insisted that college adults stop policing student sexual behavior. While the campus feminists are not yet calling for an assistant dean to be present at their drunken couplings, they have created the next best thing: the opportunity to replay every grope and caress before a tribunal of voyeuristic administrators.
The ultimate result of the feminists’ crusade may be the same as if they were explicitly calling for a return to sexual modesty: a sharp decrease in casual, drunken sex. There is no downside to this development.
[ANO: Read the rest of the article for more insightful analysis]
Today’s blog is about a FB post I found that clearly demonstrates feminism’s deep influence on current thinking, which I think represents the fast road to hell for any married couple that practices what the following quote teaches:
“The genuine place the Word of God gives to women is neither the bland-equality of the world, which thereby lowers a woman from her proper place; neither most certainly is it the status of “submission to the authority of man” such that it is nothing more than some “Christian” version of the subjugation of women. No, the place the Word of God gives to the woman is that of the cherished bride, lifted up and placed on a pedestal, her Bridegroom kneeling before her in service, having accomplished all things for her and having given her every good thing, such that her “submission” is nothing else than to rejoice that there is no other person she need look to for her happiness and contentment.”
What are these mistakes in this massive train wreck of a quote? Let me enumerate them one by one….
Mistake number one is equating “submission” with “subjection”. Submission is one person willingly yielding authority over themselves to another – the perfect example of this is Jesus’s submission to His heavenly Father. This is in opposition to subjection, which one person imposing compliance on another person by use or threat or force.
The next mistake in this train-wreck is the notion that a woman is supposed to be “pedestalized.” As any sane man (and woman!) will tell you, this is a typical ‘beta’ move, results in complete disrespect for the pedestalizer, and absolutely kills any attraction that might’ve existed otherwise. Many a divorce was founded on the rocks of this doctrine.
Following that accident is the idea that the bridegroom’s place is a subservient “kneeling before her in service.” Scriptural instruction places the husband in a position of responsibility for his wife, and in order for the husband to discharge that responsibility he must have the authority to do what needs to be done. This is a reflection of the relationship between Christ and His Church, where Christ cares for and provides for His bridge the Church, and the Church submits to and supports Him in this work. Such caring and provision on the part of the bride-groom, however, does not imply the kind of subservience the author of this quote would place Him in. What this image does do, though, is tell any entitlement princess that reads that she’s “all that and more” and justly deserves the use of men’s resources simply because she has female bits.
Finally, the caboose falling off the track of this theological wreck is that the woman’s “submission” is nothing more than rejoicing that the only person she need look to for her happiness and contentment is her husband. Translated, this means that the woman’s husband is responsible for keeping her happy, and that she bears no responsibility for her own happiness. This attitude puts the husband in an impossible position where he can never win, and the next step in this parade is a a divorce because the wife was unhaaaapy, and it’s all the husband’s fault.
The author of this post is seriously confused about the nature of submission in Scripture and between men and women. Anyone following this path must read my reblog of “SmoothReEntry”‘s post “Then There’s Me” to see where this particular train will end up.
This author wrote a brilliant piece about his relationship with a woman that had unrealistic expectations of him, while expecting every consideration in return.
Sadly, I’ve run into women like this myself, which is why I’m re-blogging it here.
Kudos to “The Private Man” for posting a link to this blog. His blog post on the article is here: http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/the-frustration-of-expressing-masculine-emotions/
I do love you. Generally, we’re on the same wavelength and communicate well. We go together as a couple; I feel an overwhelming sense of pride when you are by my side. Then there is the chemistry–it makes my head spin. I obsess about you all the time. I have no control over it. And, you are simply gorgeous.
But we are dysfunctional in the sex department. Now we have too much baggage to reconcile. We’re in relationship hell, so even if you do change, I’d feel you were doing it out of obligation and not desire, which completely ruins the chemistry. So we’re fucked (the Catch-22 kind of fucked).
I’ve admitted my insecurities are a factor in all this. They are what they are. I disclosed them so that you might understand where I’m coming from. But I don’t think you understand.
If your goal was to…
View original post 1,702 more words
Wise words from such a young child.
Gov. Jerry Brown, D-Calif., has signed into law the state’s controversial “yes means yes” sexual consent bill for disciplinary procedures at public colleges, which defines consent narrowly and leaves accused students without due process rights.
California’s bill, S.B.967, is the first in the nation to define consent as an “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement,” but also codify into law that a “lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent.”
Non-verbal consent, such as a nod, is acceptable under the law, but because the law’s text requires consent to be “ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time,” the likelihood that a university could determine signals were misinterpreted is high.
That’s because the law gives no due process rights to the accused. It requires universities provide accusers (labeled “victims,” which itself suggests a bias) with counseling services, but doesn’t offer any services for the accused.
The law also codifies the “preponderance of evidence” standard for campus disciplinary proceedings instead of the “without a reasonable doubt” criminal standard. This is a low threshold for establishing guilt and means that a panel of campus advisers has to be just 50.01 percent sure the accuser is telling the truth.
In effect, any young man who values his future will have nothing to do with women attending the same school, as all it takes is the simple allegation he did something wrong to get him branded as a rapist, which’ll mark him for the rest of this life.
“Dating is hard — especially when you’re a 26-year-old woman who wants to save sex until marriage”