The hashtag stems from a facebook group, a relatively new group created in 2014, of the same name, and it's just gaining its infamous status in the past couple of days. And boy, are the progs annoyed. Raw Story, HuffPo, Metro etc. have written articles about it and the tweets show the irritation of this slogan turned hashtag.
Anthony DeMarco runs the podcast Ascending the Tower over at Social Matter, so hat tip to him for making me aware of this.
The tweets are the typical mockery and presumptions of people who hold sex like drinking a beer towards those who think sex is more than that, and that chastity is actually a legit stance towards the hedonistic and amoral view on sex. And again, typical of such people, they wear their hearts on their sleeve. Planned Parenthood supporter. A person stating they aren't straight by their twitter name. Some guy who looks like a douche from Ireland (my impressions of the men of Ireland aren't good -- either they come across as douches or they're just atheistic pansies, think Richard Dawkins fanboys). The last, @elctrafemme whose twitter name is "unsex me now" ... Well, her entire twitter masthead and bio should be posted.
Okay, since I singled out that twitter person, er, twitterian, er, @elctrafemme I'll just show the fragile nature of @DboudreauDella, the "i am gay" twitter name who wrote #MasculinitySoFragile.
Well a boy has a penis. I'm rather positive that the person shown above does not actually have a penis. The part of me that is in doubt says that person is a he and looks like a girl. If so, no, "im the prettiest boy of them all" is just self-flattery that I disagree with.
Back to the #NoHymenNoDiamnonds. Its' reasonable to say that it's a double standard for women, those that have lost their virginity well before a man proposes to them and those that have numerous sexual partners, when compared to men who have slept with other women, whether it be in a relationship or a casual tryst. I would not be surprised if this uproar will be another page that the #WarOnWomen movement will reference. I don't think it's a "war"; it's a standard. Of course, for anyone that knows about a woman's body, the hymen can be broken even without sexual intercourse based on pure accident. I won't get into the details, though. But the hashtag isn't directed towards those in that small, rare group. It's directed at the large group of women who consciously choose to have sex before marriage. It's an ego blow to the women who have had sex that are part of the modern day feminist movement and those who share similar stances and beliefs.
Many can say to the facebook group and those that support the hashtag to "face reality," and deal with the sexual nature of women. True. And this is one way of dealing with it. This group, from my readings on their facebook wall, is a mix of men. Some men are frustrated that they couldn't get sex from the women of their choice when they bulked up; some men actually want to have sex within marriage only. The first group joins the second group - adopting the standards and ideals of the abstinence before marriage people - and in a very ironic way see the value of actually having sexual standards (not if the woman's body is to ones liking, but if she sees her sexual worth more than "I'll do it when I'm ready" aka most likely before marriage with a person that most likely won't be my spouse if I ever do get married.)
Should the facebook group lessen its harshness on those who admit that having sex before marriage was a mistake and/or that they regret it? I think they should, but, as a guy, I see no real issue with the group's message and goal. As I said before in another post, I think double standards are good in certain occasions. It, in a sorta mean way, says to the group that is being singled that they are looked at differently and that not everything is held to the same standard. Sometimes it's out of sheer bias, even hatred, and others because it's a psychological instinct. When the left points out hypocrisy by The Right I tend to think that it should help The Right be more prudent, if not push its limits to better thought processing and to live up to the goals the ideology sets forth (the left should probably never be let to live up to its goals because it'll just create misery, personal destruction and nihilism).
The hashtag is a standard more than anything once you move away from the MGTOW and the angry body buildings who can't get laid. In many ways it has exposed the idiocy of the progressives and the pure contempt that the modern world has for anything sacred and traditional. It has also exposed the foolishness of pick-up-artists that when they don't "get some" they cry and wonder to themselves "I've got the body, I got the car ... What about my taco?" They don't treat the opposite sex like human beings; they want sex and that's it, and for that they deserve their misery. This is the twist: modernism's attitude towards sex and pick-up-artists have collided. The end result a somewhat hilarious crash.
Now what are my exact thoughts on this, personally when I deal with abstinence, if not chastity, and how sex ties into marriage? This has always been my philosophy about this situation. If I ever do get to propose and the woman isn't a virgin, then she isn't a virgin. If we get to a point where I propose and I'm aware she isn't a virgin, then in my eyes, she's worth it. I deal with it the same way in the given situation when the woman I'm dating has already had plastic surgery - be it breasts, a rhinoplasty or whatever before we became something more than friends. I don't reject them because of that. I deal with it, accept it and carry on with the relationship because I don't see such things as a deal breaker. I will make it aware that I reject plastic surgery, though. Same with tattoos. As for politics, wow, I can see myself compromising on that as well. Now, when it comes to religion that's a much more serious issue. This me "meeting them where they are." I believe I am being very generous about what I accept in terms of faults and past actions.
Preferably I would like my future wife to be a practicing Catholic and not of the liberal bent. If I can't find one of that stripe then being a non-denominational Christina is fine. If I can't find that then a non-religious person holding similar morals & values may have to do - but they must be an exceptional person who doesn't treat Christianity, let alone Catholicism, with disrespect. The third option must be, again, exceptional - if not, then it's a no go. Here's why.
You see, nothing of what I've admitted says anything about the woman's looks, her ethnicity, her education level, her career choice (porn stars are a no and actresses are to be looked at with great suspicion) or where she has or has not lived.. It has everything to do with moral standards and values. I am not looking for perfection, but effort and standards. If we share the same morals and values - which atheism cannot base itself on or say "morals is based on evolutionary psychology!" - then living together and raising children will be that much easier. I will absolutely not dedicate a part of my being to a person who cannot allow me to raise any of our future children in a Catholic household. Education wise, we either find a good Catholic school or we homeschool till high school. Non-religious privates are also an option. Opting for a public school is on the page, but that's the last resort. There are compromises, but spirituality is not a compromise for me. I've seen it with my own eyes that a house with no prayer or concept of religion is an empty household. It is spiritually vacant. A single parent household with prayer is stronger than a two-parent household. A two-parent (of opposite sex) household with prayer is the ideal. The Mormons, the Catholics (at least the old-style kind), the Baptists and Orthodox Jews are poof of this. Oddly enough, when it comes to abstinence, the Mormons outdo the Catholics in sexual restraint.
So yes, our attitudes towards sex is not only a character revealing scenario, but also it can heavily dictate how we raise our children and how they come to view sex. I know exactly what I'm getting with a women who have no issue with sex before marriage. And it's not a "veteran" in a sense of a war veteran or a seasoned professional athlete. But they think of themselves that way.
EDIT: The "sex positive" people are miffed over an LA billboard urging app users of grindr (for non-straight dating/hook-up) and tinder (it's straight counterpart) to get STD tests. The ad was footed by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Oh the irony.
No comments :
Post a Comment