Wintery Knight

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

It’s Sex Week on major university campuses

Time for students to learn all about drunken immoral pre-marital sex, thanks to your tax dollars.

Let’s start with the College Fix‘s report on the “Sex Ed Warrior Queen”.

They write:

When Megan Andelloux comes to campus, no object is off-limits for being sexualized – including a genitalia-themed puppet.

The clinical sexologist and former Planned Parenthood educator, known professionally as “Oh Megan” and a self-described “Sex Ed Warrior Queen,” encouraged Vanderbilt University students to masturbate in their seats even as she spoke during an interactive sex workshop Tuesday on campus.

“Want to Be Brilliant in Bed?” was sponsored by the Margaret Cuninggim Women’s Center…

She led a workshop at the University of Tennessee last year that described an orgasm as a “political act,” as The College Fix reported.

[…]Andelloux did not shy away from graphic details or descriptions of “sexual adventures” throughout her workshop.

[…]Andelloux also expertly demonstrated how to put on a condom using only her mouth, according to a female student who stayed for the entire two-hour workshop and asked not to be named.

Very important to note sexualizing college students is a “political act” sponsored by the Women’s Center. That’s where this stuff comes from – feminists. And this is what universities do with their money – it’s not to teach you how to program in Java or C#, it’s to make you accept the left’s view of sexuality and reproduction.

Next up, Campus Reform reports on feminism at the University of Utah.

They write:

Students at the University of Utah can win a year’s supply of birth control, including pills or a vasectomy, this week during Sex Week events.

According to a promotional flyer from the public school, U of U’s Center for Student Wellness, Students for Choice, and Planned Parenthood have partnered for this year’s Sex Week, beginning on Feb., 9.

“The more events you attend, the more chances you’ll have to win a year’s supply of the birth control or STD protection of your choice,” the flyer reads.

The flyer says that the birth control options are limited to those offered at Planned Parenthood, which are: 365 condoms, a 12-month supply of pills, one Intrauterine Device (IUD), four Depo-Provera shots, one diaphragm, one vasectomy, 12 NuvaRings, 52 OrthoEvra patches, one Implanon, or information on fertility awareness methods.

The events include a wellness fair, panel discussions, and a showing of “ Obvious Child,” a movie about a young woman who chooses to get an abortion.

[…]Katie Stiel, program manager at the Center for Student Wellness, told Fox 13 that Students for Choice “went through the appropriate channels” to get funding for the events and it would not be removed from campus or cancelled.

Note that Christian clubs and pro-life clubs are being de-funded and disbanded by student governments, but using taxpayer dollars for this is no problem!

Last one is actually not about Sex Week, it’s about feminism magazines.

This is from the Federalist:

True confession: Until last week, I had never read Cosmopolitan magazine. I actually kind of like fashion magazines, as a genre: The more spacey-eyed, pouting women in $900 shoes slumping against helicopters parked on yachts the better, I always say! That said, I tend to shrink from those fuschia-flecked, scantily clad drugstore nightmare sheets that screech at me to “HAVE BREAK THE BED SEX!!” when I’m just trying to mind my own business and buy some freaking dental floss.

The genius of Cosmo, of course—and, I suspect, the reason it’s the most popular magazine for young women in America—is that it will breezily suggest 131 creative ways to WEAR NOTHING BUT THAT FREAKING DENTAL FLOSS whilst you DRIVE YOUR MAN BATTY IN THE BOUDOIR. So with Sex Week arriving at the Federalist, I decided to enter uncharted territory. I would not only read Cosmo, but I would try its sex tips!

Here is her conversation with her husband:

ME: Here’s one. [Reads headline aloud.] “I Basted My Boyfriend Like a Sexy Thanksgiving Turkey!”

I did garner some male feedback on Cosmo’s rather earnest and disturbing sex-advice column.

HIM: Um.

ME: “I Took My Boyfriend to A Dominatrix!”

HIM: Nope. [Refrains from making eye contact, which is puzzling, as I did not just order a fancy and intimidating Cotes Du Rhone.]

ME: “I Covered Myself in Food For Sex!”

HIM: [Looking up.] Hey, didn’t George Constanza do that once on “Seinfeld”? No, no, wait. He just wanted to eat a sandwich while having sex.

[LONG PAUSE.]

HIM: This is getting ridiculous.

ME: “I Tried All the Sex From ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ in 1 Weekend!”

HIM: Who are these people?

That article made me laugh.

If you’re a young marriage-minded man of some means, and your heart is set on marriage and children, you will have to search far and wide to find a young, unmarried woman who desires the same. Young unmarried women don’t want marriage and children, they want free birth control and kinky sex. It’s “adventurous” and marriage with children is “boring”.

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jennifer Roback Morse lectures on sex and sexuality at Harvard University

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse

Dr. Morse delivers a talk based on her book “Smart Sex” at Harvard University.

The MP3 file is here. (21 Mb)

Topics:

  • the hook-up culture and its effects on men and women
  • cohabitation and its effect on marriage stability
  • balancing marriage, family and career
  • single motherhood by choice and IVF
  • donor-conceived children
  • modern sex: a sterile, recreation activity
  • the real purposes of sex: procreation and spousal unity
  • the hormone oxytocin: when it is secreted and what it does
  • the hormone vassopressin: when it is secreted and what it does
  • the sexual revolution and the commoditization of sex
  • the consumer view of sex vs the organic view of sex
  • fatherlessness and multi-partner fertility
  • how the “sex-without-relationship” view harms children

52 minutes of lecture, 33 minutes of Q&A from the Harvard students. The Q&A is worth listening to – the first question is from a gay student, and Dr. Morse pulls a William Lane Craig to defeat her objection. It was awesome! I never get tired of listening to her talk, and especially on the topics of marriage and family.

Filed under: Podcasts, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Three cases where liberal tinkering with sexual ethics and marriage hurt children

This post by “Jane Galt” on Right Wing News highlights three cases where social liberals change the cultural rules around sex and marriage, and it ended up back-firing to hurt children. I will talk about one case below.

The case I want to talk about is the case of changing welfare laws.

Excerpt:

To sketch a brief history of welfare, it emerged in the nineteenth century as “Widows and orphans pensions”, which were paid by the state to destitute families whose breadwinner had passed away. They were often not available to blacks; they were never available to unwed mothers. Though public services expanded in the first half of the twentieth century, that mentality was very much the same: public services were about supporting unfortunate families, not unwed mothers. Unwed mothers could not, in most cases, obtain welfare; they were not allowed in public housing (which was supposed to be–and was–a way station for young, struggling families on the way to homeownership, not a permanent abode); they were otherwise discriminated against by social services. The help you could expect from society was a home for wayward girls, in which you would give birth and then put the baby up for adoption.

[…]Now, in the late fifties, a debate began over whether to extend benefits to the unmarried. It was unfair to stigmatise unwed mothers. Why shouldn’t they be able to avail themselves of the benefits available to other citizens? The brutal societal prejudice against illegitimacy was old fashioned, bigoted, irrational.

But if you give unmarried mothers money, said the critics, you will get more unmarried mothers.

“Ridiculous”, said the proponents of the change. “Being an unmarried mother is a brutal, thankless task. What kind of idiot would have a baby out of wedlock just because the state was willing to give her paltry welfare benefits?”

People do all sorts of idiotic things, said the critics. If you pay for something, you usually get more of it.

“C’mon” said the activists. “That’s just silly. I just can’t imagine anyone deciding to get pregnant out of wedlock simply because there are welfare benefits available.”

Oooops.

Of course, change didn’t happen overnight. But the marginal cases did have children out of wedlock, which made it more acceptable for the next marginal case to do so. Meanwhile, women who wanted to get married essentially found themselves in competition for young men with women who were willing to have sex, and bear children, without forcing the men to take any responsibility. This is a pretty attractive proposition for most young men. So despite the fact that the sixties brought us the biggest advance in birth control ever, illegitimacy exploded. In the early 1960s, a black illegitimacy rate of roughly 25 percent caused Daniel Patrick Moynihan to write a tract warning of a crisis in “the negro family” (a tract for which he was eviscerated by many of those selfsame activists.)

By 1990, that rate was over 70 percent. This, despite the fact that the inner city, where the illegitimacy problem was biggest, only accounts for a fraction of the black population.

But in that inner city, marriage had been destroyed. It had literally ceased to exist in any meaningful way.

So what went wrong? Why did people with some good intentions achieve such bad results?

This went wrong:

Why would a woman choose such a hard road? It seemed self-evident that the only unwed mothers claiming benefits would be the ones pushed there by terrible circumstance.

This argument is compelling and logical. I would never become an unwed welfare mother, even if benefits were a great deal higher than they are now. It seems crazy to even suggest that one would bear a child out of wedlock for $567 a month. Indeed, to this day, I find the reformist side much more persuasive than the conservative side, except for one thing, which is that the conservatives turned out to be right. In fact, they turned out to be even more right than they suspected; they were predicting upticks in illegitimacy that were much more modest than what actually occurred–they expected marriage rates to suffer, not collapse.

How did people go so badly wrong? Well, to start with, they fell into the basic fallacy that economists are so well acquainted with: they thought about themselves instead of the marginal case. For another, they completely failed to realise that each additional illegitimate birth would, in effect, slightly destigmatise the next one. They assigned men very little agency, failing to predict that women willing to forgo marriage would essentially become unwelcome competition for women who weren’t, and that as the numbers changed, that competition might push the marriage market towards unwelcome outcomes. They failed to forsee the confounding effect that the birth control pill would have on sexual mores.

But I think the core problems are two. The first is that they looked only at individuals, and took instititutions as a given. That is, they looked at all the cultural pressure to marry, and assumed that that would be a countervailing force powerful enough to overcome the new financial incentives for out-of-wedlock births. They failed to see the institution as dynamic. It wasn’t a simple matter of two forces: cultural pressure to marry, financial freedom not to, arrayed against eachother; those forces had a complex interplay, and when you changed one, you changed the other.

The second is that they didn’t assign any cultural reason for, or value to, the stigma on illegitimacy. They saw it as an outmoded vestige of a repressive Victorial values system, based on an unnatural fear of sexuality. But the stigma attached to unwed motherhood has quite logical, and important, foundations: having a child without a husband is bad for children, and bad for mothers, and thus bad for the rest of us. So our culture made it very costly for the mother to do. Lower the cost, and you raise the incidence. As an economist would say, incentives matter.

Incentives matter. We don’t want to encourage people to do harmful, costly things and hurt children in the name of “compassion”.

But let’s get back to the bigger issue.

When you hear a person arguing for “compassion” for people who make immoral decisions, you should understand that they are arguing that moral boundaries on costly behavior be lifted. The costs that result from bad behavior are shifted from those who sin to those who don’t. The compassion crowd likes to cite one or two cases where someone is a genuine victim – but that is not the issue. The issue is the general case, and the incentives created that cause people on the margins to change their behavior. The word compassion should really be understood to mean “the act of saying that wrong is right, and covering up the damage for wrong actions with someone else’s money, taken from them by force”. That’s compassion, and it is celebrated in the feminized church as very Biblical. It’s nothing of the kind. This is not about judging people, it’s about helping people to avoid making mistakes that impoverish us all and harm the most vulnerable among us. We should not be encouraging irresponsible, selfish, immoral behavior and calling it “compassion”.

Marriage is a good thing that protects children, who are very much in need of protection. We shouldn’t be messing with it just so that we grown-ups can do things that make us feel good. Children are more important, because they are more vulnerable.

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , , ,

UK woman who had 4 abortions breaks silence to warn other women

From Life Site News.

Excerpt:

A 23-year-old London woman has opened up to the BBC about the four abortions she had between the ages of 18 and 22, in the hopes that she will convince other young women to think twice before having their own abortions.

“Lisa,” a pseudonym given by the BBC, had her first abortion at 18, her second at 21, and two more abortions at 22. At 20, she became pregnant but decided to keep the baby, and is now raising her one surviving daughter.

Lisa told the BBC she believes abortion is morally wrong, but had the abortions anyway because she couldn’t bear the thought of having four children, each with a different father.

“I was really careless. I can’t blame anyone else,” Lisa told the BBC. “I should have been more responsible, because I’ve killed a life now. And it wasn’t that baby’s fault.”

Lisa said that she was terrified the first time she went to have an abortionist end her baby’s life, but that time and repetition changed her and made her more callous.

“It does get easier with the more you have,” she told the BBC. “I know that sounds really bad, but that is just how it is.”

She said that by sharing her own experience of being changed by abortion, she hoped to convince other women to make better choices.

“I thought that if I could tell my story, maybe young women would think twice about having sex without contraception, or sleeping with guys they don’t really know,” Lisa said. “I want to tell other women that abortions aren’t just something you should do. It could change your life.”

“Lisa” also warns about the effectiveness of contraceptions:

Even though Lisa echoes the abortion industry line about contraceptives preventing abortion, she admits she was using contraception during each and every one of her conceptions – everything from the pill to semi-permanent solutions like the IUD.

“I’ve tried the pill, the patch, the injection, the coil and the implant. And they didn’t work,” Lisa said. “I bled continuously while I was on them. And the coil gave me pains, so I had to take that out after a month.”

She added, “No one wants to keep on having terminations – so I have tried different methods of contraception but they don’t seem to work for me.”

Lisa is far from alone. A telephone study of former clients by the Marie Stopes UK abortionist group found that 57 percent of those who sought repeat abortions were active users of contraception who nonetheless became pregnant anyway.

“Our research shows all sorts of women of all ages can experience repeat unwanted pregnancy,” Genevieve Edwards, Marie Stopes UK’s director of policy, told the BBC. “In the past we’ve failed to tackle this, because we didn’t want to stigmatize women.”

Edwards admits that contraceptives, particularly the short-term kind, are not as effective as many people think, and when they fail, many women look to abortion as a backup plan.

I guess in my own case, I stay clear of premarital sex for personal reasons but also because I do not want to be responsible for killing another human being just because I was looking for a good time. I think that the possible risks outweigh the pleasure I might gain. It’s important for me to foresee the consequences of my choices and avoid harming others.

Filed under: News, , , , , , ,

Jennifer Roback Morse lectures on sex and sexuality at Harvard University

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse

Dr. Morse delivers a talk based on her book “Smart Sex” at Harvard University.

The MP3 file is here. (30 Mb)

Topics:

  • the hook-up culture and its effects on men and women
  • cohabitation and its effect on marriage stability
  • balancing marriage, family and career
  • single motherhood by choice and IVF
  • donor-conceived children
  • modern sex: a sterile, recreation activity
  • the real purposes of sex: procreation and spousal unity
  • the hormone oxytocin: when it is secreted and what it does
  • the hormone vassopressin: when it is secreted and what it does
  • the sexual revolution and the commoditization of sex
  • the consumer view of sex vs the organic view of sex
  • fatherlessness and multi-partner fertility
  • how the “sex-without-relationship” view harms children

52 minutes of lecture, 33 minutes of Q&A from the Harvard students. The Q&A is worth listening to – the first question is from a gay student, and Dr. Morse pulls a William Lane Craig to defeat her objection. It was awesome! I never get tired of listening to her talk, and especially on the topics of marriage and family.

Filed under: Podcasts, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Click to see recent visitors

  Visitors Online Now

Page views since 1/30/09

  • 4,905,956 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,435 other followers

Archives

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,435 other followers

%d bloggers like this: