« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

When Did Being A Slut Become The Morally Superior Option?

Being easy is well, easy. Being cheap and easy is even easier. And evidently, the new moral imperative is to not have any morals and be proud of it.

Meanwhile, there are some crazy younguns like Steven Crowder who value abstinence as a positive life choice. From Steven’s Fox editorial this week:

The idea of abstinence has become somewhat of a punchline in this country. From the myth of unrealistic “abstinence only” education, to the media’s constant portrayal (and mockery) of young, nerdy, out of touch Christians riddled with chastity pendants, the message on abstinence being pumped through pop-culture is clear; If you’re abstinent it’s either because A) you’re ugly or B) you’re a loser. In my case, it was often both.

Maybe it’s just the lack of fun-factor, or maybe it started with harlotry being misused as a fulcrum for women’s liberation, but if you so much as suggest to someone that abstinence might be beneficial, you’ll often find yourself vilified as a judgmental jackass faster than Bill Maher can throw up his dainty hands.

Sure, Michelle Obama can run around the country and condemn little fatties for inhaling Little Debbies, but if you try and apply that same helpful, healthful concept to sex, it’s seen as pushy and/or prudish.

He followed up this mind-bending controversial blog post with a visit to Red Eye, the bawdy middle-of-the-night Fox show (highly recommended, by the way). Here is the video clip from Fox. Is Abstinence Actually Awesome?:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

If you can’t watch it, or don’t have the time, first, I’ll relay the tone of the Professional Comedienne (she made sure to emphasize her professional credibility and length of time in the job as she condescended to Steven–calling him a part-time, Christian comedian; she barely contained her contempt) Amy Schumer. She sneered. A lot. Steven was so taken aback by her invective, at one point, he said, “That seems awfully personal.” It was personal for her.

Why? Because she was offended that he would use kinder words for her than she used for herself. Her words? Monogamous Slut. His word? Floozy. Amy also noted that she’s had “two Bakers Dozen” worth of men, she sleeps with a guy on the first date and she’s proud of it. “I don’t like using sex as a bargaining chip”, she declared. She made this statement ignoring her own trade of services by having sex on the first date. She just values her service less. But she is making a bargain and exchanging a service.

After all the insults, Amy finally got down to her real issue,”I just don’t know any happy married people.” The implication? No one is happily married anyway, why embrace behavior that might, but does not guarantee, a happy marriage?

She quotes anecdotal evidence, while Steven tries to share facts. She won’t have it.

My point isn’t to pick on Amy Schumer. I don’t know the woman. Her reasoning, though, is representative of many. The problem, from their point of view, isn’t the failure to live up to ideals. The problem is that anyone has ideals. Worse, it’s offensive that people with ideals — which include treasuring virginity or abstinence to build trust — actually have the nerve to talk about those ideals. They accuse the idealists of peddling a false hope and false product, because they, themselves have had trouble maintaining a relationship. And if they can’t figure it out, no one can.

The self-described slut’s desire for those valuing abstinence? Shut up, you’re young. Also, it doesn’t matter anyway. In addition, you’re stupid and inexperienced. And, don’t confuse me with the facts.

How far we’ve fallen. Christine O’Donnell has been ridiculed similarly for her 1980s beliefs about masturbation, which have, ostensibly, mellowed with time. But even still, is her stance that off? Even liberals acknowledge the damage that porn and masturbation can do to creating real intimacy in relationships.

The subtext of the Liberalization-Of-Sex-Is-Awesome philosophy is that happy relationships don’t exist anyway, get laid while you can, and no matter what, “don’t judge me.” What a cynical, miserable position to take. It’s also factually incorrect. Marriage wins against single and there’s plenty of evidence for that position (see also Steven’s post). Monogamy wins against infidelity. Abstinence wins against promiscuity. They are ideals worth encouraging and upholding even if fulfilling them is challenging; even if perfection is never achieved (and it never will be).

A patient once told me that now, he would prefer health over sex. Of course, he’s middle-aged and far wiser, and will live forever with the herpes outbreaks he still suffers. He is not alone. One in four, 25% for the math challenged, have herpes. Twice as many young adults ages 20 – 29 have herpes than did 20 years ago. This is a recurring tragedy for the sufferer and his partner–a consistent, unrelenting reminder of promiscuity that cannot be undone.

To have someone promote sluttiness as the morally superior position is absurd. Steven Crowder demonstrates courage, and a heck of a lot more wisdom, than many serial monogamists or cheap prostitutes–even the smug ones with ten more years of life experience who are “real” comedians.

The downside to abstinence? Missing momentary fun. The upside to abstinence? A disease free, trust-building platform for the potential (since there are no guarantees in life) of a much happier, healthier relationship and life.

Abstinence isn’t the cheap and easy choice, but it sure is the smarter one.

Cross-posted at Melissa’s site LibertyPundits.net. Also check out LibertyPundits.com for the latest conservative podcasts from all over the net.

Get Alerts