What Is and What Should Never Be: Why the Hypersexualization of Women Does Us as a Society No Favours Whatsoever
This one’s been on my mind for a good long while, now. Why is it that a lot of people wish we could live by the morals and standards of the 1950′s? Why do we long for a bygone era when people treated each other with basic decency? Well, just look all around you. It’s a complete mess. I’m positively certain that, at one time or another, you’ve been at a fine eatery with your friends when, all of the sudden, one of them belts out a raunchy one-liner about wanting to either grab a female patron’s unmentionables, take her out to a venue conducive for sexual intercourse, or both(as is so often the case). I’d be so embarrassed, but it seems that most everybody else would join in with the gutter talk. What happened? We used to be better than this. We now live in such a sick, diseased, and depraved culture, my friends, and that’s a fact which you should be able to pick up on by mere virtue of existence. Men seem to view women in such a sorry fashion these days that it now seems they only choose to go out on dates and make friends with a woman so that the man may eventually have his roll in the hay(instead of to actually form a long-standing friendship with someone). These next few paragraphs will, I hope, explain clearly and reasonedly why this view is the wrong view and why it serves as a detriment to society.
Getting to the root of the problem is not as easy as it might seem. These attitudes have been around since at least the days of the Roman Empire, if not for all of known time. These attitudes were put in check by a Christian society which held all people to a certain moral standard. This continued from the days of the Pilgrims until fairly recently. Everything seemed to descend in the 1960′s, with the anti-Vietnam War movement’s embracing of the free love movement. From its humble beginnings, the free love crowd has advocated an agenda which opposes the covenant of marriage. Widely considered anarchistic and atheistic in nature, the free love crowd believes in man’s fundamental right to experiment(sexually) in whichever way he sees as being benefiting to himself. Put it another way: They are ardent proponents of hedonism in its purest form. Their whole deal is to immediately act upon the whims of physical attraction and do it with whoever and whatever. All of this had been kept at bay by the prevailing Christian morals for hundreds of years, and then along came the hipsters with their anti-establishment nostrums. They took to the streets protesting, in addition to the unconstitutional, illegal war in Vietnam, the deeply held views of the generations of their parents and grandparents. They embraced the free love crowd in an attempt to try something new, and then they went mainstream as a prominent anti-war political force, propelling the sexual revolutionaries into the social consciousness with them. It’s all been on a downhill slide since then, gents and dames.
There are so many glaring issues with these “ideas.”
The first issue I find with such ideas I will pose as a hypothetical. Let’s say I meet a nice young girl, and over the course of months/years we grow to love and respect each other for who we are as people. Now let’s say I start viewing her in a sexual manner over the course of weeks. If I were to do that(and this, I must stress, is strictly hypothetical), do you think I could ever come to love and respect her as a person after having mentally performed unholy actions upon her? I don’t. The only way all that would be acceptable is within the confines of a marriage, where we would be bound together for life by God himself.
Which leads me to my second issue: How can a relationship survive if you’re sexually experimenting with other people? How does your woman trust you if she knows you’re beating around the bush, so to speak? Answer: She can’t trust you, and it won’t survive. Why else do you see high rates of divorce and broken families in relationships where the man has cheated? After some trying, the woman just comes to realize that she just can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again. And while we’re on the subject of Humpty Dumpty and cheating men, in a most famous example, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich(R-GA) tried to get his second wife to agree to what is known as an ‘open marriage.’ It went over like a lead zeppelin, and she divorced him(Side note: Can you imagine how our country would have survived having that philandering fool as President? I sure can’t. It’s enough that we had him as Speaker under his philandering brother-in-arms President Clinton. I think we dodged 40 or so years of God-mandated darkness, there.). And the lesson here, gents and dames, is this: When the trust is gone, the same can be said for the love. You cannot have love without trust. All an ‘open marriage’ is designed to do is save the man from the embarrassment and humiliation of outright divorce(if people were just a little more committed, then there would be no need for such a thing, but I can only dream, can’t I?).
My third issue pertains to two common pitfalls of sexual experimentation: Out-of-wedlock child-birth and STD’s. When a man gets hot for a girl and manages to sack her, do you really think he’s considering anything other than what’s going on in his ‘moment of glory?’ I strongly think not. What’s he going to do if she carries his child to term(if he doesn’t choose to pay for an abortion instead) or, God forbid, he gets an STD from her? What’s he gonna do then? Will he marry the lady and father the child, or just run away and hide? What’s he gonna do to earn the money necessary for both raising the child and receiving medical treatment for aforementioned STD’s? I don’t know, but all I can say is that decision lies in the court of him, her, her doctors, and/or their respective legal teams.
My fourth and final(at least for this report) issue regards the collision of the experimentation environment and the family environment. Not only does swinging/experimenting adversely affect the marriage, but there’s also the children to be considered. At a young age, children look to their parents for influence and inspiration. I know full well that, at some point, the parents will not measure up to the mental image which their children have of them, and in the process exposing their innately human flaws, but still. There’s a stark difference between letting them down easy and repeatedly punching them in the mouth. Swinging has a lasting, damaging impact upon the children. What is a child to say when his friends are talking about what their fathers do for a living? “My daddy’s a firefighter!” “My daddy’s a rich CEO!” “My daddy works for the Governor!” “My daddy’s a swinger.” “What’s a swinger?” “He sleeps with women other than mommy.” That’s got to be torture to a little fellow. And I’ve not even gotten to the inevitable divorcing of the parents. As I have no personal experience with divorce, I can safely say that I know not whereof I speak, but from what I’ve heard and seen of other people who’ve been through that experience, I feel I can say this: The pain of the parents divorcing can only be rivalled by the pain of the death of one of the parents. If anything good can come from a divorce, it is that, according to a chapter in Rick Santorum’s seminal book “It Takes a Family,” children of divorcees are learning from the mistakes made by their parents, and are themselves trying harder to make their marriage work. Concluding my final issue, swinging around the block trolling for young, firm bodies to work it with is an anathema to any marriage and family relationship.
What one must do to reverse this disturbing and, frankly, disgusting trend lies with each and every one individual. One must practice morals as taught by the Bible, a book which this country was founded upon. I’m not a practising Christian by a long shot, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t see the wisdom in following the moral code as told by true men of God. Men must love their woman with all their heart and soul, and women must do the same for their man. Men must stop tip-toeing through the tulips and get their act straight! Imagine what a better place the United States of America would be if we had more happy families and less broken ones? We’d be well on our way back to both that dreamed-of world and #1 in the world again. And think of it this way: If more of our US Representatives and Senators were happily married to a good wife and fewer of them were swingers, the two Congressional chambers wouldn’t be as keen to wage wars on countries where war is un-necessary. They’d have a leveller and more peacefully inclined head waiting for them at home to talk things over with.
In concluding this editorial, I hope to have expressed in as clearly and reasonedly a way as I can the pitfalls of viewing women in a sexual manner. They’re human beings like you and me. We should give them the same consideration which us males give ourselves. I’ll relate this to you: Years ago, when I was a ranting and raving sexist, the only way in which I viewed a famous lady positively was in a sexual manner. Years later, after having watched and observed beautiful women such as CNN’s Erin Burnett and a couple of young ladies whom I’ve met in my travels, I can safely say that sexual attraction isn’t everything. It matters more to me who she is as a person than what she may or may not look like underneath a white sheet. I wouldn’t dare to think of any of the above women in a sexual manner. I already think highly of them, and I wouldn’t want to ruin that with a vision of unholy origin. That’s a sin I’d richly deserve to spend an eternity in hell for.