As I have noted previously here at teriobrien.com, at Clash Daily, at Illinois Review and elsewhere, many feminists, angry at the treatment they got from her, have decided to strap on their combat boots and go to war with Mother Nature. Their seething rage at their inherent disadvantage in the traditional mating game, in which men pursue attractive women, who in turn use their pretty-girl bargaining power to obtain lifetime commitments from quality men, leads them to one conclusion; that is, traditional courtship and marriage must be destroyed and thrown on the ash heap of history. In its place, women will be “liberated” to enjoy no-commitment, recreational sex as much as men do, as often, as gleefully, and with as many guys as possible, unconcerned about any inconvenient tissue mass that might result. Pregnancy is just another “treatable condition,” and abortion on demand is the cure. Party on, Girls, like the proud sluts you are! If you do decide to allow one of the “fetuses” that end up in your belly to be born, you won’t be distressed that he has no father in his life. Only a Neanderthal could think such a backward, patriarchal thought!
I hope that hearing the truth put in that way makes the obvious even more so. If not, ask yourself “who does this modern scenario benefit?” Does it benefit a woman to be test-driven by a series of men in a series of meaningless sexual encounters only to end up used up, discarded, past her prime and bitter that she bought into a lie? Of course it doesn’t! In yet another in the seemingly endless supply of ironies associated with liberalism, the primary beneficiaries of the so-called “women’s movement” are the very men who were supposed to be the “oppressors,” now liberated even from the responsibility to marry the women they impregnate.
I have spent years scratching my head trying to understand how any woman could believe that the destruction of traditional marriage, the celebration of promiscuity and the proliferation of unmarried cohabitation benefits her or any other woman. Now, finally a man, Ben Sherman at Burnt Orange Report, has admitted what should have been crystal clear. The winners in this new “sexual revolution” game are men.
In a post entitled “Bro-Choice: How #HB2 Hurts Texas Men Who Like Women,” about the new regulations on abortion about to take effect in Texas, he explains “For those of us guys who like girls — you know, like them like them — and want to have relationships with them that may last anywhere from a few minutes to many years, we need to think about how this bill, by curtailing the bodily autonomy and sexual freedom of women, hurts us, too. We need to stand with women in their fight to control their own bodies.”
Relationships that “last …a few minutes?” So beautiful! Isn’t that what every mother and father want for their little girls?
After citing three other reasons that a law designed to prevent women from risking their lives by having surgical procedures performed by practitioners without hospital admitting privileges in unsanitary, dangerous conditions “hurts straight Texas men,” he lays it all on the line. Pay close attention, Ladies, and ask tell yourself again if the ability to have an abortion is all about “women’s health.” Mr. Sherman writes “[Y]our sex life is at stake. Can you think of anything that kills the vibe faster than a woman fearing a back-alley abortion? Making abortion essentially inaccessible in Texas will add an anxiety to sex that will drastically undercut its joys. And don’t be surprised if casual sex outside of relationships becomes far more difficult to come by.” (emphasis mine)
The desire to protect women and their children is hard-wired into men’s DNA, notwithstanding political correctness or the sissyfication of modern males demanded by the feminists that dominate academia, the Jurassic media and the popular culture, and that’s a good thing. It should be celebrated, encouraged and given full expression in marriage and the formation of families. The fact that an alleged adult man could actually write a column lamenting the desire of a state legislature to protect the lives and health of women and children because it might cut down on his frequency of nookie is stunning, depressing and indicative of how far down the moral sewer we have gone. If I have any advice for this arrested development case, it would be as follows: either move to California or consider homosexuality, an orientation where there has never been a shortage of casual sex, either within relationships lasting a few minutes or otherwise.