Posted on | January 25, 2014 | 54 Comments
Before addressing Paul Waldman’s partisan nonsense, let’s first briefly discuss chlamydia. This is one of the lesser-known sexually transmitted diseases, not one of the big-name celebrity STDs like syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes and HIV. Despite its comparative obscurity, however, chlamydia is potentially devastating to women. The disease can lead to infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID):
Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) refers to infection of the uterus (womb), fallopian tubes (tubes that carry eggs from the ovaries to the uterus) and other reproductive organs that causes symptoms such as lower abdominal pain. It is a serious complication of some sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), especially chlamydia and gonorrhea. PID can damage the fallopian tubes and tissues in and near the uterus and ovaries. PID can lead to serious consequences including infertility, ectopic pregnancy (a pregnancy in the fallopian tube or elsewhere outside of the womb), abscess formation, and chronic pelvic pain. . . .
Each year in the United States, it is estimated that more than 750,000 women experience an episode of acute PID. Up to 10-15% of these women may become infertile as a result of PID. A large proportion of the ectopic pregnancies occurring every year are due to the consequences of PID.
That’s from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which, the last time I checked, was not run by right-wing extremists.
Well, why am I bringing up chlamydia, you ask? About 15 years ago, researchers found the disease to be surprisingly prevalent:
Almost one in 10 female U.S. Army recruits are infected with chlamydia . . . Researchers from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine tested urine samples from 13,204 recruits at Ft. Jackson, S.C. They found that 9.2% of the recruits — women between the ages of 17 and 25 — tested positive for chlamydia. But among 17-year-olds, the percentage jumped to 12.2%.
In women from five southern states — South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi — the rate for chlamydia was higher than 15%. Among recruits from states such as Washington, Oregon and Idaho, which have made aggressive efforts to control the disease, the rate of infection dropped to less than 5%. The medical team found that the risk of having the disease was highest among sexually active young recruits and African American women.
Are female Army recruits disproportionately sluttier than other young women? I don’t know, but the Army seems a bit worried:
Results showed that the adjusted incidence of gonorrhea and chlamydia among Fort Bragg soldiers remained higher overall than comparable state and national rates during the period of analyses. The 1996 adjusted chlamydia rates for male and female active duty soldiers were 3-fold to 6-fold higher than rates for males and females in North Carolina and in the United States as a whole.
This problem was brought to my attention in an amusing way recently. My son completed Airborne School at Fort Benning, and then was put on a bus that delivered him to Fort Bragg, home of the 82nd Airborne Division and U.S. Special Forces Command. Upon arrival there, he had to attend a mandatory briefing on the risks of chlamydia — evidently the problem is serious enough that every new arrival at Fort Bragg must go through this. But my son was tired after the bus ride and fell asleep during the briefing, and when the instructor saw him nod off, my son was required to stand at attention for the remainder of the session.
Since then, every time my son starts to talk about his girlfriends, my response is automatic: “Chlamydia! Wake up, soldier!”
Promiscuity is not without actual risks, and condoms are not a guarantee of protection. Despite all the idiotic clamor about “safe sex,” condoms are not 100% effective, and it helps to ponder the question, “If you knew for a fact that someone was infected with an STD, would you still have sex with them, even with a condom?”
If your answer is “no,” and you then consider that a significant percentage of sexually active young people are infected with one or another STD, isn’t this a persuasive argument against promiscuity?
Facts and logic are utterly wasted on liberals, however, and so the enthusiastic embrace of sluttishness is the theme of a deliberately insulting column by Paul Waldman at The American Prospect, in which he attributes Republican anti-slut messages to the “ignorance” of “older conservative men who have no idea how ladyparts work, and really don’t want to know.” Really?
The obvious temptation is to go ad hominem here, to raise the question of whether Paul Waldman is so superior in his knowledge of the workings of “ladyparts” that he is fit to issue pronouncements on Republican men’s “ignorance” thereof. But let’s resist that temptation and instead ask: Is it really true that Mike Huckabee’s comments were rooted in “ignorance” and that, by implication, female voters prefer Democrats for their greater gynecological knowledge?
Excuse my skepticism. Exit polls show the “gender gap” advantage for Democrats among women is almost entirely a function of lower marriage rates for Democrat women. Barack Obama got 67% of the vote of unmarried women in 2012, while Mitt Romney got 53% of the vote of married women. If a woman’s romantic experiences are of the “happily ever after” variety, she’s probably a Republican, whereas women who are bitter because they have been used and discarded vote Democrat.
Anyone care to speculate what we might learn if we could correlate women’s votes with the incidence of chlamydia infection?
Democrats advocate and endorse promiscuity, going so far as to distribute “Sluts Vote” pins at their national convention. Knowing the harm to women caused by such behavior, why are Democrats so enthusiastically in favor of it? It’s the Worse-Is-Better logic borrowed from Marxist-Leninist radical theory: The more poverty, crime, disease and unhappiness there is, the more people become alienated from, and hostile toward, mainstream society. This alienation and hostility can then be organized into political support for the kind of radicalism that proposes “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
Happy, successful people aren’t interested in radical transformation, and so Democrats want more people to become miserable failures. And this is what “SlutWalk” is all about:
When I bring up “Marxist-Leninist radical theory” in discussing feminism, I’m not kidding around. Take a look at these photos from the 2012 San Francisco Bay SlutWalk:
The first photo shows a woman whose sign promotes Radical Women, an organization founded by avowed Marxists, including Susan Stern of the Weather Underground/Seattle Liberation Front. The second photo shows a SlutWalk flyer issued by Women Organized to Resist and Defend (WORD) which is actually a front for the Workers World Party, a Marxist group that led anti-Iraq War protests through its International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition.
This connection between Marxism and feminism is neither coincidental nor insignificant. “Taking Feminism Seriously“:
[University of California-Santa Cruz Women’s Studies] Professor Bettina Aptheker is the daughter of a famous American Communist, the late Herbert Aptheker . . .
Professor Bettina Aptheker is by her own proud admission both a Communist and a self-described “lesbian activist.” . . . Aptheker’s course syllabus describes lesbianism as the “highest state of feminism” . . . In other words, change in sexual orientation is an inevitable final stage in the development of the socially conscious individual.
Allison Jaggar is professor of philosophy and a former chair of the Women’s Studies Department at the University of Colorado, Boulder . . . Integrating Marxism and feminist theory, Jaggar describes herself as a “socialist feminist” and “activist,” who seeks to combat “the male-dominant structure of everyday life.” . . .
“The political economy of socialist feminism,” writes Jaggar, “establishes that, in contemporary society, women suffer a special form of exploitation and expression. . . . The distinctive social experience of women generates insights that are incompatible with men’s interpretations of reality . . . The validity of these insights . . . must be tested in political struggle . . .”
Understanding feminism’s Marxist worldview solves what is to many women a mystery: Why are feminists embracing the “slut” label? Don’t they understand that promiscuity is degrading to women? Shouldn’t feminism be upholding women’s dignity?
If you ask questions like that, you haven’t studied Marxism, which has always scorned “bourgeois morality” as an expression of “false consciousness” that Marxists attribute to religion, “the opiate of the masses.” Haven’t you been paying attention?
Popular culture has been so corrupt for so long that many young people are incapable of making any distinction between vice and virtue, categories that sophisticated people are expected to reject as old-fashioned, if not altogether obsolete or, indeed, hatefully oppressive. . . .
“Deviant” is a word we don’t hear much anymore, for the simple reason that its meaning has become invalid or irrelevant or, as any Democrat would say, an expression of hate. America has in recent years gradually lost its vocabulary of moral judgment. “Deviant,” “abnormal,” “perverse,” “immoral” — each of these terms for sexual behavior that is wrong and bad implies the existence of an antonym for what is right and good. . . . Politically correctness forbids us to assert that any form of sexual behavior is more wholesome or more normal than any other.
A synonym for “political correctness” is cultural Marxism, and the elimination of traditional morality is essential to this radical idea, so that advocating promiscuity is now a feminist imperative, even though women will suffer most as a result.
There is no good and bad, no right and wrong, no true and false or — to express Marxist doctrine more accurately — no one should prefer that which is good, right and true, if that which is bad, wrong and false is more conducive to socialism. Anything that assists in subverting the capitalist order is “good” by Marxist standards, no matter how much hardship, suffering and death may result.
Feminists and Democrats want women to be sluts, because the more women are lonely and miserable, the better for Democrats.
Of course, after these sluts become infected with diseases that render them incapable of reproducing, they won’t need birth control.
“Chlamydia! Wake up, soldier!”