The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Sexual Nihilism

Posted on | March 22, 2014 | 71 Comments

Three years ago, Matt Barber coined the term “Sexual Anarchy” to describe the mentality of those who seek to normalize pedophilia. Now, at his new site BarbWire, Matt introduces us to a new weirdness, a divorced mother’s advocacy of “friends with benefits” for divorceés:

Do you believe that “friends with benefits” is purely no-strings sex? Do you consider it a phase that some women go through when they’re young, purposely avoiding a committed relationship?
Some of us believe that friends with benefits can be mutually enjoyable and perfectly suited to our needs — not just when we’re very young, and not as a matter of explicitly avoiding commitment.
In fact, it seems to me that friends with benefits gets a bad rap, as if women aren’t supposed to feel desire (in general) or lust (in particular) — especially once they become mothers, or if they’re “of a certain age.”

You can read more — and Matt’s reaction — at BarbWire, but it’s not hard to think of reasons why drifting along in the meaningless ambiguity of “friends with benefits” is an even worse idea for divorced mothers than it is for the unmarried young. The effect on children whose parents engage in such behavior is to teach them by example that “no-strings sex” is acceptable. And what is the practical result of this “sexual recreation”? At the end of her Huffington Post column, divorced mom D.A. Wolf unwittingly gives the game away:

I admit that I was a fan of the friends with benefits model from an early age. . . . Friends with benefits — in my life — was just right, several times.

Hmmm. So “no-strings sex” was an experience repeated “several times” and now, in middle age, you’re divorced? How unsurprising.

 

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • NeoWayland

    And hello to you too.

  • NeoWayland

    I don’t think your claims prove a universal problem. I say let people choose for themselves and accept the consequences. When you try to intervene with a solution that’s “for their own good,” what you are really saying is that they are less than human and incapable of deciding. Even if it’s not the “right” choice that you like.

  • NeoWayland

    Alright, let’s talk about emphasizing marriage as “all or nothing.”

    You imply that marriage and only marriage grants the privilege of sex. Fine if someone shares your belief system, but what about everyone else? According to some people on this thread, anyone not married and sexually active is guilty of “infidelity” even though there are no vows to honor.

    You keep confusing sex with love. I agree that if you promised to be someone’s one and only you don’t fool around. Other than that, consenting adults are consenting adults and it’s none of your (or society’s) business. Sex will happen with or without your approval.

    You yourself go on and on about how easy divorce has become, but you don’t talk about how easy marriage has become. It’s the flip side of the same issue. People don’t take your version of marriage seriously because of how easy both marriage and divorce have become.

    Then there is the whole bit of what marriage is. Odd how you believe that your particular beliefs define it for everyone else. You say it’s about raising kids, yet I’ve known marriages that never had kids. I also know unmarried couples that raised kids quite well.

    You can’t define society by marriage, and you certainly can’t define it by your oh so carefully approved version of marriage.

  • NeoWayland

    I was talking about the divorced parent’s sexual activity.

  • NeoWayland

    As I told you, “No more than you sir. A bit more effective, perhaps.” I’d give you a new response, but those are the same lines you trotted out before.

  • NeoWayland

    So you have a problem. Would you like to share?

  • NeoWayland

    Ah, so sex outside of marriage is slavery to one’s glands and sex within a marriage is slavery to one’s dogma. Interesting point. I don’t think I agree.

  • NeoWayland

    Of course it depends just as it does with every human activity.

    Or else you and I would not be disagreeing, would we?

  • Quartermaster

    You make it a point to disagree. And, no, it does not “depend.”

  • NeoWayland

    I post on the topics I feel strongly about. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I do not.

    You see, it depends.

  • Zohydro

    Heh… Depends®!

  • Kirby McCain

    Do you think Kelley Hunt ‘ s lifestyle had a negative impact on her daughters? Should Charlie Sheen get his children for two weeks? If the kids are grown and out of the house let the pink trash do whatever they want. There are too many freaks out there who would answer a CL ad with FWB in it. One of the biggest problems with illegal drugs is that it brings the user into contact with a criminal element. In the same way, whether it’s a couple looking to swing or a single parent looking for a NSA hookup if you persist in this behavior you’re very likely to meet a freak. Regardless of children being involved this is risky behavior. This isn’t courtship it’s debauchery.

  • Kirby McCain

    A journal which will study pornography or promotes it?

  • Kirby McCain

    That the left and it’s vast media apparatus is promoting risky behavior is what is frightening. So this woman offers up FWB as an acceptable alternative to courtship.

  • http://deadrepublicanparty.wordpress.com/ rmnixondeceased

    I endorse them and use them daily.

  • RS

    Pathetic response. Fidelity within marriage is fidelity to something greater than oneself. You wish to believe that marriage and family have no relevance to an individuals emotional and spiritual well-being. That is just wrong and there are numerous studies which prove that, though the Progressive Left does its darnedest to minimize or suppress them. It’s only “dogma,” when you don’t want it to be true.

  • GVK

    Yeah, well, here is my theory about where sex went wrong and became sin. Most males herd animals fight to get exclusive mating rights. Except for bonobos who are promiscuous.

    Fighting for sex works well for large herds as a means to pass on the best genes available. It also works well when animals seldom kill each other in such fights. Since humans in the wild lived in small groups and had stone axes, and spears, fighting over sex didn’t work that well for the group which needed healthy hunters to feed the group.

    A likely solution devised by shamans was to make sex taboo unless performed under certain rules approved by the shaman, and the elders. So, the wedding concept was born, and sex outside marriage, and adultery banned to preserve the peace.

    Just a theory!

  • Zohydro

    Societal norms and sexual mores, being “natural” probably just developed naturally without much planning or deliberation… Cultures that didn’t have these values (or, more likely, neglected or rejected the conventional wisdom) just declined and disappeared! That these customs and traditions became codified in religion and law was necessitated as the result of many painful, hard-learnt lessons…

  • NeoWayland

    I’m not Progressive or Left.

    I haven’t said anything about the worth of fidelity one way or the other. So far it doesn’t seem to have much to do with a conversation about divorced parents.

    I also didn’t say anything about how important marriage and family are.

    I don’t mind debating, but it would be much easier for you if you focused on what I said instead of what you think I said.

  • NeoWayland

    Again, look at my list. There are many things that pose a much greater risk to children than the sexual activities of a divorced parent.

    If you really want to claim that every divorced parent is guilty of debauchery, that’s up to you. It also means you libel people, but that was your choice.

    You might want to think about why in your mind sex has to be either courtship or debauchery. It sort of proves my bit about all or nothing, doesn’t it?

  • NeoWayland

    Oh my. Well, you raised the point, not me.