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.