Adults and Sex

I am now preparing, preemptively, to be called both a misogynist and a prude.  Both of which don’t bother me anymore, since I’m also getting older and have generally decided that I don’t give a rip what people THINK of me – only what I think of myself in the eyes of God and what my wife and family think of me.

But here goes:

Liberals are ridiculously immature about sex, and I’ve about had it listening to their whining.  I am now going to give them a stern, albeit brief, lecture.

Guys – sex?  You’re doing it wrong.  Completely wrong.  Stop doing it wrong before you make yourselves miserable and the rest of us with you since we have to listen to your crap.

Sex is a beautiful, miraculous thing.  Everyone should be having lots of it if it’s done in the way that makes it miraculous.  The world would be a better place if everyone was in the proper relationship context for sex at least once a day, if not more.  We should all be trying to have as much sex as possible.  With our spouses!  Yes, really, you liberal children, I’m going to go there.  For your own good.

The reason that Christians preach about the importance of waiting til marriage before you have sex are numerous, backed by strong statistical and scientific evidence, and completely ignored by the left.  A quick summary – do some research on these bullet points if you want the facts behind them, I frankly don’t have the time to hold your hands while you discover what an idiot you are about sex.

  • People in long-term, committed relationships do have less sex, but are considerably more satisfied with sex than others.
  • Sex, done right, is about trust and intimacy.  You clumsy fools with your hook-up culture and six-month “relationships” based on nothing more than immediate pleasure seeking have no idea how much more meaningful a sexual experience is when you are committed to that other person…when the sex act is an expression of your willingness to give love, to reach for God through your union.  There’s a reason young, single women are so dissatisfied with sex as a group these days.
  • Sex carries the awesome power of creation.  Not being open to this – blocking this power – robs the sex act of significance and makes it cheap and (pardon the phrase) anti-climactic.  One study found that women were less likely to have an orgasm during sex when their male partner wore a condom.  It is also well known that conception is more likely when the woman has an orgasm.  And that men dislike using condoms for a reason (and no, I’m not excusing the guy who knocks a girl up because he doesn’t want to lose feeling during sex and then doesn’t take responsibility – that would ALSO be doing it wrong.  I’m saying, guys and gals, that sex is not intimate and satisfying without a full bodily union.
  • If you’re going to run around breaking things and making a mess, it is reasonable for us to expect you to pay for the consequences.  Why is it “blocking access” to contraception to require you to pay for it yourself?  Are grocery stores “blocking access” to food?  Are car dealers “blocking access” to that new Fusion Hybrid because they cost money?  Stop being so damned spoiled, kids.  You want to screw around and “have fun” – you pay for the damned condoms and birth control pills.  They aren’t even that damned expensive.
  • And of course…for those of you who think that abortions should be on demand, no consequences, no questions asked…sorry, but science is clear that the zygote is alive from the moment of implantation at the very latest.  If you won’t be grown up enough to admit that abortion is killing a life, how do you expect us to have a dialogue.  Now it’s all about “whether the mother feels like she’s actually a mother.”  Boy…if we used that standard for murder in the adult world, things would get UGLY.  Do you FEEL like what you do was wrong, Mr. Dahmer?  Get real…grow up…and form your beliefs around what is patently obviously true, not what you want to be true to make yourselves feel better.  If you want to argue that abortion is killing a life, but it should be OK anyway because (insert arguments here)….that at least would be intellectually honest and mature.  You’d lose horribly and you know it…but at least I could look at you without wanting to build a rocket to Mars and start the human race over again.
The left is currently having a temper tantrum over Hobby Lobby…I’m old enough now not to be surprised by this.  But damn it kids, get off my lawn or shut up!  The facts are not on your side…and nor are the grown ups.  A NARAL exec, today, suggested that women should go have public sex in Hobby Lobby stores as a means of protesting.  I can’t even count the number of ways that this is misogynist and logically stupid.  But let’s list the top three.
  • I’m sure that women who work for Hobby Lobby have plenty of sex.  I’m sure that Hobby Lobby doesn’t care how much its employees have sex.  Nothing about the family’s position on the issue is denying access to sex.  You can live without the store paying for your morning-after pills and still screw around like a drunken sorority sister.  You’re protesting something that has nothing to do with having sex…by having sex??
  • Let’s put female sexuality on display so that men will respect us as equals?  Huh???  Yes…objectifying women is SO EMPOWERING.
  • How many arrests before that NARAL exec realizes that all this does is harden Hobby Lobby’s opinion about your position on this issue?  What message do you suppose it sends to Hobby Lobby?  That people on your side are rational, thinking folks with a reasonable opinion?  Or that you’re friggin’ INSANE?
I’m tired now…go your rooms.  And try not to have risky sex for a while.


If you want some confirmation on my claims above regarding Christian sexual teaching – stop reading that sick freak Kinsey and start reading Andrew Greeley.  Hit tip to John Konsecsni once again for the quick-hitter reference idea. 🙂

EDIT TO CORRECT a misuse of the term fetus.

Technically, it is a fetus the moment it implants…but a zygote before the implantation.  Both stages are considered “alive” scientifically…there is some disagreement as to whether cell division is advanced enough prior to implantation to say that the process has fully begun.

Crushing Blow or Landslide Win?

I’m still desperately trying to fully understand their ruling, but an executive summary, as I’m reading the info on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the PPACA:

  • Congress has the power to enforce the individual mandate only if it is structured as a tax (not as a mandate with a penalty).  In other words, they can’t make you buy broccoli directly, but they can tax the crap out of you to pay for broccoli for everyone.  The only good news is that the commerce clause argument was struck down, meaning that Progressives have found some sort of limit on what they can argue falls within Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce.  If they want to do something like this again, they can’t try to argue that it isn’t a tax.
  • The medicaid expansion provision of the law, which includes penalties for states refusing to accept additional medicaid funds from the government, was ruled unconstitutional only in so much as the penalties for the states couldn’t be enforced.  Congress has to the power to be an ATM, but not a thief.  They can give states money, but states have a right to refuse it without penalty.
  • The rest of the law is upheld for now (as the court has not entertained every question).
Several problems with this:
ObamaCare was sold to the American people by Congress as NOT raising taxes.  For the millions of Americans who currently don’t have insurance by CHOICE (because they can’t afford it), they now have only the choice of being taxed or buying insurance.  This ruling is, essentially, the end of any attempts by Conservatives to stop the spread of Congressional power in any way other than voting in a very Republican House AND Senate AND President (the confluence of which will be rare, no matter how well our ideas actually work).  The amazing thing is that, although Verilli argued that the mandate could be viewed as a tax in court, the bill was passed by lying to the American people and claiming it was NOT a tax.  Of course, you won’t be taxed if you buy insurance, but how is there any moral or ethical distinction between holding a gun at someone’s head and saying, “buy this or I’ll blow you away!” and holding out the same gun and saying “you have a choice…you can do what I tell you, you can take the gun and blow YOURSELF away, or I can do it for you?”  I don’t see how taxing people for not doing what the government orders is any less evil than simply charging a fee.  Are we really saying that this is actually a constitutional provision simply because we’ve been calling it the wrong thing all along?  REALLY?
I also don’t see how that can’t be viewed as a huge win for Progressivism.  After all, if all Congress has to do is call something a fee that is ruled by the courts as a tax to get us to buy anything they want, what’s next?  Solar panel ‘mandates’?  Democrat party donation ‘mandates’?
The medicaid thing will help…because there are still 28 red states who will be eager to turn down medicaid funds just to make a point about the Federal Government’s attempted power grab, but on the whole, this decision is disastrous from a legal perspective.
This gives Romney two huge gifts in the Presidential election.  First, he can now say that the Dems were lying all along about this not raising your taxes by pointing out that there is now, on the books, a $4000 tax for every American family (less the ones whose employers happen to offer free insurance whose ranks will continue to drop as companies realize that they can’t afford rising premium costs) – they can either pay it by buying insurance or by writing a check to the IRS, but they’re paying it despite Congress telling them there was no tax.  And second, he can now spend the rest of the campaign standing next to an issue and smiling, as they say in “politico” school.  The American people don’t like ObamaCare…that isn’t going to change by November.  Especially if Romney hammers away at it every chance he gets, running on a platform starting with “I’ll repeal this monstrosity!”
I now look forward to Presidential debates…because this issue will be front and center and if Romney can pick Obama apart, it could be a hilariously lopsided election win for Conservatives.
The problem is…even if we win in 2012…we lose the war.  We can overturn laws and reap the rewards, but Progressives have no hard limits on their power to continue to push an agenda favoring gigantic government power and endless government intrusion.  If this Supreme Court won’t stop them…no one will.  I genuinely fear for the country today.

Big Week for Supremes

Today, the Supreme Court issued rulings on some key cases in the Conservative Grist Mill – a split decision regarding Arizona’s controversial (but basically just, IMHO) immigration law and a unanimous ruling against Montana which re-confirmed the right of corporations to finance public election campaigns first codified by Citizen’s United (2010).

On the Arizona law, the Supremes ruled 5-3 against Arizona regarding its right to prosecute individuals or companies for hiring illegal aliens, to execute searches without a warrant if there is reasonable suspicion that a crime may have been committed warranting deportation (on this one I actually agree…sorry Arizona, this is the one part of your law that I think goes too far), and the state’s right to impose fines on aliens working but not carrying valid immigration documents.  It did, however, unanimously (minus the recused Justice Obama…er…Kagan) rule in favor of the state’s right to check the residency status of anyone suspected of being here illegally (the so-called “show your papers” clause), stating that Federal law already requires legal residents to have proof of citizenship if it is requested by law enforcement and that the state law simply makes it easier for police to enforce the existing Federal statues.

In Montana, meanwhile, an attempt by the state to claim that its politics are so corrupted by shady bribes and the like that it should be exempt from Citizen’s United was rejected (though, disturbingly, by party-line 5-4 vote).

Next up…ObamaCae.  A decision is expected Thursday.  We’ll report on it when we have the facts.

Bring It, B****es

I’ve been reading the various and sundry articles linked at accumulator-sites like and the Drudge Report the last couple of days as I anxiously await the Supreme Court’s ruling on the constitutionality of ObamaCare.  I’ve come away with several clear themes from the various left-wing and right-wing commentators and from polling agencies like Rasmussen, Ipsos and PPP.

1) Favorability toward ObamaCare

Rasmussen has been tracking public sentiment toward the ACA for the last year now.  Here are the last six monthly reports, when asked whether they wanted the Supreme Court to overturn the Individual Mandate:

January 2012: 38% favor individual mandate / 51% oppose it
February: 35% favor / 52% oppose
March: 28% favor / 59% oppose
April: 28% favor / 66% oppose
May: 27% favor / 70% oppose
June: 21% favor / 74% oppose

When asked about whether they wanted the Supreme to strike down the ACA in its entirety, here are the last six months:

January: 59% favor keeping some of ACA / 32% want it all gone
February: 58% favor keeping some / 36% all gone
March: 55% / 38%
April: 56% / 42%
May: 52% / 47%
June: 45% / 52%

The trend is clear…the GOP is winning the public debate on the ACA and despite the majority of Americans now not being thrilling with the job performance of the Supremes, they seem to think ObamaCare has unconstitutional elements.

Ipsos ran a survey written with the intent of sounding favorable to democrats (the Dems commissioned the survey)…that wording: “Would you rather that the Affordable Care Act remain in place or that no such reform were enacted?”

44% wanted no such reform, 47% wanted the ACA.  In other words, even if yous tack the deck toward the ACA by offering a false dichotomy (you can either have it our way or no way), the people are evenly split.

2) Favorability toward Obama vs. tone of Obama’s Campaign

I’ve been watching the daily tracking polls and have observed that the more negative Obama runs, the uglier his personal favorability ratings get (sliding belwo 50% for the first time in his entire Presidency as we speak)…in fact there are a slew of articles from left wing pundits today and from the weekend decrying the President’s recent trend toward blaming the slow recovery on Bush.  That’s the LEFT saying this is a bad idea.  They correctly realize that, even if you want to make the case that the Bush years damaged the economy in a way that would have been hard to completely escape by now, it’s the president’s RESPONSIBILITY (not fault…responsibility) to put forward a coherent path out of the mess.  Obama’s first path didn’t work AT ALL and he has no other ideas.  So now, when he gets up there and rehashes the blame Bush doctrine, even Progressives are starting to get irritated.  He recently gave a speech in Ohio that flopped like a fish on the dock and the main reason was that he was using soaring rhetoric in one paragraph and then petty, petulent whining and finger-pointing in the next.  You can’t run on hope and change when your administration has provided no real change and Americans don’t feel much hope…let alone when you spend half of your big speeches whining.

3) The Undertone in Washington

I’ve now read three different articles – one at “The Hill” blog, one at Politico and one in the LA Times, suggesting that Obama and a number of Congressional Democrats are preparing to go to war with the Supreme Court in the hopes of energizing their base if the SCOTUS rules against all or part of ObamaCare.  Reports are that some Dems are actually HOPING that the SCOTUS will rule against the ACA so that they can unleash a torrent of scathing rhetoric attacking the court as a political tool of the Republican party…an activist judiciary bent on opposing the will of the people.  Yes…they really are THAT out of touch with the will of the people.

To all of this, I can only say…


In all seriousness…I desperately hope that the Dems’ response to a negative ACA ruling is to attack the Supreme Court for making a rational decision supported by the majority of the American people.  The more negative they play, the worse they do, especially when it demonstrates just how lost in their own echo chamber they’ve really become.  It could lead to an historic reversal of fortunes for their party and signal a sweeping victory for the GOP if the GOP’s response to the Dems’ negativity is simply to point and laugh.

Romney’s ads are pretty good at this…pointing and laughing at the hypocracy and creepiness of Progressives.  Let’s go, SCOTUS…I can’t WAIT for the fireworks.