Can secular leftist men find any value in women apart from sex?

Huma Abedin (left), Harvery Weinstein (center), Hillary Clinton (right)
Huma Abedin (left), Harvery Weinstein (center), Hillary Clinton (right)

So, lately we have had a lot of scandals in the media where secular leftist men have been accused of raping, sexually assaulting, and sexually harassing women. I have been getting increasingly concerned about how radical feminism’s sexual revolution agenda has destroyed romantic love and lifelong marriage for some time, and all these accusations coming out made me want to write something about it.

First of all, we can’t count on the secular left to stop this epidemic of abusing women. Secular leftists don’t care about women who are abused. As I mentioned in my previous post on the feminist defenders of Bill Clinton, feminists always circle the wagons to defend Democrat rapists and sexual criminals when they are discovered. Here’s another link for a different Democrat sexual assault apologist. This is what secular leftists do about sexual assault and rape. They make defenses for the rapists, and attack the victims’ character.

Matt Walsh has some helpful suggestions on how we can rollback the changes brought on by the secular left with their sexual revolution.

He writes: (H/T Dina)

I’m tired of talking about this sexual harassment thing. Let the victims come forward, let justice be done, but why are we spending every day talking about it? There’s no point.

There could be a point, but there isn’t. There isn’t, because we aren’t going to do anything to prevent these issues in the future. We aren’t learning anything. We aren’t coming up with solutions. We aren’t allowed to come up with solutions. The only thing we’re allowed to say is: “This is bad! So bad! Men are bad! So much badness! Very, very bad! Bad men! Bad!”

Matt’s article comes up with 3 solutions, and I’ll leave it to you to check them out. I only care about the third one for my post:

3) Emphasize chastity.

I mentioned this on Twitter and someone, who’s apparently a professional writer, asked me what the word means. That’s our culture in a nutshell. We literally don’t know what the word “chastity” means.

For anyone else who may be confused, chastity is the virtue which moderates our sexual desires. Basically, to be chaste is to practice restraint. A chaste person refrains from more than just sexual assault. He refrains, also, from pornography, vulgarity, sex outside marriage, and sex that is not in accordance with natural law. This all sounds downright archaic nowadays, I realize, but our outrage over sexual improprieties doesn’t amount to much if it isn’t rooted in a fundamental belief in the dignity of the human person.

Notice I say we should emphasize chastity, not that we are doomed unless everyone practices it perfectly. The problem is not just that people misbehave nowadays — indeed, people have misbehaved in the same ways throughout history — but that our culture has no real message and no real idea about how we ought to be behaving. We can say, “Don’t harass and assault,” but the message is not getting through because it’s insufficient on its own. People must be taught not to see each other as sex objects, but we can only teach them that if we teach them first about the sacredness of the sexual act and the inherent worth of all human beings. If we have ruled that out and abandoned chastity, then we cannot be shocked at the pigs who surround us.

First thing to say is that I don’t think that Matt’s ideas will be very attractive to a culture that is committed to an atheistic cosmos: random universe, no objective morality, purpose of life is happiness, no free will, no accountability when you die. Matt’s solutions require that people think that there is a design for human relationships with an objective right way and wrong way to handle relationships.

This sexual abuse epidemic is exactly what I would have predicted from powerful men who believe that they are machines made out of meat, living in an accidental universe with no objective moral laws, who will never have to answer to their Creator when they die. If God does not exist, then anything is permissible – so long as you can get away with it. If you want to know how secular leftist men treat women, look at how Harvey Weinstein treated women who were less powerful than he was.

On atheism, women are just animals – machines made out of meat. You can use them for your pleasure and then throw them away. There is nothing that women are “meant” to be, because there is no Designer. If you find a pretty girl who is fatherless, then by all means – take advantage of her but don’t get caught. This is rational on atheism. Atheism is the Harvey Weinstein religion. That’s what’s rational in a random, mindless universe with no free will and no accountability to an omnipotent moral lawgiver.

And if those nasty Christians disapprove of you, well you can just threaten them in court for refusing to celebrate your authentic atheist hedonism. That’s happening already – using the law to coerce Christians into approving of immorality. Weinstein himself donated millions to the Democrat party – the party that undermines sexual morality, and makes it easier for perverts to do what they want to do without being judged.

So what about Matt’s suggestion of a resurgence of chastity?

Chastity is a Judeo-Christian value that states that men and women who aren’t married to one another cannot engage in sexual activity. Chastity isn’t just abstaining from sex, though. It’s having opposite sex relationships in which you are actively seeking to set goals with a woman and help her to achieve those goals. So, let’s see what that looks like for me as a chaste man, then I’ll talk about whether this is even possible on any worldview other than orthodox Judaism or evangelical Bible-belieing Christianity.

In Christianity, women are equally made in the image of God as men, and they are made for the same purpose as men – to enter into a relationship with God through Christ. So, right away, I have a set of priorities for every woman on the planet that comes from my worldview. My goal with them is to help them to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, and then after that, I want to lead and advise them to grow their skills so that they are able to live lives of influence and effectiveness. You can read all about Christian fellowship in Philippians, by the way. Fellowship in the work of the gospel is the business of Christianity and women are meant to be equal partners with men in that business. (Although they might have different roles at different times). Every woman is a potetional partner in the fellowship of the gospel, and so they all have value,

In my case, I have always tried to help women to study and find work that would prepare them to have an influence. For those who are too old to marry, I encourage them to have an influence through speaking, teaching or organizing events, for example. I have female friends who are too old to marry who I monitor. If they need support to get things done for God, then I give them encouragement and gifts to make their operations run smoother. Just today one of them e-mailed me her answer to an atheist who was trying to justify being moral on atheism. For a chaste Christian man, women don’t have to be young and pretty and sexually permissive in order to get basic care. They get care because they play for the same team as Christian men do, and they have the desire to get things done for the team.

There are other young women I mentor who are in other states, and/or are too young for me to marry. I try to get them to change their majors to STEM, to read books on apologetics and economics, to get jobs in the summer, to go to graduate school, to save their money by not wasting it on fun, and to keep an eye out for husband candidates by looking past mere appearances. The goal is to get them to have an influence, and that’s not going to be achieved with crazy emotional life choices made without any wisdom or experience. Again – they have value without having to be pretty or give in to my sexual desires. I don’t even understand what sex means outside of marriage. Sex is what married couples do in order to balance out the challenges of marriage and re-affirm the union. It’s a thing you speak about to your spouse who has committed to you for life. I wouldn’t speak about sex to someone I wasn’t married to, what sense would that even make? It makes no sense.

Is treating women well rational on atheism?

When you keep seeing stories of powerful secular leftists using their power to take what they want from women and then throw them away, remember that on atheism this is rational. If you want to get male-female relationships right, you have to get the worldview right.  Young women have a natural desire to dismiss rules and to pursue fun, without seeing the consequences of their actions in the long term.  There has to be some reason for a man to tell a woman the truth about what follows from her decisions. Men have to be willing to reason with a woman about what she should be doing today so that she reaches the goals she is aiming for tomorrow. Christian men have the capacity to put their self-interest on hold and say what needs to be said to treat women well. Atheist men don’t have any such restraint. We need to remember that ideas like atheism have consequences. It’s no use complaining about the effects when you put the causes in place yourself.

20 thoughts on “Can secular leftist men find any value in women apart from sex?”

  1. The marquis de Sade had this all figured out. As a pre-Darwinian materialist, de Sade logically postulated that since the gods are dead, where do humans turn to for moral standards? His solution to this dilemma was simple; imitate nature. Here is how he worked out the implications of his moral system in regards to relationships between men and women. (Sade 1795/1972: 112, my comments in brackets)

    > “If it is undisputed that we [men] have received from nature the right to
    > express our [sexual] desires indifferently to all women, it equally true that
    > we have the right to require them to submit to our desires, not on an
    > exclusive basis [Sade is thinking of marriage for life here], I should be
    > contradicting myself, but on a temporary basis. It is undeniable that we have
    > the right to establish laws requiring her [the woman] to submit to the
    > passion of he who desires her. Violence is one of the implications of this
    > right and we are entitled to use it legally. But why not !? Nature itself has
    > proven that we have this right in that it has endowed us with superior
    > strength with which we may submit them to our desires.” (my translation)

    Sade, Marquis de; & Blanchot, Maurice (1795/1972) Français, encore un effort si vous voulez être républicains_. (extrait de La Philosophie dans le boudoir”) précédé de L’inconvenance majeure. Jean-Jacques Pauvert Paris (collection Libertés nouvelles; 23) 163 p. (has been translated, Philosophy in the Bedroom

    So here’s the question for materialists, do you agree with the Marquis de Sade who basically states that because Nature has made men stronger than women, this justifies men doing absolutely ANYTHING they want with/to women? If you agree with de Sade, then I would say that you are being logical and consistent with your worldview (tho the Harvey Weinsteins out there might add it’s not just a matter of physical strength). So while one may reject (as I do) Sade’s materialism and his view of male/female relationships, one may nonetheless observe he is at least being consistent within his worldview on this matter. However if a materialist disagrees with de Sade’s view of male/female relationships, then I would demand said materialist JUSTIFY his/her disagreement and indicate what the BASIS (beyond an irrational reaction of “distaste”) for their disagreement is.

    Like

  2. Another problem people suffer from is not having a proper godly love for themselves. It allows a woman, even a Christian one to accept a weird relationship.
    The Bible does state to love your neighbour as you love yourself. So a proper godly love and respect for ourself is assumed in Christianity, that gives us reference and a proper way to love others.
    People confuse love with feelings and that is not the same at all

    Liked by 1 person

  3. It appears from the atheist point of view…the only real ‘morality’ around sex (and it’s more legality than anything) is consent.

    And as it has been shown quite a bit, consent can mean almost anything and can be retracted at a later date if the emotions or the tide changes (or the payoff wasn’t big enough).

    It’s good to have knowledge of and live out a sexually moral lifestyle. It’s more than just what is consent…it’s where sex is in the proper licit form (be it if you think how God views it or the natural law of it) and where everything else is illicit. It’ll save you from a lot of trouble.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. In principle you could be a natural law theorist and resist the philosophical arguments for God which natural law theory ia based on. In other words, accept final and formal causes but reject the Fifth way/third way/fourty way of Aquinas. That could provide an atheist with objective morality and a purely secular one.

    Like

    1. Understood but that would just be treating objective morality as an ungrounded brute fact, and rational people need to minimize their leaps of faith. We don’t want to postulate things without evidence. The existence of God has scientific evidence to back it up from the origin of the universe and cosmic fine tuning for intelligent life.

      Like

  5. Women can resist men that are interested.

    I had women give me hints that they were interested in dating. I just acted oblivious to the situation as my way around the issue.

    Women want to pretend they are stronger morally than men, but actions say otherwise if women use the excuse of a bad boy was interested so we dated.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. As long as the guy isn’t a male feminist who can’t read social cues…most men get when a woman is or isn’t interested.

      Women are experts in the art of plausible deniability. The ‘it just happened’ excuse. The bad boy pursued me. And yet she never points out that she reciprocated.

      Like

        1. And can I assume this man she was doing it with wasn’t her husband so she couldn’t claim it was fornication?

          I can’t imagine why she’s divorced.

          Sidenote: Oral sex is in the realm of sodomy. The reproductive system is not meant to be used in the digestive system. It’s an illicit use of the sexual function.

          Like

          1. Then she has adultery on top of it.

            I can’t see how not putting it in the right hole somehow takes away from the fact it’s an act of sexual intercourse.

            Like

    1. The most common question I find myself asking women when they tell me their past is “And what did you hope to achieve by choosing this bad man out of all the available men?” One woman told me that she didn’t choose, the bad man chose her and she went along with it, so it wasn’t her fault.

      Like

      1. How shocking…a woman not taking responsibility for the choice of men she allowed in her life.

        At some point they have to realize being the recipient (or not being the instigator) doesn’t mean they have no choice or responsibility in the matter.

        Like

        1. If the actions of the female population for the last forty years have proven anything, it’s that these women — who loudly demand “Equality” with men — IN REALITY want to have all the rights and innate privileges of men as well as those of their own sex, while denying ANY responsibility or accountability of any kind whatsoever for their actions.
          They want the right to make choices, but they also want to not be held responsible for their bad choices.

          Like

          1. Many of these women may also be shocked that good Christian men will look right past and not consider them.

            God forgives and we forgive those that trespass us. That is correct.

            But you should also not be unequally yoked. And marrying a woman like we discussed is not necessarily better than a non Christian choice. Just because some profess some for of Christian view doesn’t make them one a reasonable man should make a life commitment to

            And it goes to a point we mentioned once. Good men are making decisions based upon life and future family. And won’t make a risky move with a woman that can’t commit to live properly in preparation for marriage.

            If you respect the ordinance of marriage as blessed by God you have to take the decision and choice serious

            Liked by 1 person

          2. @ Greg…

            Correct, I hope every woman who has had a questionable past seeks repentence and God’s mercy. There’s plenty of examples where this was the case in the Gospels. The most important relationship for all of us should be with Jesus.

            However that doesn’t mean they are good marriage prospects. What it sorely lacking in modern sex ed is the spiritual, mental, and emotional effects. All it focuses on is how to prevent pregnancy and diseases, it doesn’t even point out how infertility can be a consequence of promiscuity. The higher divorce risk is also real.

            Like

  6. I have heard it argued, “Christians do not think atheists or agnostics can behave morally.” This is silly. Of course, they can. But that is not the point. The issue is not one of behavior; instead, it is one of moral authority that enforces sanctions for disobedience.
    Christians believe that there is an authority that holds human beings accountable for their moral choices. Under this view, accountability before the law simply imitates accountability before God. Consequently, just legal sanctions for any crime are derived from God’s justice. As Blackstone claimed, Natural Law is the basis of Common Law, and Natural Law reflect reflects Divine Law. Ultimate justice comes from God, so does retribution.
    Those who reject this notion face two difficulties. First, legal sanctions, even if democratically established, remain arbitrary. What the public deems illegal in one generation may become perfectly legal in the next–and vice versa. Second, public morality amounts to social conformity enforced by public opinion and fear of legal punishment. Offering a successful public image of conformity, no matter the private behavior, will establish moral character. Machiavelli makes this point in The Prince. As long as gross and even illegal behavior remains undetected, a person may hold a reputation for integrity. There will be no punishment socially or legally–ever. If God ultimately judges, the person who hides personal behavior from others is merely fooling himself or herself. Only a temporary advantage can be realized.
    So the issue remains moral authority that enforces sanctions. If one rejects the possibility of such authority, the only curb on such a person’s behavior is an arbitrary personal discipline and fear of social retribution. Reducing the possibility of social retribution will also undermine personal discipline. In other words, “If God does not exist, then anything is possible.” I think that this adequately describes what we have been seeing recently.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Of course they can neglects the economic problem of incentives. It’s not rational to act morally on atheism when it goes against your interest. “Of course they can” neglects that problem. More importantly, acti g morally to an atheist means acting according to the arbitrary preferences if their community. There is no underlying standard, and moral doesn’t mean virtuous it means conformist.

      Like

  7. I perfectly agree that moral action does not seem to make economic sense. Selfishness will earn a reward more often than will selflessness. But as Frank Turek has said, atheists can behave morally and can follow a moral theory. But the issue is not moral behavior. Instead, the issue is moral authority. This is one of the reasons why he claims that atheists borrow from God.

    In other words, if atheists follow a set of moral principles, these are selected without an overarching justification. Since the materialistic worldview provides for no objective moral universe, the moral principles an atheist selects rest only upon human authority. No matter the rhetoric used to avoid the conclusion, moral principles resting on mere human authority will remain arbitrary. On this showing, the values of a humanitarian cannot be deemed superior to those of a mass murderer. The embrace of one moral path over another amounts to personal, subjective taste and no more. Up until the modern period, moral authority has always meant more than this, even in totally pagan societies.

    When an atheist tells the truth, when he could gain something personally important to him by using an undetectable lie, then he is borrowing from a universe in which moral values are objectively real, not the universe in which he claims to believe. This is what Schaeffer called a “memory” of the Christian consensus. At the very least, it is a “memory” of a conceptual world that regarded moral truths as objectively real. Materialists must deride this notion or accept one of the most cogent arguments for God’s existence, the Argument from Morality.

    Certainly, an atheist would probably disagree with my view and point out examples of noble behavior performed by men and women who did not believe in God. This, however, would only underscore the problem. Using a materialistic worldview, on what foundation would an atheist establish that such examples were in any way morally noble. I might even agree with him about their nobility, but that would be from my worldview. I would be puzzled why he would regard them as noble when his worldview does not have an objective way to make such judgments. Moreover, I would not allow him to borrow what he needs from my worldview. That would be cheating.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s