Matt Walsh on the Unrealism of Casual Sex

A reader brought this gem to my attention. Someone should put it to music and make it our anthem as we drive the yahoos into the sea.

I will try to resist the temptation to quote the whole thing, so as to persuade you to read the original, but Mr Walsh has so many gems of truth and clarity, I must include them:

Abstinence is unrealistic and old fashioned

From my inbox, an email from a high school student named Jeremy:

“Dear Matt, first I want to say I really like your blog. One of my teachers actually mentioned it in class once after you wrote something (she didn’t mention it in a good way lol) and I went and looked you up so I’ve been following you ever since. I know you get so much email so I don’t expect you to see this but in case you do I wanted to get your opinion about something. You write a lot about relationships and everything so I’m wondering if you think abstinence should be encouraged in school?

“Reason I’m asking is because we are doing our sex ed lessons in health class now and the topic has come up. Yesterday my health teacher was talking about safe sex and someone mentioned abstinence and she said it wasn’t realistic. She said it was an out dated way of thinking and the people who push for it are out of touch because they were probably kids a long time ago. She said sometimes sex can be more casual and isn’t always a part of something serious. Then she asked how many people in the class are sexually active because she said it was important for people not to be ashamed. Almost all the guys in class raised their hands but I didn’t. They were all talking about how sex doesn’t have to be something for marriage or long term relationships. I always wanted to wait for marriage and I hope it’s not weird for me to say that. They said in class that we should be more accepting of sexual expression that doesn’t conform to older ideas. But I still always wanted to wait for marriage. But at this point I feel like an outcast or something.

“I read something you wrote about dating once and it seemed like you were saying that people should wait for marriage [to have sex]. What do you thinkabout what my teacher said? Am I weird for not really wanting to go out and hook up with girls and stuff and instead wait for marriage?”

Dear Jeremy,

Yes, it’s weird for you to want to wait until marriage. In spite of the hyper-sexualization of our culture; in spite of society’s decaying moral sensibility; in spite of all of the messages that bombard you every day through every available medium; in spite of the pressure from your classmates; in spite of the bullying from that fool of a “health teacher,” you STILL stand tall and resolve to save yourself for your future wife.

Man, that is weird. It’s also awesome, inspiring, courageous, and extraordinary. Not to mention, Jeremy, you’re doing the RIGHT thing. You’ve got more character than most adults in this country, and you should be commended for it.

Speaking of adults without character, please ignore everything your “health teacher” says on this subject.

I have to put quotes around her title because it doesn’t sound like she’s doing much in the way of teaching, and whatever she’s blabbering about has very little to do with “health.” She seems to think there’s a “safe” way for emotionally immature juveniles to have casual sex. Maybe she’ll follow up this performance by advocating “safe drunk driving.”

[...]Our culture tells a lot of lies about sex. Your teacher is one of the liars.

[...]

You could ask any married person who slept with other people before meeting their spouse (I wouldn’t recommend actually asking this, I’m just trying to illustrate a point here): are you happy about it? Are you glad that you gave yourself to someone other than the person you now love eternally? If you could go back to those times, would you stop yourself?

[...]

Casual sex proponents are the ones who have turned sex into something trivial, banal, utilitarian, pointless, joyless, one-dimensional, lifeless, lonely, and disappointing. How could the ones who hold it as sacred also be the ones who make it “boring”? No, it’s mainstream culture that’s made sex boring.

[...]
We’re told that we are sexually “liberated” if we throw ourselves at strangers and give ourselves over to people who couldn’t possibly care less about us. This is yet another lie. If modern attitudes about sex have “liberated” us, what, precisely, have we been freed from? Security? Commitment? Trust? What, we’ve broken the Shackles of Purity and Love and run gleefully into the Meadows of Pornography and Herpes? Because that’s all that our sexual liberation has wrought.

[...]

It doesn’t surprise me that your crackpot health teacher pulled out the “sexual expression” line. She teaches in our schools yet she doesn’t even understand the words she speaks. To “express” means to SAY something. It means you are indicating something of meaning. When you “express yourself” you are conveying a message about your thoughts, feelings, and character. So shouldn’t we, rather than encouraging sexual expression for the sake of it, encourage MEANINGFUL and POSITIVE sexual expression? In the context of commitment and loyalty, sex expresses something. It expresses: “I love you. I give myself to you.” But what does casual sex express? “Use me and I’ll use you.”

That’s an expression, alright. An awfully sad, pitiful expression. You’re right to have no interest in going down this road.

It sounds like you want to express a different message: self-respect and maturity; honesty and integrity; patience.

And, when the time comes, you’ll express love. [...]

ADDENDUM:

Segue to the next topic! Mr Walsh also speaks words of burning truth about the issue of Gay Marriage. His opinion is exactly the same as mine. Gay Marriage is not the issue. Divorce is the issue. The Heterosexuals, not the Homosexuals, destroyed the ancient and sacred institution of matrimony.

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02/04/ive-been-divorced-four-times-but-homosexuals-are-the-ones-destroying-marriage/

And then I remembered how many Christian churches gave up on marriage long ago, allowing their flock to divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry, and each time permitting the charade of “vows” to take place on their altars. And then I remembered that churches CAN lower the divorce rate simply by taking a consistent position on it — which is why practicing Catholics are significantly less likely to break up — but many refuse because they are cowards begging for the world’s approval.

[...]

Divorces are as common as flat tires, and they often happen for reasons nearly as frivolous.

The institution of marriage is crumbling beneath us; it’s under attack, it’s mortally wounded, it’s sprawled out on the pavement with bullet wounds in its back, coughing up blood and gasping for breath. And guess who did this? It wasn’t Perez Hilton or Elton John, I can tell you that.

This is the work of divorce.

I am an opponent of gay marriage, but we here in the “sanctity of marriage” camp are tragically too afraid to approach the thing that is destroying marriage faster than anything else ever could. Gay marriage removes from marriage its procreative characteristic, but rampant divorce takes away its permanent characteristic. It makes no sense to concentrate all of our energy on the former while all but ignoring the latter.

Hear, hear.  I recall where I have on one or at most two occasions said two men in a homosexual couple are not biologically equipped to copulate with each other, a matter that seems to me to be both trivial and not controversial; that one’s emotions and passions should follow reality, which is equally trivial and not controversial, and that includes the sexual passions, i.e. passions of copulation; and for saying I would prefer if peer pressure was not applied to me to write science fiction stories where this particular false-to-facts neurosis was treated as true, which is as trite as saying I’d like my freedom of speech respected — an idea which is not only commonplace, but obligatory for any citizen in a republic.

For saying these things, I was cursed, and wished dead, and called a bigot and worse, and at least one person wanted to organize a movement to stop me and my legion of Sardaukar terror troops from conquering the Earth and imposing my Nazilike Heterotopia.

This is all quite a surprise to me, since it is not an issue in which I regard as pressing. It is simply not a civil rights issue, and there is no use pretending it is: We simply do not have water fountains labeled ‘Straight’ and ‘Gay’ where folk of one persuasion or the other are not allowed to drink.

However, I have written several vehement and prolix jeremiads against the evils of no fault divorce, which I hate as I hate the gates of hell. I have also written passionate screeds against the culture of sexual permissiveness which sprang from the 1960’s, and led to more misery than any other social movement since the lemming tribe in a Disney documentary was pushed into the sea. One of my essays took a month to write and went on for six parts.

For saying these things, nothing. No hate, no screams, no pushback.  No one called me a divorcophobe, or explained I had a psychotic and irrational antipathy to divorced people. Sound of crickets, even though divorce is the real issue, and the Christians who did not defend marriage are the real villains.

I am not saying the Homosexual advocates do not have a mote in their eye. For them to demand we change our laws to suit their sexual malfunctions is absurd. What I am saying is that we Christians have a beam in our eye. Let us remove it before we talk about that mote.

I am glad to read someone who agrees with me here.

10 Comments

  1. Comment by dangerdad:

    Every time I see another article about rising rates of STDs, or the social ills resulting from the breakdown of family (not to mention the individual suffering), my wife and I turn to each other in gratitude that we both followed the rule “abstinence before marriage, total fidelity afterward”.

    That, and whenever we see the damage of divorce, we look at each other and promise we’ll never mess with that minefield.

    After 18 years of marriage, we’ve seen the massive blessings from following those divine rules that much of society used to agree with, yet now mock.

    I’ll never forget teaching about chastity to youth in our church (age 15-16) and pointing out how if one generation simply followed those rules, STDs would go away forever. Their jaws dropped in unison as they realized it, considering how bombarded they’ve already been in school with the same kind of instruction Jeremy got.

  2. Comment by Mary:

    Out of date.

    I suppose they have to call it something, after this happened to their revolution:
    http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/drama.png

  3. Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

    I note that darn few of the Homosexual Marriage “advocates” are practitioners. The numbers we are getting from Canada back this up. Much as I hate to look in the direction of conspiracy, this is being pushed by the Left, and conspiracy and Lies (“If you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor!”), are their tools of choice. I can’t help but think that the whole trivial issue has been pushed to the forefront by the feminists/Leftists who gave us “No Fault Divorce”, so that when people realized how badly they had been lied to, there would be a handy scapegoat to throw at the howling mob…….

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Just from my personal experience, none of my homosexual friends (I had four, one committed suicide) cared in the least about marriage. They were willing to defy all the norms of society, so they did not care a whit about society giving them a legal sanction to what they new was a private peccadillo. And these were long-term type of guys too, not the kind one hears about who swap partners, well, as often as heteros do.

      The problem is more with us and less with them. We let marriage fall into decay. The liberals are just carrion eaters looking for easy picking now that the meat is rotted.

      • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

        That is my point, the “people being helped” didn’t start this. And we didn’t “let marriage fall into decay”. Marriage was murdered (until there are serious changes in the law, and vast amounts of impeached judges removed from office, all “Marriage” is a cargo cult.) by the Left, which has hated and attacked Marriage and the Family for hundreds of years (Reference your copy of “Leftism Revisited” for more on that).

        So, I think, maybe, that the Liberals/Leftists were not “just carrion eaters”, they have worked on this for a long, long time, and the “gay marriage” is looking to me to be a perverse, Evil “fuse” to protect them from any backlash. The Left is well versed on how Mobs act, and I doubt any of them want to be the next Robespierre. And destroying a mostly innocent group of people to protect themselves from the righteous fury of those they had lied to, tricked into giving up one of their best birthrights? Oh, that would be a scheme worthy of Satan, would it not?

  4. Comment by gbaker:

    I think the excerpt pulled above makes some valid points with regards to divorce, but I think it also pulls the reader a bit in the wrong direction. To my way of thinking, the claim that gay “marriage” would undermine traditional marriage was always something of a red herring. The union of two gay people is not marriage. The only damage to be done would be in the nature of counterfeiting, trying to pass off something false as “the real thing,” which inherently lowers the value.

    I have heard gay advocates make the same claims in the past, that it is heterosexuals that have wrecked marraige, not gays. While true to an extent, it is also irrelevant as a justification for changing the laws with regards to marriage. A paraphrase of the argument might be restated “Since you agree that marriage is already flawed, you have no business opposing any policy changes that would make it inherently more flawed.” That’s a recipe for a never ending downward spiral for society. If we do not do everything we reasonably can to oppose these changes, how much will we share in the responsibility for the consequences? For example, the most comprehensive study to date shows that children adopted by gay couples are more prone to depression, alcoholism, and, in the case of male couples, abuse. How much more prevalent will that become as the number of gay couples increase? And unlike the priests, the media will be in little hurry to expose this scandal.

    For me, the real issue with gay “marriage” is liberty. In every country where it is adopted, the religious and speech freedoms of the citizens are curtailed. We are seeing that now. For those of us with children in school and college, such as myself, the exposure to propaganda and the pressure for our children to conform to a set viewpoint is troubling to say the least. Several states in the nation have been denied their due process rights by judges as referendums have been imposed over the will of the people for the sake of a favored minority.

    I do not minimize the impact of divorce. It has affected my life as much as any, and I count my blessings that my wife and I have maintained our marriage for over 27 years. I also know that divorce is a symptom of the general spiritual shape of the country. It definitely deserves the vigorous attention of the church, as does the preservation of our God given liberties.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Neither Mr Walsh nor I favor gay so-called marriage. It is just that, to me, is it a non-issue, like asking me my opinion on the right of a chicken to lay cube-shaped eggs. The only thing the law can do is grant gay couples the same name and legal status of marriage, which will, in effect, make the legal status mean nothing at all.

      So neither I nor Walsh is making the argument that because the Christians have ruined marriage, we should let the Liberals defile the corpse. I say that, as Christians, we should pray and revive it, as saints in past times have done. Once divorce is difficult or impossible, and adultery carries jail time, and seduction, alienation of affection, and tortious interference with a marriage covenant are all enforce, on the books, and backed with draconian penalties, we will see how eager the liberals are to impose the penalties and difficulties of marriage onto the gays.

  5. Comment by pst314:

    “Then she asked how many people in the class are sexually active because she said it was important for people not to be ashamed.”

    And if those who don’t raise their hands are made to feel weird and different, well, their feelings are of no importance.

  6. Comment by Tim Ohmes:

    The real “gorilla in the room” is the unseen force unleashed with separation of pregnancy from the sexual act. Once the attitude that children were an “option” with sex instead of an inevitability, the need for permanence became optional as well. No children — no need for a permanent commitment.

    The sterile copulation of heterosexuals is used as justification for the sterile non-copulations of the homosexual agitators.

    I am constantly grieved at Christians, who rail against the epidemic levels of adultery, fornication, divorce, abortion, and even abuse, assault and murder while failing to see any connections between the contraceptive attitude and it’s poisonous fruits.

    I heard a priest once say, (and I paraphrase), “Until a man can control his sexual drive in a responsible manner, he will be wholly unable behave responsibly in any other personal area.”

    Contraception makes responsibility irrelevant, hence the rest naturally follow.

Leave a Reply