The Sexual Revolution: Men-1: Women-0

As a guy, I must say that men have finally won the sexual revolution. This is much to the chagrin of fundamentalists (especially the father of little girls) everywhere.

How exactly did men win the sexual revolution? It's quite simple actually. You see, there's a concept out there among the youth of America called "hooking up." A Georgetown University student described hooking up as anything from kissing to sex, while another called it a shallow thing without strings attached. This shift from traditional dating means that women are now actively looking for one-night stands. What is better is that organizations such as NOW and the left-ran schools push this as "progressive" and "liberating." While I was growing up, girls like this were called "easy" or more often "sluts." Men won the sexual revolution because they no longer have to make an attempt to get shallow meaningless sex. Of course NOW doesn't see this because the behavior is labeled "Liberated" rather than "Slutty." Which, of course makes them happy, after all, it's all about the labels.

This is the situation that the feminist movement and sexual revolution has brought to fruition. This is the fruits of their labors. Grand isn't it?

How exactly can we fight this? While I do not have a little girl of my own (which I hope one day to have), I do not want my son growing up in this type of environment, mostly because it is a harmful environment. To truly believe that there are no physical, mental or emotional repercussions to hooking up is irresponsible on the part of everyone.

Of course, harming our children's emotionally is never really at issue with liberals, especially feminists, as all their choices are aimed more at making adults feel better about themselves, than for the psychological welfare of children.

Dating takes a lot of effort. Hooking up, that's easy. It's just one night. No strings. Except that is not how it works. There are emotional and physical bonds formed with whomever you sleep with, especially for women. That's just how God made us. The entire concept of hooking up just screams disrespect for women and for the body. It screams, all I'm after is getting my kicks, you can go….well you get the idea.

Hopefully, my son will never "hook up" with a girl. If he does, I may have to give him some nice old-fashioned corporal punishment, just to remind him that he should be upholding those old-fashioned values of mine.

The New Deadbeat Dad

Let me tell you a story about a man named Gary. He is a loving father, a U.S. Navy Seal, and an all around good citizen. Gary got deployed to Afghanistan. While there he wrote lullabies for his son. A son that he is no longer allowed to see.

Apparently, his wife visited family in Israel, and decided to stay, and requested a divorce from abroad. Gary has been fighting in the California courts (which may explain SOME of the problem) to gain some form of access to his son. He's not asking for full custody, but we're talking visitation. Oh yeah, let us not forget that Gary must pay $2,100 a month in support.

Gary is the new deadbeat dad. He lost his wife and child while on deployment, and was given the deadbeat moniker while nowhere near where he could defend himself. No longer are deadbeats the wife beaters, the uncaring scum that have been portrayed through the years. While they still do exist, today's deadbeat dads tend to be stable upright citizens, which the "family" court system has punished just because they are the father.

What is saddest is that Gary is not alone. There are thousands of Reservists out there who are facing government sanctions, huge back payment debts, and even possible jail times because their active duty military pay is nowhere near the amount they made in their civilian jobs. Of course the Family Support Act of 1988 allows non-custodial parents to request a child support modification for decreases in income; but most state agencies do not honor the requests. One of the main reasons they do not is that the agencies are reimbursed by the federal government for every dollar they collect. That is a lot of incentive for them to keep the child support payments high.

This is all due to the idiocy of zero-tolerance laws. Rather than having intelligent guidelines, the government places hard and fast rules which must be applied regardless of circumstance. A good example of that would be Mr. Bobby Sherrill. Mr. Sherrill worked for Lockeed in Kuwait prior to the first Gulf War, and was captured and held hostage in Iraq for about five months during that conflict. When he was released, and finally made it back to the states, Mr. Sherrill was arrested by our government. What did he do wrong? Well, while he was being held hostage, he did not pay his child support.

While I think Child Support laws are a good thing, especially with the advent of the no-fault divorce, they need to be fair to non-custodial parents, especially fathers. Without this fairness, all you have is prosecution of fathers, which is of course what the feminists want.

The Master's

Well, as some of you may or may not know, The Master's Tournament has come and gone again this year. What makes it so interesting that the Master has gone this year? Well it seems the ever... hm... you know, I just can't think of an appropriate adjective, National Organization of Women wanted the Master's to allow a woman player. They were rather upset over the fact that the membership of the club was strictly male. They even planned protests (as it turns out 40 people showed up to protest). Yet the one question that has rambled through my mind since this nonsense started is "Is this really important?"

Think about it. "Is this important?" Does it matter whether or not there is a female player in the Master's? Is it life-shattering? Is it demeaning to females to not play this tournament? Is it hurting females to not be able to play this tournament? Is it important. Whenever we fight a battle that is the question we should always ask ourselves. "Is it important?" The battles for civil rights. They qualified. The battles for our constitution. They qualified. The battles to stop Hitler (or any other despot). They qualified. The battle to get a woman in the Master's.

Kinda puts it all in perspective eh?

What I want to know is, why is NOW so afraid of a males-only organization? Shall we ban fraternities? Shall we do away with any vestige of sex division in our society? Uni-sex bathrooms for everyone?? I'm sure that would go over quite well with the teenage male population. What is so wrong with a group of men doing "men things" together? What is so wrong with a Men's club? Men don't complain about a Women's club (a nice example is all the women's colleges sitting out there still). Why? Because we're not scared of it. We don't care what happens within it. Quite f rankly we don't care one way or the other. Why is it that women (especially those in NOW) do? Maybe someone would be sweet and kind enough to tell me. If not, I guess I'll have to continue laughing at the stupidity of it all.