Leave it to our academics to come up with more mindless and amoral foolishness. Our ruling elites are becoming more reckless and absurd each passing day. And we as a society have to pay the price for their radical social engineering. Our children especially suffer.
Consider just two more recent cases of moonbattery on a major scale. The first comes from Australia. And we should not be surprised that the Melbourne Age ran with it. It seems that another activist egghead has come out seeking to defend the indefensible, and hardly a voice is raised in protest.
And a mainstream newspaper is quite happy to give this lunacy free air space. The opinion piece by Liz Conor makes the case for polyamory (group love), insisting that monogamy is a “disaster” which simply does not work. The activist academic informs us that the idea of one man, one woman commitment is just not on and must be rejected.
She begins her piece this way: “There is a universal truth to all long-term sexual relationships that is never openly discussed. This widespread sexual malaise lurks behind all our frenetic sexual questing and provides a feast for all the opportunists, from philanderers to pornographers to Bettina Arndt.
“It is simply this. At some point every sexual relationship loses ignition. This simple, unavoidable and bewildering fact is a hidden infirmity that in our solution-compelled world we imagine we can resolve without first fully understanding. We can’t. Once sexual ignition dissolves – for some after three years, for others after 10 years, for a rare handful, years later – it thereafter makes rare appearances between the sheets.”
She continues: “But the loss of ignition is part of life so long as we construe our lives around monogamy. Monogamy can’t sustain ignition. Generations ago I suspect ignition was less central to ideas of sexual success and successful relationships. Its loss may have been experienced as part of the maturing of a relationship from which, once endured, new things could be built.
“Is it a matter of just growing up and getting over it? I for one think we humans weren’t meant to be sexually exclusive, and building our lives around monogamy has been disastrous for too many, particularly when children are involved. How long before we acknowledge it’s not working, it rarely has and it rarely will.
“Perhaps the problem isn’t the loss, which we should openly accept as part of the pact of monogamy – though preferably not on Bettina Arndt’s website as something mean-spirited women inflict on men. The problem is we repress the loss of ignition and don’t know how to tolerate it and move on to something else. That something might be polyamory, or it might be some cherished understanding that binds a couple closer. I think after decades of sexual questing we can safely say it isn’t anything the sex industry has been able to resolve for us.”
There you go folks – the good academic tells us that “we humans weren’t meant to be sexually exclusive” and that monogamy is “not working”. Let me simply translate that for you. It is not working for her – end of story. All she is doing is seeking to justify her own lusts and apparent lack of faithfulness. Evidently she is unable to put up with just one partner for life, so she informs us that no one can.
This is always how these sexperts operate. They project onto the rest of society their own moral failures. They tire of monogamy, so they think we all should as well. They find monogamous marriage to be all so oppressive, so they want all of us to feel the same way.
They simply use the cloak of academia to justify their own immoral and amoral lifestyles. Happens all the time. And activist papers like the Age are happy to run this drivel as scholarly commentary. So what does that tell us about the editors at the Age? The same thing – they too are apparently incapable or unwilling to live in monogamy. So they happily print rubbish like this to assuage their guilt and justify their lack of commitment and faithfulness.
And what are these activists going to tell their children as they swap partners and engage in their swinging polyamory? Well, obviously they do not give a rip about their own children. They are so obsessed with their own adult lusts and desires that children can just be damned.
And we have another case of children treated like dirt in this next story. The Girl Scouts in the US have accepted a new member: a boy. Yep, you heard me right. The story goes like this: “Colorado 7-year-old Bobby Montoya wants what most little girls want: Dolls, My Little Pony figures and to join the Girl Scouts.
“But there’s one problem: Bobby’s a boy. He said he wants to follow his sister in joining the group, but when a troop leader said it wouldn’t work out, the rejection left him devastated. Bobby, who said he’s been bullied for looking and dressing like a girl, told KUSA-TV: ‘It’s hurting my heart. It hurts me and my mom both.’
“His mother, Felisha Archuleta, said she allows Bobby to dress and behave how he wants to be. Ms Archuleta told KUSA: ‘He’s been doing this since he was about 2 years old. He’s loved girl stuff, so we just let him dress how he wants.’ She added: ‘As long as he’s happy’.”
Hey, as long as he is happy. Does this mother even know what she is saying? Putting a boy in the Girl Scouts is going to make him happy? And he has wanted to be a girl ever since he was two? Spare me. This is more moral madness coming from a confused and messed up society which has long ago declared war on gender, and has tried to convince us that gender is only a social construct.
I am glad to see I am not alone in feeling dismayed and appalled at this story. Others have also expressed their outrage. Michael Brown in the US puts it this way: “As explained by Rachelle Trujillo, vice president of communications with Girl Scouts of Colorado, ‘We make the distinction that if a child is living life as a girl and the family brings the child to us and says my daughter wants to be a girl scout, we welcome her.’
“But there is a line they draw: Trujillo said boys who are living like boys will not be admitted. ‘The child must be living life as a girl.’ And there you have it. A boy who thinks he is a girl and is ‘living life as a girl’ (or, his family “presents” him as a girl) can become a girl scout, since the organization is ‘inclusive.’
“This is patently absurd, nothing better than linguistic and sociological gibberish. In short, you can be as ‘inclusive’ as you want to be, but that doesn’t alter reality. (See also my recent article, ‘The Girl Who Thought She Was a Werewolf.’)
“It’s one thing to say that a grown man who has undergone sex-change surgery is now a woman (although I would still dispute that claim). It’s another thing to say that a little boy is now a girl simply because he says he is. And it is still another thing for an organization to accept that child’s beliefs as reality.
“A Girl Scout leader who called my radio show reminded me that the girls in her group often talk about girl things, meaning things that only genuine girls can relate to, and they often camp out together and share bathroom facilities as well. A boy who thinks he is a girl has no right intruding on these other girls, especially at the onset of puberty and beyond, and to allow him to do so is insanity.
“Think about it. If an Asian boy is absolutely convinced that he is a Native American and his family ‘presents’ him as such, should he be entitled to government benefits set aside for Native Americans? If a Caucasian teen is sure that he is really black and his family ‘presents’ him as such (whatever that would mean), should he be considered for a college scholarship for minority students? The sky is really the limit, and if a boy can be a girl scout, anything is possible. That is a frightening thought.”
It is frightening all right. In this brave new world of gender bender insanity, our children are the ones who are suffering – big time. Yet our academics, leaders and elites don’t seem to give a rip about kids or society. They only want to push their radical insanity on all of us. It sure is frightening.