His most recent article is a case in point.
On the selfish logic of accepting casual sex as simply one form of "sexual expression":
On the blunders of a health teacher overstepping her bounds in sex-ed class:
On sexual liberation:
But then...but then. To get to those nuggets of awesome, you have to wade through passages like this:
Why would the only or even the primary emotion you should feel about those potentially years of your life spent in a different relationship be regret that you had sex with that other person? If you have had any sex at all in any relationship prior to marriage, then the self you are giving your spouse is "secondhand"?? What about people whose marriages fail, who have already "given themselves" to someone else and it didn't work out? It's supposed to be healthy to say your partner, "I have nothing new to give you"???? That is classic equation of chastity as virginity, and characterization of virginity as purity - as something that, once tainted, can never be pure again. Here, the suggestion is that if you've had premarital sex, you've lost something you can never recover, you've sullied yourself beyond redemption. You should feel ashamed and you should always feel ashamed because you can never erase that mistake. You have nothing new to give, because whatever it was was finite, and you've given it all away.
Not only is that kind of rhetoric emotionally damaging (see: the Elizabeth Smart story), if you're Christian like me, it's not even Christian. That's the whole reason Christ died was to redeem us and make us new creatures, and purity rhetoric, with its insistence on the finality of the loss of virtue with the loss of virginity, denies his ability to do so. And the assumption that everyone must regret their life's premarital sexual experiences, or else be living a lie, is...bizarre.
Obviously, people with no qualms about premarital sex (which, also btw, a distinction lost on Matt Walsh seems to be that it is possible to feel no qualms about premarital sex but feel definite qualms about casual sex) wouldn't necessarily feel any shame. But, even if you are religious like me and think premarital sex is wrong, if you have had premarital sex and you do feel regret, the emotionally healthy (and, I think, doctrinally sound) response is not to wallow in regret. You don't dwell there. You don't write yourself off as worthless, as having nothing new to give. You dust yourself off, look at your life choices as water under the bridge and simply make new choices going forward. Those relationships you had and all your experiences (including sexual ones) while in them changed you as a person, some for better, some for worse, and the best thing to do is to look back and learn from them rather than wish them all away.
Anyhow, getting back to Matt Walsh. If I were an average modern person, of the opinion that premarital sex is normal and good, it would be hard for me to embrace the sound logic of his points above because I would get to the part about how my marriage is dysfunctional and think, never mind, this guy is a loony, and then roll my eyes and click away from the page. Why do that to people you could potentially persuade, Matt Walsh? To ensure that people will not listen to you by casting aspersions on them seems like a pretty inefficient way to try and convince people you are right.
(And that is why he drives me crazy.)
THE END
It's all about abstinence before marriage and how lamentable it is that people consider it such a strange idea these days. I assume anyone reading this will probably already know this about me, but I could be the poster child for abstinence before marriage. It has worked out very well for me. I'm a Mormon, I got married at age 21, my husband and I were both virgins at the time, and we've been happily married now for 8 years happily doing all the things that happy married people do. Basically, I am right in the demographic of readers of this article whom you might expect to read this and shout out an AMEN!! PREACH IT! afterwards. And on some of it, I do!
On casual sex:
On casual sex:
Even the term “casual sex” is insane. It’s an oxymoron. Denim is casual. Restaurants can be casual. Casual: without serious intention, careless or offhand, informal. A high-five is casual. Sex can only be viewed in this same vein once we have dehumanized ourselves enough to see human sexuality as something no more significant than a pair of jean shorts.
Indeed!
"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.” "Agreed! Agreed x1000!
On the blunders of a health teacher overstepping her bounds in sex-ed class:
She seems to think there’s a “safe” way for emotionally immature juveniles to have casual sex.If your own brain is still 10 years away from being fully developed, it's probably a little premature for you to be in the business of spawning new brains for new humans.
On sexual liberation:
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?Meadows of Pornography and Herpes? Come on now...that's pretty funny. :)
But then...but then. To get to those nuggets of awesome, you have to wade through passages like this:
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?
Was it worth it?
Really, was it worth it?
Do you wish you could say that your spouse is the only person who has experienced these intimate, sacred moments with you? Are you proud that there are other men or women in the world who have seen this side of you? Are you satisfied that what you give to your spouse is now secondhand?
If they tell you they feel happy or neutral about the fact that they gave themselves to someone other than their spouse, you’re dealing with someone in a very dysfunctional marriage. Any honest person in a healthy relationship would tell you they’d erase those moments from their lives if they could. They can’t, of course. Nobody can. We can’t live in the past and harp on our mistakes, but this all leads to an important point: the myth of “casual sex” persists, even though many of us — millions and millions — have seen it for what it is. Marriage as an institution is in rough shape, but people still do get married in this country. That means millions have had to look at their spouse and say — probably silently in their own heads, deep in their subconscious — “I have nothing new to give to you.” (emphasis = mine)Here is where I think his argument veers straight off a cliff, because he is conflating casual sex (promiscuity) with any premarital sexual relationship, including those that may be committed or lengthy. Anyone who has had sex prior to marriage, even in the context of a long-term relationship, and doesn't regret it after later marrying someone else is "in a dysfunctional marriage"? What? Regretting casual sex, where your only interest in the other person was what they could do for you in the moment, where you treated a fellow human being as no more than a tool for your own gratification? Yes. By all means please regret that. As you should. Regretting any and all sexual relationships of any emotional commitment and length? Umm...why would that be a given?
Why would the only or even the primary emotion you should feel about those potentially years of your life spent in a different relationship be regret that you had sex with that other person? If you have had any sex at all in any relationship prior to marriage, then the self you are giving your spouse is "secondhand"?? What about people whose marriages fail, who have already "given themselves" to someone else and it didn't work out? It's supposed to be healthy to say your partner, "I have nothing new to give you"???? That is classic equation of chastity as virginity, and characterization of virginity as purity - as something that, once tainted, can never be pure again. Here, the suggestion is that if you've had premarital sex, you've lost something you can never recover, you've sullied yourself beyond redemption. You should feel ashamed and you should always feel ashamed because you can never erase that mistake. You have nothing new to give, because whatever it was was finite, and you've given it all away.
Not only is that kind of rhetoric emotionally damaging (see: the Elizabeth Smart story), if you're Christian like me, it's not even Christian. That's the whole reason Christ died was to redeem us and make us new creatures, and purity rhetoric, with its insistence on the finality of the loss of virtue with the loss of virginity, denies his ability to do so. And the assumption that everyone must regret their life's premarital sexual experiences, or else be living a lie, is...bizarre.
Obviously, people with no qualms about premarital sex (which, also btw, a distinction lost on Matt Walsh seems to be that it is possible to feel no qualms about premarital sex but feel definite qualms about casual sex) wouldn't necessarily feel any shame. But, even if you are religious like me and think premarital sex is wrong, if you have had premarital sex and you do feel regret, the emotionally healthy (and, I think, doctrinally sound) response is not to wallow in regret. You don't dwell there. You don't write yourself off as worthless, as having nothing new to give. You dust yourself off, look at your life choices as water under the bridge and simply make new choices going forward. Those relationships you had and all your experiences (including sexual ones) while in them changed you as a person, some for better, some for worse, and the best thing to do is to look back and learn from them rather than wish them all away.
Anyhow, getting back to Matt Walsh. If I were an average modern person, of the opinion that premarital sex is normal and good, it would be hard for me to embrace the sound logic of his points above because I would get to the part about how my marriage is dysfunctional and think, never mind, this guy is a loony, and then roll my eyes and click away from the page. Why do that to people you could potentially persuade, Matt Walsh? To ensure that people will not listen to you by casting aspersions on them seems like a pretty inefficient way to try and convince people you are right.
(And that is why he drives me crazy.)
THE END
9 comments:
I don't know you (I clicked through from Anna's blog) but I JUST read that article this morning and I had the exact same qualms with the exact same passages you did. I really liked the post that guy did about the lady judging the mom at the grocery store (sorry I can't put it more eloquently than that), but yeah, he turns off a lot of potential readers by going just a little too far for the sake of drama. Well said. I agree. Thanks.
Thanks Bridget! I'm glad to know I'm not the only one. :)
I see what you are saying and agree. I remember a Young Women's Program that preached exactly what you are arguing against. However, I had a fantastic mother who preached about forgiveness and weaved some gray into the black and white depicted by the old Youth Program. Still, there is a fine line when teaching the youth this information. Especially the misuse of repentance. In college I had Catholic friends who would have sex with their boyfriends, go to confession, say some prayers and have sex again the next weekend with no remorse. To repent is to forsake your sins and do them no more and I think that that is very important to teach our youth.
I think if you are teaching it right it should be a really clear line that that kind of behavior isn't repentance at all, pretending to feel remorse when you fully intend to repeat the behavior.
However, I think that we need to understand that the human condition is to fail and fall short. I think God knows this best of all and is merciful because of it, which is why we are required to forgive others seventy times seven, in imitation of how freely and often he forgives us. If you truly repent but then relapse later, it doesn't mean your repentance earlier wasn't real. It means you are a human being with human weaknesses. You repent again and start over. And over, and over, and over, if necessary.
God knows the thoughts and intents of our hearts during our failures and our repentings, and that's the important part! :)
Great post, Jaime! I think I need to read your blog more often. I always appreciate and enjoy the thoughts you share on Facebook.
Thanks, Jenn!!
We got as far as Jeremy's letter and didn't bother reading the rest. Jeremy, and the letter, are made up, just as the letter from some liberal professor, a 29-year-old, unemployed grad still living in Mom's basement waiting for the perfect job, rude coffee shop customers not understanding why his wife doesn't have a job, and the Black lesbian in a wheel chair were all made up characters.
Someone who creates an alter-ego to debate with himself is not someone one can expect cogent editorials from.
There's a reason he's been fired from three radio stations in as many years. Keep reading him long enough, and you might understand why, in the last three months, his blog standing dropped from a rank of 2,000 to the latest standing of 5,500. He simply repackages his bigotry with new made up characters to illustrate his points, and he only has a handful of points: women belong at home raising kids, women can't compete with men in the job market because of their inherent differences, gays are perverts, the unemployed are lazy moochers, college education is bad, public schools are worse, parents are drugging their kids with Ritalin instead of encouraging their creativity, liberals are bad, Republicans are almost as bad, and the government is out to make you the ward of the state.
With this latest post, I've come to believe that Matt Walsh is a closet atheist trying to drive people away from Christianity, Christian and non-Christian alike:
http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/04/07/jesus-didnt-care-about-being-nice-or-tolerant-and-neither-should-you/comment-page-3/#comment-159820
His depiction of Jesus makes sense in the context of the rageful Jehovah who called for the killing of all Midianite men/boys/non-virgin women and taking the virgins as the spoils of war. He's probably a fan of bringing back blood atonement as instituted by Brigham Young.
Because, you know, kindness and tolerance is for "cowards," in his words.
Great post. Glad I'm not the only one who often agrees with his point but hates the way he goes about making that point.
Post a Comment