Does chastity hurt men more than women?

Elizabeth Raines

Elizabeth Raines auctioned off her virginity and claimed that chastity is a tool of female suppression.  I think she has it backwards.  I do agree with her point that a woman’s morality should be judged by her kindness, courage, character, etc. and not by whether or not she is a virgin.  However, I contend that this double standard hurts men far more than women.

I spent much of my early adult life holding the belief that sex should be saved until marriage, and I lived up to my own standards.  However, I eventually learned the truth.  Women who are virgins, who are perceived as “innocent” are far more attractive to men, than such “innocent” men are to women.  Men are so often attracted to innocence.  The age old appeal of “deflowering” still holds true.  Woman, however, are rarely attracted to innocent men.  Women are attracted to confidence, boldness, experience, etc.  If you are naturally confident and bold as a man, you might be able to get away with being inexperienced.  However, if you are not, experience might be the only way you can gain such confidence.

The truth is that from a very young age, boys are pressured to “get some”, even sometimes by their parents.  My parents were very supportive of my morals, but I know many others are not, and I understand why.  As much as “feminists” complain about how men are only interested in one thing, their very sense of liberation, their very desire to fully free themselves from any kind of self-control and indulge all of their primal urges causes them to make themselves readily available to such experienced men.  As men see what these women are attracted to, they adjust themselves accordingly.

I realized this in my late twenties, but only did what was necessary.  Instead of turning into just another guy and learning to attract such ordinary women, I gained just what experience was necessary, and then found one of the good ones.  My wife is truly one in a billion…or 7 billion (the global population).

Fortunately, things finally turned out well for me, but I’ll never forget what I learned.  That Elizabeth Raines was able to auction her virginity only further proves my point.*  Can you imagine a man selling his virginity?  Part of me wants to encourage Raines to reconsider, as her first time should be “something special”.  However, mine was not, and I’m glad it wasn’t.  I wanted it to be cheap and meaningless, because my “purity and morality” had become my burden.  My first time was not cheap and meaningless, but it was with a friend.  She was unaware that it was my first.  I didn’t want her to feel any guilt, so I didn’t tell her until after.  (I don’t know if that makes sense).  I have no regrets.  Even as I spoke to my priest of this, and I considered it technically a sin, he saw right through me and knew that I had no regrets.

Chastity, therefore, is much better for women today than it is for men, at least in the western world.  While women have been “liberated” from social pressures to be “pure”, men have not been liberated by social pressures to “become a man”.  When freedom of choice is truly respected, and decisions are made with the mind rather than arousal, only then will we have evolved beyond our more primal ancestors.  Until then, at least on sexuality, we’re just dressed up cave people.

*Ms. Raines did change her mind, however.  She was persuaded by her university and employer to focus on her studies and work.


This article sparked my interest in writing this piece


Rand Paul is no Ronald Reagan? – My Rebuttal of

reagan-not-reagan-meme’s recent article “Rand Paul is no Ronald Reagan” relies more on partisan undertones than relevant facts as they attempt to debunk the perception that Rand Paul is the new Ronald Reagan.  No sensible advocate of this perception expects Rand Paul to be identical to Reagan.  Reagan was president during the Cold War in an America with manageable levels of debt.  Rand Paul is looking at an America facing no such threat as the Soviet Union, but some of the worst debts we’ve ever seen.  With that said, Rand Paul, like Ronald Reagan, is trying to move the Republican Party into the future against the wishes of the party establishment.  They are alike in the ways that matter.

I will debunk this article, by a contributor with the username “streiff”, by using the same three subtitles:  Stature, Economics, and Foreign Policy.


The article starts with the author’s most solid point.  Unfortunately, it’s only mildly relevant.  Reagan has much more stature than Rand Paul.  Yes, indeed he does.  Paul relied at least in part on his family name to become a US Senator for Kentucky.  He does not have the long list of accomplishments as does Reagan, and I admit this means he’s a little green to be President.  Still, Rand Paul has never claimed to have Reagan’s greatness, and this is hardly relevant to the debate over the future of the GOP’s policies.

Economics contributor “streiff” did actually show how Reagan’s economics differed from Paul.  Reagan ran substantial deficits, and Rand Paul has criticized Reagan for this.  But “streiff” Redstate thinks that makes Paul look bad in some way?  With rank-in-file Republicans, saying anything critical of Reagan is a heresy deserving electoral punishment, even if the criticism is true.  Paul has much in common with Reagan, but if it is heresy to learn the Reagan-God’s mistakes, Rand is most certainly guilty!

Rand Paul has argued that Jimmy Carter’s fiscal policies were more conservative than Reagan’s.  The article points this out as if it somehow is a blight on Paul’s record.  But again, heresy though it may be within the Republican establishment, it’s actually true.  If you look at deficits as a percentage of GDP, under Jimmy Carter they never exceeded 2.6%.  Under Reagan, however, they exceed this amount every year except for 1981, and reached as high as 5.9% (more than double Jimmy Carter’s highest rate). and “streiff” may not enjoy learning that Jimmy Carter really was more fiscally conservative than Ronald Reagan, but there’s no sense in punishing Rand Paul for simply acknowledging this.  I must add, considering redstate’s viewers and likely reaction to the name “Jimmy Carter”, this was a cheap shot.

Foreign Policy

As with the economy, we face a very different world than Reagan faced.  The entire Cold War was one where the power struggle was bi-polar – that is, it was 2-sided.  Nearly every nation, state, or even tribe was forced to side with either the US, or the Soviet Union.  When you’re facing a threat like that, you win at any cost…as did Reagan.  It meant running record debts to expand our military, and it meant meddling in affairs you might otherwise avoid, such as the invasions of Granada, Lebanon and Reagan’s many proxy wars.  Streiff, like many rank-in-file Republicans, seems to think that Reagan’s Cold War strategy was meant to be a permanent US foreign policy platform.  However, even the “Godfather of Neoconservatism” himself, Irving Kristol, became far less hawkish after the Berlin Wall came down.  There’s no reason to believe that Reagan would support the kind of meddling advocated by today’s GOP, as a growing number of conservatives are realizing.

Many neocons and other hawks in this post-Iraq era are trying to reposition themselves as cautious “realists”, and this author is no exception.  The author describes Paul’s foreign policy as “indicative of a man who either hasn’t considered the reality of the world or is fearful of offending his political base”.  Is this the reality of the world that most of us live in, or the reality of the bubble a few remaining neocons live in?  The Cold War is over!  We face no threat today as significant as the Soviet Union.  The two biggest foreign threats we now face are the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and various Islamist terrorist groups.  The CCP’s military might is growing, but is still far inferior to the US military.  They pose a much greater threat to our manufacturing base due to “free trade” than our military presence.  This could pose a longer term threat to our military might, as it is crippling our tax base and thus ability to fund our military.  We will certainly not solve this problem by going even deeper into debt to fund more unnecessary wars!  We need to build our economy at home, if we are to balance out the CCP.  As for Islamist terrorists, they are scary, they are desperate, and they can hurt some of us.  However, they are nowhere near powerful enough to do anything more than hijack planes, blow up trains, mail anthrax, or go on shooting sprees.  This should be taken seriously, but it will not be solved by outgunning them.  We outgun them 50 times over, and that doesn’t stop them.  They are desperate, angry, and have nothing to lose.  They’ve also been outgunned for at least a century (since the fall of the Ottoman Empire), so that’s nothing new to them.  Fortunately for US, they are better at killing other Muslims in that part of the world than at killing Americans or Europeans.  As Rand said, “Like Dwight Eisenhower, I believe the U.S. can actually be stronger by doing less.”  The author found this statement bizarre for some reason, but it is perfectly applicable to dealing with the Islamist terrorist threat.  Al Qaeda hates Hezbollah, Hezbollah hates Hamas, Hamas hates Al Qaeda; but our invasion of Iraq and meddling in Syria largely helped create ISIS – and they’re all afraid of ISIS.  These Islamist groups are far more effective at killing each other than killing US, so why stop them?  We really could do more by doing less.


This article contains no factual errors, but also fails to prove very much of relevance.  It proves that Rand Paul is not exactly like Ronald Reagan, but Paul has never made such a claim.  He actually has made it clear that neither he nor any other Republican can be the “next Ronald Reagan”.  As Mark Twain once said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes”.  In many ways, Paul “rhymes” with Reagan, but as many of the old grassroots Reagan supporters have become part of the new GOP establishment, they resent that realization that they are the establishment now.  This article is clearly an expression of their frustration at this unfortunate epiphany.  Given that Reagan himself was an innovative, bold, and adaptable leader, I seriously doubt he would object to yet another necessary renovation of the Republican Party.  Ike was a great leader in his time, but the party couldn’t stay in the 1950s any more than it now can stay in the 1980s.  It’s 2014, and we’re ready for Rand.


Links for further consideration:

Original article in case you didn’t catch it up top:

This chart shows national debt as a percentage of GDP.  As you can see, it is much worse today than during Reagan’s time:

I know that some of you will question my claim that “Hamas hates Al Qaeda”, so I want to show some evidence here:

This “The American Conservative” article from a few years ago predicted how the neocons would rebrand themselves as “centrists”:

Hobby Lobby Strikes a Blow for Religious Liberty


If Hobby Lobby put a stipulation on their employees that not one penny of their paychecks could be used for birth control, I’d be siding with the employees.  But that is not the case.  Nobody is losing their reproductive rights simply because Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to pay for it directly.  These employees are free to use their hard earned money however they wish, including, but not limited to birth control.  I could write pages denouncing the victim/entitled mentality of the so-called feminists on this, but I think Teresa Mull at did so already very effectively, so I will instead encourage you to read her article.  My only criticism of this otherwise witty piece is that she continuously denounces “feminists”, and I don’t think that’s entirely fair to genuine feminists who actually do believe women are equal to men, and don’t need some big bad government to come in and subsidize their lady parts.

I’d also like to reiterate a point made by Lee Doren a few years back on this same topic.  Birth control doesn’t have to be expensive.  For one thing, condoms are actually very cheap.  You can buy one for about $1, or a big box for much cheaper per condom.  They are more effective than the pill anyway, and significantly reduce the risk of most STDs.  Furthermore, some birth control pills are more affordable than others.  (See the Doren vid)  But of course, as always with the left, this isn’t really about solutions.  It’s about control.  They wanted so badly to impose their beliefs on Hobby Lobby, and thanks to the Supreme Court (don’t say it, I know I’m not always a fan of them), but thanks to them, Hobby Lobby’s first amendment rights are protected.


Teresa Mill’s article in

Lee Doren’s video on affordable birth control, and he gives non-religious reasons to oppose this part of Obamacare, since the left likes to pretend it’s all about religion: