Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Posts Tagged ‘Connecticut Wesleyan University’

How Coed College Dorm Rooms Demonstrate The Triumph Of The Homosexual Agenda In America

Posted by Job on May 4, 2008

See article One boy, one girl — one dorm room by clicking on link. In it, the writers and editors of the article do all they can to promote the notion that a healthy male and female in their teens can live together without even considering the notion of sexual intercourse. It would be one thing if they were promoting it as some virtue of personal restraint. But you will never hear them commend personal restraint as a virtue, because that would ruin the anti – Christ media’s position against abstinence education. Now I do not support abstinence education, because it is nothing but an attempt to use government schools to impose Christian morality and values – a universalist works based theology – on the population in the place of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The solution to the illegitimacy problem is not returning to “Leave It To Beaver Ozzie and Harriet traditional American values” – how many underclass families ever had the luxury of “homemaker” wives and mothers to begin with, even during the “ideal” 1950s? – that will not save anyone from the lake of fire and deliver them from evil spirits, but the gospel of Jesus Christ that will.

Nonetheless, the media and political advocates in their aggressive promotion and defense of all manners of sinfulness and the confusion that results, tells us that we should not have abstinence education because it is unrealistic to expect teenagers to do the impossible, which is refrain from sexual activity. In one surreal moment on Fox News, a feminist lawyer who owes her wealth and fame in large part to sexual harassment law claimed to be powerless to be able to educate her own son to delay sexual activity, so she stated that with her son – and with teenagers in general – the best route was to accommodate “the inevitable” by encouraging her son to engage in safe sex. (Please note that the standard line This was particularly chilling because feminists have for quite a time been proposing the notion that males will inevitably be sexually aggressive – unable to prevent themselves from committing crimes ranging from unwanted touching (sexual battery) to rape – because of evolutionary biology. It is generally regarded that this sort of Camille Paglia Andrea Dworkin Saray Blaffer Hrdy crowd promotes male homosexuality because they view homosexuals to be less likely inclined to rape females than heterosexuals. So how can coeducational dorms not result in the male inevitably engaging in unwanted sexual activity towards the female, ranging from undesired looks at her (which that same Fox News feminist lawyer/pundit calls sexual harassment, and I agree with her) to unwanted touching (sexual battery) to violent rape? 

Make no mistake, homosexual rights activism also plays a role. It did not take public health researchers long at all to attribute the sky high infection rates of homosexual men to – among other things – extreme promiscuity within this group. Being refrained from advocating not only the Biblical mindset that homosexual behavior is sinful, but also the medical/biological truth that homosexual behavior is inherently unnatural and harmful, the best line of rhetoric that the public health advocates could do in order to slow the spread of AIDS among this population was to advocate monogamy. Unsurprisingly, homosexual activists had no interest in this approach whatsoever. Borrowing heavily from feminist theories on sexuality that attacked marriage, homosexuals called the demands that they be monogamous “heterosexism”; that it was “homophobia.” So, the idea that a homosexual should be expected to not only refrain from sexual activity altogether but even limit it to one partner even to preserve his own life and the life of his sex partners was portrayed as oppressive. Again, keep in mind that they had a vast amount of feminist work to mine and co – opt as their own: one of the primary reasons for feminist opposition to welfare reform in the 1990s was a notion that it was an attack on black female independent sexuality by cutting off financial support for the lifestyle in order to force black females into marriage. White conservative men were acting against black female sexual independence not out of a legitimate concern for the black family structure, but in order to prevent white females from following the example of black females and becoming similarly liberated. (I kid you not, not only do people get paid huge sums of money to come up with these notions in our leading universities, but people representing opposing points of view face difficulty finding employment at these same universities.) 

So once you have embraced the notion that resisting sexual desire is impossible, any attempt to do so is unhealthy repression, and any suggestion that you have some moral or even practical responsibility to inhibit your sexual behavior amounts to oppression, where does that leave you? Well for one, I have long noticed that the “anti – teen pregnancy” educational programs often amount to male – bashing. Teen females are told not to allow boys to pressure them into having sex (which is an offense that ranges from sexual harassment to even sexual assault depending on the circumstances), and that the only reason why boys want to have sex with them anyway is to get them pregnant and prevent them from going to college and becoming feminist lawyers (I am not making this up … this was the theme of Bill Clinton Health and Human Services secretary Donna Shalala’s anti – teen pregnancy campaign). The component of this campaign aimed at boys was entirely concerned with demanding that they not use manipulation and coercion to extort sex acts from females. The idea that a female desiring sexual activity may be capable of finding a male willing to accommodate her was never countenanced, because the very notion of a person abstaining from consensual sex for any reason is not an option for this mindset. 

So that brings us to the situation at Connecticut’s Wesleyan University – yes, a Christian school! – where we are supposed to believe that it is biologically, emotionally, psychologically NORMAL for a male and female to share a room without so much as glancing at each other EVEN OUT OF CURIOSITY OR FOR PERSONAL ENTERTAINMENT! Why? Because due to this mindset, there is nothing inherently desirable or attractive about the female body that a heterosexual male would respect, and a female has no real interest in receiving attention and affection from a male, and this is the case even for males and females that are lonely, awkward, emotionally/socially stunted, etc., which is known to be a problem for teenagers. (Now in times past, it was common to attribute these emotional and social problems to repressed sexuality, and advocate sexual liberation to solve the problem. In the modern era, it has become common to convince children experiencing these adjustment issues that they are homosexual or transgendered, and that their problems will be solved by coming out of the closet … the purpose of proselytizing “gay clubs” at junior high, high, and increasingly elementary schools, and sex change procedures for preteens.) Instead, the interviewees selected for this story brag about their “platonic friendships” and how “they avert their eyes when their roommate is wearing underwear.” So, that is where it gets really strange. The natural order of affairs is for heterosexuals of the same sex avoid viewing one another because, quite frankly, they have no desire to, and as a result no sexual behavior is going to result from heterosexuals being nude or near – nude around each other. So while exposing people to unwanted nudity is not ideal, in certain situations it is practically unavoidable, so the best approach is to limit these situations to people of the same sex in order to protect members of both sexes from unwanted sexual behavior and sexual aggression (yes looking at someone sexually who does not desire it, raping someone with your eyes, is sexual aggression). So, we are supposed to perceive a healthy female and male sharing a room for months without looking, touching, engaging in intercourse, etc. without any hint of sexual tension or frustration to be a sign of the advanced modern progressive mindset, as opposed to the very unnatural sexual repression that these same leftists oppose in other contexts.

 So why is it allowed in this context? And moreover, why do the campus feminists not see any compelling interest in protecting their sisters from the sexual harassment and rape that will inevitably occur not only because of evolutionary biology, but a patriarchal society that encourages and rewards males that engage in female victimization? Why are these feminists willing to allow such arrangements to exist based on the mere “trust” (in the words of the female quoted in the article) of a male that biology and society makes inherently untrustworthy? Well, the answer is hinted at in the article.

The only bit of truth that they were willing to reveal was that the policy of allowing coeducational rooms was adopted at the request of homosexuals who preferred not to live with people of the same sex. But the full range of the homosexual agenda, of course, is not given in the article. They merely quote the National Student Genderblind Campaign and leave it at that. But it is simple: the very notion that rooms should not be coeducational is “heterosexist” based on the presumption that the inhabitants of the room are heterosexual, and would want to avoid sexually uncomfortable male – female living arrangements based on it. It discriminates against the homosexual who would find living with a member of the same sex just as uncomfortable as would a heterosexual woman would in being forced to cohabitate with an unrelated male. 

Now please note two things. 1) It is perfectly acceptable for a homosexual to declare himself uncomfortable with living with a heterosexual member of the same sex and request a different room assignment based on it. But a heterosexual doing the same regarding a homosexual roommate would not only never be accommodated, but would likely face disciplinary action under these universities’ “nondiscrimination policies.” 2) Accommodating homosexuals on this point requires heterosexuals to not only participate, but behave themselves in a most unnatural manner. Publicity, after all, is everything. Public relations – wise, it would be very difficult to implement this policy were the justification to facilitate the desire of males and females to sexually experiment on each other. (One university cited by CNN has a specific policy against sex partners explicitly seeking to room together, and it is mentioned that “roomcest” is the popular term for it.) It would also be very difficult to pull off were notions of homosexual rights and equality to be the known motivating force. So, in the very same fashion that former CBS News employee Bernard Goldberg detailed in his book “Bias” of how the mainstream media used the AIDS virus to advance the homosexual agenda by making the public face of AIDS heterosexual white upper middle class suburban sexually inactive people like Ryan White and Kimberly Bergalis (“Peanuts” creator Charles Schultz even got into the act by producing a cartoon special aired on CBS about a playmate and schoolmate of Charlie Brown having AIDS), the public face of this growing policy is white upper class heterosexual college kids at elite universities that have no interest in having sex with each other; heterosexuals that either lack or have specifically rejected very natural biological, emotional, and psychological needs and desires. Now keep in mind the context here: these policies exist because homosexuals were unable or unwilling to either lack or reject their desires for roommates of the same sex and requested a roommate of a different one, “Will and Grace” situation comedy style. So we have reached a situation where – according to the practical effects of homosexual rights activism and its accommodation by university administrators and the media – heterosexual desire is unnatural, undesirable, harmful, and should be inhibited. Homosexual desire is natural and desirable, a goal or ideal to be appreciated and attained. Which is – surprise surprise – precisely what homosexual intellectuals of both sexes have been advocating for decades now. It is not the least uncommon for homosexual intellectuals and researchers to publish scholarship and give lectures consisting primarily of rants against normal sexuality. (It is only uncommon for the mainstream media to publicize them.)

Though homosexual male scholars have since developed their own, this began with feminist queer studies (yes, educational study field exists, you can earn college degrees for it and such) first indoctrinating women about how evil and depraved males were for wanting to have sex with women, how women had no ability to consent to sexual behavior in patriarchal (meaning Christian) societies because men have the power and use it to brainwash and coerce women, how all sexual relations between men and women is actually rape as a result, and how women who delude themselves into thinking that they love and desire men and acting accordingly are contributing to domestic violence, rape, child molestation, etc. Again, I am not making this stuff up. But it puts the response of the academic community and the media to the Duke lacrosse rape scandal in context: even after it was discovered that the charges were false, “the men were still guilty for wanting to look at naked black women in the first place.”

Yes, according to the university crowd and the media, the very act of men hiring these women that were not only consenting adults but actually OLDER than the Duke students themselves (the women were 26 and 32 according to media reports) for the purposes of being entertained by viewing their bodies was no different from actually raping them. So, the university community and the media have internalized this homosexual agenda to this very extent. Perhaps the best example was an “Afrocentric” black MALE scholar who was widely – and uncritically – quoted in the media as saying that the white males were wrong – and should have been punished by the administration and legal system! – for hiring black strippers because “they wanted to do something with them that they couldn’t do to white girls.” That betrays this fellow’s mindset that sex between a man and a woman is merely the man exploiting, oppressing, harming, etc. a woman, and that these fellows wanted black women so that they could behave even more wantonly … even more unnaturally. During that entire controversy, none of the people that professed indignantly “what were these wealthy privileged white male athletes doing hiring black strippers to begin with”, no one even questioned the possibility that these fellows might have simply wanted a full viewing of the black female bodies that they can only get a teasing partial viewing of on Black Entertainment Television practically 24 – 7. Why? Because that desire would have been natural, and the media and the academic community have all fully embraced unnatural sexuality as the the only form of sexuality that is moral.

So, the question is this: after the media and the educational institutions of a nation adopt an idea, how long does it take for mainstream society to follow suit? 30 years? 20 years? 10 years? How long before large portions of society start viewing heterosexual desire as an object of ridicule and scorn, and even a reason for self – hate and self – mutilation such as that exhibited by children getting sex change procedures in the article mentioned prior? Only time will tell. The question is: will you also adopt this unnatural mindset, the twisted mind of a person that has thoroughly rejected Jesus Christ and the Bible not only in this area but in so many others? If you do not wish to, then the answer is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Click Here for details.

Advertisements

Posted in Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: