Men – the sexual revolution is over

Men – the sexual revolution is over September 9, 2014

Self control is due for a comeback. Here’s how the church can help.

For decades, various secularists and leftists have blasted Christians for trying to control people’s private lives by supporting policies that curb sexuality and protect women. “Get the government out of my bedroom!” is their familiar rallying cry.

But now from the political left comes a new law that will give government the power to regulate sex on campus. The proposed statute passed the California Assembly unanimously. The bill now goes to Gov. Jerry Brown.

Couple flirtingSB967, the so called “yes-means-yes” bill would make sex illegal, unless there is “an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision” by each person to engage in sexual activity. While the legislation applies only to colleges, some observers believe it’s only a matter of time before California expands the law to govern all relationships.

The statute has been hailed by feminist groups and is based on guidance from the Obama administration. It was drafted in response to a growing “rape culture” on college campuses, in which one out of five women reportedly experiences some form of sexual violence during her collegiate years.

And so one of the most restrictive sex laws in generations is about to be passed…in California…with strong support from liberal Democrats…and the blessing of many on the political left.

Wow. I guess the sexual revolution is officially over.

College campuses across the nation are approaching the rape controversy the way Baptists used to approach dancing: by canceling events that could maybe, possibly, conceivably lead to sex. Yale suspended its infamous Sex Week in 2012 after a student filed at Title IX lawsuit. Columbia University nixed its annual Bacchanal concert, citing safety concerns. This Ivy League school has been under fire for failing to protect its co-eds, several of whom claim to have been sexually assaulted during last year’s drinking-and-music fest.

Colleges are even beginning to flag classroom discussions and literature that deal with sexual abuse, rape and mental illness. So called “trigger warnings” have moved from the feminist blogosphere to the university campus. A group of students at UC Santa Barbara got a resolution passed asking professors to warn students before potentially disturbing themes are broached in class.

* * * * *

Beginning in the 1960s, colleges began to abandon their “en loco parentis” role. Universities no longer tried to protect student virtue. Instead, the philosophy became, “They’re adults – let them govern themselves.”

But now the pendulum is swinging back. The public is demanding greater protection for young adults (particularly young women). So universities are re-implementing many of the policies they abandoned decades ago. Colleges are unwittingly turning back in a Biblical direction – for purely secular reasons.

For millennia, casual sex has been discouraged by societies and religions because of the potential for disease and unplanned pregnancy. Traditional sexual morals are protective of women, since women bear most of the consequences that result from extramarital sex.

But with SB 967, the consequences fall squarely on men.

The law’s noble purpose is to eliminate campus rape, but its greatest impact will be to throw cold water on the campus “hookup” culture. We can expect to see less promiscuity among men – and that’s a good thing. The Bible has been warning men about this for thousands of years. (Read Proverbs 7:6-27)

Guys will think twice before hooking up with someone they barely know, especially when they can be charged with rape weeks or even months after the fact. Is 20 minutes of pleasure worth 20 years in the penitentiary? No condom will protect a man if his partner decides to press charges. After all it’s her word against his – and these days, whose testimony is more believable? Especially on campus?

The law demands a definitive yes at each step. This alone will “kill the mood” and prevent many casual sexual encounters. SB 967 also seems to indicate that any sexual encounter that takes place while a woman is intoxicated is by definition rape, since she is unable to give informed consent. So once a woman has had a couple of drinks she’s off limits.

Men are already warning each other about the heavy cost of casual sex. Here’s a comment to an MSNBC story about the proposed law. Notice how closely it echoes the words of Solomon in Proverbs 7:

Young men, this is your wake up call. Sex is no longer worth it. The presence of unknown numbers of “black widows” who will have sex with you and then “kill” you is now enormous. And they don’t even have a red hourglass on their abdomens so you would know.

It is time to abandon the pursuit of women, young men. Today, you can have virtual sex with Internet porn or visit a sex worker. Other than that, you are taking your life in your hands.

It is past time for the multitudes of you to realize young, American feminists have “priced themselves out of the market” and they are FAR too costly for you to engage. Beware!

Of course, this commenter misses the obvious solution to this problem: get married. But modern marriage is not without its perils, either. Women initiate about two-thirds of divorces; among college educated couples it’s closer to 90%.

I see three potential winners from this bill:

  1. Feminists. Women can now exercise total power over the men they sleep with. Think about it: a vindictive woman can send her lover to jail (or at least get him suspended from college) any time she wants. Women have been given a powerful tool they can use to keep their men in line.
  2. Pornographers and prostitutes. They should see an increase in demand for their wares and services as young men forgo hookups.
  3. Campus ministry. There’s going to be a lot of college men in California looking for help in curbing their sexual desires. (Bad timing: the University of California has just kicked Intervarsity and other Christian organizations off their 23 campuses.)

I’m surprised that more Christian leaders haven’t spoken out in favor of this bill.  Admittedly, it’s weird to be on the same side of an issue as Gloria Steinem. But anything that makes men think twice before engaging in a casual hookup is a step in the right direction. SB 967 is the greatest threat to promiscuity since the scarlet letter.

So what do you think? Is SB 967 a good thing or a bad thing? What about young men who are falsely accused under this measure? Should we be concerned for them, or are they simply reaping what they’ve sown?

I believe this is a huge opportunity for campus ministry to men. Do you agree? How can the church help guys deal with the end of the sexual revolution? Leave a comment below, or join the conversation on our Facebook page.

"Church services here continued, with masks and spacing, and some drive-ins. The drive in services ..."

Post-COVID Church: Is it Just a ..."
"Quakers avoid #1, #2 and #3 and only do #4 after worship (many leave immediately ..."

Post-COVID Church: Is it Just a ..."
"Around here the "drive in" church has been very popular, with many new visitors coming ..."

Post-COVID Church: Is it Just a ..."
"An excellent post! I am intrigued that 1 in 7 have switched churches. My wife ..."

Post-COVID Church: Is it Just a ..."

Browse Our Archives