Country Living Series

Sunday, March 4, 2018

Sex and the Country

Here's my WND column for this weekend entitled "Sex and the Country."


For those having difficulty logging onto WND, here's the text:

Sex and the Country
Exclusive: Patrice Lewis says lefty ladies don't seem to know 'where babies come from'

I started thinking the other day about the differences between progressive and conservative women. I believe it comes down to an understanding of where babies come from.

Conservative women understand the connection between sex and babies. They know that because women are unique in their ability to produce another living human, they must restrict sexual activity until it's appropriate (i.e. marriage, when there will be a stable and long-lasting commitment by a man and a woman to care for and nurture the children and each other).

Progressive women appear to deny this connection. Or, if they reluctantly admit there might be a cause-and-effect, they refute the evidence and say it shouldn't matter, and women should be free to be just as sexually active as men, no strings attached.

As just one of endless examples, consider the hit TV show "Sex and the City."

For those of you living under a rock, "Sex and the City" was a sitcom that ran from 1998 to 2004, making it (by sitcom standards) a smash hit. Apparently it featured a lot of women. Having sex. In the city. The popularity of this concept proved so novel that they made it into two movies.

Since I live under a rock with no television reception, I've never seen any episodes of "Sex and the City" and don't ever plan to. But as with so many other bewildering preoccupations popular among progressives, I have to wonder what the appeal is.

It's not like I'm unfamiliar with sex (ahem). Beyond the obvious point that I have two kids, we live on a farm where sex is right out in the open.

Contrary to the moral prudery often assigned to rural folks, sex is a lot more obvious in the great outdoors. After all, a variety of critters engage in the dirty deed in broad daylight, heedless of whatever polite company may be present.

Because of this, children became aware of the facts of life from a very early age. I recall a conversation with my then three-year-old daughter who was watching our rooster engage in his favorite pastime.

"Mommy, what is Mr. Rooster doing to that hen?"

"He's mating, sweetie."

"Oh." Pause. "What's that?"

"It's how baby chicks get born."

And at no time since have our children been unfamiliar with the connection between sex and procreation.

But when you look at an episode of "Sex and the City" – which, remember, I'm only extrapolating from hearsay – then sex and procreation are not only separated but actively divorced. And we wonder why our culture is in such trouble?

The funny thing about these types of women is when they make the extraordinary decision to remain celibate, often for two weeks at a stretch, everyone applauds their self-restraint and marvels at their virtue.

"Not having sex is like giving up junk food," says a woman named Katie Jean who decided to embark on a so-called "celibacy cleanse." "Sex in New York for me had become like the 99-cent package of Ding Dongs on the corner." Awww, who says romance is dead?

There was even a book on the subject called "Chastened: The Unexpected Story of My Year without Sex" in which the author tries a most amazing experiment: Going without sex for an entire (gasp) year. I didn't think this was possible for any modern woman, but boy did she prove me wrong.

Women who hook up with complete strangers at the train station are not looking to hatch chicks or nurse a new lamb. No, they're just looking for a momentary thrill. Personally I think it's more thrilling to try and chase down a calf with a wire tangled around his leg than exchange bodily fluids with a total stranger whose name I don't know, but then you already knew I was weird.

So aside from the titillation factor of in-your-face sex, what accounted for the popularity of "Sex and the City," especially among women? How can the emotional angst of a bunch of stupid twits with no morals hold anyone's interest for more than a week or two?

The answers are predictably inane. "I believe it is popular because many people … relate to at least one of the ladies and of course we all want the clothes and shoes," notes one female Einstein. "Because they talk about sex," points out another. And then there's the unparalleled logic of, "Because it's stupid and people like stupid sh*t." Can't argue with that.

More intellectually, the Australian website Direct Action (honest-to-goodness slogan: "For socialism in the 21st century") noted, "'Sex and the City' has been analyzed by feminists both as an example of progress in women's rights and life options, and as an example of the effects of corporate culture, marketing and the more individualistic strands of feminism in presenting women's empowerment as mainly tied to achieving coupledom, beauty, and personal upward mobility, rather than collective organisation for progressive change."

Gee, and I thought it was just a bunch of slutty women cheapening their femininity by hooking up with a succession of strangers. Boy was I wrong.

Unlike sex in the city, sex in the country is nice because it produces something useful. Livestock don't "do it" unless there is a biologically compelling reason. Then anywhere from three weeks to 10 months later, we can anticipate a Joyous Event in the form of chicks, lambs, foals, calves, piglets, or other helpful additions to a farm. And there is nothing prettier than the sight of baby animals prancing around a pasture or peeping around a barnyard.


It is for this reason – this blatant and undeniable association between sex and procreation – that rural children are aware of the facts of life in a healthy and responsible way. (Naturally it's up to the parents to reinforce this association.) But when lambs and kittens and foals and chicks are in-your-face evidence that it's best to keep a lid on the hormones unless you want a calf of your own, a lot of country kids grow up knowing the right thing to do.

For those "Sex and the City" type of women who haven't made the connection yet, that means no sex until after marriage.

Now where's my rock? I need to crawl back under it.

25 comments:

  1. Good article, Patrice. But you seem to be saying that sex is for procreation only. You left out love and romance. Genesis clearly tells us that man is so much more than just another barnyard animal -- although Nebuchadnezzar was one for awhile.
    Blessings with you and your family.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I completely agree that sex outside of marriage has inflicted terrible suffering, even death, to millions of children who were murdered by their ‘mothers’. Abortion must be on the top of Satan’s list. But right behind are conservatives’ Republicans party that legalized abortion in 1973 and has protected it ever since. Ridiculous you say? Care to read the facts?.

    It was a Republican Party dominated Supreme Court (6 - 3) that ruled in favor of the Roe decision in 1973. In that decision, only ONE Republican, William Rehnquist, voted against Roe, while the other five Republican-appointed justices voted for it.

    For years the GOP dominated both houses of Congress, the White House, and the US Supreme Court. And in all of that time, not one single unborn baby’s life was saved. Not one! Trump has enjoyed the same position but in 13 months of governing he has not overturned Roe v Wade. Trump has not saved ONE unborn baby.

    Today is Sunday. Literally every pulpit in America will remain silent. The pastor's sheep will remain silent. Why do the sheep not fire their shepherd?

    Dock Guy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does Trump have the power to overturn a Supreme Court Decision? If he does, it's news to me. I detest Roe

      Delete
    2. When you nominate a person for SCOTUS you do your best to vet them and of course you cannot pick someone to far to the right or left because they won't pass the congressional test. But once nominated and passed that doesn't make the justice a "Republican". They are free then to do whatever they want even dive into the deep end of political choices. I suspect we will see that soon with gun control too.

      Delete
    3. You don't like Roe?

      No big government for conservatives...but don't let a woman make decisions about her own body.

      Lets just keep pushing for unwanted babies to be born with no planned parenthood in sight.

      And while we're at it...try swallowing Trump's 8.5 trillion dollar cut to medicade. (a safety net that is already paid for by you and me)....stolen!

      Is this the goal?.... to put unwanted children on the streets along with their parents? Putting all morals aside, this is reality.

      Delete
    4. Thank you for making my point. Roe v Wade will not be overturned by those who believe ‘fighting for it would too hard or impossible’, or ‘my baby would too inconvenient’.

      Republicans had 6 years to overturn Roe v Wade. They controlled the entire federal government from 2001 to 2006, both houses of Congress, the White House, and the US Supreme Court. Every year, Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced the Sanctity of Life Act. Every year Republicans let it die. Paul’s bill would have defined unborn babies as persons under the law. (2) Under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the US Constitution. This would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade would have been effectively overturned. Over 16 million babies would have been saved by Republicans.

      The vast majority of Americans who call themselves Christians, pastors or conservatives are fake. They can fool themselves but not God.

      Dock Guy

      Delete
    5. Anonomous @5:05, I don't understand. Which morals are you setting aside?

      Delete
    6. Everyone follows their own set of morals...you'll never control that.

      ...but the removal of an unborn ameba-size unwanted fetuses is far less deplorable than an unwanted child....who now has no chance of hope with the gutting of medicare.

      You'll never stop these situations...no matter how "God fearing" you are. The best solution that should satisfy everyone is preventative birth control...

      ..but if you ask Paul Ryan...that is far more of an abomination than having unwanted, poor children on an earth that can barely take care of the ones it has. Go figure!

      Delete
  3. Because our society is obsessed with instant gratification.... And addicted to about everything known to man. Pleasure and joy have been misrepresented as the same thing. The high that comes from sugar, drugs, sex, alcohol, porn etc are all trying to fill the God shaped hole in their hearts that only He can fill. Pleasure only lasts a moment so people keep chasing it. Joy comes from the Creator and extends well past the thing that produced it. People will do whatever they must to get that high instead of seeking more. Pray without ceasing... For the conversion of hearts!

    ReplyDelete
  4. The only thing more common than sex around my farm is POOP! LOL Great article.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I hear, often, that feminists think that women should be as promiscuous as men.

    Always makes me think of a story my dad liked to tell. He said, when he was in the throes of puberty back in the late '60s, his grandfather took him for a walk and made the following little speech: "Boy, you're going to be out with a girl, and your d*** is gonna be telling you that you just GOT to have a piece of that. You take a good look at her face. Listen to her voice. Think REAL HARD about that girl. If you don't think it would please you to eat breakfast across the table from her every morning for the rest of your life, you button up your pants and go home."

    I remember a lot of people making fun of Daddy. His wife ran off and left him for a silver-tongued drunk (and regretted it to her dying day). Between that day and marrying my stepmom 20 years later, Daddy didn't have much (to the best of my knowledge, ANY) sex. He didn't want to have meaningless sex. He didn't want to fool around with a married woman. He didn't want to get it any way he could (and he sure didn't want to give up his Saturday nights with me for 'poontang').

    I heard a lot of people say he was a sissy, a pussy, a queer, less of a man. I just have to shake my head. Granted, I know NOTHING of being a man (being as to how I'm a woman). Seems to me that making a mature decision makes one more of a man, not less.

    I don't know a whole lot more about being overcome by arousal than I do about being a man. The only sexual pressures I've ever really experienced have been social pressures and begging (demanding, threatening) men. I know we CERTAINLY shouldn't teach girls to be "as promiscuous as men." Maybe, though, instead of teaching girls to be gatekeepers (and teaching them that, as my grandmother venomously put it, "She who bears the womb bears the sin") while looking the other way when boys "listen to the little head," we should teach our sons to "button up their pants and come home." Or better yet, keep them buttoned in the first place.

    My grandfather was a gentle man-- and he was mocked for it. My father was a gentle man-- and he was mocked for it. My husband is a gentle man-- it's one of the reasons I married him-- and he's been mocked for it. Why do I feel like I'm setting my son up to take a fall when I teach him the same sexual lessons-- "It's absolutely in your best interests, and really the only smart decision, to keep your pants up until you're married!!"-- to my son??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. Should have edited. Should have left the last prepositional phrase off entirely. Oopsy.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I don't understand why women should be less promiscuous then men. Men and women should be equally none promiscuous.

      Delete
  6. (This is what I love about labeling people)

    Since when is "Sex in the City" about progressive women. How do you know there weren't some conservative women in there?

    ReplyDelete
  7. No offense intended but statistically and mathematically women are as sexually active as men.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Heard a statistic the other day...

    89% of catholic women take birth control...even though the catholic church tells them not to do so.

    So who really knows what moral compass any and all women have...conservative or progressive? I really dislike finger pointing with a pious attitude attached to it. J.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I laughed my butt off, this was so spot on...shared on FB because most of my friends are homesteaders (urban, suburban, and rural) who can all agree with how homesteading changes how children's sex education is so different when livestock are a part of the family!

    And MC, LOVE your grandpa's advice, wish more males of all ages got that piece of advice!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sadly my liberal thinking sister actually had her young daughter watch this show regularly as part of her "sexual education" . Sister found out the poor child had put the learning into action by age 12 and flipped out ... Got no condemnation when she came to the "Bible thumping conservative Christian" Aunties up North for the summer tho....just a frank brief talk and love from us. Our kids , all brought up with 1# a Biblical view of sex , and #2 barn animals going at it all over the place and delivering babies like clock work , were not deceived at all , and were able to reach adulthood without stepping in that trap.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There definitely is a connection between sexual intercourse and children, but the whole world and the devil have tried everything to break that connection. Even if one is not Catholic, an open-minded reading of the document "Humane Vitae" written in 1968 will amaze you in it's beauty, truth and amazingly accurate prediction of the future (our current time). Look it up on the internet... it is an easy read and will help to understand much of the mess we are in.

    ReplyDelete
  12. i watched sex and the city once to see what it was--complete trash.
    i want to see sex and the city redux where they are all 60 or 70 years old, childless, living on whatever pension they got from their careers, and all the men their age won't even give them a glance since the men are attracting very young gold diggers.
    no one is going to help them change their adult diapers or bring flowers on mother's day.
    because there is no one.

    of course this is all demonic. the devil is a destroyer and he hates humans near the top of his hate list, right after God Whom he he hates the most.
    fasting, if you are able, and praying are the only recourse. God will hear and answer.
    i think He has answered with the election of the present president, but much much more praying is needed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A true God doesn't do "hate". It's only man who manages hate through manipulation.

      EVERYTHING that you consider from the devil...will respond to LOVE. As John Lennon once sang...."all you need is love".

      Delete
  13. So appreciate you putting the article on this site since WND seems to hate me and I can never read your articles there.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sex is fun. I've been in a monogamous marriage for 22 years and enjoyed sex many, many (1,000's) of times. I hope that continues far into the future. We only have 2 children so obviously almost all of that sex has been for fun.

    I think you are underestimating the intelligence of your reader. Conservative, solidly right thinking/voting/living adults can have sex for fun and watch trashy TV for fun.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thank you for adding your WND artiicle to this website.

    ReplyDelete
  16. What I don't get, as a rural woman, is how liberals change definitions nowadays.

    Take for example that "adult actress" making claims against Trump. Really, an actress? Do men watch her for the plot? Let's be honest here. She's paid to have sex. Which according to the dictionary. is a prostitute. Am I missing sonething here or has the country just fell off the moral cliff?

    ReplyDelete