Memo from a Millennial: liberalism is boring


“OMG, he’s hot! Let’s hope he’s as easy to get as this birth control. My health insurance covers the pill, which means all I have to worry about is getting him between the covers.”

That’s how the liberal group ProgressNow has decided to market Obamacare to Millennials. They’re also the group responsible for the infamous “brosurance” ads, depicting, for some reason, a frat bro doing a keg stand. Because when I think keg stands and frat parties, I think health care policy.

So, trying to sell health insurance to young women by promising it will better enable them to sleep around? Absurd. Offensive. Demeaning. Degrading. Hideous.

Also, YAWN.


This ad has prompted a lot of outrage from conservative circles, and rightly so. The people responsible for it are disgusting, condescending pigs. It offends the intelligence and moral sensibility of any decent, rational adult. But I think it’s time to point out something else about progressive propaganda and progressive ideology: it’s all so very tired.







There’s nothing new here. Nothing fresh. Nothing revolutionary.

The sexual “liberators” and counter-culturists of the 1960s stopped protesting the Man because they became the Man, and they’ve since worked to intravenously inject their hedonistic garbage into the bloodstream of society, through avenues like the university system, Hollywood, the media, and government. While they once eschewed the status quo, they now are the status quo; it’s been that way for decades. But they still proselytize by pretending they’re peddling something new and hip.

They aren’t.

Progressivism is as new as color TV and about as hip as your dad’s sneakers.

“Hey young folks: go have sex with everyone! It’s super cool!” Yeah, we get it. As Chesterton might say, that idea has been tried and found wanting. It’s been tried for 40 years. We’ve got a whole bunch of divorce, disease and depression to show for it.

Thanks for that, by the way.

Now these washed up “free love” crusaders are trying to pass the baton to a new generation: my generation. And, despite what you hear in the media, many of us are simply not interested in stale old mid-twentieth century liberalism. There’s a new counter culture. There’s a new rebel in town. We’re the ones who roll our eyes at that Obamacare advertisement. Neo-liberalism was your Aunt Barbara’s revolution. Defeating it is ours.

Sleeping around? Begging for free birth control? Self indulgence? Hedonism? That’s how our parents’ generation rolled (not all of them, certainly not my parents). Sure, plenty of young people buy into it, but most of them are simply apathetic. They don’t BELIEVE in it, they just absorb it like a moldy sponge because they’re too morally and intellectually lazy to develop any convictions of their own.

But don’t be fooled. There are a lot of us out here who reject liberal dogma and all of its tenets. That’s why the March For Life attracts HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of young people, while the pro-choice counter protesters are a small, sad, bitter, and much older bunch.

I wrote something last week about abstinence. It’s been interesting reading the responses. Particularly because the vast majority of the supportive emails I’ve received have either been from my peers, or from my grandmother’s peers. Most of the vitriolic “how dare you advocate abstinence!” nonsense has come from Baby Boomers. There is absolutely nothing surprising about any of that.

You see, monogamy, personal responsibility, “traditional” morality — these things are all right and good. And they’re also challenging and exciting; I think that’s an aspect of virtue that most people seem to miss when they’re coming up with a sales pitch for it. Hollywood can’t seem to write a compelling “good guy” character anymore, probably because it’s so easy to paint evil as something sexy and intriguing, and goodness as flat and one dimensional. But it isn’t. It’s dangerous and thrilling, especially nowadays. Evil, on the other hand, is utterly mundane. We fear the pain of Hell, as well we should, but what about the monotony of it?

This is where the opponents of progressivism often go wrong. A liberal group demeans women and speaks to them like they’re all just looking for cheap sex and a good time, and we, again, react by screaming: “HOW DARE YOU! I’VE NEVER SEEN SUCH A THING!”

Yes, you have. You’ve seen it a million times. And it’s archaic, outmoded, obsolete. The young women I know — my wife and my four sisters, primarily — are far too intelligent, interesting and dynamic to be at all engaged by such a message.

We consider it natural for the new generation to rebel against the old generation. This is largely a post-Industrial Revolution phenomenon; it isn’t natural, and it isn’t good. Usually.

But now is the time when the young can rebel against the old ways and end up closer to God and closer to Truth. The conservative end of the spectrum wonders how to recruit the youth in the ideological war against secular progressivism, not realizing that many of us do not need to be recruited. We’re already here; we’re young, we’re energetic, we’re ready to fight. We’re the people you come to when you want to take on The Establishment, and, in this era, The Establishment is Liberalism. The Old Way is casual sex and godlessness. The Man wants us to be a bunch of drunken, indulgent zombies.

So we rebel with monogamy, morality and the Bible. That’s our revolution.

Let the old rebels take theirs right to the retirement home. We don’t want it. It bores us. But thanks anyway.


Find me on Facebook.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

308 Responses to Memo from a Millennial: liberalism is boring

  1. Lakey says:

    I hang out in liberal circles and believe it or not, it isn’t a common thing for these girls to be dancing around in excitement over getting birth control. This add, like most things, is just made to create angst. Liberals laugh at the silliness and shallowness of this add and continue about life. Conservatives grab it as an example of the evil of liberals, discord is started, the people are separated, the government has done what they came to do.

    As far as abortion…Well…when we as society make life so shitty that abortion is a possible reality that means society sucks and has fallen short. If we as parts of society are continuing with the division, disgust, and discord then we are just as responsible for the abortion as those that actually do it.

    In the Bible it is said that Christians should be known by their love. Not by their crucifix, not by their beliefs, not by their church name, not by their denomination, not by their judgments, by nothing other than their love.

    People accepting and giving the names liberal/conservative adds to our division. We should live conservatively and give liberally while acting out of make the world a unified and positive place.

    • gokingdom says:

      Well Christians are supposed to be known for love, holiness, prayer, oneness, sacrifice, prayer, faith, sexual purity and…. well a host of things. Like being like Jesus. Who by the way called some religious people vipers. They are also to expose sin, injustice and proclaim boldly the gospel of the Kingdom of God. We are to be known by our love. Most of my friends are known for just that virtue. And that virtue does complements and frames all their other obligations, including telling a lost and dying world they are perishing in sin and need a Savior. By the way, I used to be a conservative. I left that behind and became a disciple. Better perks. You are right the ad is silly. But don’t think youngsters who see it are not affected. It has a of promiscuity and for young impressionable minds when the government or authority figures promote this type of image they will indeed get a response. It may not be the one any responsible adult wants for their child.

    • Lauren Bender says:

      I agree. Except for the part that we are to be known “by nothing other than their love.” That’s not fully accurate. We are also to love God by our lifestyles. I am sick of all the division and people putting each other into “categories” and boxes just so they feel like they have someone on their side or to feel that they understand people. It’s ok to not make a total judgment of the totality of someone’s character without really knowing them very well. I’m sick of the us vs them mentality. I know some people who are more “liberal” and who would be equally disgusted by this ad, although perhaps not as many as conservatives.

    • Kailey says:

      I think you are confused. Christians are not supposed to be united with the world. We are called to be in the world, not of the world. What we believe does separate us, as it should. Why would I be in unity with anyone who has fundamentally opposing views, values and morals? Standing with liberals in unity is not going to make life less “shi**y” and stop abortion. If I am unified with them that means I am standing with them, in agreement with what they stand for. Just re-read what you wrote, seriously. My disagreement with liberals on the issue of abortion makes me responsible for abortions? It is the acceptance of what is horrifying and offensive that has brought our country to the state of decline it’s in now.

    • Isaac says:

      Wait…you’re saying that this ad was created as part of a government conspiracy to mischaracterize liberals and create discord and argument? Whose plan was that? Skeletor? Gargamel?

      I think the ad was made to encourage young people to enroll in Obamacare. Call me crazy.

  2. Andy says:

    My wife and I teach NFP. I always tell the young engaged couples, “Want to piss your parents off? Want to be truly counter-cultural? Use NFP.”

    When you attempt to change the nature of the most intimate act of love and complete gift of self one person can give to another, it MUST have an impact on that relationship. There is no way around it. It is by its nature an act intended to give life, as real love is always modeled after Christ’s love, which gives life. When you change that nature artificially, it ALWAYS has a negative impact on the relationship. Always. Birth control, by its nature, cannot be the loving thing to do.

    • Edik415 says:

      Not for profit?

      • Andy says:

        Natural Family Planning

      • deleen says:

        Natural family planning. It’s a birth control method that tracks basal body temperature and other fertility signs in a woman and tries to time intimacy in a marriage based on when a woman is least likely to be ovulating. (It’s very Catholic)

      • Edik415 says:

        Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation. (That’s a Catholic thing? I thought Catholics believed that sex was only for reproductive purposes?)

      • deleens says:

        Forgive me if I represent Catholics here, as I’m not one. But my understanding is that Catholics believe that sex is primarily for reproduction and that birth control that tries to artificially manipulate the sex act, or the way the husband or wives body works, is working against God, instead of with Him. NFP is a type of family planning that isn’t contrary to catholic doctrine that prohibits contraception.

        I find this particular aspect of Catholicism fascinating.

      • Shannon says:

        I am Catholic and I do practice NFP. The Catholic ideology is not that sex is ONLY for reproduction. That is where you are incorrect deleen. Sex withing marriage is also meant to be enjoyable and helps to build a strong marriage, not just for having children. I am currently practicing NFP and probably always will. The great thing about it, is that it allows me to determine when the intimacy between my husband and I can result in a pregnancy. Unlike birth control that you have to get off of and get out of your system and then hope that your fertility returns to normal. My fertility IS normal. For now, we just choose not to be intimate when pregnancy is possible. Abstinence in marriage?! How shocking! Honestly, practicing NFP has brought my husband and I closer. It requires a lot of communication and planning, which in turn makes us stronger and truly one. I know that we really respect each other too. I highly recommend it. Once upon a time, before I knew better, I was on birth control and I can tell you that it really did change the nature of sex for the worst. Ultimately as I woman I felt like an object for pleasure rather than a partner with my spouse. I felt separate. Never again. The way our relationship is now, fantastic.

      • deleens says:

        Thanks Shannon, but I did say that sex is viewed as primarily for reproduction, not ONLY.

    • Tricia says:

      Shockingly enough some people can’t rely at ALL on NFP- because their cycles have *never* been regular since day 1. And you can use birth control within a marriage. Christ’s love gives life- but it doesn’t always create children.

      • Restless Pilgrim says:

        The use of contraception has been alien to historic Christianity. Even the founding figures of Protestantism (Luther, Calvin, Wesley etc) held it to be sinful and preached fiery sermons against it.

        It was only after the Lambeth Conference in 1930 that the Anglican Communion made a small concession, but for extreme circumstances only. Eighty years later, virtually the entire Protestant world has capitulated.

      • Chrissy says:

        I have PCOS and my cycles (at least lately) typically vary from 45-120 days long. NFP works wonderfully. It’s not based on the calendar but on the physical signs in a woman’s body when she ovulates. And it works, even for someone as irregular as me. If I didn’t use NFP to know when I’m ovulating, I wouldn’t have my daughter.

      • deleens says:

        While I agree with many of the points you raise, I feel your tone is very rude and disrespectful to a people who do their best to honor the sacredness of sex in a marriage.

      • Shannon says:

        Tricia my cycles are not regular either and you can use NFP even if they aren’t regular. I have three kids. Artificial birth control is not condoned by the Catholic Church ever. Also the Church does say that NFP should be practiced for serious reasons. What qualifies as serious are financial concerns, mental and physical health, or one spouse is ready for another child and the other is not, etc. What that means is that you shouldn’t postpone a pregnancy for silly reasons like not wanting to gain weight or something ridiculous.

      • Melinda says:

        My cycles are very irregular in how long they are; they vary as much as three weeks. Yet we used NFP, and it worked great for us.

    • Sex is both unitive and procreative, for the bonding of the couple and babies.

    • Momof7 says:

      Rather than try to paint “NFP” like some kind of “catholic” birth control, why don’t people just trust in God to plan their family? The Catholic Church teaches that “NFP” can only be used for SERIOUS REASONS, not for you to be able to decide when you want to get pregnant. Serious reasons are life/death reasons.

      IMO a mother should be ready to give her life for her baby if it comes down to that, but considering the “hardness of their hearts,” (which is why I believe a concession was made in GRAVE circumstances) rather than have people commit other serious sins, (such as abortion or artificial birth control) this was “allowed” in very “extremely grave circumstances.”

      Now, in the post-conciliar mess we have, it’s being pushed as something “new” and “normal” whereas this method is NOT new, or anything of the like. The ancient egyptians knew their cycles and would “plan,” too.

      I know many older folks (baby boomers, and some even earlier than that, and now some ‘conservative catholic’ youngsters) who once raved about this “new and approved” method of “natural birth control” and have lived to regret it.

      Jerimias 1:5

      “Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations.”

      THAT is “revolutionary!” That is “daring!” That is “being adventurous!” Let God plan your family! Clearly He knows better than you!

      Read Casti Connubii. Don’t just take my (or others’) words for it.

      • Andy says:

        In teaching Natural Family Planning, I’ve found that it is kind of a gateway or stepping stone. It helps restore trust in God’s plan for our families. For people entrenched in the birth control mentality, taking the leap to trust in God even with NFP is gigantic. The path from NFP is not as difficult once that first step is taken.

        Recognizing NFP as licit wasn’t a concession and it doesn’t apply only for grave life/death circumstances. That is not in HV. I don’t know where you get that impression. From HV section 10:

        “With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”

        From section 16:

        “If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.”

        The Church, in her wisdom, doesn’t dictate what these well grounded reasons are. Couples need to prayerfully discern that. God doesn’t call us to be adventurous. He calls us to be faithful to Him. I would say tossing aside the Church’s infallible teaching on this matter and call out other for their lack of trust in Christ is pretty uncharitable.

    • Paul says:

      Actually, pornstars use “Natural Family Planning” too, if you get my drift.

      • Momof7 says:

        Andy, I’ll stick with the fathers of the Church, rather than HV, on this matter.

        St. Augustine, Against Faustus, 15:7: “… in order that their wives may not conceive, [they] are led to commit adultery even in marriage. They take wives, as the law declares, for the procreation of children; but… their wives is not of a lawful character; and the production of children, which is the proper end of marriage, they seek to avoid. As the apostle long ago predicted of thee [the heretic Faustus], thou dost indeed forbid to marry, for thou seekest to destroy the purpose of marriage. Thy doctrine turns marriage into an adulterous connection, and the bed-chamber into a brothel.”

        You cannot have the secondary end supersede the primary end of marriage. Period.

        So stop trying to say that NFP is “Catholic” birth control. There’s nothing Catholic about it.

    • Doug says:

      I have at least 2 younger sisters that are a product of NFP. My Mom dod not think it worked very well. 😉

    • James says:

      Andy, do you want to be really countercultural? Trust God. Why do you assume it is a given to turn God’s gift of children into a human decision? Your opposition to artificial birth control is a bandaid to the problem of the narcissistic god-complex that has been in vogue since before the baby boomers. If the problem, as Jesus would say, begins in the heart, perhaps we should identify the true sin by questioning the whole concept of family planning at all – and let God, the author of life, plan our families for us.

      • Andy says:

        James and Momof7: Are you saying that if a married couple has well-grounded reasons for spacing births, and then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, they are sinful?

        • James says:

          Nice come back, by the way. Why don’t you respond to what I said rather than asking for my endorsement of your straw man? Identify the evil with me rather than straining out what is hard for the flesh to swallow. I did not say what you asked. I am not interested in casuistry. I am not applying for the job of judging every case. I am simply making a theological point, which shouldn’t be labeled as impractical simply because it isn’t quickly and universally applicable to every imaginable situation. What I am interested in is righteousness. To rule out artificial contraception, but to endorse the rhythm method may be laudable in reducing abortifacient drugs, but it does not address the real problem, namely, that people look at children as manufactured comodities rather than as gifts created by God. The fact that God uses our cooperation in making babies is a gift to make us happy, not a ticket to command the assembly line.

  3. Brianna says:

    Of course they want to promote you going out and sleeping around. Anything to make a buck, right? They know their birth control and condoms are not 100% effective, they know that there is that % that won’t work and that some of those people will then be getting abortions. It’s win/win for them, isn’t it?

    Another comment on this idea that a woman should be able to do what she wants with her body. This is a hypocrisy from liberalism. Their idea is that a woman can do what she wants with her body as long as it is sleeping around. If a woman doesn’t want to use her body to sleep around, then she is obviously a conservative, Bible thumping, unenlightened, prude. They say it’s a woman’s choice, but when a woman makes a choice that isn’t what they profess, then they attack them, like “Don’t you know you have a choice? Don’t you know that it’s ok for you to sleep around? What is wrong with you?” Nothing, other than I’m obviously enlightened enough to know there is more to sex than the physical, that condoms and birth control don’t always work, that every act of sex must be made with the realization that I may end up responsible for another human being or I may end up with a disease. Is everyone who gets my juices going worth that? No.

    • Dave says:

      Hi Brianna, how is that a win/win for “them”? (Who is the “them” you’re referencing, anyway?) I don’t think there are very many people, including pro-choice folks, who are hoping for more STDs, unplanned pregnancies, or abortions.

    • Edik415 says:

      I’m sorry, but, while I agree that this ad is ridiculous and stupid, I just can’t imagine the scenario that you’re suggesting. I have been friends with MANY pro-choice people in my life, and have had many discussions about that belief, and not a single one of them has been pro-abortion. There is a HUGE difference. Do you really think that a group of people sat in a room and had the following conversation?
      “Let’s try to convince more young women to get on the pill. It’s not 100%, you know.”
      “Yeah! Great idea! Then some of them will get pregnant and they’ll have abortions!”
      “Right! Then we win! More abortions! Hooray!”


      • Mrs Scarlet says:

        You need to look into why Planned Parenthood was actually created. Eugenics.

        • Dave says:

          Many people are aware of the origins of Planned Parenthood in the 1920s and the awful idea of eugenics. That does not mean that people who are pro-choice in 2013 advocate eugenics or rejoice whenever there’s an abortion. And to take it back to the original point of the commenter, let’s please not assume that if you are for the Affordable Care Act or any form of health care reform that you are happy that abortions happen or that you advocate eugenics.

      • Mrs Scarlet says:

        I didn’t imply any of what you say I did, Dave. I just thought that the poster whom I replied to would benefit from understanding the origins of PP. I think it’s extremely naive to think that the goals of an organization would differ so vastly from the seed in which they were created. I didn’t point fingers at the citizens who support it; I believe most Americans are fooled into believing they are supporting a just cause. However, those who are in power know better. I doubt we’d be having this conversation if Hitler himself founded PP. I suppose a different eugenics advocate is any better?

      • Edik415 says:

        That’s interesting. I was not aware of this in the origins of Planned Parenthood, so thanks for sharing. However, I still don’t think that this is a valid argument in this case. I know PLENTY of people who are involved with PP in one way or another, and absolutely none of them have expressed beliefs anything close to eugenics. But sure, let’s say that, deep down at its administrative core, PP is still trying to kill all fetuses. Even if that were true, it would still be irrelevant here since PP did not create this ad.

        Look at the other ones in this campaign: This reveals not a hidden goal for “improving” human society by controlling reproduction, but a group of people who are so out-of-touch with their target audience that they can’t even produce a decent ad.

      • Carla B says:

        It’s a bit naive to believe that there aren’t people doing just that, although maybe with different words. Abortion is Planned Parenthood’s (and other “women’s health clinics”) bread and butter, by far their main source of income, which is while they rally so hard to fight any restrictions or regulations of it that might reduce that income. It’s not that they just “care about women” so much that they fight against proper safety standards, it’s because they care about keeping business booming without pesky things like health inspections. This is why clinics like Gosnell’s were allowed to continue for years, despite many complaints and women dying. This is why clinics close (like those in Texas) when they are prevented from doing abortions until they can reach certain recent health standards. It’s a big money industry fueled by selling the lies of “sexual freedom” without consequence. Abortion numbers aren’t high because there are no other better options for women, or because it’s always medically necessary, or because “women will do it anyway”…it’s so common because it’s packaged and sold as a “right”, easy afterthought birth control. The mantra used to be “safe, legal, and rare”….they’ve since dropped the “rare” part in exchange for “for any reason, no apologies”. Culturally it needs to become the less appealing, and less accepted option for an unexpected pregnancy.

      • andygump says:

        Sorry, contrary to your beliefs, Pro-Choice is pro-abortion. It is just a politically correct way of saying it. Abortion is so…dirty. Pro-choice is such a nice and cozy catch phrase.

      • Paul says:

        *Another comment on this idea that a woman should be able to do what she wants with her body. This is a hypocrisy from liberalism. Their idea is that a woman can do what she wants with her body as long as it is sleeping around.*

        What used to keep (and still keeps) the victims of sexual violence silent is the concept that sex is sinful. Removing the veil of shame is what empowers women. You know the ‘walk of shame’ they talk about in college? How come a guy creeping home in the early morning doesn’t engender the same ‘shame’ that a woman creeping home does? (actually the guy doesn’t CREEP home-he struts).

        And, despite the fact that Matt Walsh has spoken out repeatedly in favor of “abstinence education” (an oxymoron) and a “return to traditional values” (rape victims should just keep their mouths shut) he has yet to reveal to his readers whether or not HE was a virgin when HE married. Go figure.

      • chicagomom says:

        Carla, Planned Parenthood is a not-for-profit organization. They have no motivation to increase the number of abortions.

      • Paul says:

        * This is why clinics close (like those in Texas) when they are prevented from doing abortions until they can reach certain recent health standards. *

        No. They closed because abortion-obsessed male politicians passed a law saying that doctors in womens’ health clinics had to have admitting privileges at a hospital-something they knew that few, if any docs at these clinics were likely to have.

        The war on Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with “abortion” (which makes up less than 3% of its services, and per the Hyde Amendment, NO taxpayer dollars go towards)…it’s being waged by the insurance/medical complex, which wants you sick and in debt.

      • Don says:

        Paul, you are spewing nothing but typical nonsense far left talking points. The bottom line is that abortion clinics should meet the same standards as all other free-standing surgical centers to include admitting privileges. I do not understand why you don’t want women to be able to have quality, safe healthcare. Abortion is after all an invasive surgical procedure. Apparently you are good with young women, to include sexual assault victims, going to clinics with lower standards than a veterinary clinic.

      • Penina says:

        I’m aware of all the controversy of Planned Parenthood, but until you’re actually there, people shouldn’t comment. I went to PP before getting married (I hadn’t gotten a gyn before and I knew I had some issues) and they were really helpful, discussing BC options, helping me feel less nervous and allowing me to just talk to someone. They never told me what to do, but gave me suggestions and reading material. No one FORCED me to do anything, follow their way of thinking or anything like that. It was very helpful. As I was in college and living on a very tight budget, it was also something I could afford (I had only disaster insurance). I really appreciate everything they helped me with.

      • Paul says:

        *I do not understand why you don’t want women to be able to have quality, safe healthcare.*
        Wow, Don…brainwashed much? Actually, here’s a novel idea…let’s let the ladies themselves decide what THEY need.

    • Sid Avery says:

      Thanks Brianna, good observations – anything other than a Christian worldview is promoted.

    • Momof7 says:

      Well grounded reasons. Meaning, serious reasons as prescribed by Pope Pius XII? Like my grandmother (who basically ignored her doctor, by the way,) that when her doctor said (after her 20th pregnancy) that if she was to get pregnant again, she would DIE, but trusted GOD instead and had a son that has multiple Ph.D’s and is an inventor? Youngest of 12 children (8 miscarriages?). He wouldn’t be here if she’d employed NFP. (By the way, she had to get her uterus removed because it was so damaged after that last one. Talk about self-sacrifice for your own.) Many saints were from big families, because their parents cooperated with God.

      Self-sacrifice. That’s a foreign idea these days. We’re all about stuff stuff stuff. Me me me. Money money money.

      I wonder if you could convince a Catholic in Nigeria that he had “economic” reasons for NFP. What else do those people HAVE over there except their children? They have absolutely nothing else EXCEPT their family. An AMERICAN absolutely doesn’t have that excuse.

      I wonder if you would tell that mother who is pregnant with a child with Down’s Syndrome (or heck, ask a mother who has one who is already born) if she had “eugenic” reasons to use NFP, and if she regrets not using it? I imagine they would tell you no.

      I have a friend that had TWO trisomy-18 babies. She carried both of them to term, and neither of those girls lived for more than 45 minutes. They were both baptized and are now little saints in heaven, interceding for us, and her entire family. Did that stop this heroic woman from having six more children by relying on some crazy idea to most people today called “Divine Providence?” No it didn’t.

      Of course I’m not saying that it can’t be used, but the likelihood that I would know more than one person that has a “legitimate reason” is VERY VERY SMALL.

      The muslims don’t believe in any such thing as NFP. The average family of muslims has, what, 6 children? The concilliar catholics are having 2, or less. Thanks, nfp.

      Aren’t parents supposed to populate heaven? Isn’t that our job? If we don’t cooperate with God, then how you plan to do His will, if you are insistent on your OWN will?

      • Paul says:

        Penina: I went to a Planned Parenthood once when I was 23 years old (got an AIDS test after I found out my girlfriend had been catting around-you know they also offer services for MEN, right?). It was clean, professional, fast, and inexpensive. There were NO ‘fetuses in jars’ or any of that crap. People who criticize PP either don’t know what the f#ck they are talking about, or are LYING. The war on Planned Parenthood is coming from the medical/insurance complex, which wants you SICK and IN DEBT.

        And, not ONE PERSON who demonizes Planned Parenthood has been able to produce ONE link or citation PROVING that they use taxpayer money for abortions (in defiance of federal law) or that “abortion is the primary service they provide.” Believe me, the day someone can PROVE that Planned Parenthood is thumbing their nose at federal law and using tax money for abortions, you’re not going to need WorldNutDaily or Fox Spews to get the story out.

  4. Lisa says:

    Matt you are so right on all points. As a Baby Boomer I remember how we railed against “tradition” the church, and virtuous behavior. We thought we were so clever and soooo original. Yeah just look back to societies that imploded—hedonism, abortion, casual sex—it’s back to the future. Ancient Rome is beckoning!

    As to the ads, I think they reflect the shallow thinking and elitism that is the Progressive Movement. Everything is about feelings…hey if it feels good, do it! I remember that tired phrase. As you noted all of this debauchery has left us with chaos, disease, and dependency. Further it points out that for the Left, everything revolves around one’s genitalia. Whether it’s supporting same sex relationships, hook ups or abortion, instead of being a sentient being with a mind and a spirit we are led by hormones and impulses. Just like animals.

    Now THAT’s progress!

    • Dave says:

      Hi Lisa, unfortunately it’s often Christians and the right-wing of politics that is obsessed with issues related to one’s genitalia. Please see the Pope’s recent comments about how Christians need to stop focusing so much on homosexuality and abortion and instead spend more energy working for the poor and the widows.

      • Tricia says:

        Which, remarkably enough, there happens to be MUCH more passages in Scriptures about. But if we focus on those verses, then we might have to examine our pocketbooks and our theories who is “deserving”.

      • Christians and conservatives aren’t the ones trying to force those who object to funding contraception, to fund and/or facilitate it in their businesses and institutions.

        Christians and conservatives aren’t the ones trying to re-define marriage to cover relationships based upon “feelings … nothing more than … feelings”, as opposed to the historical limitation of marriage to relationships with the potential for procreation (and yes, that even includes senior citizens … those marriage vows discourage Grandpa from cheating on long-faithful Grandma and turning some twentysomething hottie into a single mother).

        Christians and conservatives ARE demanding, however, that the government treat life as truly an unalienable right … not as something that can be disposed of when “inconvenient”, setting a utilitarian precedent that can come back to bite Boomers like myself when we are old and “inconvenient”. This one goes beyond “religion”.

        As for the poor and widows … we are already doing a lot in that area. We would be doing a lot more, for a lot less cost, were we not compelled to render unto Caesar so that Caesar can do so much FOR us in that area.

      • Victoria says:

        Oh yeah Dave. I can tell Lady GaGa, Miley Cyrus and all those followers are real right wing Christians. Not. Liberals want to remove any form of Christianity in order to make themselves feel like superior beings — as they “know” whats better for society. Pfft.
        Delusions of grandeur.

      • Zak Smith says:

        Well, well, the pope says huh? Well, I’m sure the pope knows that unborn babies are the poorest, most helpless people on the planet, right? If he doesn’t, and even if he does I’m not really under the authority of the pope. Christ is the head of the church.

      • Zebram says:

        If one does not agree with something, then one tries to change it, and thus is ‘obsessed’ with it. That is not a relevant argument of any kind. If one sees murder everywhere and starts speaking about it, will you say they are ‘obsessed with murder?’ I think you will not apply this concept across the board, so why don’t you just abandon it?

    • Brandon says:

      You clearly have never studied the Roman Empire…

  5. Edik415 says:

    I know it’s off topic, but this “millennial” label is also hard for me to swallow. The extremely authoritative source and beginning and ending of all research known as Wikipedia (that’s sarcasm, lest anyone miss it) defines it as people born between the early 1980s and the early 2000s. Is this really what people consider a single generation? As someone born in 1978 (almost the early 80s), I notice a HUGE discrepancy in the values and experiences of myself growing up and my 18-year old students. I can’t possibly consider this a single generation. Anyone else?

    • Jo says:

      Agreed! My hy husband and I (born 1979) notice a huge difference between us and even our younger siblings, let alone people even younger.

      • Don says:

        I think the difference is those who remember the world pre-internet and those after. To me that seems to be the dividing line. Those born in the 70’s and even into the 80’s can still remember a life without instant electronic gratification.

  6. God and his church is what molded and developed this country, and the Church is the weapon that God is going to use to attack the evil culture of the devil. Hearing stuff like this from places other than my Dad and Mom is really like a breath of fresh air. Thanks Matt!

  7. Cassandra Eubanks says:

    Absolutely perfectly said. Liberalism is being shoved down our throats and we can spit it right back out and live for God. He wins in the end, so fight with the champion!

  8. Susan says:

    Reblogged this on Don't Tread on Anyone and commented:
    So this is a marketing plan?

  9. Paul says:

    All you red-state Bubbas out there don’t understand that the “sexual revolution” wasn’t about a woman’s right to say YES to sex, it was about her right to say NO. You’re all just mad because we’ve accepted the cultural notion that it’s okay for a woman to enjoy complete ownership of her own body (including the right to enjoy sex outside of marriage) and YOU still can’t get laid.

    • Ron says:

      No, Asshole! We just don’t want to pay for her choices! Sex is not a medical condition!

    • Mrs Scarlet says:

      Right, Paul. All of us monogamous, happily-married people just can’t stand that someone else is having “more” sex. I don’t know if you regularly indulge in factual information, but it is well-documented that Christian married couples not only have better sex but more sex.

      As for ownership of your own body, I’ve never defiled it or given it away to someone I couldn’t trust with it. I’ve remained faithful to one partner and one alone, and I have given birth and am raising each and every child that has grown inside of me. I own my body and all of the consequences that go along with it. I’d like to see all people take that kind of ownership of their bodies.

      • Carla B says:

        Well said. Ownership of their own bodies includes responsibility for their own choices, AND even the heart to protect bodies who cannot protect themselves. My “bodily autonomy” may be a “right” or a “Freedom” or whatever highest good it’s currently sold as, but it’s also a privaledge to lay down my rights and even freedoms for the good of another…including a child growing, and living inside of me. That’s why Christians see the issue differently, the world view is totally different. We don’t see self worship as a good thing…we see sacrificial love as the “good”…and we value human life in all it’s forms.

    • Craig says:

      Ron, your comments are not surprising. The women that you speak of, however, are not in ownership of anything. They are more accurately willing (although, possibly unknowing) prostitutes who will live with the aftermath of their mistakes while the guys keep taking advantage with no responsibility for their actions. That’s a great deal for you, isn’t it?

    • John says:

      Interesting so the sexual revolution was about saying NO to sex, which they did by having more of it. That’s enlightening I am so happy that people like you are around to tell me stuff that’s completely contrary to reality. Oh and enjoy that “enjoying ownership of her own body crap” with the increasing rate of sex slavery and assault. Oh and I love the mature ending of YOU CANT GET LAID, shows us how superior you are at something, not sure what yet but you showed us.

    • Zebram says:

      “You’re all just mad because … and YOU still can’t get laid.”

      You are just a dishonest person. For the record, I could get laid any time I wanted, but I don’t.

    • Don says:

      Paul, turn in your man card. Seriously.

  10. Jannie Bryant says:

    I am a conservative baby boomer and completely agree with you. I enjoy your blog tremendously. It gives me a renewed hope every time I see another 20 something so refreshingly honest, ethical, moral and enthusiastic. Times are changing, and I truly feel for the better. As with anything it takes time. Please keep your wonderful perspective through the trials and tribulations of life.

  11. maria says:

    Ads like that just show how dumb the government think we are. They think we are shallow, stupid, freeloading, and lazy, who wants to hook up, or whatever the new lingo would label it, and they think we want them to help us be this way. No. They want us to be this way. because then we have to become more dependent on the system. No Thanks. I will keep thinking for myself and giggling at the ridiculousness of it all.

    • Dave says:

      May I remind you that this ad campaign was not created by the government – it was created by an organization in Colorado. I am not advocating “hooking up” or whatever, but how exactly does engaging in that make someone more dependent on the system? I don’t see how that would benefit any government.

      • Craig says:

        It’s called getting an abortion. Have you heard of that? They cost money. Also, This group is being paid by the government… follow the money to the source.

  12. christinewjc says:

    I know of one young woman in her 20’s who wears an abstinence/purity ring. What does she get for that? Ridicule, I’m sure, is probably front and center. But what she also gets is freedom from any sexually transmitted disease – something that should be celebrated. BTW, last I heard, her Christian boyfriend is ready to propose to her!

    I know of another young woman who tried to keep her virginity, but was seduced by a boy who told her the lie that “he loves her.” She ended up with a mild form (thank God!) of HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) and fortunately, was treated with conventional meds and it went away.

    Along comes the drug “Gardasil,” which was touted as a preventative measure for HPV. Now, the side effects of that drug are KILLING young girls! But don’t take my word for it, read here:

    I haven’t even touched upon the more serious STD’s out there!

    I am not ashamed to tell the truth about sexual promiscuity, baby-killing abortion, and the regret that many women end up with due to the guilt that they killed a baby in the womb. But hush! Must not talk about THAT now should we?

    Michael Savage is right – liberalism is a mental disorder! And we are suffering under the most horrible BADministrations under Barry Soetoro that Americans could ever have been imagined! This sexuality promoting ad (we don’t care about young women) as well as the beer keg ad (Moochell wanted to dictate limiting sugar and fats from the diets of young people, but promoting keg beer drinking Is OK?) is just more propaganda being spewed at young people in order to get them to sign up for a disastrous ObamaSCARE HELLcare law exchange when the website doesn’t work and is an identity fraud risk? I just shake my head in disbelief at the ignorance of so many that were fooled by this narcissistic fraud in The People’s House and all of his nefarious ilk!

    • Cynthia Ray says:

      what finger do you put a purity ring on with out making it look like you are married.

    • Paul says:

      *Michael Savage is right – liberalism is a mental disorder!*

      Michael Savage is a washed-up herb salesman who was a hippie and flaming liberal until he went apeshit after Berkeley refused to hire him to teach journalism (a subject he has no academic background in).

      • christinewjc says:

        Well Paul, some of the finest conservatives are former liberals (Charles Krauthammer, for example). The fact that you probably would also bash the intelligence, wisdom , and knowledge of a very nice man like Mr. Krauthammer shows me that you are just another typical liberal filled with hatred who foolishly follows the socialistic propaganda of this awful BADministration.

    • Paul says:

      The “truth about Gardasil” is that Rick Perry (neo-conservative governor of the state with one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation) was making money off of it.

  13. Tricia says:

    And this is part of why I struggle with my faith. You didn’t just confine your rant to our over-sexualized culture- nope. You had to get into the liberal bashing and the “Obamacare” nonsense. Seriously??!! I *think* that I remember that within Christ’s disciples there existed BOTH a zealot and a tax-collector. I’m *guessing* that they possibly had a few fundamental differences in their political views. 😉 But you would seriously think that to read some blogs that Jesus has a political party affiliation.

    Exactly HOW many scriptures exist that support caring for the least of these?? Jesus, and the early church were, contrary to what many might propose- NOT capitalists (oh… and random fact- the Sunday School Movement- came out of socialist movements).

    There is enough hate out there is the world. Do we have to use our limited, *secular* politics and rhetoric to define the “good” Christians and the “bad” Christians? Can’t we speak out about alternatives to sex as a be-all-end-all *without* getting into stereotypes?

    • Tricia says:

      actually- scratch that about struggling with my faith. It isn’t my *faith* that I struggle with. It is constantly seeing hatred and divisiveness within the Body that I struggle with.

    • Nowhere did Jesus say that the way to help the least of these is through government programs. What he did say is that people in relationship directly with other people would be the way to help the least of these. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s – that is an explicit realization that taxes are for Caesar’s use and not a guarantee that people will be helped by those taxes. Give to God what is God’s – that is an explicit realization that what we do for God will help other people. Individuals are to help people. And the Church, which is the body of individuals, living together for God’s purposes, are to help people. Christ distrusted the government. He saw no good in the white washed sepulchers of politics and politicians. He came to save people, so yes, sinners including a zealot and a tax collector – and a traitor! – were among His disciples. But those are people, not systems created by men to serve their own purposes. Look at ObamaCare – plenty of politicians and their friends getting rich off of the deal while millions of people lose their insurance and see their costs rising to unmanageable heights.

      And how could Matt not go after ObamaCare in an article spurred by the program’s wanton exploitation of women who they cast as nothing more than sexual beings without conscience?

    • And as for Jesus and the Church not supporting Capitalism… you may want to re-read the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14-30. And all of the bits in Proverbs and other places about earning your keep. And the stuff about making good contracts and business deals so that you have more money with which to help the poor directly.

      • Tricia says:

        Christ did NOT call the politicians “white-washed sepulchers” – he called the *religious* leaders that. Those who were the “morality police” of the time- they sometimes had *some* limited political power- but ROME was in power.

        Christ did not concern himself with setting up an earthly government. You are right- there are man-made systems- *including* capitalism. Christ does not have a political party, and it hurts me to watch fellow Christians tearing other down for the temerity of having a different view on political issues. Peter and Paul *vehemently* disagreed on issues of practice within the Early Church- but I would hope that neither of them would deny the other as a follower of Christ.

        Oh… also- you may wish to read the parables of the building of bigger barns, of Lazarus and the rich man, oh… and the one to confound our ideas of “deserving” within a capitalist system- the parable of the vineyard workers- (ALL the workers getting the same pay :O ). Especially with the final one, I know that it isn’t entirely about politics and I can’t claim to completely understand it- but I truly believe that it gives us something to think about. As does the tale of Job- Job does everything right and it is all taken from him- and his friends go from sitting in silence to mouthing off trite proverbs to him.

        There isn’t *a* particular system (in my opinion) that is *the* Christian one- so why do we have to act as though Democratic, Capitalism, and Republican ideology = Christianity?? In my opinion that is denying the truth of ages of our devout brothers and sisters in Christ who have different convictions but still earnestly pray to and worship the same God and Saviour. Paul instructs the church on how to behave with a very divisive social and spiritual issue of the time (the eating of meat offered to idols)- in Romans 14- can we follow this??

        • Actually, you might want to re-read the Parable of the Bigger Barns again…

          Luke 12: 13 – “Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”

          (In other words – “Jesus, redistribute the wealth to me.”)

          14 Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” 15 Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”

          (In other words – “I don’t do wealth redistribution; I’d be taking from somebody who you think is greedy to give to you, who is now being greedy.”

          16 And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest.

          (In other words,, ground that the man owned)

          17 He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’

          18 “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. 19 And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’

          (Oopps, the man is thinking in terms of hoarding and resting on his laurels – never a good move.)

          20 “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’

          (Thinking about the future is a good thing, especially in the event of sudden death. Do you have a plan?

          21 “This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.”

          (Notice that bit about “rich towards God?” He’s not talking about government programs; God is once again saying we need to think in terms of the Kingdom – His Kingdom – the work of which is done by personal charity and partnership with the Church.)

          Once again, the Liberal Christian wants to say “see, being rich is bad!!!” But God only says being rich is bad if it blinds you to the needs of the Kingdom. “Be rich and generous” does not equal “allow politicians to redistribute your earnings after they take their huge cut for administering programs that they control and might in fact be against My precepts and the values I want you to live by.”

          God isn’t about government programs – He’s about people connecting with people.

        • Also, The Rich Man & Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) is not a “Rich person bad” parable either. Again, Jesus didn’t have a problem with rich people. He had a problem with people who ignored the problems on their own doorstep. Again, Christ says nothing about funneling money from the earner to the government and into social programs.

          In fact, this parable has nothing at all to do with money! It’s about how no matter what you think might save you, only one thing can save you – and that is your relationship to/with God.

          The key line is not “there was a rich man…”

          The key line is “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”

        • Parable of the Vineyards (Matthew 21:1-16) is not about “equal pay” – especially because it makes a point of saying they all worked different amounts. It’s about salvation.

          The key line there is “Don’t I have the right to do what I want…?”

          Jesus’ point here is that all who come to Him will be saved – that is, they will get the same infinite amount of His grace – whether they have been a Christian all of their life or come to him in their own final moments before death.

          See, the problem with social justice “Christians” such as Jim Wallis is that they twist the Scriptures to support their own personal message. The Epistle of Jude warns about them slipping into the lives of faithful Christians to seed their own brand of false liberty and rob others of the Gospel of Grace.

    • Paul says:

      Tricia: I’m totally with you. If you haven’t read “God’s Politics” by Reverend Jim Wallis yet, do yourself a favor and grab a copy.

    • christinewjc says:


      Not sure if you were addressing my comment, but if so, I must tell you that from my perspective, the terrible propagandist ads of attempting to “sell” ObamaSCARE HELLcare (yes – it IS AS BAD AS THAT!) is absolutely linked to what I wrote. Why? Because the larger picture regarding what this BADministration is trying to do has been obvious to me and other TEA Party Patriots since way back in 2009! It is now reaching those who trusted Obama and his ilk. But the disastrous results of being “too late in understanding their ultimate goal” is now upon us. For further explanation, please see my latest post:

  14. Pingback: The Liberal Sexual Propaganda Machine | Talk Wisdom

  15. Craig says:

    Rebel, rebel, rebel! More power to you! 🙂

  16. lizbethjoy says:

    I wanted to say thank you! This article was well written, intelligent, encouraging, and passionate. I work at an organization that teaches sexual risk avoidance to students in public school and they soak it up. They feel empowered that they can make their own decisions about their bodies, their futures, their sex lives. Maybe this is a needed rebellion!

  17. The funny part is, liberals think they are being counter-cultural when really it is accepted all around.

  18. Brittney says:

    I want to put Rachel Held Evans and Matt in a room and see who comes out alive.

  19. Stephanie says:

    Another great post! Boomers are looking for validation for their choices instead of admitting they were wrong and promoting a healthy, self-respecting lifestyle. Why change now, right?

  20. Pingback: Memo from a Millennial: liberalism is boring | The Sky(ler) Is The Limit

  21. Yarrow Mead says:

    Interesting you claim to speak for our generation while dismissing anyone who disagrees as lazy and hedonistic. I happen to be neither lazy nor hedonistic but I am thankful for the sexual revolution. The ad is undoubtedly dumb, but maybe you should turn inwards and consider whether it is narcissism to claim to speak for the intelligent, self respecting parts of our generation, while dismissing thousands of people as immoral.

    • Care says:

      Ms. Mead ~ You need to learn when to graciously receive a compliment. Matt is lifting the Millennials out of the miry mud of “if it feels good, do it.” His happy news is that there are countless young people who do not fit the one-size-fits-all Regressive message that every 20-something is panting for orgasmic ecstasy without consequence. I hope he is right in his assessment. How has the ‘sexual revolution’ fortified your life?

      • Yarrow Mead says:

        And he is instead putting us (well, the :intelligent” ones) in a “one-size-fits-all” abstinent box? Absolutely no question the ad is idiotic, but being sexually active out of wedlock and not being in it for procreation is not the same as “panting for orgasmic ecstasy without consequence”, and both he and you are doing us a great disfavor in suggesting that. Sex can have more meaning for two people than just to make a child. No need to attempt to demean me by asking about my sexual life on the internet sir (or ma’am I suppose), I’m very well aware when I’m being complimented and when I’m being insulted and this article is most definitely the latter. You are absolutely free to control anything you do with your own body, but because we are longer the male-dominated society we used to be, so am I, and I will of course treat it with the utmost respect.

      • Craig says:

        Ms. Mead, now you’re lying to yourself. It is STILL a male dominated society, especially regarding sex. The rules have simply changed to benefit the males even more.

    • Yarrow Mead says:

      Sexism is no doubt alive and kicking, although very different than it was, Craig, you will find no argument from me there.

      • Don says:

        Ms. Mead, if you look hard enough, I imagine you can find any problem you want.

        • Yarrow Mead says:

          Well this has been a good reminder to me of why I don’t comment on blogs like this, so thank you for that, but Don, personal attacks are not terribly Christian of you, I know you won’t be embarrassed but I’m embarrassed for you. Keep in mind that one should attack someones ideas,not them. Peace be with you.

  22. nestintime says:

    Sex without consequences mantra is getting pretty stale. The same old lies recycled:

  23. Sarah Farthing says:

    ” What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, ‘See, this is new’? It has been already in the ages before us. There is no rememberance of former things, nor will there be any rememberance of later things yet to be among those who come after.” Ecclesiastes 1:9-11

  24. Anujin says:

    So, when are these alpaca grooming tips coming? *waits anxiously*

  25. Care says:

    The assumption in this denigrating ad is that young people have the moral rectitude of Hugh Hefner and his cage full of bunnies. Heartbreakingly pathetic. Thank you, Matt, for characterizing the air that Millennials breath as a hunger and thirst for righteousness. Post-modern nihilism has a short shelf-life. Man cannot survive and thrive sans purpose and meaning. Let’s hear it for the pendulum swing toward righteousness.

  26. Kerri Stites says:

    Love it. ❤ Please keep writing.

  27. Sally says:

    From your lips to God’s ears sir.

  28. Sandy Cave says:

    I am a baby boomer, and agree 100% with this blog! Yes, Christians are to be known for their love, but God is a just God, and cannot condone sin of any kind. Immorality (sexual promiscuity; sex outside of marriage), are called “sin” in His Word. Jesus came to earth as our Savior because none of us measure up. That’s how much love He has for us–He died in our place!! So we have a choice: Accept Christ and live for Him, or live like the world and for ourself. “He is not willing that any should perish (He loves us).” We,too, should have love for everyone, just like Christ did. But we should also hate sin and deviant thoughts and behaviors, in the same way God does.

  29. Suzanne T says:

    So this is a *serious* “ad”? Yikes..

    Wow. Have I been out of touch…..!

  30. Cindy Dunn says:

    Touche Matt… of your grandmother’s generation and it is because we learned the hard way! Even tho I’m still considered the tail end of the Baby Boomers….

  31. This post is, in my personal opinion, fantastic. I like the more broad topic of the types of things that we pass down from generation to generation. Nicely done Matt.

  32. Allegra says:

    Thank you Matt! I agree and am not shocked by this ad, (grieved as I always am by liberals), but not shocked. For those who are arguing the Christian posture of Matt’s post, note that when birth control pills are taken to prevent pregnancy, a woman is taking something to make her perfectly healthy female productive system work incorrectly; this is the only instance in which one is trying to make a perfectly healthy system of the body work incorrectly. And, according to the WHO, birth control pills contain carcinogens. If you do not believe me, simply do your research, or read the little folded up, micro font literature that is included with your birth control prescription.

    • Kelsey says:

      Susan G Komen reports that birth control pills “slightly” increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer. “Slightly” means anywhere from 10 to 30%. But don’t worry! The risk factor goes back down to normal after she’s been off the pill a mere 10 years.

  33. Paul says:

    Swear to God I’m not making this up: I once, with my own ears, heard a guest speaker in an arch-conservative megachurch explain that, according to The Bible, male homosexuality is an ‘abomination’ because men carry ‘The Seed,’ but lesbianism is merely ‘unnatural’ because there’s no ‘seed’ involved.

    So, if you’re a gay man, back in the closet with you, but the GOOD news is, if your wife comes home drunk with her bestie, a threesome’s not out of the question! Yay, God!

    • Zebram says:

      I believe you. But I’ve also heard prominent liberals say rape is not that big of a deal, and theres something wrong with a girl who thinks so. see, two can play that game.

      • Paul says:

        *But I’ve also heard prominent liberals say rape is not that big of a deal*

        BULLSHIT. Find me ONE documented instance of a self-proclaimed, credentialed ‘liberal’ saying this.

      • Paul says:

        PS: The views of prominent CONSERVATIVES on rape is well documented (because they’re too fucking stupid to check whether the microphone is live before they say this stuff):

      • Zebram says:

        Camille Paglia for one. And I’m not a conservative in the traditional sense so those quotes mean nothing to me.

      • Paul says:

        *Camille Paglia for one.*

        QUADRUPLE bullshit. Find me ONE quote, IN CONTEXT, where Camille Paglia says that rape is “not that big of a deal.” I did find an interesting paper she wrote, “Rape And Modern Sex War” where she makes statements like “A girl who gets dead drunk at a fraternity party is a fool” (hard to disagree with). However, at no point does she say (or even imply) that a drunk girl who gets raped at a fraternity party (or ANYWHERE) is “asking for it.”

        *And I’m not a conservative in the traditional sense so those quotes mean nothing to me.*

        Of COOOOUUUUUUURSE not (wink, wink). Tell me precisely how your individual philosophy differs from that of your average “conservative.”

      • Zebram says:

        “If rape is a totally devastating psychological experience for a woman then she doesn’t have a proper attitude towards sex.” – Camille Paglia, ‘Sex, Art, and American Culture: Essays’

      • Paul says:

        “Rape is an outrage that cannot be tolerated in modern society”:

        Click to access RAPE%20AND%20MODERN%20SEX%20WAR.pdf

        There’s this thing called “context,” champ.

  34. Dating Ann says:

    The ad is disgusting and upsetting. Who approves this stuff?

  35. BDL says:

    It is idiotic to think that the entire spectrum of liberalism is defined by the concept of free love and free birth control. Just as idiotic as thinking that the entire spectrum of conservatism is defined by racism. Equally as idiotic as implying that progressives are REALLY the ones oppressing women. It’s a great argument to make if one chooses to ignore all factual evidence and relies totally on cherry-picked, convenient, and anecdotal evidence. How about we take a poll and see how actual women feel about the issue (and not just your sisters and close relatives)? It’s always interesting how conservatives claim to be on the side of individual freedoms, and then jump at any opportunity to prove why the personal beliefs of those who disagree with them are inherently “wrong” and shouldn’t be allowed. Not to mention that, according to this self-righteous reasoning and the latter section of this post, the only type of revolution that is ever beneficial is a conservative-lead revolution? Yeah, because obviously all of those young, liberal civil rights activists revolting against the old guard standard of racism had nothing but negative consequences…and let’s not even get started about those trouble-causing liberal women who fought against the standard conservative position that women are lesser human beings in order to gain voting rights. The Bible and religion have been used by the conservative base to justify numerous disgusting assaults against the rights of human beings. To pretend otherwise is to ignore facts, past and present.

  36. I still have a hard time believing these ads aren’t satire. Someone tell me that our society hasn’t fallen this far yet.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Hi everyone,
    I don’t want to start anything, I just want to get some information out there that I’m not sure if many people are aware of. Contraceptives can be used for more than just birth control.

    • Kelsey says:

      Thanks for pointing these out. Everyone needs more reasons to take carcinogens.

      • Maria says:

        Everything is a risk/benefit ratio. As a doctor (and a conservative who personally practices NFP), I have prescribed OCPs for medical reasons not related to contraception (heavy periods, menorrhagia, cyclic acne, perimenopausal depression, etc). Yes, they slightly increase the risk of breast cancer (so does alcohol, but I don’t see people screaming about that). They also DRAMATICALLY decrease the risk of ovarian and uterine cancer. It’s all about an individual person’s risks. There is NO drug that is 100% safe.

  38. I am one high schooler that definitely does not subscribe to the old way. Proudly Christian and conservative! And homeschooled!

  39. N says:

    While, I too, find the advertisement to be hugely offensive, I respectfully disagree that liberalism is somehow equated to “casual sex and godlessness.” I have never had casual sex, I try to hold myself to a very high moral standard, and God and Me are One. Rather, I equate liberalism with advocacy for the poor, a sense of social justice. The dictionary defines liberalism as ” A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.” Sounds pretty good to me.

    • Kelsey says:

      Of course it sounds good–that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is. In fact, the dictionary definition you provided doesn’t really match what liberals of today are advocating. Rather than protecting the autonomy of the individual, liberalism today seeks to expand the government so that the individual doesn’t need to make as many choices.

      Obamacare’s individual mandate is a great example: rather than letting individuals decide what kind of insurance (if any) was right for themselves and their families, the government set universal requirements and is forcing everyone to purchase insurance that meets those requirements or pay a fine.

      Advocacy for the poor is a noble goal, but using the government to achieve that goal is questionable. Our government is known to be extremely bloated and inefficient, and it creates the illusion that paying higher taxes “helps the poor” when there is little to no oversight to see whether welfare programs are actually helping people get out of poverty or just perpetuating it. (I have no doubt that people are helped by our current programs, and equally as little doubt that the programs are subject to abuse by those who have no interest in improving their lives.)

      “Favoring civil liberties” has begun to take the shape of a government selecting certain liberties (such as sexual orientation) to favor while neglecting other liberties (such as free exercise of religion).

      And if this ad is in fact in line with the larger liberal movement, it seems to call into question “the essential goodness of humans.”

  40. elmstreet says:

    Matt, I think you and the people you know may be tired, as you put it, by this kind of libertine attitude, but as a fellow Millennial, I can’t agree that the entire generation shares this viewpoint (for better or for worse). I just read the most depressing article I’ve ever read (too lazy to find the link) that said 13-year-olds in the UK know more about sex (and I mean weird stuff….stuff perverts don’t even know about) than any adult ever realized. Hypersexualization of kids is not, I’m afraid, going to go away, and these kids are growing up and going off into adulthood expecting and receiving a life filled with lots of casual hookups. Of course I’m horrified by this (I’m also a mom), but I definitely disagree that your viewpoint is mainstream or speaks to the majority of young people. (And BTW I think those ads are crass, but this is the world we’ve inherited)

  41. Todd Parker says:

    Yes, liberalism is boring. It has *always* been boring, from its progenitors Adam Smith, John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes to its modern representatives in people like Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. That is why smart Millennials are going full-on socialist in increasing numbers – we know which side our bread is buttered on. And which side *yours* is.

  42. Stevehigh says:

    Hello, I am an old school liberal about to turn sixty and I just wanted Mr Walsh to know that I find his writings to be curiously refreshing. I count myself among those who would call the sloppy hedonism of this ad an invitation to disease and societal decay. My liberalism is founded on the desire to see all my human brethren have an equal opportunity to live a good life. If conservatives could ever find a way to eliminate the demons of greed from their ranks they would become an unstoppable moral force. The ideal human being: a person who uses their skills and ambitions to garner without the aid of government what they and their family need to live fully, and then be willing to place the excess that their skills bring to them back in the service of the common good. Voluntarily. This is beyond Ayn Rand

    • graffety says:

      Steve, greed is not a conservative or liberal trait. It is a human trait. There is plenty of demons to be found everywhere.
      Interesting, I observe many people living the life of the ideal human being you describe. The common attribute is not politics.

    • Jeff says:

      I guess I would be labeled as a conservative. I am a self employed auto repair shop owner. I am also a father of four and a follower of Christ. I am certain that there are a lot of people who think that I am greedy because I own my own business. At least quite a few seem to think that I am really raking in the dough since they want to dicker with me about cost of repairs as though I am somehow being unfair for collecting money for services rendered. I suppose that I should feel sorry also for the local county government that had to raise taxes and fees on my business by double, as it would appear that they weren’t collecting enough already. Taxes on the self employed like me are ridiculous. I pay more just for the title. Regardless of how much I make. Just for being self employed I pay a tax. I suppose it’s because I’ve been folded into the ranks of those greedy conservatives. Perhaps it is better that someone who knows so much more than I do about what it means to be poor and in need should take from a greedy guy like me and redistribute my income (that obviously just falls from the sky into my bank account). I mean what could a wealthy business owner like me know about being poor, right? They should definitely take from me and help those in need. That’s how my dad did it. He really wasn’t making it. But it was ok. There was always some government agency ready to hand us health care and food stamps. Most of the fillings in my teeth were paid for by money taken from those greedy people who had some, and my dad didn’t even have to try to get a good job. He could just keep on, like always, working some mediocre job even though he was a very intelligent man. There was always someone who was willing to lend us a camping trailer to live in or a spare bedroom. Except that one summer that we lived in a tent. But, hey, we did have an equal opportunity to live a good life. However, what my family received was the ability to live the same poor lazy life we had because the government was there to support it. SO, i could give up my greedy lifestyle and let my family live in a filthy camping trailer on someone elses property. That way the government could have all of my money and distribute it to other people that are living the same way. You know, even things out, equal. Except, why would i bother going to work at my business if that’s what i was working for. After I get my 15-20% from my businesses gross and then the state, county and feds get their 25-30% of that, I almost feel like I’m already there. But it’s my fault that I am a greedy conservative. Looking out for my own first. Because it would never cross my mind to help my fellow man, and, to make sure I don’t do it wrong, they will collect my money and do it appropriately for me. This will help the common good, and prevent me from over paying my employees or donating to charities of my choosing. Of course I may have misinterpreted what excess is. Perhaps I am still living in excess because my wife and I drive nice used cars, I have a mortgage, my family eats daily (not on the governments dime – actually my dime), the lights still turn on in my house, and I can still enjoy a few moments of the day to catch a tv show or relax with my family. This country needs to accept that some people will be very successful financially, if by luck, hard work, or intelligence, and some people will not., even if they do work hard, but, if your not even going to try, do not expect me to take care of you. Any able bodied person has the right and ability to get up off their butt and start trying. This is true equal opportunity. If you feel that you are not getting what you want fast enough, it is not because some greedy rich man is preventing it, some horrible conservative that doesn’t want to give you what you did not earn. You are probably too impatient or greedy yourself. This idea of greedy conservatives is pure foolishness. Greed is present among the poor, the rich, liberals, conservatives, whatever.

  43. Omay Farlane says:

    This is what I don’t get it sometimes. In order to get birth control you can get it free in most cases, but when a couple unable to have kids wants to find out what’s the steps to be done in order to bring a child into this world, it’s a downhill battle affecting them financially, emotionally and mentally. I know women wants rights over who the person who will fuck them and forget about it, but what about rights to have a family? At 39, it’s too late for me to have a kid based on my inability to procreate and the inability to have the money for infertility clinics. By the way, I didn’t hear about infertility coverage for couples on Obamacare. It is just the same as it always been. Women and men became animals and when there’s an accident like an unwanted pregnancy or either she dump the baby or keep the baby by herself and that’s why society is it what it is. Unbalanced, lost in morals and selfishness.

  44. Dana Cook, BSN RN says:

    Reported failure rate for NFP is as follows,
    Perfect use of Symptom based implementation = 1-3% pregnancy rate.
    Perfect use of Calendar based implementation = 5-9% pregnancy rate.
    Efficacy of NFP is highly contingent on perfect implementation. When NFP is applied as the average or typical user would rates are much different.
    Typical use reports a pregnancy rate of 2-25% when using symptom based method.
    Typical use of calendar based method yields a 25% pregnancy rate. This rate is nearing the rate of pregnancy when nothing is used at all.

  45. on the fence says:

    Ive read eryone’s comments/ arguments and I gather that most of you are in the 40-60yr old range. Im 25 and was brought up Christian. However, my parents taught me to value and protect my body and not to just sleep around but they didnt preach no sex before marriage.

    That said…i have had sex with 5 people in my life. iI was in long term relationships with all bu st 1 (i was raped) . Only 1 of those men has ever brought me to orgasm- the man ive been with for over 2 years now and who i plan on being with the rest of my life. He had many partners in his youth and has already been married with kids and his wife choose the divorce as she wanted something “new”. It was so tough on him he never wants to get married again as he feels it was a legal thing not one of god or feelings in the end.

    Im sharing this personal stuff to make a point: i do not consider myself a person who sleeps around. Of everyone i know, within 10 years my junior or senior, i have slept with the least amount of people.

    Yet i am glad i shared my body with the men i dif in my long term relationships because it allowed me to learn what i wanted in the relationship mentally and physically. Getting over the rape took years and as much as i dissagree with abortion being used as birth control…i can honestly say if i had gotten pregnat from if at 16 i would of had one because i would not have been able to provide for the baby physically emotionally or financially.

    I dont believe in 1 night stands or having sex to keep a mans interest etc. I do believe that sex is an important part of a relationship and that you can love someone mentally and if there is no physical chemistry the relationship will fail. So waiting until marraige to find that out seems risky too.

  46. Pingback: The Three Things You Need to Read this Week (11/16/13) | Apologetics ForumApologetics Forum

  47. DJBryanW says:

    There is nothing here that is interesting either, just a rehash of old and tired ideas that have been tried forever. I don’t believe in ‘generations’, it’s just as stupid to identify as a millennial as it is to blame boomers or generations X’ers for all the world’s problems. I respect those who choose to live their lives based on religious tenets but to make grand assumptions about large groups of people based on tiny anecdotal evidence is the kind of thing that all young people do, myself included back when I was young. I respect those who choose to be abstinent, for whatever reason just as I respect those who choose different approaches to sex and sexuality. We don’t need God to be good people, again, that’s been tried and that too was a failure. Remember, our greatest times of Godliness brought on the Cold War and nuclear proliferation. It perpetuated segregation. It created horrible situations for young women who had children out of wedlock. It put those with non-traditional sexual desires in prison. Is that the world you’re envisioning? Make quality choices for your life, let others do the same. Don’t judge, it will age you horribly. Share your happiness through your ideology to help others. Don’t make broad sweeping statements about anything, it shows ignorance (how easy would it to paint all Christians like Fred Phelps, it’s the same with broad swipes at progressives). I respect your approach, I respect your article even in disagreement with some of it, but disagreement doesn’t mean divisiveness. We can all bring our perspectives to the table to create a better world, conservatives and progressives alike.

  48. Kari says:

    As a happily married mother to 7 lovely children, this makes so much sense. My husband and I are both 33 and we get a lot of surprised and even downright rude comments about how many children we have. Lots of, “you can’t possibly be old enough?!” Or “what?! You know what causes that, right?!” Accompanied by rude looks and even some really nasty quirps as they walk away. It’s really difficult for my parents generation to understand that we are happy and feel BLESSED to have each other and to have been trusted to raise our babies.

Comments are closed.