Category: Elizabeth Nahas

The New Iranian Revolution: Is It Possible?


Nineteen seventy-nine was a momentous year.  In my little world, college graduation was celebrated with enthusiasm and zeal.  In the world at large, the Iranian revolution occurred – and wreaked havoc and destruction in ways neither the Iranians nor the rest of the world could have ever imagined.

At the time, being an educated and low-information voter, as we know they are synonymous, I paid little attention to these circumstances except to understand that the Shah and his secret police, the Savak, were deposed; a medieval-looking, menacing ayatollah took over the country; and Americans were held hostage, eventually being released.

Fast-forward several years.  Glimpses of this backward country were revealed through various media.  The movie Not Without My Daughter revealed the riveting account of an American woman married to an Iranian and her attempts and eventual success in escaping the hellhole where she found herself.  Geraldine Brooks’s fabulous book, Nine Parts of Desire, about women of the Middle East, also offered a picture of life for women in Iran.  The fatwa declared by Ayatollah Khomeini on Salman Rushdie, forcing him into hiding, became worldwide news.  The Iranian film festival was brought to the United States on an annual basis exposing many of us to the inner workings of Iranian society and their yearning for a freer way of life.  We came to discover that the Iranians, including women, next to the Israelis, were some of the most educated people in the Middle East.

Like many of the readers of these pages who have become more informed – call it a true education – I learned the truth about the repercussions of the Iranian revolution.  Jimmy Carter’s naïve and dangerous proclamations against the Shah, a U.S. ally, were the fuel that ignited the Shah’s overthrow.  Investors Business Daily had a wonderful piece in the mid-2000s summarizing the hideous consequences.  The Shah’s executions over twenty-five years were less than those under Ayatollah Khomeini’s in one year.  The ayatollah, purported religious man that he was, supported Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization, and promised to fund families of suicide bombers attacking Israel.  Hezb’allah (Party of God), a Lebanese Shiite terrorist organization, originated because of a radical Iran.  People suffered gravely under this regime.  In the book Children of Paradise by Laura Secor, there is a section that chronicles the events surrounding the mass executions of political prisoners during the early and later 1980s.

Along the way, I became sympathetic to the plight of the Iranian people.  I used to donate to Freedom House and asked that the funds be directed to Gozaar, an Iranian web portal that provided information to the Iranian people.  Shortly after Mr. Obama was elected, the State Department stopped funding this organization.  Excuses were made for this action.  Some people, especially on the left, believed that Gozaar endangered Iranian NGOs fighting for reform and supported Mr. Obama’s decision to engage rather than fund.

Well, it goes without saying how effective that has been to promote freedom for the Iranian people.  Those of us who see Mr. Obama for who he is were disturbed but not surprised about the events surrounding the 2009 Iranian uprising.  The Green Revolution took hold, and all they asked from our globalist president was rhetorical support.  The response from our commander-in-chief was a deafening silence.  The Iranian people understood the message loud and clear:  not “no can do,” but “no will do.”  Soon their spirits deflated, their will withered, and their oppressors crushed what was left.  Would it have made a difference if Mr. Obama had used his silver tongue and given some support?  We will never know, but being the interloper he has been with so many other countries, it is ironic – or maybe not – that the most powerful leader of the free world could not wish the same for others.

We learned more about Mr. Obama’s motives when he circumvented Congress with a so-called executive treaty by returning billions to the Iranian government in exchange for a promise of nuclear disarmament.  Hasn’t Mr. Obama ever heard of “taqiyya”?  Perhaps he knows it better than we think.  Most important, how did this or any of his actions help the Iranian people?  If anything, it emboldened the tyrannical mullahs.  As of late we heard about Project Cassandra, an investigation into Hezb’allah-linked drug-dealings within our borders, having been stymied by the Obama administration to prevent the nuclear deal from being aborted.  Who knows what else will be uncovered about Mr. Obama’s dealings with the Iranians or those of his Rasputin, Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett?  We may never get the full truth.

Now we have a new sheriff in town.  Unlike Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump does not deliver his message with such mellifluousness, and unlike the elitists of left and right, we “deplorables” are most thankful for that.  He is bold, honest, and direct.  Perhaps, with the help of social media and the internet, his message of freedom through strength is permeating the walls of censorship and reaching the Iranian people.  Their rumblings and discontent are heard loud and clear by this president.  Already, he is tweeting his message of support to the people.

Could the Iranians risk another uprising?  Time will tell.  If they have the will and strength to do so, they should know that freedom-loving Americans support their cause.  Could 2018 be the year?  If so, we could eventually see the beginnings of a new Middle Eastern landscape.  Now, that might seem like a dream, but who would have dreamt that a daring businessman could take on every other GOP candidate; a queen in waiting; and a corrupt, biased press to win the office of president of the United States?

Yes, dreams can and do come true.  Here is to the Iranian people.

Nineteen seventy-nine was a momentous year.  In my little world, college graduation was celebrated with enthusiasm and zeal.  In the world at large, the Iranian revolution occurred – and wreaked havoc and destruction in ways neither the Iranians nor the rest of the world could have ever imagined.

At the time, being an educated and low-information voter, as we know they are synonymous, I paid little attention to these circumstances except to understand that the Shah and his secret police, the Savak, were deposed; a medieval-looking, menacing ayatollah took over the country; and Americans were held hostage, eventually being released.

Fast-forward several years.  Glimpses of this backward country were revealed through various media.  The movie Not Without My Daughter revealed the riveting account of an American woman married to an Iranian and her attempts and eventual success in escaping the hellhole where she found herself.  Geraldine Brooks’s fabulous book, Nine Parts of Desire, about women of the Middle East, also offered a picture of life for women in Iran.  The fatwa declared by Ayatollah Khomeini on Salman Rushdie, forcing him into hiding, became worldwide news.  The Iranian film festival was brought to the United States on an annual basis exposing many of us to the inner workings of Iranian society and their yearning for a freer way of life.  We came to discover that the Iranians, including women, next to the Israelis, were some of the most educated people in the Middle East.

Like many of the readers of these pages who have become more informed – call it a true education – I learned the truth about the repercussions of the Iranian revolution.  Jimmy Carter’s naïve and dangerous proclamations against the Shah, a U.S. ally, were the fuel that ignited the Shah’s overthrow.  Investors Business Daily had a wonderful piece in the mid-2000s summarizing the hideous consequences.  The Shah’s executions over twenty-five years were less than those under Ayatollah Khomeini’s in one year.  The ayatollah, purported religious man that he was, supported Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization, and promised to fund families of suicide bombers attacking Israel.  Hezb’allah (Party of God), a Lebanese Shiite terrorist organization, originated because of a radical Iran.  People suffered gravely under this regime.  In the book Children of Paradise by Laura Secor, there is a section that chronicles the events surrounding the mass executions of political prisoners during the early and later 1980s.

Along the way, I became sympathetic to the plight of the Iranian people.  I used to donate to Freedom House and asked that the funds be directed to Gozaar, an Iranian web portal that provided information to the Iranian people.  Shortly after Mr. Obama was elected, the State Department stopped funding this organization.  Excuses were made for this action.  Some people, especially on the left, believed that Gozaar endangered Iranian NGOs fighting for reform and supported Mr. Obama’s decision to engage rather than fund.

Well, it goes without saying how effective that has been to promote freedom for the Iranian people.  Those of us who see Mr. Obama for who he is were disturbed but not surprised about the events surrounding the 2009 Iranian uprising.  The Green Revolution took hold, and all they asked from our globalist president was rhetorical support.  The response from our commander-in-chief was a deafening silence.  The Iranian people understood the message loud and clear:  not “no can do,” but “no will do.”  Soon their spirits deflated, their will withered, and their oppressors crushed what was left.  Would it have made a difference if Mr. Obama had used his silver tongue and given some support?  We will never know, but being the interloper he has been with so many other countries, it is ironic – or maybe not – that the most powerful leader of the free world could not wish the same for others.

We learned more about Mr. Obama’s motives when he circumvented Congress with a so-called executive treaty by returning billions to the Iranian government in exchange for a promise of nuclear disarmament.  Hasn’t Mr. Obama ever heard of “taqiyya”?  Perhaps he knows it better than we think.  Most important, how did this or any of his actions help the Iranian people?  If anything, it emboldened the tyrannical mullahs.  As of late we heard about Project Cassandra, an investigation into Hezb’allah-linked drug-dealings within our borders, having been stymied by the Obama administration to prevent the nuclear deal from being aborted.  Who knows what else will be uncovered about Mr. Obama’s dealings with the Iranians or those of his Rasputin, Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett?  We may never get the full truth.

Now we have a new sheriff in town.  Unlike Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump does not deliver his message with such mellifluousness, and unlike the elitists of left and right, we “deplorables” are most thankful for that.  He is bold, honest, and direct.  Perhaps, with the help of social media and the internet, his message of freedom through strength is permeating the walls of censorship and reaching the Iranian people.  Their rumblings and discontent are heard loud and clear by this president.  Already, he is tweeting his message of support to the people.

Could the Iranians risk another uprising?  Time will tell.  If they have the will and strength to do so, they should know that freedom-loving Americans support their cause.  Could 2018 be the year?  If so, we could eventually see the beginnings of a new Middle Eastern landscape.  Now, that might seem like a dream, but who would have dreamt that a daring businessman could take on every other GOP candidate; a queen in waiting; and a corrupt, biased press to win the office of president of the United States?

Yes, dreams can and do come true.  Here is to the Iranian people.



Source link

Boys' Town and the Conspiracy of Silence


Hollywood’s conspiracy of silence continues regarding the most vulnerable. The Left will do nothing to cut off the hand which feeds it.

Many years ago, the supermodel Cindy Crawford made a movie. She had been reluctant to engage in the world of movies but eventually acquiesced and made her debut. It was mediocre to say the least, and to my knowledge, Ms. Crawford stuck with her successful modeling career, never making a movie again. I recall Ms. Crawford’s explanation for her initial hesitation. She indicated she had control in the world of modeling about as much as any woman could at that time, but regarding Hollywood and the motion picture industry, she labeled it as “Boys’ Town.” How correct Ms. Crawford was.

Hollywood is indeed Boys’ Town, a leftist one at that, as we see unfolding with the Harvey Weinstein scandal. For years, young women have been tempted and pressured to sell their bodies and, often, their souls for the lure of fame and fortune. Some are lucky, if you think it is worth it, and their deal with the devil allows wildest dreams to come true as long as they maintain silence and express appreciation. Many others are not so fortunate, and their bargain with Mephistopheles offers little in return. For those who did not succumb to the lure of Mr. Weinstein’s promises, their careers have suffered gravely. It takes much to resist the temptation of Hollywood’s inner circle, and brava to any extremely courageous woman who is able to do so.

For the last week and a half, discussion has kept a buzz around the horror of what occurs in hypocritical Hollywood. Consequences abound for those who do not ingratiate themselves to the powers that be, and some sympathy can be allotted to those young women who bite the forbidden fruit in return for money and adulation. Other than those who are victims of rape, however, and as difficult as it may be not to capitulate, women have choices. What about the population that does not, the children whom the left is always exploiting regarding government overreach. Where are they when it comes to the gravest of all crimes? Pertaining to the Catholic Church, the Leftist media did not hesitate to expose their crimes and secrets as they absolutely should have says, I, a semi-practicing Catholic, but what about the other corridors of power? Yes, what about Hollywood where those nubile young bodies often appeal to the most deviant?

Several years ago, I read an article regarding the support for Roman Polanski because his rape of a 13-year-old was years gone past. Yes, people such as the actor Debbie Winger and the director Martin Scorsese were calling for his long-ago conviction for a crime against a minor to be vacated. The director Kevin Smith was not so benevolent and stated that rape is rape. He was a brave lone soldier amongst the collectivist left. How about Woody Allen consorting with and eventually marrying his partner’s adopted daughter? There were some cries of purported outrage but not much, and now? Meh! Mr. Allen continues to make movies, and little is said.

A few years ago, the director Bryan Singer, of the popular X-Men movie series came under scrutiny when accusations regarding sexual inappropriateness with underaged boys was brought to light. Apparently, those charges went nowhere, but he is cited in the 2014 documentary film on child sexual abuse in Hollywood, An Open Secret. As of this day, silence ensues for him and others who are believed to have been predators of children.

The actor Corey Feldman recently expressed his belief that the downfall and eventual death of his friend and fellow actor Corey Haim was the result of his being victimized by men of power. How many more? Who are these abusers remaining under the radar? Why do men who have survived this scourge or have been victimized as adults even now refuse to reveal their perpetrators’ identity? Most of them have reported their fears of retribution and loss of career. Understandable, but again, as the conspiracy of silence continues, this rapacious behavior will not cease. In fact, it will put the most innocent at graver risk.

Sexual abuse is about power and is physical, emotional, and sexual all wrapped in one. This crime is often committed under the auspices of love and kindness enticing the child to accept the confusing behavior. No good comes out of it except for the child’s ability to be heard and healed. Once is too many. The worst thing to happen to a child is to be misused in this way because it is the ultimate and most intrusive element of control. The attempts are to own the child and rob them of their very essence.

With all said and done, the Left remains silent about the deadly rot that permeates Hollywood. Sexual abuse occurs in many arenas, but it is a known-extracurricular activity in the cesspool of Tinseltown. The Left must be careful not to cut off the wealthy hand that feeds it so they will not take too strong of a stance against Hollywood’s sinners regardless of the victimization of children. Although the chickens have come home to roost as regards Hollywood’s darkest secrets, the Left is already circling the wagons and diverting the message. One of their own, Hillary Clinton, is now accusing Donald Trump of being like Harvey Weinstein. Regarding her own husband’s predatory tendencies as well as his association with a convicted pedophile, either no comment is made or she repeats the usual mantra of the Left: That was a long time ago.

Will Hollywood change its ways? Many us resoundingly say no. More scapegoats may be offered for sacrifice, but the drama will eventually drift into the background with a new story or cause taking its place. Unless a few valiant, powerful figures keep the issue front and center, all will be forgotten… Consequently, as Ms. Crawford aptly labeled it, Hollywood will remain “Boys’ Town, and I repeat, “A leftist one at that.” 

Hollywood’s conspiracy of silence continues regarding the most vulnerable. The Left will do nothing to cut off the hand which feeds it.

Many years ago, the supermodel Cindy Crawford made a movie. She had been reluctant to engage in the world of movies but eventually acquiesced and made her debut. It was mediocre to say the least, and to my knowledge, Ms. Crawford stuck with her successful modeling career, never making a movie again. I recall Ms. Crawford’s explanation for her initial hesitation. She indicated she had control in the world of modeling about as much as any woman could at that time, but regarding Hollywood and the motion picture industry, she labeled it as “Boys’ Town.” How correct Ms. Crawford was.

Hollywood is indeed Boys’ Town, a leftist one at that, as we see unfolding with the Harvey Weinstein scandal. For years, young women have been tempted and pressured to sell their bodies and, often, their souls for the lure of fame and fortune. Some are lucky, if you think it is worth it, and their deal with the devil allows wildest dreams to come true as long as they maintain silence and express appreciation. Many others are not so fortunate, and their bargain with Mephistopheles offers little in return. For those who did not succumb to the lure of Mr. Weinstein’s promises, their careers have suffered gravely. It takes much to resist the temptation of Hollywood’s inner circle, and brava to any extremely courageous woman who is able to do so.

For the last week and a half, discussion has kept a buzz around the horror of what occurs in hypocritical Hollywood. Consequences abound for those who do not ingratiate themselves to the powers that be, and some sympathy can be allotted to those young women who bite the forbidden fruit in return for money and adulation. Other than those who are victims of rape, however, and as difficult as it may be not to capitulate, women have choices. What about the population that does not, the children whom the left is always exploiting regarding government overreach. Where are they when it comes to the gravest of all crimes? Pertaining to the Catholic Church, the Leftist media did not hesitate to expose their crimes and secrets as they absolutely should have says, I, a semi-practicing Catholic, but what about the other corridors of power? Yes, what about Hollywood where those nubile young bodies often appeal to the most deviant?

Several years ago, I read an article regarding the support for Roman Polanski because his rape of a 13-year-old was years gone past. Yes, people such as the actor Debbie Winger and the director Martin Scorsese were calling for his long-ago conviction for a crime against a minor to be vacated. The director Kevin Smith was not so benevolent and stated that rape is rape. He was a brave lone soldier amongst the collectivist left. How about Woody Allen consorting with and eventually marrying his partner’s adopted daughter? There were some cries of purported outrage but not much, and now? Meh! Mr. Allen continues to make movies, and little is said.

A few years ago, the director Bryan Singer, of the popular X-Men movie series came under scrutiny when accusations regarding sexual inappropriateness with underaged boys was brought to light. Apparently, those charges went nowhere, but he is cited in the 2014 documentary film on child sexual abuse in Hollywood, An Open Secret. As of this day, silence ensues for him and others who are believed to have been predators of children.

The actor Corey Feldman recently expressed his belief that the downfall and eventual death of his friend and fellow actor Corey Haim was the result of his being victimized by men of power. How many more? Who are these abusers remaining under the radar? Why do men who have survived this scourge or have been victimized as adults even now refuse to reveal their perpetrators’ identity? Most of them have reported their fears of retribution and loss of career. Understandable, but again, as the conspiracy of silence continues, this rapacious behavior will not cease. In fact, it will put the most innocent at graver risk.

Sexual abuse is about power and is physical, emotional, and sexual all wrapped in one. This crime is often committed under the auspices of love and kindness enticing the child to accept the confusing behavior. No good comes out of it except for the child’s ability to be heard and healed. Once is too many. The worst thing to happen to a child is to be misused in this way because it is the ultimate and most intrusive element of control. The attempts are to own the child and rob them of their very essence.

With all said and done, the Left remains silent about the deadly rot that permeates Hollywood. Sexual abuse occurs in many arenas, but it is a known-extracurricular activity in the cesspool of Tinseltown. The Left must be careful not to cut off the wealthy hand that feeds it so they will not take too strong of a stance against Hollywood’s sinners regardless of the victimization of children. Although the chickens have come home to roost as regards Hollywood’s darkest secrets, the Left is already circling the wagons and diverting the message. One of their own, Hillary Clinton, is now accusing Donald Trump of being like Harvey Weinstein. Regarding her own husband’s predatory tendencies as well as his association with a convicted pedophile, either no comment is made or she repeats the usual mantra of the Left: That was a long time ago.

Will Hollywood change its ways? Many us resoundingly say no. More scapegoats may be offered for sacrifice, but the drama will eventually drift into the background with a new story or cause taking its place. Unless a few valiant, powerful figures keep the issue front and center, all will be forgotten… Consequently, as Ms. Crawford aptly labeled it, Hollywood will remain “Boys’ Town, and I repeat, “A leftist one at that.” 



Source link

The Abject Failure of the Left's Sexual Revolution


A few weeks ago, prior to Father’s Day, William McGurn wrote a beautiful and politically incorrect article in the Wall Street Journal.  He discussed the fact that men and women continue to be different in their approach to sexual intimacy even during the modern era of “anything goes.”  Being a therapist for over 30 years and hearing the same theme with men and women of all ages, I wrote the following letter to Mr. McGurn:

As a longtime WSJ reader and center-to-right psychotherapist, yes that is right, a minority in my profession, I could not agree with you more!  I have witnessed personally and professionally the post nineteen sixties’ push to expel differences between men and women for my entire adult life.  You are correct.  I cannot tell you how many women echo what you stated.  We are different, and carefully, I reiterate your very sentiments over and over with both my female and male clients.  In the quiet and safety of my office, many agree with me. You are most courageous!  Sadly, I cannot state this too loudly, or I would be tarred and feathered!

Mr. McGurn was pleased and thanked me.  A few days later, I saw letters to the editor responding to his op-ed.  One was from a pediatrician who agrees that this so-called revolution has created more damage than good.

I grew up in the seventies and saw the residual harm from the sixties’ “free love.”  Like anything, other than ourselves, “free” is a Faustian fantasy.  Eventually, someone pays the price, and it is often the very people engaging in casual sex.  Many of us saw that society went from handing out the Scarlet Letter to women to awarding them a badge of honor for their newfound freedom.  If one did not acquiesce to sex on the infamous third date, there was something wrong with her.  Perhaps she was a prude, a religious fanatic, or gay.  Many women succumbed to behaviors that did not correspond with their values.  This increased in the eighties and nineties even though HIV, herpes, and chlamydia were lying in wake for its victims.  More people than ever engaged in at-risk behaviors with people they barely knew.  Fearlessly “Looking for Mr. Goodbar” was in full force.

Fast-forward to the 21st century.  There has been little abatement of this loose intimacy.  The college campuses are pressure cookers for this behavior.  In the privacy and safety of my office, young people inform me of the stress that comes with the way of life expected of them.  Now you read that people engage in consensual romps where they may not know each other’s names.  Often, something goes awry, and accusations of rape may follow.  A young man’s life can be ruined forever.

With greater anesthetizing on college campuses and society at large, young and older adults participate wantonly and consider the repercussions after the fact.  I have listened to bold young women who indicate that they are fine with this casual approach, but many express disappointment when they do not receive contact from the person with whom they exchanged bodily fluids.  I do not shame them, but I remind them that men and women are different not only on the outside, but the inside.

Twenty-first-century courtships, if you can refer to them as that, have confused both genders of all ages.  In addition, people across the adult life cycle often leave these encounters with hurt feelings and even more confusion.

The theme of frustration around dating is more pronounced than ever before, yet the left continues to support the behavior leading to the frustration.  Their mantra seems to be that the only nuisance is the possibility of unwanted pregnancies.  Otherwise, it seems that women can and should act like men.  They ignore some of the information that shows that boundaries and responsible behavior, not just birth control, ward off some of the crises occurring both on and off campus.  My question to them is, what is wrong with being equal but different?  They celebrate women’s studies, yet they are frequently up in arms when excluded from male-only clubs or gatherings.  Instead of reveling in the uniqueness of women, they shove it down everyone’s throats that men and women are the same.  Recently, John McEnroe was severely criticized after complimenting the great Serena Williams but indicating that she would have had a much lower rank if combined with male tennis players.  A few years ago, Ms. Williams expressed a similar sentiment regarding the game of tennis.

How about when women want to play in the same rink with men but cry when the man hits back?  Kathy Griffin defiantly held a disgusting replica of the severed head of the president of the United States.  Her response was tears and distress about being bullied by the pugnacious Mr. Trump.  Who was the bully?  Well, bullies are indeed cowards.  Now we have Mika Brzezinski, who, with her paramour Joe Scarborough, relentlessly attacked a man known for being loyal, who had them in his home.  Mika too cries like a little girl when POTUS crudely responds, with valiant men on the left and the right coming to her rescue.  These women act so tough and haughty and are not used to a man who treats them as an equal and pushes backLadies of the left, you need to make up your minds.  You cannot have it both ways.  Act like a man, expect one to retaliate. Mr. Trump is an equal-opportunity type of individual.  He does not take gender into account.  In fact, from all indications, he treats women extremely well and would have done the same for these two foolish women libs.

For some reason, the left has conflated the reputed sexual liberation with achievement and success.  In my opinion, it is a false message.  Women’s success is based not on how many men they bed, nor do they have to feel pressured to engage in something they may view as intimate and sacred.  As a woman who continues to achieve and knows many who are doing the same, I believe that sensuality and sexuality are about the whole person, not just the physicality.  What tend to be most alluring are the freedom and success of being confident and positive and recognizing that we should celebrate our uniqueness of the sexes rather than blend them.

I return to William McGurn, who wrote another beautiful piece in Friday’s Wall Street Journal.  The article, “A Woman for All Seasons,” illustrates the accomplishments of Margaret More Roper, Saint Thomas More’s daughter.  To many of us, she is an obscure figure, and I appreciate Mr. McGurn’s bringing her story to life.  This courageous woman defied the restraints of an oppressive era.  Her will and successes had no bounds.  Truly, she was a tour de force and most ahead of her time.  Obviously, Ms. More Roper did this long before open sex was considered.  The left would never celebrate someone like this remarkable woman.  We on the right must continue to do so as a way to revere the true meaning of success – and, as appropriate, to help people escape the pressures of being intimate when it does not feel so intimate.  That is the true sexual revolution!

A few weeks ago, prior to Father’s Day, William McGurn wrote a beautiful and politically incorrect article in the Wall Street Journal.  He discussed the fact that men and women continue to be different in their approach to sexual intimacy even during the modern era of “anything goes.”  Being a therapist for over 30 years and hearing the same theme with men and women of all ages, I wrote the following letter to Mr. McGurn:

As a longtime WSJ reader and center-to-right psychotherapist, yes that is right, a minority in my profession, I could not agree with you more!  I have witnessed personally and professionally the post nineteen sixties’ push to expel differences between men and women for my entire adult life.  You are correct.  I cannot tell you how many women echo what you stated.  We are different, and carefully, I reiterate your very sentiments over and over with both my female and male clients.  In the quiet and safety of my office, many agree with me. You are most courageous!  Sadly, I cannot state this too loudly, or I would be tarred and feathered!

Mr. McGurn was pleased and thanked me.  A few days later, I saw letters to the editor responding to his op-ed.  One was from a pediatrician who agrees that this so-called revolution has created more damage than good.

I grew up in the seventies and saw the residual harm from the sixties’ “free love.”  Like anything, other than ourselves, “free” is a Faustian fantasy.  Eventually, someone pays the price, and it is often the very people engaging in casual sex.  Many of us saw that society went from handing out the Scarlet Letter to women to awarding them a badge of honor for their newfound freedom.  If one did not acquiesce to sex on the infamous third date, there was something wrong with her.  Perhaps she was a prude, a religious fanatic, or gay.  Many women succumbed to behaviors that did not correspond with their values.  This increased in the eighties and nineties even though HIV, herpes, and chlamydia were lying in wake for its victims.  More people than ever engaged in at-risk behaviors with people they barely knew.  Fearlessly “Looking for Mr. Goodbar” was in full force.

Fast-forward to the 21st century.  There has been little abatement of this loose intimacy.  The college campuses are pressure cookers for this behavior.  In the privacy and safety of my office, young people inform me of the stress that comes with the way of life expected of them.  Now you read that people engage in consensual romps where they may not know each other’s names.  Often, something goes awry, and accusations of rape may follow.  A young man’s life can be ruined forever.

With greater anesthetizing on college campuses and society at large, young and older adults participate wantonly and consider the repercussions after the fact.  I have listened to bold young women who indicate that they are fine with this casual approach, but many express disappointment when they do not receive contact from the person with whom they exchanged bodily fluids.  I do not shame them, but I remind them that men and women are different not only on the outside, but the inside.

Twenty-first-century courtships, if you can refer to them as that, have confused both genders of all ages.  In addition, people across the adult life cycle often leave these encounters with hurt feelings and even more confusion.

The theme of frustration around dating is more pronounced than ever before, yet the left continues to support the behavior leading to the frustration.  Their mantra seems to be that the only nuisance is the possibility of unwanted pregnancies.  Otherwise, it seems that women can and should act like men.  They ignore some of the information that shows that boundaries and responsible behavior, not just birth control, ward off some of the crises occurring both on and off campus.  My question to them is, what is wrong with being equal but different?  They celebrate women’s studies, yet they are frequently up in arms when excluded from male-only clubs or gatherings.  Instead of reveling in the uniqueness of women, they shove it down everyone’s throats that men and women are the same.  Recently, John McEnroe was severely criticized after complimenting the great Serena Williams but indicating that she would have had a much lower rank if combined with male tennis players.  A few years ago, Ms. Williams expressed a similar sentiment regarding the game of tennis.

How about when women want to play in the same rink with men but cry when the man hits back?  Kathy Griffin defiantly held a disgusting replica of the severed head of the president of the United States.  Her response was tears and distress about being bullied by the pugnacious Mr. Trump.  Who was the bully?  Well, bullies are indeed cowards.  Now we have Mika Brzezinski, who, with her paramour Joe Scarborough, relentlessly attacked a man known for being loyal, who had them in his home.  Mika too cries like a little girl when POTUS crudely responds, with valiant men on the left and the right coming to her rescue.  These women act so tough and haughty and are not used to a man who treats them as an equal and pushes backLadies of the left, you need to make up your minds.  You cannot have it both ways.  Act like a man, expect one to retaliate. Mr. Trump is an equal-opportunity type of individual.  He does not take gender into account.  In fact, from all indications, he treats women extremely well and would have done the same for these two foolish women libs.

For some reason, the left has conflated the reputed sexual liberation with achievement and success.  In my opinion, it is a false message.  Women’s success is based not on how many men they bed, nor do they have to feel pressured to engage in something they may view as intimate and sacred.  As a woman who continues to achieve and knows many who are doing the same, I believe that sensuality and sexuality are about the whole person, not just the physicality.  What tend to be most alluring are the freedom and success of being confident and positive and recognizing that we should celebrate our uniqueness of the sexes rather than blend them.

I return to William McGurn, who wrote another beautiful piece in Friday’s Wall Street Journal.  The article, “A Woman for All Seasons,” illustrates the accomplishments of Margaret More Roper, Saint Thomas More’s daughter.  To many of us, she is an obscure figure, and I appreciate Mr. McGurn’s bringing her story to life.  This courageous woman defied the restraints of an oppressive era.  Her will and successes had no bounds.  Truly, she was a tour de force and most ahead of her time.  Obviously, Ms. More Roper did this long before open sex was considered.  The left would never celebrate someone like this remarkable woman.  We on the right must continue to do so as a way to revere the true meaning of success – and, as appropriate, to help people escape the pressures of being intimate when it does not feel so intimate.  That is the true sexual revolution!



Source link