Moral Hazard is Collateral Damage

Pro-abortion laws act as an incentive for more abortions AND more OOW births!

Readership: All
Theme: Risk Assessment
Author’s Note: Coauthored by Red Pill Apostle and Jack.
Length: 1,000 words
Reading Time: 3.5 minutes; linked article is 4 minutes.

Authorizing Risk leads to Snowballing Risk

Here’s a good article explaining the secondary and tertiary effects of altering God’s intended design for sex.

Town Hall (John R. Lott): Roe v. Wade Harmed Even Many Children Born After the Court’s Decision (2021-12-02)

If you look at Lott’s degrees and where he has been a professor, we’re in good company regarding our logic on intersexual dynamics.

While the main topic is focused on a Supreme Court case over an abortion law, it is noted that introducing this mechanism to address the negative consequences of unplanned, out-of-wedlock pregnancies changed the incentives.

Roe did substantially increase abortions, more than doubling the rate per live birth in the five years from 1972 to 1977.”

Lott cites data that says abortion was at least one of the factors for men and women adopting riskier sexual behavior.

“Liberalizing abortion rules ignited vast long-term social changes in America. The 1970s saw major changes, but few realize that research has shown the role that Roe had in help creating them. Nor do people understand the harm done to the children born after Roe as well as many of their mothers. But before we get to those harms, let’s discuss the changes:

  • A sharp increase in pre-marital sex.
  • A sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births.
  • A drop in the number of children placed for adoption.
  • A decline in marriages that occur after the woman is pregnant.

“With abortion seen as a backup, women as well as men became less careful in using contraceptives as well as more likely to have premarital sex.”

And not surprisingly, as a result,

“There were more unplanned pregnancies.”

Just as the Manosphere has concluded, once a few women are willing to adopt the behavior in order to gain a hypergamous advantage, it incentivizes many women into the horizontal tango arms race to avoid losing the man they want.  Lott even references this idea in the article.

“But legal abortion did not mean every unplanned pregnancy led to an abortion. After all, just because abortion is legal does not mean that the decision is an easy one. Some women now had premarital sex after the changes in laws even though they knew they could never have an abortion simply because other women were doing so. If many women were willing to have premarital sex or have an abortion after these legal changes, the women who didn’t want to have premarital sex, because they knew they were unwilling to have abortions, felt pressured to do so. Guys might drop them and date other women who were willing to have sex.”

In the insurance industry, we call this a moral hazard, which is where people adopt additional risk in their behavior because they know they have a third party to cover the financial consequences if the risk fails.  Basically, the mechanism to mitigate the effects of risk creates the incentive that alters behavior.

Sex, marriage, and procreation is like a big ball of yarn. It’s quite useful for knitting the fabric of our lives, but once you start unraveling it, it can become a tangled mess.

Lott goes further to iterate several noteworthy statistics related to the rise in unplanned births and single motherhood.

Academic studies have found that legalized abortion, by encouraging premarital sex, increased the number of unplanned births, even outweighing the reduction in unplanned births due to abortion.

In the United States from the early 1970s, when abortion was liberalized, through the late 1980s, there was a tremendous increase in the rate of out-of-wedlock births, rising from an average of 5 percent of all births from 1965 to 1969 to more than 16 percent two decades later (1985 to 1989).

For blacks, the numbers soared from 35 percent to 62 percent. While not all of this rise can be attributed to liberalized abortion rules, it was a key contributing factor, nevertheless.”

So legalizing abortion not only incentivized more promiscuity, but it also promoted the rise in single mommyhood. Whodathunk the single mother epidemic was an indirect result of legalizing abortion?

Lott explains how this works.

“With legalization and a woman not forced to go through with an unplanned pregnancy, a man might well expect his partner to have an abortion if a sexual encounter were to result in an unplanned pregnancy.

But what happens if the woman refuses — say, she is morally opposed or, perhaps, she thought she could have an abortion but upon becoming pregnant decides she can’t go through with it?”

There is another, more politically incorrect possibility — what if she actually wants to have Chad’s b@stard spawn!

“Many men, feeling tricked into unwanted fatherhood, likely will wash their hands of the affair altogether, thinking, “I never wanted a baby. It’s her choice, so let her raise the baby herself.”

What is expected of men in this position has changed dramatically in the last four decades. Evidence shows that the greater availability of abortion largely ended “shotgun” marriages, where men felt obligated to marrying the women.”

Come to think of it, I haven’t known of a shotgun marriage in decades. So apparently, a decrease in marriage is yet another downstream result of legalizing abortion!

“What has happened to these babies of reluctant fathers?

The mothers often raise the children on their own. Even as abortion has led to more out-of-wedlock births it has dramatically reduced adoptions of children born in America by two-parent families.”

Here’s another non-PC possibility — Single mothers want to keep their out-of-wedlock chidren as leverage to garner welfare from Uncle Sam and child support from the father.

All in all, legalizing abortion is another brick in Big Brother’s wall — one that has opened a pandora’s box of disasterous results.

This entry was posted in Abortion and Birth Control, Child Development, Collective Strength, Culture Wars, Female Power, Feminism, Models of Failure, Moral Agency, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Reviews, Single Parents, Zeitgeist Reports. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Moral Hazard is Collateral Damage

  1. thedeti says:

    This was all part and parcel of women getting to “control” their own sexualities.

    Women were having more unplanned pregnancies and births because they were having sex with the attractive men they actually wanted. Initially they were able to babytrap Chads. Then Chads started refusing to marry these women, and just paid instead. Then they started refusing to pay, which is where we are now.

    Women want the children more than they want the men. (Kind of like men want the sex more than they want the women, but that’s a different story.)

    Men “refusing to pay” and women making irresponsible decisions led us away from the family model and to the child support model. Under the family model, it’s “Who is responsible?” Under the child support model, it’s “Who pays?” All we care about now is that a responsible man can be found, and that man will be made to pay.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Scott says:

      The whole “child support model” vs “family model” thing was so well documented by the mighty Dalrock. It is REALLY hard to articulate in polite company, no matter how intelligently you try to lay it out. Everyone looks at you like you have three heads.

      Liked by 6 people

      • Oscar says:

        “Everyone looks at you like you have three heads.”

        More like horns, hooves, and a pitchfork.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Women don’t like facing their own sexual immorality. Our churches and Protestant “family ministries” excuse them for this because they, and we as a society, are terrified of hurting their feelings.

        A single mom’s a “hero” because she didn’t have an abortion. No she’s not. She’s a sinner who let a Chad knock her up.

        A divorced mom’s a “hero” because she “does it all”. No she’s not. She’s a sinner who either chose a crappy man to make babies with, or she couldn’t get along with a decent but not very attractive man.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Jack says:

        “Women don’t like facing their own sexual immorality. Our churches and Protestant “family ministries” excuse them for this because they, and we as a society, are terrified of hurting their feelings.”

        Some may have a fear of trampling on curling toes, while others may be envious or jealous. But even the wise will still avoid censuring the sexually immoral simply because it’s a fool’s errand.

        Proverbs 9:7-9 (NASB)
        7 One who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself,
        And one who rebukes a wicked person gets insults for himself.
        8 Do not rebuke a scoffer, or he will hate you;
        Rebuke a wise person and he will love you.
        9 Give instruction to a wise person and he will become still wiser;
        Teach a righteous person and he will increase his insight.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Also – men are held responsible for their sins. Men are constantly called to account for their sins. In our churches and everywhere, everyone is constantly confronting, challenging, and reviling men for their sins, shortcomings, and failures.

        No one ever even talks about women’s sins. No one ever even considers the possibility that women sin. Women and sin are not even a concept in today’s apostate church, unless it’s the “sins” of low self esteem and not being true to oneself.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        Deti-

        I have found that there is no way to interject issues or questions related to how the mom became single. Any hint of trying to make these distinctions makes you “judgmental” or a “hypocrite” or whatever.

        You also cannot point out the statistical truths about the trajectory those children are put on without their father in the home, married to mom. “My child is not a statistic, and my ex was an absolute monster” or something like that is what you will get.

        It’s just impossible.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “It is REALLY hard to articulate in polite company, no matter how intelligently you try to lay it out. Everyone looks at you like you have three heads.”

        As awful as all the “man up” type sermons are, articulating the evil of the current is one of those areas where we should tactfully but directly man up. I’ve been on a bit of a biblical patriarchy jag the past couple months and the early results are promising.

        It helps if you tell people to focus on the head in the middle just like if they’d had a couple beers too many. 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “You also cannot point out the statistical truths about the trajectory those children are put on without their father in the home, married to mom. “My child is not a statistic, and my ex was an absolute monster” or something like that is what you will get.”

        The current word of the day is abusive. “My ex was abusive.” “I am just getting out of an abusive relationship.” Abusive meaning…

        — My ex had standards for me.
        — I didn’t get absolutely everything I wanted from the relationship/marriage.
        — My ex and I fought a lot.
        — My ex yelled at me a few times.
        — He didn’t go to church when and how I wanted.
        — He didn’t read the Bible enough.
        — He wanted things from me.
        — He wanted sex from me.

        etc. etc. etc., ad nauseam, ad infinitum…

        Of course, he was not abusive to her at all. He just had standards and expectations, and she continually failed to meet them, because no one ever taught her or impressed on her that when you’re a wife, you have obligations and duties to the man you picked. You have duties to the man you chose to marry.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “The whole “child support model” vs “family model” thing was so well documented by the mighty Dalrock. It is REALLY hard to articulate in polite company, no matter how intelligently you try to lay it out. Everyone looks at you like you have three heads.”

        No one wants to accept that women are responsible, because that’s “mean spirited” and “judgmental”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “I have found that there is no way to interject issues or questions related to how the mom became single. Any hint of trying to make these distinctions makes you “judgmental” or a “hypocrite” or whatever.

        You also cannot point out the statistical truths about the trajectory those children are put on without their father in the home, married to mom. “My child is not a statistic, and my ex was an absolute monster” or something like that is what you will get.”

        I’ve brought all that up in a group of men. A small minority were receptive. Mostly younger men. I think that’s where we start. Women need to do the heavy lifting among women (Titus 2), and some ladies are, in fact doing that (Elspeth, for example), but they’re few and far between.

        The best we can do on our end is:
        1) Teach our daughters Christian morality, and hold them to it.
        2) Teach young men (starting with our sons) to increase their value, state their preferences, and stick to them.

        It’s going to be a long, tough slog.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “Some may have a fear of trampling on curling toes, while others may be envious or jealous. But even the wise will still avoid censuring the sexually immoral simply because it’s a fool’s errand.”

        This is why men are leaving churches. The people who run our churches now are the sexually immoral and the people who enable and coddle them.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Scott says:

      Deti-

      I was accused of “abuse” using the same nebulous standard. I was absolutely crazy about my first wife, never hit her, never yelled at her, never drank, never smoked. Did not waste time watching sports on Sunday. Was totally faithful. Whatever failings I was guilty of as a husband the first time, I paid for it and then some.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Scott – Me too! (see what I did there) Mrs. Apostle said I was “emotionally abusive” especially when she was faced with insurmountable evidence contrary to her preferred point of view.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        “Abuse” is code for “you don’t give me the tingles anymore”

        It can happen to anyone.

        Liked by 1 person

      • farmlegend says:

        I’ve been single for long expanses of my 65 years, and have dated a lot of divorced women. I’d have to say pretty much 80% of them claimed their exes were “abusive”.

        I’m sure mine have said the same about me.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Red Pill Apostle says:

    deti,

    “Also – men are held responsible for their sins. Men are constantly called to account for their sins. In our churches and everywhere, everyone is constantly confronting, challenging, and reviling men for their sins, shortcomings, and failures.

    No one ever even talks about women’s sins. No one ever even considers the possibility that women sin. Women and sin are not even a concept in today’s apostate church, unless it’s the “sins” of low self esteem and not being true to oneself.”

    At church yesterday my pastor mentioned that divinity school enrollment is far too low to support the church needs of the population and this is because men are enrolling at about 1/3 the rate they used to. Your quote sums up the chief reason why men want little to do with church.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      “At church yesterday my pastor mentioned that divinity school enrollment is far too low to support the church needs of the population and this is because men are enrolling at about 1/3 the rate they used to.”

      To be fair, divinity school probably does more harm than good.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        Divinity School is where they neuter the last of them, if any arrive there ungelded.

        Liked by 2 people

      • feeriker says:

        Bible colleges, divinity schools, and seminaries are the source of the heretical doctrines that are the sign of the Great Apostasy. They are as corrupt, converged, and evil as every other institution of higher learning today.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Even if divinity schools weren’t squishy on doctrine, the men who are eager to go appear to be those who are most attracted to working in a feminized church environment. If there are divinity schools that do hold true to biblical doctrine they are most likely fighting adverse selection as more squishy men are attracted to ministry than doctrinally sound men. If they need students to keep the doors open then people who probably should be weeded out of seminary are not.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Or, we could go back to the original model of mentoring and apprenticing future pastors at local churches. Neither Timothy, nor Titus had a M.Div.

        Like

  3. thedeti says:

    Our entire culture since first wave feminism of the 1920s has been one long Lysistrata Cold War brought on by “fairness”.

    Women: “Give us what we want, or we will not have sex with you. Plus, you have to be fair with us.”
    Men: “OK. What do you want?”
    Women: “The vote. Then we’ll stop.”
    Men: “OK. Here you go.”
    Women: “Now we want equal employment. Otherwise it’s not fair.”
    Men: “Thought you were gonna stop. But OK.”
    Women: “Now we want birth control. Otherwise it’s not fair. Plus, we will have more sex with you.”
    Men: “OK.”
    Women: “Now we want no fault divorce. It has to be fair. Plus, we will have more sex with you and you don’t have to marry us.”
    Men: “OK.”
    Women: “Now we want to have sex with attractive men, and we want the rest of you men to pay for it. And you have to wait until we are ready to get married before we will think about having sex with the rest of you.”
    Men: “Um, well, if we get some sex, I guess that’s OK.”
    Women: “We lied. We are ready for marriage, but we don’t want to have sex with you. Oh, and you still have to pay. Cuz we think that’s fair.”
    Men: “Wait a minute… No.”
    Women: “WAAAAH!!! You’re not being fair! Meanies! Hypocrites! Abusers! Incels! You’re not real Christians!”

    Liked by 5 people

    • thedeti says:

      Here’s how it should have gone:

      Women: “Give us what we want, or we will not have sex with you. Plus, you have to be fair with us.”
      Men: “OK. What do you want?”
      Women: “The vote. Then we’ll stop.”
      Men: “No.”
      Women: “You guys are mean and unfair and sexist and misogynist…”
      Men: “OK. Go do for yourselves then.”

      Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        It’s literally a story as old as time. Adam should’ve slapped the fruit out Eve’s hand. Abraham should have told Sarah, “No! You’re my wife, not Hagar.” Men need to learn to tell women “no”.

        It sucks, because we’re built to fight with other men, not women. But it’s what has to be done.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        deti — We should give women what they really want, not what they say they want. What we used to know is that no matter what women say, they really want a strong man to set boundaries for them. This allows them to be feminine in a safe environment and allows men to be masculine. This idea was key in changing my marriage.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        RPA,

        Not quite. Men need to learn to do what they know is right, irrespective of what women want, or say they want. Adam knew saying “no” to Eve was right. Abraham knew saying “no” to Sarah was right. For whatever reason(s), they chose to please their wives, instead of doing what they knew God wanted them to do. In both cases, we’re still paying for their unwillingness to say “no” to their wives.

        Liked by 2 people

  4. feeriker says:

    “At church yesterday my pastor mentioned that divinity school enrollment is far too low to support the church needs of the population and this is because men are enrolling at about 1/3 the rate they used to. Your quote sums up the chief reason why men want little to do with church.”

    And churchian CEO’s heads will explode if they’re ever forced to reckon with WHY the church is failing and WHY men are avoiding it.

    Someone with money to burn and nothing to lose needs to make a documentary that compares the church of the First Century to its descendant today, and then ask professional Christian’s (i.e., clergy) to explain how everything got so far off track.

    I’ve linked to it before, but this is an excellent explanation for the current catastrophe, horrifying and depressing of a read that it may be.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      feeriker,

      As if to reinforce deti’s point, the website you linked contains the following article:

      Julie Roys: In San Diego, Porn Star Preaches Message ‘For Sinners By Sinners’ (2021-9-11)

      “Angela Dela Cruz is a porn star, making a living from an industry widely considered evil and predatory. She’s also a pastor of Living Faith Church, a new church plant in downtown San Diego.

      Angela and her husband, Stephen Dela Cruz, launched the church plant this summer, advertising it as “a church for sinners by sinners.” The church website further explains that the church’s leaders are “the biggest sinners, and this is the most non-judgmental church around!”

      While the church website doesn’t identify its pastors, the couple has been open on social media about Angela’s involvement in adult entertainment and her role in the church.

      “Where else will you find an adult actress who is also a pastor?!” a Sept. 6 post on the church’s Instagram reads in part.

      The couple has also posted invitations to their followers for a church event where they covered the topic. “PEEK BEHIND THE CURTAIN of Angela, an adult actress, and her husband, Stephen Dela Cruz, starting a church for sinners by sinners,” Angela’s post read in part. It ended with an invitation to RSVP by texting “GOSSIP” to an 888 number.”

      Obviously, this is an extreme case, but the fact that it even exists is alarming.

      Liked by 2 people

      • feeriker says:

        This is an example of the kind of behavior that I cite as evidence that many self-described “Christians,” especially women, don’t really believe in God at all, or at least not in His omnipotence. Not being able to either conceive of a “big picture” or think long term, they eventually lose any fear they had of God (assuming that they ever really had any in the first place) because punishment for their sins is not immediate and tangible. The idea of Judgment Day is something that they grasp intellectually, but it instills no fear in the heart or the spirit. In no small measure this is due to the modern apostate church painting God as the Big Cosmic Butler/Vending Machine, a gentle and beneficent spirit that sees humanity as innocent little puppies who are occasionally naughty, but never evil or sinful; and His Son Jesus as “Buddy Jesus” who is some hip philosopher to whom “it’s all good, man” and who is never angry or judgmental.

        I would love to believe that as civilization continues to deteriorate and move in a more chaotic, destructive, and violent direction that more self-described Christians will wake up and get right with the Lord. Sadly, Scripture tells us that this won’t be the case.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Feeriker-

        I do think there are some women with a fear of judgment day that is deeper than an abstraction. But they all had fathers with a very strong masculine presence in their formative years.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        I’ve never actually watched Dogma, but I’ve used this clip in multiple Bible studies.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Robert Bremner says:

        Anything to get men back in church.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Elspeth says:

    Somehow, large swaths of people have endorsed the insane view that if you remove the illegitimacy or taboo of certain behaviors, you’ll get less of it. It makes absolutely no sense at all, and has never proven to be correct in any instance that I know of, but we forge on with it anyway.

    For instance, birth control was supposed to decrease OOW birth as well. But all it did was encourage more people to have illicit sex, and with more illicit sex comes more pregnancies, and OOW births skyrocketed. The same thing happened with abortion. You could apply this to drugs as well. No fault divorce didn’t free women nor did it make women more happy, nor did it reduce the chances of women being abused.

    When you think about it for more than 5 minutes, it becomes obvious that this is a ridiculous proposition, but people somehow believed these things anyway, and continue to believe them even after the results are in.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:

      “Somehow, large swaths of people have endorsed the insane view that if you remove the illegitimacy or taboo of certain behaviors, you’ll get less of it.”

      What it does is remove stigma and guilt, which are effective in discouraging any behavior. Stigma and guilt are also instrumental in producing repentance as well.

      This is essentially the approach of social liberalism, and why liberalism fails.

      Liked by 1 person

    • feeriker says:

      “When you think about it for more than 5 minutes, it becomes obvious that this is a ridiculous proposition, but people somehow believed these things anyway, and continue to believe them even after the results are in.”

      That pretty much describes our entire society today, and not just on the topic under discussion here. It’s the very essence of what we call “Clown World,” and it’s everywhere.

      Like

  6. locustsplease says:

    Being a single dad in the church, I don’t mind scorching the earth on the single mother topic. I’m always hearing, “She’s always a fighter, was abused, yada yada.” Any time I hear about a divorced woman, I say, “She gave him a blow job, bacon for breakfast, and his favorite meal was cooking all day, but he just never came home. Now all she has is this child support check, but she would rather have true love!”

    I can’t stand to see them use my church for validation and financial gain. Every week we have a great single moms group and everybody really likes to help them. “She chose life so we need to support her.” We were having tons of divorces, and I told an elder that any public support of them is encouraging women to divorce. I said, “When it’s your wife leaving you for nothing and using the church against you, it’s gonna hurt!” Then the divorce epidemic stopped and I have not heard much about new divorces lately.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Ben Franklin saw the phenomenon with poverty and his solution was not to ease the discomfort of poverty but to leave it uncomfortable for them.

      “I am for doing good to the poor, but… I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed… that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

      ― Benjamin Franklin

      The same holds true for divorce and single motherhood. Make the cost of both more than the cost of remaining married and we’ll have more sustained marriages on the whole.

      Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      Those women should be told to go back to their husbands and work it out.

      Women, you picked those men. You selected them. You took vows and you laid down with them, and you did so freely and knowingly. Suck it up, get over it, get over yourselves, and work it out and handle it with the men YOU PICKED.

      Get over it, or you leave. You leave your children with the men you can’t work with or don’t want to work with. Get jobs and start paying child support and alimony.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. redpillboomer says:

    I visited another church last Sunday just to see if there were some other worship expressions to experience, to get beyond my church’s ways of doing things. No intent to leave my church, just some broadening of my horizons a bit, to get out of the box so to speak. So, I’ve got nothing to add single mom-wise to the conversation, there were probably a few of them in this fairly large church, but I couldn’t tell being my first time there. What caught my eye however was three young ladies who sat in the row right in front of me.

    My first thought was, “They’re young, probably late teens, very earl twenties at the oldest.” My second thought, “Those are some seriously good looking young women!” My third thought as my Red Pill lens adjusted a bit to the surroundings, “Interesting attire for church young ladies. Not slutty, but quite subtly sexual.” As I looked even closer, I thought, “They’re communicating with their clothing selection, it appears to me, this being church and all. What were they saying, “I’m available and ‘hot to trot’ to boot.” (Do they still use that phrase or am I dating myself? LoL).

    I looked around the church, and there was nary a young Alpha male anywhere in sight; just a bunch of beta guys, most of them quite overweight and marginally appealing at best. Heck, even the most alpha looking guy on the worship team, the key boardist/lead singer, still occurred to me a bit off, like in “tall, handsome guy alright, just a bit weird overdoing worship in a little too demonstrative a manner”, if you know what I mean.

    I then thought about what you guys have said on this blog about church girls getting it on outside the church with Chad. I thought, “Yep, there’s three fine specimens right there for Mr. Chad.” Even mister hyped up worship leader doesn’t cut it for these Churchian Stacy’s and Amber’s. It’s going to take something like the gym Chads I see when I work out, you know the type of dudes I’m talking about!

    Now, I worked on trying to think differently, like in, “Okay, they came to church, they seem to be into God more or less, maybe I’m being too quick to judge, too much of this Red Pill messing with my head. Maybe I’m reading too much into this. Stop being so d@mn judgemental RPB!”

    As the service ended and they walked out of their seats, I thought, “No, I can tell by the way they’re acting these girls are communicating a message, and it ain’t ‘Jesus is Lord’.” I’m not saying they didn’t have any faith in God, but it’s the vibe I was getting. I thought, “Chad’s got some easy pickings here if he can just get his muscles into the House of God.” I must admit the red blooded male in me was liking it, but the spiritual me was feeling, how can I put this, a bit uncomfortable with the whole thing. This is not for in church, it belongs on the outside.

    My point is something came alive that is talked about in these circles that I hadn’t personally witnessed before. I’ve seen it now with my own eyes. Yep, it’s a thing… sadly.

    Liked by 4 people

    • feeriker says:

      “As the service ended and they walked out of their seats, I thought, “No, I can tell by the way they’re acting these girls are communicating a message, and it ain’t ‘Jesus is Lord’.” I’m not saying they didn’t have any faith in God, but it’s the vibe I was getting. I thought, “Chad’s got some easy pickings here if he can just get his muscles into the House of God.” I must admit the red blooded male in me was liking it, but the spiritual me was feeling, how can I put this, a bit uncomfortable with the whole thing. This is not for in church, it belongs on the outside.”

      What you witnessed was “playing church — single young woman script.” There are different scripts for different demographics within the churchian franchise, but this is the young single woman’s script.

      Like

    • thedeti says:

      I told you so.

      Like

    • Scott says:

      Yep

      If I was 30 and recently divorced again, I would do things differently. I was a lifelong member of the very old/hardline obscure church of Christ so, like a good little disciple I went to a church in North Carolina that barely had 180 people on Sundays. Aging, maybe 5 single girls under 30.

      I would just dispense with all that and strut into the nearest big box church like I owned the place.

      Like

    • thedeti says:

      Every unmarried woman in that church either has had extramarital sex, is having extramarital sex, or wants to so badly she can taste it and probably will do so.

      The three women you noticed: each one of them probably has had premarital sex. One of them probably had sex with a man she didn’t know well the night before you saw her.

      I told you so.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “The three women you noticed: each one of them probably has had premarital sex.”

        Way to go out on a limb with your predictions. 🙂

        If I remember correctly, Dalrock linked to surveys that indicated 5% of people, or less, are virgins when they wed. My guess is that these are people who get married early, as in college or right after college age, that make up most of the 5%.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        RPA-

        It is so ubiquitous (sex before marriage–Christian or not) that I did not have any expectation of virginity on my wedding night. Didn’t even occur to me. It just worked out that way, I was on six, she was on zero.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s