Coed

Recently the University of Chicago jumped lemming-like on the co-ed dorm bandwagon and now will allow a male student to share a dorm room with an unrelated female student. In other words, the school has essentially become a full-fledged enabler of out-of-wedlock, pre-marital sex. (Prior to this indefensible action the school was only a "partial-fledged" enabler of such sex. Its Student Health and Wellness Fee, which all registered students pay, covers regular contraceptive items like condoms. Lubricants and dental dams are also covered by the fee. All three are available at its Student Care Center. "Emergency contraception" is also available at the center for a nominal charge.)

Now, thinking people have known for centuries that out-of-wedlock sex is just a subtle form of sexual exploitation. The unsaid message such sex conveys: "I don't think you're worth marrying but I'll use you for sex." Propositioning someone for such sex used to be practically an insult.

So, why are so many colleges essentially enabling sexual exploitation? Are the leaders of those schools really such lowlifes that they actually WANT still-somewhat-immature, hormone-addled kids to engage in sexual exploitation? Are the people running these schools so sleazy that they actually WANT to corrupt the morals of the young? It's hard to draw any other conclusion based on the choices these schools have made.

The schools can choose to send a strong message to students that discourages out-of-wedlock sex. That message in its over-simplified, short form: "Don't let people selfishly use you for sex. Let's have a warm world built around loving marriages, not a colder world built on sexual exploitation. Asking someone to marry you is indirectly paying them the highest compliment---that you think so much of him/her you want to spend the rest of your life with that person." Or, schools can choose to send a wink-wink, if-it-feels-good-do-it message by providing contraceptives to unmarried students and allowing co-ed dorm rooms. Too many colleges have chosen to become enablers of pre-marital sex.

This is no accident. We know many colleges are dominated by liberals who have no problem discriminating against conservative ideas and speakers. And we know liberalism is all about sexual license (amongst other licenses).

Hollywood, i.e., the movie industry, is a notorious bastion of liberalism. I had a well-documented article published a few years ago, "Hollywood---According To Those In The Know," which quoted numerous Hollywood insiders about how the movie industry is riddled with drug-using, sexually promiscuous and exploitative people. (For an updated version of the article feel free to go to this webpage.) All kinds of unmarried people, including teens, are jumping into bed in movies and on TV shows. Again, one has to ask: Why? Just for money (because sex sells)? Are they so money-hungry that they would take this country down a moral sewer to make a dollar?

What is wrong with these people? Why is married love downplayed and unmarried selfish lust "upplayed"? And why do so many liberals believe it's okay to "terminate" innocent, almost fully developed, unborn babies (while opposing capital punishment for guilty criminals)? What happened to them? How did they lose so much humaneness?

And why do so many liberals claim to love nature and then promote unnatural lifestyles like homosexuality? (Male homosexuals, for example, have abnormally high rates of diseases like anal cancer, syphilis, and AIDS. Homosexuality is so physiologically unnatural that homosexuals actually have to rely on heterosexuals to produce more homosexuals since true homosexuals do not reproduce.)

We know power corrupts. We know there are powerful people in this country who are corrupt. We've all heard anecdotes about corporate executives and politicians sleeping with their secretaries, for example. They would prefer to get away with these escapades, as opposed to paying a heavy price for them. And if they can corrupt the country's morals, they improve the odds that they would get away with them. As some goofy liberal hypocrites have said: "Who are you to judge?" (They say this while they harshly judge the "politically incorrect.")

Is there a conscious, ongoing effort on the part of certain influential people to corrupt the country's morals? When you look at all the weird, contradictory, unreasonable ideas being pushed by certain influential people of the liberal persuasion, you have to grant that it's a valid question, in this writer's humble opinion.