ABC News used the headline “Meet the Men Having Sex With Strangers to Help Them Have Babies”. As if men having sex with strangers and getting women pregnant is a new thing. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
It begs the question: are people who have sex multiple times with the objective of pregnancy really strangers?
The feminist lie has now come full circle. It started with “I don’t need a man to be fulfilled” so they encouraged women to replace a lifelong, committed relationship based on family, trust, and love, with outside things like career, money, and fashion. There’s nothing wrong with careers, money and fashion. But those things don’t fulfill you. At the end of your life, will you wish you broke through that glass ceiling, had one more dollar, or dressed better, in exchange for dying alone in a sterile, loveless journey into eternity?
Jettisoning marriage and family as the top priority turns children into either a burden or a bauble. The next feminist lie encouraged women to forsake children, have as much sex as they like, inside or outside of a marriage relationship—even pursuing an “open marriage” (cheating with permission). Pregnancy becomes a hazard instead of an objective. If you get pregnant, have an abortion. As President Obama said about his own daughters, “I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
I don’t want them punished with a baby.
This statement encompasses the entirety of the feminist lie. A baby is a “punishment” for a “mistake”. Some cosmic dice throw resulting in the snake-eyes of pregnancy. What a curse that the fun act of unlimited sex would result in such a burden like pregnancy. If only men had some kind of sterility switch with an LED so you don’t have to worry about catching pregnancy, like getting herpes or something. It’s so fortunate there’s a cure for pregnancy, bless science for such things as the Plan B pill.
Aging feminists realize they’ll die alone without someone to love them unconditionally. Who would love a woman who forsook family and marriage and lifelong relationship, except a child? Feminists said if you want a baby, go to the sperm bank, pick out your designer daddy sperm, and procreate. Raise your baby and they’ll love you always. Like a puppy, except they outlive you.
No muss, no fuss, no relationship necessary, just a turkey baster pregnancy, an implant, an infection causing a baby. You don’t even meet the father. The problem with that is that you don’t even meet the father. One woman thought she was having a wy-hite baby but sued the sperm bank when it turned out the baby was black. Most people attribute this to racism, but it’s the farthest thing from racism. It’s no different than if you went to the pet store to pick out a pure-bred Dachshund and got home to find it’s a Chiweenie (Chihuahua and Dachshund mix). Only you can’t take it back to the pet store.
Finally, we’ve arrived at designer dad perfection: choose the dad from a growing list of men willing to have sex with you, fully disclosing their pedigree, intelligence, and wit, who get you pregnant, giving you that cuddly baby with no relationship, no commitment, no love.
Why do the men do it? I mean, is it just for cheap sex with a stranger? The competition for daddy DNA has to be intense, that presumably only the smartest, good-lookingest, best fit males would qualify for the privilege of “naturally inseminating” feminists seeking baby-mamahood. These strapping young men are offering themselves—for free—to women who might be considered coyote ugly in a bar scene. To any sane feminist, this itself should be a disqualifying factor (thus helping to prove the hypothesis that feminists are not sane).
ABC interviewed “Joe”, who prefers to keep his wife in the dark about his extramarital inseminations. Joe said
“I have a Clark Kent life. Then, I have the Superman life,” Joe said. “People might want to have millions of dollars in the bank, and then, you know, some of us might want to have dozens of children out there.”
This could possibly be the most unbalanced statement I’ve ever read. Joe doesn’t want to be a daddy in the sense of raising these children, he simply wants to father them, like some cosmic dandelion spreading his seed among the weeds. Joe is no Superman. I’m sure his wife would agree, if she knew she was sleeping with Clark Kent.
Taking up the question “are they really strangers?”, the answer has to be no. There is no way you can be intimate with someone in this way without an emotional connection. Even sociopaths are not immune to this. It’s a biological-chemical fact. Your body releases a chemical called oxytocin during sex. It’s the same drug known as “pitocin” that they give women to induce labor. Besides the physical effects on pregnant women of starting the birth process, oxytocin enhances feelings of trust, comfort and what we might even characterize as “love”. This isn’t a drunk one-night-stand, or a paid transaction with someone whose ability to bond through intimacy has vanished long ago (or is diminished through drugs and violence). This is the kind of sex reserved for couples who are in a long term relationship, building a family.
Women trapped in the lie of feminism replace the constructs of family with fake relationships at their own peril. Both the baby-mama and the baby-daddy will be left with unresolved feelings, for each other, and for their newly-created family. And what of the babies produced by these relationships? There’s no acceptable answer to “mommy, where is my daddy?” when the answer is “daddy is a man I met online whose sole job was to get me pregnant”. Imagine the damage to the kid’s self-worth, view of family, and ability to have normal emotional relationships after learning that their entire purpose is to be mommy’s life companion. It’s the definition of selfishness and abandonment.
In the end, feminists who fall for this sleep-with-a-stranger-and-have-a-baby lie will reap what they sow: a barren, unfulfilled life, with nothing to pass on to their offspring except a dead family tree.