"Hurricane Harvey", The Elimination of Sex in the U.S. and the 144,000 (Asexual???) Lesser Sovereigns (Under Jesus)
[T]he sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. -- Genesis 6:2#MeToo Slut Walk Top Freedom
Sexual Revolutions (of 1920's and 1950's/60's)
Are we entering a "Third Wave" -- a "Third Peni[c] W'ore"???
The Pleasure Seekers (1997): It is also worth noting that for Mr. Heidenry the century's "third(?) sexual revolution,'' from the 1960's to now, succeeded insofar as it freed women from millenniums of repression, and failed insofar as it did not.
********************************************************There were the "sins of the 'asexual' [sic] fathers" which I heard MY father (who conceived me asexually too) talk about in the 1980's -- a widespread "son shower", by all means. (This son shower blew over Never Land in 1993; but, it never landed a drop.) Then there was the Bill Clinton/ Monica Lewinsky relationship that began in 1995 -- a sun shower with a short, quick "spurt" at the end (and on the historic dress). For the next 19 years there would be a bit of thunder in the distance or clouds that formed over a few (sports) celebrities' heads but didn't necessarily burst or drown them into oblivion. (Mike Tyson's case was earlier than 1995 -- and he was likely innocent.)
In 2014, a streak of comic genius caused America's then-favorite "Father from the 'Hood" to be struck down in a lightning round of sexual misconduct allegations. These "weather"- [or not-he-done-it] events usually blow through the church, the political arena and the sports arena quickly and sporadically. But, while Hurricane Harvey stalled over Houston for quite some time and left the city in shambles, a tempest by the same name but of a different nature has stalled over Hollywood: Hurricane Harvey (Weinstein) -- whether by mere coincidence or Divine (comedic) intervention. As though that weren't enough, the cyclone's immense storm suck has pulled senatorial candidate Roy Moore in -- from 2,000 miles (and 38 years) away.
As his supporters have implied, maybe he was trying to play God by impregnating a 14-year old -- which they seem to see nothing wrong with. (With supporters like that, who needs enemies???) At least they're not atheists and they read theology. Amen. (See??? Every dark cloud DOES have a silver lining -- except the ever-swirling Hurricane Harvey Weinstein, maybe.) I wonder if Roy Moore's supporters also know that God said that, if a man rapes a woman who's neither married nor betrothed, then he must pay her father 50 shekels, marry her and never divorce her. Were she married or betrothed (which made her rape an offense against a man who had sexual rights to her), then the rapist had to die. Short of an act of God, the mention of Scripture and theology isn't going to guarantee victory for Roy Moore -- the thinking and culture of Alabama voters (whom I don't even pretend to understand notwithstanding.)
In any instance, men are in trouble for having (or almost having) sex; and, sex is in trouble (for having men???). Seriously.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not promoting sexual misconduct at all. However, it looks as though Hollywood (more so than Politic-wood [sic], the sports arena or even the Catholic Church) has really "f**ked itself out of a f**k". They didn't quit while they were "a-'Head'" (a movie whose ending you might say "sucked" for the Monkees). It is beginning to look as though the asexual world of 2032 A.D. which is portrayed in Demolition Man will become America's reality during the term of the current "f**ker-upper-in-chief" (who's had his fair share of likely true sexual misconduct allegations leveled against him...and f**ked himself with his own mouth too.
In all seriousness, I don't see us going quite that far -- to the virtual sex ONLY of Demolition Man. Americans will always have SOME "contact sex" for as long as it can be had, though a few will continue to be relegated to getting quasi-Demolition-Man phone sex from ugly women or to using blow-up dolls). It seems we'll also always have a very public sexual dilemma. There was the promiscuity of the Hippie movement. That was probably the best of our public sexual dilemmas, though I was only born in 1969 and don't remember it.
Public Sexual Dilemmas I've Seen or Heard About (From Those Who Were There):
-- A 76-year old Caucasian woman told me last year about a Black man who she saw walk into a house party in the 70"s. She said that he entered as an uninvited guest, went through the room asking around 10 strange women if they wanted to have sex and walked out with the 10th(?) one. (The elderly -- but youthfully vigorous -- storyteller (who's run for local political office recently) was speaking supportively of the stranger's actions.)
-- In 1968, an incident at a gay establishment in New York City's Greenwich Village caused the fight for gay rights to begin in earnest. I remember hearing and reading many stories about violence against gays in the 80's. Such stories were sometimes side-by-side with stories about abortion clinic bombings. I'm not running across much news like that these days.
-- On January 22nd, 1973 (during the "Me Decade") the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Roe v. Wade, thereby legalizing abortion, which created the moral dilemma around legal, medically induced birth control. It also punctuated changes in the dichotomy from "marital sex only vs. pre-marital sex" (1950's-60's) to one of "abstinence vs. abortion after the act". Living on the edge of Capitol Hill, I see the Catholic church's March for Life each January -- or at least its large crowds as they make their way past my residence on their way to the Supreme Court. (This year it got postponed by five days to January 27th so as not to have the right-wing pro-lifers clash with the left-wing Women's March attendees.)
-- In 1981 we learned about GRID (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency) which later became known as AIDS. From about that time until I graduated high school in 1987, I recall hearing about the debate over whether or not sex education should be taught in school. The adults in my life during my teens talked so much about whether or not school teachers should talk to my age group about sex; but, none of them actually had "the talk" with me. (No worries. I've gotten hands-on training at this point.) The AIDS epidemic brought with it talk about safe sex, and abstinence. Then there were the condom giveaways and needle exchanges, which still happen.
-- Also in the 1980's, we began to hear about sexual misconduct among Catholic clergy -- a continuing saga. It seems to be the most enduring sexual dilemma (if measured by the decades of media coverage anyway). Then again, Bill Cosby is being accused of sexual misconduct as far back as 1965 and Roy Moore's accuser claims that he molested her in 1979. If either is true, then that raises one very big question that supersedes all others that might be asked about these offenses that pre-date the first public allegations against the Catholic church: Why did the victims wait so long to talk???
-- Maybe it was because of what I personally think is the worst sexual dilemma of all: People haven't learned to talk openly about sex in a practical way. Americans see sex as being so sentimental, promiscuity notwithstanding, that those who are too young to have enjoyed the Hippie movement can't even talk about sex when it's absolutely necessary. (BTW, many women die from heart attacks; because, men are afraid to touch their breasts.) I'm guessing that the silence of the victims has more to do with them realizing that they weren't allowed to talk about sex as children than it has to do with feelings of shame, though I don't discount the latter as a contributing factor. Talking more about sex, the attitudes around it and practical levels of contact with the opposite sex can be a life saver -- literally.
Who made the rule that treating sex like a special and sentimental thing means that we DON'T talk about it???-- My French friends tell me that France had its Hippie movement after the U.S., learned from the mistakes of America (which means we DO have value around the world as something more than a war machine) and then France did it better. My European friends from multiple countries as well as Americans who've visited Italy tell me of how Italian men will often approach strange women on the sidewalk and ask them seconds after learning of their existence: "Do you want to have sex???".
-- I met a German woman named Sonja in 2015. She explained to me that she'd visited New York City and Philadelphia before coming to DC. With it having been a month or so since I'd read about the "No Cat-Calling" signs being placed around both cities, I asked her if she'd seen any of the signs. She asked me what "cat-calling" was. I explained that "It's when a man asks for sex from a woman he doesn't know". She said she'd seen one such sign on a subway train in Philly. Then, much to my surprise (and elation), she said, "What's wrong with that??? It's only a question". She, like my other European friends, seems to have accepted that men in Europe are just going to make public requests for sex -- and that, like the first nine(?) women who were approached by the aforementioned Afro-American man, other women (the world over???) just need to say "No" if they're not in the mood. After all, isn't that what Nancy Reagan advised people to do??? (An unrelated but similar point that I'll make here is that I'm peeved by how municipalities make laws against homeless panhandling; because, so many weak citizens don't know how to "just say 'No'".) Of course, saying "No" makes is hard (or just less pleasant, given sperm banks) to "be fruitful and multiply" as per Genesis 1:28.
-- Also in 2015, two French women and an Italian man were conversing with me when I showed them video of Pepe Le Pew and they agreed that he acts more like an Italian man than a French man. They said that French men will ask publicly; but, Italian men will put their hands on strange women. That said, the propensity of European men to make very public sexual propositions (as opposed to waiting for a house party to do so) might be one of the reasons that some Europeans believe that their Hippie movement is better than America's was. Maybe they should call it "sexual proposition without walls". (It's worth noting here that, while the U.S. is no. 14 on this list of countries with the most rapes per capita, only a couple of Western European countries -- which didn't include France, Germany or Italy -- made the top 25. Rape only became a crime in France in 1980.)
[End of list; but, read on.]
I should point out here that an aforementioned and very beautiful European lesbian told me in 2015 that she doesn't like to have men approach her continually for sex. (Maybe that's why she moved to DC with its soft misandry and hard feminism -- the latter of which, in 1986, earned DC's women the "barely-used" [sigh] right to go completely topless in public.) Her heterosexual best lady friend didn't seem so peeved by the propositions, though it may just be that her extreme sweetness made it seem that way. (I doubt that it was the "sweet deceit".) Even so, I'm not recommending that American men speak like Pepe Le Pew as they approach women or grab them in his infamous manner. However, I am suggesting that, as an extension of the equality that American women have sought for almost 100 years, that women be expected to be as mentally strong as men are expected to be. This includes, but is not limited to, knowing how to "just say 'No'" and to do it actively -- NOT passively. Teaching men that the lack of a spoken "Yes", even during foreplay, is akin to saying "No" actually empowers a woman's silence more than it empowers her to speak and to be heard -- the latter of which is what I've heard women say they want anyway. Do women want us men to know that "they mean what they SAY" or that "they mean what they DON'T SAY"??? Teaching women to interrupt the foreplay that they seem to be enjoying, so as to say "No" also works to exercise a rational ability within women to "see what's cumming"; and, that exercise of rationale would make women more manly and equal to men.
Equality isn't given. It's lived.That brings me to the gist of this post: "Hurricane Harvey", The Elimination of Sex in the U.S. and the 144,000 (Asexual???) Lesser Sovereigns (Under Jesus). Men, especially powerful men like the Nephilim, have "taken" women since the Genesis of the world (over 5,000 years ago). The longevity of the activity doesn't make it OK. I get that. However, it raises a lot of questions around how long women will have to deal with unwanted sexual propositions from men and to what degree all women should adopt the accepting attitudes of many European women -- who've done the Hippie movement better than US. Is the effort to curb men's public sexual advances a losing battle???
As a man, I'm equally (or more) concerned that women will follow the advice of Nancy Reagan and in the footsteps of European women -- even to a fault. I pity the women who've been victimized after SAYING "No" and taking logical steps to protect themselves (not that the attack was ever her fault). I see that the concepts that society adopts for one reason get transposed and used in other ways and for other reasons. These other reasons can be good or bad. Case in point: The phrase "victim blaming" made its American debut in 1971 as short-hand for how governments blame poor Blacks for being poor. The arguments against victim blaming these days are understood to be admonishments against blaming women for being raped. (Good application.) More recently (especially within the past five years), women have begun to tout the idea that they don't have to explain to any man why they said "No" to his sexual or dating advances -- the ones who still actually SAY "No", of course. Now it seems that many people are using the idea of "not having to explain themselves" as a way of avoiding rational conversation. I can remember when a person could have a reasonable expectation that asking someone why they made this or that choice or what they were thinking at the time would elicit a full and rational answer. It used to be OK to challenge someone's religious beliefs or other choices in a respectful conversation. Now, especially in DC, it is considered rude to challenge someone's choices. It comes of to me as soft misandry -- a shot against the masculine manner of challenging someone's logic. (Bad application.) If those who choose not to give to homeless panhandlers and women who choose not to date or have sex with men who request either were to "just say, 'No'" without there needing to be any special laws (beyond the age-old laws against violence), then they would have transposed Nancy Reagan's advice against drug use. (Good application.)
In short, I worry about how the idea of "just saying 'No'" will metamorphose. Will an idea that was meant to ensure that women don't become the victims of unwanted sexual advances or rapes spur the exponential increase in the American lesbian community and/or misandry, to the detriment of us heterosexual men??? Will the percentage of women who are lesbians begin to run neck-in-neck with the percentage of senators who are women (currently at 21)??? Will saying "No" to men become way too cool such that women are "harder to get"??? Will the movement to legalize sex workers grow and render enough success to "fill the gap" [sic] left by higher percentage of women who are lesbians??? Maybe it's high time that the sex worker movement got some fire put under their backsides, so as to prepare themselves to respond to the newly-developing sexual dilemma: the national movement against sexual harassment metamorphosing into women playing "too hard to get", with it having been spurred on by "Hurricane Harvey (Weinstein)" and a 75-year old heroine (not "shero", Washingtonians).
While a further catalyzing of the national feminist movement (which reasserted itself in response to Donald Trump's victory) might lead to a statistically insignificant decrease in the number of available heterosexual women nationally, I can see things getting way out of hand here in DC. When I came to DC in 2005, I thought that the majority of professional men were gay. They were all so soft-spoken and gentle. I eventually figured out that they weren't necessarily gay. They were just male-ish(?) DC professionals. Then, in 2015 I read an article about Dana Perino's struggle to find a husband in DC. (She is now happily married to a European she met on a flight.) In 2007 a woman told me that I was wrong for suggesting that a men who saw women carrying something heavy should've offered to help -- clearly a case of feminism gone awry. In another instance, I was speaking politely with other men about the differences between men and women, when a woman accused me of "stereotyping". If a man who's come to DC shows himself to have a commanding presence, he's likely to be frowned upon by women. If that man then gives women even the slightest legitimate reason to confront him, they're likely to make a mountain out of a mole hill and to use the opportunity to speak against the entirety of that man's commanding presence -- yea, even against masculinity as a whole (save the soft men that Dana Perino couldn't stand). If he's lucky, then they'll communicate much of that sentiment through dog whistles. If he's not so lucky, they'll confront him until he reacts in anger (and as a result of the "emotion" that women want men to show) and they'll proceed to meanly ostracize him for "being mean". Beware, men, lest you come to DC and prove me right.
I'll also posit here that women (like the ones whom I personally prefer) that choose to be in long-term relationships or marriages should forgo the notion of not having to explain themselves. While it's understandable that a woman might not want to explain to every man to whom she says "No" exactly why she said it, there is always the option of women collectively affording men collectively with rational and well-thought-out reasons for why they choose or reject us in different instances. Then, men will at least have more tools whereby to determine before the approach whether or not it's likely to end with a "Yes" and to avoid making approaches that are likely to end with a "No". The women won't get harassed or assaulted and the men won't get rejected. Then all parties should be happy. Maybe. Should this proposed solution prove to work, then we're left with one more major question:
Will we have sex in eternity???
I think that the answer is "Yes!!!!!" (Take a hint, women.) After all, if we won't, then that's all the more reason for more men to become like Harvey Weinstein. Here's the logic for my conclusion:
1 -- According to Jude verses 14-15, Enoch "saw the Lord coming with His ten thousands of servants" Enoch lived during the period covered by the book of Genesis and might have seen 144,000 Nephilim being dropped off on Earth.
2 -- Jude verse 6 mentions there being everlasting judgment for "the angels who kept not their first estate". Though it may not seem that Jude is referring to the same group (the Nephilim) in both passages, I am suggesting that they may very well be the self-same group -- brought first as judges and leaders, but then becoming like the natives whom they were supposed to lead into righteousness following the fall of man.
3 -- Genesis 6:1-7 tells us that Nephilim dwelt in the Earth and that the "sons of God" (Nephilim from Heaven???) saw the daughters of men (human women) that they were fair and took of them whomsoever they pleased (in marriage). The sons born from these marriages became giants, likely due to the mixing of Heavenly and Earthly genetics. Evil filled the Earth. The giants, of which Noah might have been one, were likely bullies. The Bible mentions giants having existed after the flood, which means that Noah either was or carried the genetics for a giant.
4 -- Revelation 14:4 refers to the 144,000 and says "These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins." I find it hard to believe that the God who created us as sexual beings sees all sex as defiling a man and all women as defiled. However, if God gave a group of men from Heaven the commandment "not to marry the natives" but to remain a separate and distinct people, then marrying the "daughters of men" would have defiled just this set group of men. Other men are still allowed by God to have sex. [Whew!!! Sigh. Forehead wipe.] What a relief!!!
5 -- If the Nephilim were men from Heaven and they impregnated Earthly women who, in turn, gave birth to giants, then these Heavenly Nephilim were anatomically correct. That gives us even more hope for having sex in eternity.
6 -- Isaiah 11:6 says "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them." This scripture is generally understood to be a prophecy about what life will be like on the New Earth. If correct, that means that either some people "never grow up" in eternity or.....women will give birth eternally from their eternal bodies after having had sex with men. (I believe and like the latter possibility.)
7 -- Jesus was a son of God who was learning. Jesus admitted that, unlike God, he didn't know everything. That, along with the several scriptures set forth in this post, casts doubt on what Jesus said about there being no marriage in Heaven -- yea, even to completely discredit it. Amen.
CONCLUSION: I believe that God had 144,000 Nephilim dropped off on the Earth during the Genesis millennium after ordering them to remain separate from Earthlings, by not marrying or having sex. It was an all-or-nothing deal insomuch as one failing meant that all would lose "their first estate". They were set to become the final rank of sovereigns on the New Earth under Jesus Christ (who'd already been determined to be the replacement for Adam as the Messiah). A second group of 144,000 were chosen by God during the period during which the Israelites were enslaved. Instead of experiencing Heaven first and then being transported to Earth, they lived as humans first and will be glorified thereafter. As a matter of fact, they had one of the worst types of human existences -- slavery. Adam failed an easy test. Jesus got a harder test and passed. The Nephilim failed a slightly difficult test. The second group of 144,000 passed a much harder test. Both ranks of sovereigns who will reign on the New Earth are filled out. All 144,000 lesser sovereigns are people who lived as men. Jehovah's Witnesses need not apply -- especially the women.
I love women.