Tag: sex


European people mock and despise Donald Trump, and then wonder why their own leaders are so spineless. I’m speaking as a Brit., and from what I observe I’m presuming to speak of the people of other European countries as well…


Here in the US, a large section of one political party-the Republican- is in large part weak and bending with what they perceive to be the winds of public opinion, while the other party now has an insatiable lust for total power at any cost and by almost any method possible.

In what should be the middle is the media, which has a very clear agenda and stands firmly behind the Democratic party and their now extremist policies, also at any cost and by any method possible.

Having spent half of my life in the UK and the other half in the US, I’ve been aligned with both sides of the political divide. I believed the lies about Reagan when he was president, partly because lies were the only “news” we received in the UK. He was “going to start a nuclear war” by standing up to the Soviet Union, they said: the very same charge made against Donald Trump even before he was elected.


It was also because his conservative counterpart in Britain-Margaret Thatcher-was making conservatism look like the worst thing since dysentery, while Americans thought she was the best thing since roast beef. Those in Britain who were not well off financially saw her as an uncaring tyrant, particularly when she instituted the “poll tax”, greatly raising taxes for those in lower income brackets. She and her ministers were arrogant and aloof, telling those who were unemployed by Thatcher’s policies to “get on their bikes” and find a job. Leftists portrayed the Conservative party as the Nazi party, just as Trump has been labelled in the US, when the truth is that Hitler and his boys made up the German Socialist Workers’ Party. They weren’t conservatives at all, in name or in policy.

So Reagan was hated in Britain, as were the Bushes, even before the war with Iraq. Incidentally, liberals here in the US seem to be willingly ignorant of the fact that Brits and so probably other Europeans don’t have a much better opinion of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. Only if Americans gave all their money away, became emaciated,  and the nation shrunk to the size of New Jersey by a devastating war would the majority of Brits have regard for Americans. Sorry to break that to you, my fellow Americans, but I’m in the same camp as you, being a naturalized citizen, and proud of it.

Why the hatred? Why was Reagan hated for being strong when weak leaders are similarly despised anyway? Why has Donald Trump been accused of everything his enemies could think up? The result of this perpetual attack on our own democracy and on leaders who actually want to lead and do what’s best for the West must have some sort of origin and reason behind it. The answer is so varied that speculation is inevitable. But a few things are for sure in my view.

One, the worldwide socialist movement has been true to Marx, who wanted to bring Christianity down, bring the traditional family down, and make the state God and the ultimate, all-pervasive power, not only in one country but all over the world. Socialist leaders want everyone to be equal, but with the government and the ruling elite distant and far more “equal” then everyone else. The weakening of the church is partially achieved by the promotion of other religions such as Islam, because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

Two, within that socialist framework is the move to global governance. Trump is, as was Reagan, the last thing globalists want. President Kennedy made clear that he didn’t want to go the way of world government, and look what happened to him.

Three, most of our news media is not “news” media at all: it’s opinion media. And it’s largely owned and governed by those on the Left of politics.

Four, there is in the heart of man the desire to rebel against God and godly government, particularly when it comes to sex. The Left is associated more with sexual “freedom”, and the Right is seen to be against it, particularly the “Christian Right”. This really doesn’t make sense since the God of the Bible made humans male and female, made them naked, and told them to be fruitful and multiply. So then it’s illicit sex which people want “freedom” in, and the pushers of illicit sex and abortion have succeeded in convincing a large number of people that conservatives think that all sex is wrong. Hogwash!


Those wanting sex to be “free” and unhindered think they need to vote on the Left in order to be assured that the local church minister will not be peeping in their bedroom window to ensure that all is above board.

Five, many on both sides of the political spectrum-including conservatives and professing Christians, have let us down. But then, aren’t we all human? How are we going to find the perfect human leader? We aren’t.

And finally, being a Bible-believing Christian, I recognize that the hatred, the division, the lies, the deceit, the falsehoods, the lust for power over other people, while coming from the heart of man, all have one ultimate source: the enemy of our souls-Satan.


Whatever happened to feminine women? I know this is an extremely incorrect thing to ask, but some of us need to start asking before those pushing “fundamental change” on the rest of us succeed completely.


A recent study published in the journal Human Reproduction Update states that within the past 40 years collective sperm count among men in Western nations has declined more than 50%, and continues to drop (note 1). This matches the decline in family size in recent decades. Researchers seem to be unable to give a reason why this would happen, but a certain celebrity recently stated his view that the guilty party is radical feminism. While there may also be something in the water, in our food, and in our stress levels, I think he’s onto something. Throw into the mix the current drive to feminize men and to deconstruct the traditional family…

Okay, so I shouldn’t be putting the blame onto women for male shortfall-or should I? Why shouldn’t us guys fight back once in a while? I for one find myself totally un-attracted to an aggressive woman wearing men’s clothes. I’m not saying women should be silent, submissive, weak, subservient, spineless, abused, left out, ignored, “chained to the kitchen”, or anything of the kind. I’m saying that females who act, talk and dress more like men, and who treat men with contempt are not in the least bit of a turn on to me, and never were even before I was married. They don’t get my imagination racing; they don’t make me have hot dreams; they don’t make me feel like a man, and they don’t make me want to get my wallet out.

Add to the problem of macho women the blight of abortion and the values of Hollywood and you have the perfect recipe for reproductive collapse-not to mention, of course, the collapse of the family as it’s been known for millennia. Our entertainment and advertising industries have almost succeeded in convincing us all that only the most beautiful people and/or wealthy and successful people are worth being treated with respect. It’s that lack of respect-mutual respect-which has degraded male-female relationships, and which is consequently promoting same-sex relationships.

Biblical guidelines for femininity are, of course, the last things radical feminists want anyone to consider, in fact that’s exactly the central target of their hatred. This is, to say the least, unfortunate, because only God, being the master designer of human nature and the human body, can show us the way in our relationships. Also note that it was God who invented sex-not the devil, not the feminists, and not Hollywood (read my post on the subject-note 2).

Isn’t it just a little bit of a coincidence that the time period of the reported decline in sperm count coincides with the immoral spirit of our age, an age in which people have rejected God’s guidelines for relationships?


1:  http://time.com/4871540/infertility-men-sperm-count/


2: nickyfisher.com/2012/02/08/sex-marriage-divorce-remarriage-and-polygamy/



As a society turns its back on God, it inevitably becomes obsessed instead with what God has made, without acknowledging that He made it, and without giving Him the glory he deserves.

We look at an amazing piece of scenery or an animal, or space, and we say, “Oh look-isn’t it amazing”, as though “it” created itself. Of course, in the minds of believers in evolution, it did. Now that’s amazing!

MAY 2012 to JULY 2013 049

(Fleck ESC: “A Simple Plan”)

We in the West are becoming ruled by the physical and the sensual only so that we can’t see who made it all anymore, rather like not being able to see the wood for the trees.

Men (and I confess to being one), rather than admiring and respecting a woman as a fellow creation of the Almighty God; a living and eternal soul; an astoundingly complex machine consisting of trillions of tiny machines and self-preserving systems working in harmony; capable of endless forms of creativity, communication, service, love and godly worship, fill our heads only with her temporal shell-what she looks like, what shape she is, and what she would be like to encounter in a sexual union.

And women, in this age of hedonism, are also being encouraged, bribed, persuaded and brainwashed into seeing the world in a material, two-dimensional way only.


Yes, God created men and women to be attracted to each other, otherwise we wouldn’t be here, and I say thank the Lord for that. It’s obsession without seeking or acknowledging the Maker that’s wrong. Are we not supposed to “love God” as our ultimate and top priority?

Once again, the lowest common denominator is the goal. So how low can you get?

This is a form of worship. This is selfishness. This is narcissism.

Without the logic and wisdom that comes from our maker, we become fooled by what we see far too easily, so that when a man looks at a woman and finds her attractive, what he doesn’t know is that he’s really looking at God’s handiwork: God’s creative genius. Her character underneath that shell, ruled as it is by her unchecked and uninformed free will which refuses to seek God, may be the ugliest thing on earth. It’s reminiscent of the old sci-fi shows in which the protagonist falls for a stunner who’s really a hideous murdering alien beast in disguise. But no matter, because if we can use “it” for a little while (her body and her presence, as long as it’s compliant), we can just get a different one when the going gets rough, right?

And how many women fall for a man they find attractive (while he artfully convinces her that he’s mister wonderful), believing that she will tame him and remove his rough edges? Very often she finds out later that she was wrong, and that he’s wrecked her life.

What God has made does indeed contain great potential, and God created the act of physical union. But in a world where we work for the lowest common denominator and ignore the spiritual and ethical dimensions-the guidance given by the One who designed us-that potential is never going to be realized. Physical union without love and commitment can only destroy the glue that holds us all together.

The apostle Paul explained that the last step in a society’s process of self-destruction is when God steps back and hands people over to that self-destruction and to their perversions (see Romans chapter 1). It’s a huge mistake to think that all will be well: history is littered with evidence to the contrary, and the most powerful empires have not survived for long. What makes us think ours will be any different?


The age of free love has actually freed men to be exactly what women despised them for, no more than just a few decades ago. Men now don’t have to be committed, and they don’t have to be faithful, and they don’t have to be gentlemen, because after, they “can’t help it”: it’s the “natural” physical urge which drives them. And who’s to say it’s wrong, if there is no Creator and no Judge, and if we all come from a puddle? “My truth may not be your truth”, so if I decide to use women and move on to someone else, how dare you “judge” me by saying that’s wrong?

For best results follow the maker’s instructions. By ignoring and trashing the Creator, we are setting ourselves and successive generations up for disaster, individually and collectively.



Here’s a subject guaranteed to get everyone angry or excited-sexual abstinence. It’s a little “raunchy” perhaps for some people, so be warned. Having had personal experience of both sides of the debate I think I can offer a few thoughts, and as it’s my blog site, I guess it’s just too bad if you’re unhappy that I’m “un-qualified” to write on the subject. I do have some strong views on both sides, so if you don’t like the first part-hang on- you might agree with the rest.


I was sexually active in my teens, at a time when I had no interest in being a Christian. Even if I had some interest in being a Christian, it may not have made any difference to what happened to me, because my hormones were running at warp speed, and very little would have held them back. But that was a large part of my downfall in life. By getting sexually active, I became very emotionally entwined with a girl, and then another, who had no intention of being committed to anyone for long, and no idea what commitment meant anyway. By the time I was nineteen, when I should have been full of life and joy, my heart was broken, and I was binge drinking and getting as high as I could to forget how lonely and rejected I was.

So there’s point one: all this talk of not marrying because we don’t want to be committed until we’re sure it’s going to work is just empty deception and self-deception for many of us. Once you get physical, and particularly when you move in together, you may as well be married anyway-emotionally and physically speaking. We are designed and made for commitment and love, and once we get physically involved with someone, and see them every day and every night, sharing every possible intimacy, they become a part of us. Once in that predicament, such a relationship cannot be shaken off easily-or perhaps never in some cases. Why is it that more second marriages (and casual relationships) fail than first marriages? Isn’t this evidence that the grass is not really greener on the other side of the fence? Alright, that man turned out to be a bum: why didn’t you get to know him well before you gave yourself to him? Alright-that woman turned out to be a domineering dragon: why didn’t you get to know her well before you got her into bed?

I see so many very young people, particularly girls, who are already jaded, hardened, miserable, soiled and cynical by the time they are twenty or so, because they fell for that lie that if they just fall in love with a boy and give him everything he wants, life will be wonderful and he’ll love her forever. It doesn’t (or rarely) happen that way. If boys don’t have to be committed, many of them won’t be. They’ll hang around while the going is good, and then they’ll walk off and find another girl to get their no-strings-attached thrills from, fooling her (and perhaps himself) into thinking that he “loves” her.  Physical attraction is only one aspect of love, so if the relationship is all about that, it’s not long before the initial thrill diminishes, and there’s nothing left to keep the relationship going.

Imagine taking a brand new car out for a test drive, then spilling chocolate milk-shake all over the seat and the carpet, putting a dent in the hood, and burning up the tires before you take it back to the dealer.  It’s spoiled-it’s already lost a lot of value. Well, people are taking each other out for a test-drive physically and emotionally, and by the time you get involved with someone, they’re already used, damaged and messed up –they’re nothing like they were designed to be for you.


Once used and dumped, the girl is often now a mother, (I won’t even mention the horrors of abortion), and she has to take care of the child-or sometimes two or three children,-alone, because there was no true commitment in the relationship, and no pressure from society to encourage that commitment. And what about the children? They don’t want their dads to live somewhere else or to suffer the feeling of rejection that causes.  They don’t want some strange man coming to live with them to tell them what to do, and they don’t want a new Mom- they want and need a stable, loving, committed home.

In the past men were berated for being unloving and insensitive towards their wives.  Nobody thought of trying to teach them how to be sensitive in order to promote a loving, successful marriage. Now we have a world where men do not have to be loving-they can play the field and trample on feelings and lives without fear of criticism. Of course many females have the same attitude. Now we don’t have to treat the opposite sex with respect or honor: the gloves are off and it’s every man for himself.

This has a consequence not only for individuals but for all of society. Family is the glue that holds us all together and which teaches such traits as accountability, patience and self-sacrificing. Marx’s socialism/communism sought to destroy family ties as a hated bastion of Christian tradition, and the Bolsheviks literally battered the family by physical force and every means necessary. Now, in our “civilized” age, the same mentality is battering family in more subtle but equally destructive ways- using different labels and terms- but the end result is the same: misery, rejection, cynicism, loneliness, fatherless and motherless children, a financial drain on the nation, and a godless, unaccountable population which has forgotten what real love and commitment is.

In our day, there’s an added consequence: gay life is gaining popularity, partly, I believe, because women understand what women want, and men understand what men want, and the societal barriers to their self-seeking abandonment of any kind of moral standards are being dismantled to give them free reign. They’re disillusioned with traditional married life, and don’t see any need or point in attempting to build a home to be a haven and a model for human offspring. In this can be seen Paul’s warning that people in the “last days” would be:

“Without natural affection” (2 Timothy 3:3 KJV).

We’re being driven by a philosophy-a lie- which says that we are “just animals” which do not need to mate for life but just for as long as it feels good, and that there are no absolute standards to live by anyway. The consequence (or one of the many consequences) of abandoning commitment, duty and self-sacrificing love is that many people become hard, cynical, detached, selfish and angry, even at a young age.


In my sub-heading assertion I’m not criticizing true Christianity, because true Christianity (besides being about Jesus Christ) is all about love and commitment and self-sacrificing. I’m talking about the materialistic, worldly way of thinking which most Christians have bought into.  Professing Christians either see no value in Biblical morality and no need for any attempt to live by it, or alternatively they put an almost impossibly idealistic burden onto the backs of young people. This philosophy says that before ever getting sexually involved with anyone, kids should go through school, then college, then get a good job, then find a nice guy or girl, then get to know them for a few years before finally getting married and settling down.  This is almost as unrealistic as waiting for a fairy godmother to appear so she can wave her magic wand and make us wealthy, beautiful and happy.

There are some young people who have no or little interest in sex or relationships, and that’s fine. But there are many who are very interested, and it’s not sinful to have that urge-it’s a natural, God-given desire to want love and intimacy with someone of the opposite sex. God made Eve for Adam very quickly after making him, and blessed their intimacy, even before they sinned by eating the fruit against His commandment: the intimacy and the sex was not sin. Neither did they have a stressful and expensive wedding ceremony to endure before they could get together.


More than that, hormones in young people-sometimes as young as thirteen or fourteen-are going berserk, having been designed and fuelled by God to propagate the human race and to build new family units to populate and manage God’s world. Youth is beautiful, and most of us are more attractive when we are young than when we are older. How can we expect young people to not notice that beauty they see in each other? That’s ridiculous! I’m not saying that we should just let young people have their way as soon as they want to, but I am saying that expecting them to go without love and intimacy and sex until they’re twenty, twenty-five or thirty years old is unfair, unreal, ungodly and unnecessary. Can we not find a way of helping them get together (in marriage) before they are already losing their youth?

“Life is short”, people say when they get older, and it is. Our desire to hold back natural youthful urges is expecting young people to wait perhaps, in some cases, much longer than we should expect them to. Sex, romance and intimacy are, for the majority of us, most thrilling and exciting when we are young. Is it really right to deny that kind of excitement, just because we want to impose upon the young our own materialistic notion of life, insisting that they first and most importantly “do well” financially and vocationally?



Passion is a powerful enthusiasm. If you do or feel something with excitement and energy, you are being passionate. You can be passionate about sports, slugs, singing, stamp collecting, or anything that “turns you on”. Thanks to stuffy Christians, and those just professing to be Christians, and also thanks to militant atheists and mistaken skeptics, the world has been led to believe that passion is condemned as being sinful by the Bible and by the Church. The truth is very different.

The word “passion” is often applied to the act of sexual lovemaking, and that’s the focus of my defense of Biblical passion.

In the very first book of the Bible, and in the first two chapters, we find an account of the creation of all things, including mankind. God made man male and female, and He made them for each other. He created them both “naked and unashamed”. He made them to be “one flesh”, or in other words, he made them to enjoy physical love-making as an outward expression of their union (Genesis 2: 20-25).

Please note that this is all before the Fall, which follows in chapter three, and it is before the two made coverings for themselves. Sexual expression, in its proper context, is not a sin. It did not come about after Adam and Eve took a bite out of an apple, or whatever it was. Sex is a creation of a loving God who made the two (not four) different genders to perfectly complement and fulfill each other.

God wanted mankind to, “…be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it” (Genesis 9:7). This can’t be done (well, it couldn’t then) apart from physical union!

Jesus affirmed this union, excluding the possibility of anyone accusing Christianity of being anti-sex. By the way, he also demonstrated his full belief in what we call the Old Testament:

“Haven’t you read …that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?’” (Matthew 19:5).

My English tutor at college wasted half of his teaching time and my learning time, and plenty of tax-payers money, attacking the Church and Christianity in general. You may well have had the same experience at college, since many teachers now see it as their duty to poison their students’ minds against the gospel of Christ. Of course, Christianity is the only “religion” that gets attacked.

One day, while we were supposed to be studying an English classic, my tutor told the whole class that the apostle Paul was opposed to sex. Of course, the designed effect on a class of late teens and early twenties was to turn us away from the Bible and make us think that God is just a killjoy. When I disagreed openly, the Tutor offered as his supposed evidence a chapter in 1 Corinthians, although he was not willing to read it to us. If he had, we could all have had a lesson in comprehension, including the tutor, because Paul’s  intention was clearly not to stop people having sex, but instead he wanted the Corinthians, who lived in a time and place of corruption and disruption, to concentrate on Christian life. He wished that those who were able to resist would avoid marriage, but he also said:

“To avoid immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband….The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time…so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again…” (1 Corinthians 7:2-5).

Do these words sound like the words of a man who is opposed to sex?


What the Bible does condemn is sex without total commitment. Sex was created to be the outward expression and fulfillment of a permanent relationship – what we call marriage. This is what we should expect from a God who is love and who does not want us using and rejecting each other. Marriage is, or should be, a reflection of God’s love and commitment to us.  Not wishing to go into details here, I will just say that it is the human condition of sin and selfishness which has made total commitment such a difficult task. Commitment has been pried away from passion, and the debris is scattered all around us. Passion has been hijacked by those who want no commitment and who wish to see the destruction of the traditional family – Marx and Lenin would be proud of them. The only “winners” in our age of casual relationships are those who are still young and beautiful. They won’t remain winners for long.