Ruth Speaks Out

This blog is maintained by the Ruth Institute. It provides a place for our Circle of Experts to express themselves. This is where the scholars, experts, students and followers of the Ruth Institute engage in constructive dialogue about the issues surrounding the Sexual Revolution. We discuss public policy, social practices, legal doctrines and much more.


Study claims premarital virginity is now ‘antiquated’

by Fr. Mark Hodges

BLOOMINGTON, Indiana, July 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — A new study from the Alfred Kinsey Institute claims premarital sex is so universally accepted and practiced that virgins are considered social misfits stigmatized as undesirable relationship partners.

Published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Sex Research, the study, titled "Has Virginity Lost Its Virtue? Relationship Stigma Associated With Being a Sexually Inexperienced Adult," found that most participants would be less likely to consider entering into a marriage or committed relationship with a virgin.

"While virginity prior to marriage has been historically valued, changing sociosexual scripts in the United States have made premarital sexual activity the norm for young adults," the authors summarized.

Study co-author Amanda Gesselman says the social mores of abstinence vs. promiscuity have undergone a "generational shift," which she considers healthy. "People are becoming more sex-positive as a culture," she explained.


Because the authors assume "sexual debut" occurs "in late adolescence," they characterize those who remain chaste beyond late adolescence as "being developmentally off-time with first coitus (i.e., not yet engaging in coitus when most same-aged peers have done so)."

Kane Rice, the University of Sydney's Chair of Gender and Cultural Studies, praised the study. "Prior to this time, notions of virginity indicated a woman’s value and respectability and purity before marriage." However, "These seem like fairly antiquated notions in today’s more egalitarian climate."

"Sex is more likely to be understood in terms of … developing emotional maturity,” Rice explained, adding, "Sexual inexperience may indicate that a person is not ready to settle down or that they don’t have the life and relationship skills one might look for in a sexual or romantic partner."

Jennifer Roback Morse, who founded the Ruth Institute (RI) as an outreach of the National Organization for Marriage, told LifeSiteNews that immediately upon a cursory review, she saw through the authors' intentions.

"The first thing to notice is the study is from the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction, where the stated mission, 'to advance sexual health and knowledge worldwide,' served as a blueprint for the promotion of promiscuity and perversion, a precursor to the sexual revolution," she said. "This is where Alfred Kinsey masturbated, took photos of his and others' genitals, and basically firebombed his students' natural wall of modesty."

Morse then dissected the study's abstract in less than one minute. "Notice the goal is for individuals and society to become 'more sex positive.' What does that mean? It's a made-up word, meaning, 'Have no conscience about promiscuous sex.' That's your tip-off that this ‘study’ is really just propaganda for the sexual revolution.”

The pro-marriage champion explained, "You see, in order to promote and expand the sexual revolution — in order to make what is harmful and demeaning look normal and even good — proponents need to deliver a steady diet of propaganda to their victims."

Morse then took on the study's characterization of virgins as "developmentally off-time." "This basically tells the gullible that since everybody is having sex at the age of 10, if you wait until 12, there's something wrong with you. You're 'off.' You need to change your value system to conform to the norms of the sexual revolution.”

"While it is true that young people who are virgins often feel out of step with many of their classmates in terms of experience, the Kinsey Institute puts a spin on that, like being a virgin is a bad thing," the pro-family leader said.

"Rather than tell the truth that Kinsey et al. started an extremely harmful movement, which promises enlightenment yet delivers only lies and disillusion — much like a certain serpent in a certain garden — the message is that virgins should be ashamed of their honor, and hurry up to find someone — anyone — to have sex with."

"They are promoting the negative stigmatization of virtue," Morse summarized.

After debunking the study, Morse exposed the true idea behind its conclusions. "The abstract admits, 'Although abstaining from sexual activity may bestow some health advantages, our studies show that being a sexual “late bloomer” may result in negative interpersonal consequences such as limited opportunities for romantic relationships.' Yeah, health advantages like no STDs, no sterility … So, in short: 'Hey all you guys and gals dragging your feet, you need to get on with losing your virginity!'

"That message is ridiculous."


Young Women Are Gambling On a Losing Game

by Jennifer Roback Morse

This article was first posted at The Blaze on June 1, 2016.

 

The image from the Huffington Post staff meeting created an immediate backlash for editor Liz Heron’s rhetorical question: “Notice anything about this Huffington Post editors’ meeting?”

Unlike many of the internet commentators, I am not interested in the ethnic diversity or ideological hypocrisy of the Huffington Post. All these editors appear to be twenty-somethings, thirty-somethings at most, with the possible exception of Heron herself. To me, this photo illustrates the most poignant sociological fact of our time: Delayed child-bearing is the price of entry into the professional classes.

Look at these eager young faces. These young ladies have high hopes for their lives.

Inline image 1

An editors’ meeting at Huffington Post. Editor Liz Heron tweeted: “Notice anything about this Huffington Post editors’ meeting?” (Twitter)


They believe that by landing this great job, they are set. Once they are established in their careers, then and only then, can they think seriously about marriage and motherhood. They do not realize that they are giving themselves over to careers during their peak fertility years, with the expectation that somehow, someday, they can “have it all.”

They are being sold a cynical lie.

Here is the bargain we professional women have been making: “We want to participate in higher education and the professions. As the price of doing so, we agree to chemically neuter ourselves during our peak child-bearing years with various types of birth control. Then, when we are finally financially and socially ready for motherhood, we agree to subject ourselves to invasive, degrading and possibly dangerous fertility treatments.”

I am no longer willing to accept this bargain. These arrangements are not pro-woman. They are simply anti-fertility. Any woman who wants to be a mother, including giving birth to her own children, taking care of her own children, and loving their father, needs a better way. Until now, we have been adapting our bodies to the university and the market. I say, we should respect our bodies enough to demand that the university and the market adapt to us and our bodies.

 

We cannot expect much help from establishment publications like Huff Po, establishment institutions like the Ivy League and Seven Sisters schools, and certainly not from the government.

Huffington Post is a consistent cheerleader for the sexual revolution. They have a whole page devoted to divorce. They have a regular Friday feature called “Blended Family Friday,” in which “we spotlight a stepfamily to learn how they’ve worked to bring their two families together. Our hope is that by telling their stories, we’ll bring you closer to blended family bliss in your own life!” And they are enlisting twenty-somethings to sell their propaganda.

I wonder how many of the young ladies seated at that Huff Po editors meeting have ever heard of abortion regret or considered the topic worthy of their attention? I wonder how many of them believe that hooking up is harmless, as long as you use a condom. I wonder how many of them have ever heard that hormonal contraception – especially implants and vaginal rings – increase the risk of strokes and heart attacks.

I wonder if any of them wish for a guy who would dote on them, and act like he really truly cares. I wonder if they have ever chided themselves for being too clingy when a relationship ended, without realizing that bonding to your sex partner is perfectly normal.

I wonder how many of them realize how unlikely childbirth after 40 really is? A recent study of IVF in Australia looked at the chance of a live birth for initiated cycles. Don’t look at the bogus “pregnancy rate:” IVF pregnancies are 4-5 times more likely to end in stillbirth. And don’t be taken in by the “pregnancy per embryo transfer.” Plenty of women initiate cycles but do not successfully make it to the embryo transfer stage.

The average Australian woman aged 41-42 years old had a 5.8 percent chance of having a live birth per initiated cycle. And women over 45 have a 1.1 per cent chance of having a live birth per initiated cycle — which is almost a 99 percent chance of failure every time.

Yes, Huffington Post is an opinion-making and opinion-leading organization. And yes, it is not right for a bunch of white, privileged childless twenty-something women to be having such an outsized influence on public opinion. But for now, let’s give a thought to these young ladies themselves. They are being sold a bill of goods. It is up to us, as adults, to warn them.

 

 


Another non-surprise: giving kids condoms doesn't help.

Suuprize, Suuprize, Suuprize!

A recent study (behind a paywall) looked at schools that gave out condoms vs schools that did not. Lo and behold. Giving out condoms, without any counseling, was associated with an increase in teen pregnancy. Vox, that bastion of social conservatism reports. (And no, I don't think that is literally what kind of condoms they gave out. However, I do think that is what the kids see.)

 

 


 


Suuprize, Suuprize, Suuprize! Sex Ed doesn't help teens.

For those who may not remember, Gomer Pyle, USMC was a sitcom featuring Jim Nabors as a dumb but loveable Marine private. One of his most famous lines was "Suuprize, Suuprize, Suuprize."  He would utter these words when he was about to do something to irritate the Sargent or say something obvious. 


 

I've decided to use this phrase when I encounter a study that tells us something obvious that we should have known all along. 

Today's edition comes from my friend Valerie Huber of the Ascend organization, which among other things, "represents and equips the Sexual Risk Avoidance field." 

She put together a press release showing that the Obama Administration's favorite Sex Ed program is not working: 

  • Sexually active students in 2009 (at the conclusion of the Bush Administration) were more likely to use a condom than in 2015. 
  • The use of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), largely underwritten by the Affordable Care Act, is increasing. But LARC offers no help in reducing the acquisition of STDs. However, fewer teens use a condom when they use birth control pills, or LARCs.
  • Young adults (ages 15-24) only account for about 25% of the sexually active population, they account for nearly 2/3 of all reported cases of chlamydia and gonorrhea.
  • Fewer communities are comfortable with the brand of sex education funded through the Obama administration’s Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) program.

No Suuprizes here! 

Sex ed is government-funded propaganda for the Sexual Revolution. Get the kids hooked on sex before they are old enough to have mature judgment. Convince them that self-command is impossible, and possibly unhealthy. The kids become participants in and supporters of the Sexual Revolution.

Parents of school-aged kids: get them out of sex-ed programs. Grandparents, get yourselves organized to get these programs out of the schools in your community.


 

 

 


Turning back the tide of sexual promiscuity through religion

By Jenet Jacob Erickson, a Ruth Inst. Circle of Experts member

Published: May 1, 2016 at the Deseret News

Feminism swept into American culture during the 1960s in the name of women’s equality. While much has been said about feminist efforts to alter gender roles and workplace dynamics, scant attention has been paid to the dramatic changes wrought in response to inequalities in sexual relationships. Feminism sought an end to the double standard that winked at promiscuity in men while condemning it in women. But in response, society made a tragic misstep.

Rather than seek an equal standard by demanding sexual fidelity from men, the feminist movement encouraged women to “imitate the promiscuous tendencies of men.” Sexual relations outside of marriage became a mark of women’s independence. Natural feelings of commitment and relational interdependence, often associated with female sexuality, were condemned as outdated norms that subordinated women and made them dependent on men. No more. As Steven Rhoads aptly summarizes, women were told to negotiate sexual relations for personal desire and pleasure, rather than for love and familial bonding.

 


 

Their arguments worked. In Jean Elshtain’s pithy expression, “the new woman” became “the old man” Though premarital sexual relations began to be more common after World War II, it was still socially frowned upon. And sexual relations between people who did not plan to marry was unacceptable. But from 1943 to 1999, with widely available contraception and abortion, attitudes toward premarital relations changed dramatically, particularly among young women, whose approval increased from 12 percent to 73 percent (young men’s increased from 40 percent to 79 percent). This trend has continued, with millennials holding the most sexually permissive attitudes of any generation.

Such dramatic change has little to do with equality. Rather, it represents a fundamental shift in how our society sees sexuality itself. Human intimacy had long been respected as the power to bond men and women and create new human life. That power demanded boundaries to protect those who could be victimized by it and to channel it into the formation of families that are the building blocks of communities and nations. But in the wake of the 1960s, sexuality was socially transformed from a respected power that demanded boundaries and responsibility to a personal right that demanded free expression.

And there begins the irony of so called “sexual liberation.” Perhaps nothing has brought more devastation to modern family life than the dramatic changes in social norms around sexual behavior. In 1960, the out-of-wedlock childbearing rate was 5 percent — in 2014, it was 41 percent. In the same period, the rate of cohabitation increased more than 17 times, with 50 percent of women today between ages 25-39 currently cohabitating or having cohabitated sometime in the past. This has had significant implications for marriage. Premarital sexual relations with someone other than one’s spouse have consistently been linked to divorce.

And it is children and their mothers who have borne the brunt of the negative outcomes associated with these changes. Children of single mothers “have negative life outcomes at two to three times the rate of children in married, two-parent families.” Children whose parents divorce don’t fare much better, even when their parents remarry. Children living with cohabitating biological parents are at a similar risk for negative outcomes, in part because cohabitation is associated with high breakup rates (50 percent within five years), lower household incomes and higher levels of child abuse and domestic violence. Mothers in cohabitating, step- and never-married family structures are also at much greater risk for poverty and unhealthy and unsafe relationships. Among college women, one in four undergraduates last year reported being physically forced, or threatened with force, into unwanted sexual contact.

Feminist Sally Cline concludes that what the sexual revolution achieved was “not a great deal of liberation for women but a great deal of legitimacy for male promiscuity. …” That legitimizing of promiscuity has left many victims, including men.

Turning back such a tide might seem impossible. But there is one influence that consistently stands out as making a difference: religion. Weekly church-goers are much less likely to have premarital sexual relations and, for those who do, to restrict those relations to their future spouse. Adults who attended church weekly during adolescence, as well as those who consider religion to be “very important,” are eight times more likely to be abstinent compared to those who do not.

This influence should not be taken lightly. To a culture that says there is no way to proscribe sexual behaviors, religion provides an alternative, channeling the sacred power to procreate into the formation of families, and protecting those who would be victimized by its misuse.

Jenet Erickson is an affiliated scholar of the Wheatley Institution and a former assistant professor at Brigham Young University.

 


The Latest Pope Francis Controversy and Why Non-Catholics Should Care

by Jennifer Roback Morse

This article was first published at The Blaze on April 12, 2016.

Non-Catholics may be wondering why Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation, “Amoris Laetitia” or “The Joy of Love,” has Catholics in an uproar. Has the Pope changed Catholic doctrine? Has he left the doctrine officially intact, but changed pastoral practice so much that the doctrine is annulled? Now that I have taken the weekend to read it, I am convinced that Amoris Laetitia is a gift to the Church and the world.

What the Catholic Church does is important to everyone, no matter their faith. The Catholic Church is the largest institution still standing against the ideological fraud known as the sexual revolution. Everyone who is trying to deal with the fallout from this massive social upheaval has a stake in what the Catholic Church says and does. If Pope Francis were to change Catholic teaching, the purveyors of the revolution would be dancing in the streets.

And meaning no disrespect, but speaking bluntly: If the revolutionaries take down the Catholic Church, they will squash the rest of you like bugs.

So let me assure you: There is no change in official Catholic doctrine in Amoris Laetitia.

As for pastoral practice, Pope Francis is encouraging pastors to treat the lost, the wounded, the confused with as much sensitivity as possible. He intends it as an open invitation to the millions of souls who have been harmed by sexual sin, whether Catholic or not, to come home to the Catholic Church and draw closer to Jesus.


I can relate to the need for something like this document. Let me share a bit of Catholic “inside baseball.” I am what we call a “revert.” I was raised Catholic but left the Church for a period of time, and came back. So, I can’t be called either a “convert” or a “cradle Catholic.”

When I returned the Church after my prodigal period, my canonical situation was pretty simple. (By “canonical,” I mean what “canon law” or church law, would say about my situation. More inside baseball.) I was only on a second marriage.

But I had a whole pile of sexual sins. Like the Prodigal Son, by the time I finally came to my senses, I was desperate. I confessed having an abortion to Fr. Bob Cilinski, the chaplain of the campus ministry program at George Mason University at that time. (By the way, priests are not permitted to tell what we say to them in confession. But we can say anything we want! Let me say, how grateful I am to Fr. Bob and all the other confessors I’ve had.)

Fr. Bob was the first person who understood why I was upset about having an abortion. I had spoken to numerous therapists. Not one of them even considered the possibility that abortion was related to my emotional distress.

During that first confession in 12 years, Fr. Bob did not go down a checklist of possible sins. “Now, I cannot give you absolution unless you are sorry for all these sins.” I shudder to think what would have happened if he had. I would have freaked out and run out of there, more upset than before. And I certainly was in no position to have a theological discussion about each and every aspect of Church teaching.

I didn’t ask. He didn’t ask. He gave me absolution for the big sin I came in to confess.

He did tell me I should come to Mass, but not receive communion. He helped me seek an annulment. But I could not go to Communion, unless and until I received a declaration of nullity. (A declaration of nullity is an official finding by a church tribunal that my first attempted marriage had never been a valid marriage.)

In other words, he did not move the goalposts to make it easier and more “pastoral” for me. He stood by the Church’s teaching in every particular way and he set me on the path to a closer encounter with Jesus. Along that path, I eventually came to see that the Church was correct about premarital sex, cohabitation and contraception too. I confessed those sins too, in due course.

By the way, this confession took place in 1988, during the pontificate of Pope St. John Paul II. According to the sexual revolutionaries, those were the dark days of doctrinal rigidity and all-around Catholic meanness. The fact is, Catholic priests have been quietly accompanying people in a pastoral manner for quite some time. Priests know better than anyone the wreckage left in the wake of the sexual revolution. Even the ones who don’t preach about it as much as I would like are still guiding people toward Jesus.

While I do wish Pope Francis had been more clear on some points, I consider Amoris Laetitia a gift to the Church and the world. No matter your faith tradition, I urge you to read the document. Start with chapters 4 and 5.

You will find Pope Francis to be like a wise grandfather or great-uncle sitting across the kitchen table. You can imagine him sharing a cup of coffee or bouncing a baby on his knees. He invites all of us to love one another, and teaches us how. That is gift enough.

 


The Positive Virtue of Chastity

Chastity, not just a list of "don'ts" but a positive "to-do" list, with serious benefits. 

So says, Samantha Schroeder, a 2012 graduate of  ITAF= "It Takes a Family to Raise a Village," The Ruth Institute's national student leadership conference. I'm so proud of her!

In an age when morality is known more for its rules and regulations than for the beauty of a morally excellent life, our focus should be not on what chastity forbids but on the positive human values that a chaste life affirms: personal discipline, a confident sense of self-worth, psychological wholeness, freedom from disease and fear of pregnancy, and an increase in marital stability and satisfaction, to name only a few.

Read it all.


Uncovered — the dirty secrets behind the feminist movement

This article was published October 13, 2015, at ReligionNews.com.

Longtime Cosmo writer reveals how she hijacked the women’s rights crusade

SAN FRANCISCO – The 1960s women’s rights movement has had a profoundly adverse impact on women throughout the United States, including Sue Ellen Browder, a former ardent propagandist for sexual liberation who wrote stories meant to soft-sell unmarried sex, contraception and abortion as the single woman’s path to personal fulfillment as a longtime freelance writer for Cosmopolitan, one of the most highly regarded and influential women’s magazines.


Browder’s personal story of how she helped the sexual revolution hijack the women’s movement — and its effects on her life and the future of America — is chronicled in her enthralling new book, SUBVERTED.

She recounts why, as a Cosmopolitan journalist — her dream jobshe was a dedicated follower of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and fabricated numerous stories, with the approval of her editors, to sell the casual-sex lifestyle to millions of single, working women.

Browder admits she was guilty of promoting a distorted feminism, and exposes how women were turned into commodities during the profane alliance between the women’s movement and the sexual revolution through in-depth research, probing analysis and honest self-reflection. Browder’s determined search for truth, integrity and justice for women that led her into journalism in the first place eventually led her to find forgiveness and freedom in the place she least expected to find them, the Catholic Church.

SUBVERTED offers a window into our uniquely disturbed historical era,” says Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., founder and president of the Ruth Institute. “Generations of readers will turn to SUBVERTED when they want to know what turned the tide.”



Laity Should Act When Clergy Won’t

by Jennifer Roback Morse

This article was first posted October 22, 2015, at crisismagazine.com.

Sturt Krygsman divorce

Let’s face it: The 2015 Synod on the Family is a mess. I was one who gave Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt. I now have my doubts about him. And I have no doubt at all that some of the men surrounding him are either heretics or lunatics or both.

The real question for us as lay people is this: what exactly can we do about it? We do not have full information about what is going on over there. Giving advice to cardinals and bishops is not likely to work. Screaming at them even less so.


As faithful lay people, we believe all that the Church has taught about marriage, family, and human sexuality. We do not want to see the Church water down that teaching, or surrender to the Sexual Revolution. It would be tragic indeed, if she did so now, right at the moment when the wisdom and beauty of her ancient teaching is becoming daily more evident from experience.

So what are we, as faithful lay people, to do about this? What has the best chance of cutting through the noise and having an impact?

To answer this question, let’s back up a minute. The Sexual Revolution has harmed millions of people. Just to take one of the issues most immediately before the Synod: divorce and unmarried parenthood.

  • About 1 million children per year have experienced their parents’ divorce, every year since 1972.
  • Over a million children have been born to unmarried parents, every year since 1988. In 2008 alone, 1.7 million children were born to unmarried parents.
  • By 2010, about 20 million children were living in single-parent households.
  • These are just the children in the United States. Many other developed countries have similar rates of family brokenness.

We now know that kids are not “resilient.” They do not “get over it.” We know this from decades of careful research. We know if from experience. In fact, according to Judith Wallerstein, author of a 25-year study on the long-term legacy of divorce, the impact of divorce on children does not diminish with time. It “crescendos” in young adulthood, as they try to form relationships and marriages and families of their own.

Kids need their own parents. I learned from my experience as an adoptive mom, a foster mom, and a birth mom, all kids want the same thing. They want their parents to be there for them, and be appropriate parents. No matter how old the kids are, no matter what their parents have done, all kids of all ages, long for their parents to get it together and be good parents.

The Sexual Revolution has taught us that adults are entitled to have the sex lives they want, with a minimum of inconvenience. What we never hear anyone come out and say is: “And kids have to accept whatever the adults chose to give them.” You don’t usually hear people blurt out that last part, because we would be too ashamed of ourselves.

The Sexual Revolution promised fun and freedom. It delivered hurt and heartbreak. With the possible exception of a handful of predatory Alpha Males, everyone in society has been harmed: men, women and children, rich and poor alike.

I will let you in on a secret: the reason kids keep getting separated from their parents is because the victims, the kids, are not allowed to speak for themselves. As children, their parents expected them to accept whatever was going on around them, without complaining. And children, eager to please their parents, fearful of losing the parents’ love, kept quiet. Even as adults, the children of divorce and the children of unmarried parents, are expected to keep quiet, and go along with the program.

Silencing the victims has been crucial to the success of the Sexual Revolution. If you doubt me, consider these facts:

  • The state of California just passed legislation requiring pregnancy care centers to announce that they do not do abortions, and to post signs telling women where they can get abortions. Why? The Revolutionaries cannot stand the thought of women seeking alternatives to abortion, or regretting their abortions. Women who do not fit the “narrative” must be silenced.
  • The Huffington Post has a regular feature called “Blended Family Friday.” Their stated purpose is, I’m not making this up, “Our hope is that by telling their stories, we’ll bring you closer to blended family bliss in your own life!” Is there a comparable site for children of all ages who were miserable in stepfamilies? To the best of my knowledge, the Ruth Institute’s Kids Divorce Stories is the only thing remotely like it.
  • How about all the career women, who put off having children for too long? I estimate that there are over 500,000 women with Masters degrees or more education, who have impaired fertility. What does the Sexual Revolution have to offer them? Commercial third party reproduction, a complete separation of sex from love and reproduction, is supposed to make up for all the losses we experience.

The solution is for all the victims of the Sexual Revolution to speak up, and tell the truth about how they were harmed. Telling that truth is the first step away from being a victim, to becoming a survivor. Anyone of us can take that step.

What does this have to do with the chaos over at the Synod? Most of the bishops know perfectly well that the Church’s teachings are good and humane. But they too, have been reluctant to speak out, and to preach this good news. Why? Because they are afraid of us, the laity!

True enough, many faithful people have been trying to support them all along. But look at it this way: if the souls wounded by the Sexual Revolution were visible, we wouldn’t be having this fight at all. All decent people would abandon the Sexual Revolutionary ideology in a heartbeat.

While it is awful that so many people have been harmed by the Sexual Revolution, we are undaunted. We are turning that very horror into an advantage: millions of us can testify about the false promises of the Sexual Revolution.

The elites in media, academia, law, and government cannot silence all of us. If everyone who has been harmed by the Sexual Revolution spoke out about it, we would change the world.

And eventually, even the most reluctant of the Catholic bishops might get the hint that the Church has been right all along, and find the courage to say so.

(Illustration credit: Sturt Krygsman)



Bedding 12 Strangers in a Year, Not Surprisingly, Ends 18-Year Marriage

An interview of Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse by Austin Ruse

This article was first published at breitbart.com on March 23, 2015.

Sex in her 18-year marriage had gone routine and stale. What’s more, forty-something “Robin Rinaldi” wanted a baby, something her husband was adamantly against. So she proposed a limited open marriage, a 12-month sexathon with strangers, and she has written a book about it.

In The Wild Oats Project, Rinaldi writes, “Stuck in a rut — our once-a-week sex life was loving but lacked spontaneity and passion — I was craving seduction and sexual abandon.”

Since motherhood was closing for her, Rinaldi rushed toward what she calls, “this whole other outlet of heightened female experience — taking lovers.” She and her husband came to an arrangement. She took an apartment where she lived and cavorted during the week and on the weekend came home and lived as a wife.


She placed an ad on a hip sex site called nerve.com where she made it clear she was not interested in any kind of lasting relationship, only action and plenty of it. No more than three encounters per guy, and even a few gals. She got dozens of responses in the first few hours.

Rinaldi took workshops at something called OneTaste, a “sexual-education center” that she calls “a sex-friendly yoga retreat” where she learned “orgasmic meditation.” She says, “The lessons I learned weren’t purely physical. They were about growing up, making mistakes, learning to live without so much fear, owning up to my dark side and, eventually finding out the difference between being a ‘good girl’ and a good person.”

In a video, now blocked, attached to her column in the New York Post she insists the reader will be surprised at the ending to her 12 month sexual odyssey.

What she found was that coming back to her full-time marriage after a year “proved more difficult than I had thought.”

She found out her husband wasn’t playing the sexual field like he was supposed to; he had found one person to be with sexually for that year. And Rinaldi found herself drawn to one of the men she met through her original nerve.com ad, a writer with whom action “in the bedroom was mind-blowing.”

The big surprise — that she and her husband both found other lovers and divorced after 12 months of an open marriage — is likely not a surprise to anyone except Rinaldi.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, an economist who runs the Ruth Institute in California, writes frequently about what she refers to as the “victims of the sexual revolution” and she would include Rinaldi and her husband as among those “victims.”

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, Roback Morse, says: “I knew people back in the 70’s who experimented with open marriage. I know of no one for whom it actually worked. I know of an out-of-wedlock child that wasn’t supposed to happen. I know of a suicide. I know of several divorces. No surprise that the ‘Wild Oats Project’ ended in divorce.”

“I am appalled that the elites of this culture continue to encourage ‘experimentation,’ when the experiment has already been conducted and has failed,” she said.

Roback Morse points to the results of the sexual revolution, including an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases that come from unbridled sexual experimentation, the hook-up culture in colleges, the commonality of out-of-wedlock births and the poverty that come with it, and the general degeneration of family formation and divorce.

She dismisses Rinaldi’s Wild Oats Project as “so twentieth century.”

 


 


Support the Ruth Institute