(H/T to insanitybytes22. From Conspiring For Your Good! | See, there’s this thing called biology… (wordpress.com))
The word “kink” has been around since about the 1670s (kink | Origin and meaning of kink by Online Etymology Dictionary (etymonline.com)), and the picture above shows an example of how it has normally been used. Unfortunately, foolish and devious people are always looking for words they can use to justify themselves, words with innocent or even pleasant connotations they can borrow to suit their purposes. As the picture above suggests — don’t want to be on a train going down that track — “kink” was not a especially good choice for these foolish people.
What is the latest meaning the foolish and devious want to give the word “kink”?
Figurative sense of “odd notion, mental twist, whim” first recorded in American English, 1803, in writings of Thomas Jefferson; specifically “a sexual perversion, fetish, paraphilia” is by 1973 (by 1965 as “sexually abnormal person”).kink | Origin and meaning of kink by Online Etymology Dictionary (etymonline.com)
Does this evolution seem odd? Because so many of us are foolish and devious, it isn’t. We war with words by deceiving each other with our words. Consider that the meaning of word “gay” has changed similarly. When I was growing up, it was perfectly appropriate to call someone “gay” just because they were joyful to be around. Now? Nope. By the time I was grown the word “gay” had a new meaning popularized by our envelope pushing mass media.
“a (usually male) homosexual,” by 1971, from gay (adj.). In Middle English it meant “excellent person, noble lady, gallant knight,” also “something gay or bright; an ornament or badge” (c. 1400).gay | Origin and meaning of gay by Online Etymology Dictionary (etymonline.com)
With that in mind, check out Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. – The Washington Post, where the author of that article uses the word “kink” almost obsessively. What is the author’s main point? She wants to normalize sexually deviant behavior.
When our children grew tired of marching, we plopped onto a nearby curb. Just as we got settled, our elementary-schooler pointed in the direction of oncoming floats, raising an eyebrow at a bare-chested man in dark sunglasses whose black suspenders clipped into a leather thong. The man paused to be spanked playfully by a partner with a flog. “What are they doing?” my curious kid asked as our toddler cheered them on. The pair was the first of a few dozen kinksters who danced down the street, laughing together as they twirled their whips and batons, some leading companions by leashes. At the time, my children were too young to understand the nuance of the situation, but I told them the truth: That these folks were members of our community celebrating who they are and what they like to do.Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. – The Washington Post
So, what should we make of this article? Well, here are three points.
- Because it makes money off advertising, The Washington Post wants us to view the advertisements it carries. Therefore, “news” is whatever gets and holds our attention, That is why “news” (and advertisements) often looks like pornography.
- Because The Washington Post is owned by a big corporation, what The Washington Post calls news is often just propaganda that serves the interests of Amazon’s political allies. This is why we need to read the “news” with a skeptical eye.
- When we read The Washington Post, we must remember that we sometimes read the efforts of journalists to justify their own sins, the garbage they publish as news, entertainment, and advertising. None of us like to be told we are doing something wrong. In fact, until we reach the point we are willing to admit we are sinning and need to stop, being told we are sinning just makes us angry.
So, think again about that article, Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. – The Washington Post. Does it really make any sense to expose our children to “kink”? No. Sex is not love, and love is not sex. Sex exists to produce children. When we forget that, we inevitably devalue and harm our children.
When a man and a woman couple, is that pleasureable? Of course, it is. So, does recreational sex make sense then? No. Does glorifying sexual pleasure for its own sake, especially in front of children, make sense? No.
- Children need both a father and a mother. Hence, the sex act helps a man and a woman form a permanent bond. When sexual partners have sex just to entertain themselves, that undermines their ability to form a permanent bond with someone of the opposite sex. If we want our children to have stable families, it is foolish to teach them that sex is a recreational activity. For the sake of whatever children they may have, children need to learn that the sex act is part of marriage.
- Recreational sex leads to ill-considered relationships. As Genesis 2:24 NASB – For this reason a man shall leave his – Bible Gateway observe, when two people participate in sex, they become one flesh. When we have sex just to entertain ourselves, we entangle ourselves with people we may have no good reason to trust. We lust for them. That is why some intelligence operatives use sex to obtain information. When we have sex before marriage, we are inviting someone to use us.
- Fornication spreads disease. That is, when we engage in recreational sex, we spread disease. Think about why we were wearing masks and social distancing to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Then ask yourself a question. If we were willing to go to such lengths to prevent the spread of COVID-19, why are we teaching our children to spread STDs? STDs are not dangerous?
- The LGBTQ nonsense is not about love. It is about foolish pride. It is about fornication. It is about money. The mass media has promoted this foolishness just to justify using sexual perversion (soft porn) to obtain advertising dollars. Sex and violence sells. Focusing our minds on “entertainment” that is full of frivolous sex and violence also fills our minds with unhealthy lusts.
Consider the admonition.
Two people, a man and a woman in a committed, loving relationship is worthy of our contemplation. Two people using each other is not.
Reblogged this on boudica.us and commented:
H/T Citizen Tom