Not having sex -- for reasons of faith, health, marital status, or just plain self-control -- is something New York Times writers have never considered. Or, rather, they've considered it and decided it's a bit odd.
Recently, an article headlined, "In controversial ceremony, 3 women pledge lifelong virginity and become ‘brides of Christ’," the Gray Lady describes a Catholic ceremony that has been performed since the earliest days of the church:
On a Sunday in late June, standing before the altar in a Catholic church and cloaked in wedding finery, three Michigan women pledged — in the words of Catholic canon law — to be “mystically betrothed to Christ.” Unlike nuns who take a vow of virginity before joining religious orders and then eschew the routines of normal life, Laurie Malashanko, Theresa Jordan and Karen Ervin, will continue working independently but will be dedicated to serving the Catholic Church as “brides of Christ.”
The disdain for the women's decision seeps from every paragraph, but don't liberals believe that women should be able to decide what happens to and with their own bodies? Is there bafflement at the practice some sort of "saint shaming?"
Also, if the NYT is suddenly concerned about sexual satisfaction, why won't they speak out against "female genital mutilation" practiced by Islamic butchers in an effort to steal the pleasure of sex from women?
Recently, as Fox News reported, "a top NYT editor decided the paper shouldn’t use the term 'female genital mutilation' because the phrase is too 'culturally loaded' and widens a divide between the Western world and 'people who follow the rite.'" Of course, this just shows the hypocrisy of NYT, which has disdain for basic tenets of Catholicism and bends over backwards to accommodate the most barbaric aspects of Islam.
Image Credit: Scott Beale on Flickr