by John Ellis
Male rompers are ridiculous; let’s get that out of the way up front. However, ridiculous is not a synonym with offensive. If I find out that any of my guy friends sport a male romper, I will good-naturedly-ish mock them, but I will remain friends with them and acknowledge that wearing a male romper is not necessarily a sinful choice. A ridiculous choice, yes. Sinful choice, nope, depending on the reason, but that’s currently neither here nor there.
Apparently, I’m more “open-minded” (in whatever ways that nonsensical tag is defined in your mind) than are the evangelists for the sexual revolution. You see, according to the thought police identity-politics police who are popularly called social justice warriors, the male romper is offensive, demonstrates male fragility, and propagates an identity that needs to be erased from our culture. Unlike social justice warriors, and while admitting that I find the outfit dumb looking, I will defend the rights of my misguided and aesthetically-challenged friends who make the mistake of wearing a male romper.
In a much ballyhooed HuffPost article, Claire Fallon insists that the summer romper should be gender neutral; overlaying stereotypical and “artificial” masculine identity markers sets back the progress our brave new world society has made. Marketing masculinity to men is, well, shameful and bullying. According to Fallon, men who want masculine products are demonstrating their embarrassed shame because they’ve been bullied into masculinity by patriarchalism.
Um. Well. At first blush, to use a feminine word, it would appear that Claire Fallon is concerned about cisgender males. She wants to make sure that cisgender males have their safe space, too. Except, she isn’t and she doesn’t.
Adopting the language of identity politics for the sake of argument, if I “choose” to identity with the social construct of masculinity, why am I not allowed to express that through what I wear? If I “choose” masculinity as my identity, why is Claire Fallon trying to keep me from buying masculine things? Why does she want to prevent me from expressing my “chosen” identity? The words that she uses like “embarrassed” and the claim that I can only truly be free if I adhere to the identity tags that she decides for me is bullying and invades my masculine safe space.
Of course, that previous paragraph is intentionally absurd, but it is consistent with the current language of social justice warriors who are on the front lines in the sexual revolution. On the flip-side, they will adamantly defend Bruce Jenner’s right to express himself through stereotypical femininity. But, and here’s the scary rub, the agenda of the sexual revolution is far more nefarious than wanting to make sure that everyone is free to express themselves in whatever sexual and/or identity ways we “choose.” The sexual revolution is not about protecting our right to determine our identity. What the sexual revolution is about is the complete and utter destruction of the creative norms established by the Sovereign Creator of the Universe. Clair Fallon and her fellow social justice warriors are intent on dethroning God.
As way of further evidence in support of what I’m claiming, I present a recent video produced by Bill Nye. No doubt, many have already seen or, at the least, are aware of the video. For those who are unfamiliar and as way of a refresher for everyone else, the video opens with Bill Nye claiming enlightenment and then saying, “there are lots of flavors to sexuality.” The video then transitions to an animated short featuring ice-cream cones. There are several flavors, illustrating Nye’s opening statement. The cisgender, heterosexual ice-cream flavor is vanilla, of course. After some straw man bantering and flogging, the non-vanilla flavored ice-cream cones force themselves on vanilla, and the end result of the video is that vanilla chooses to no longer be just vanilla.
A couple of quick thoughts that, for the record, have also been pointed out by others.
Even after vanilla plainly says “no” to the sexual advances of the other ice-cream cones, the others continue to bully and force vanilla to engage in sexual activities with them. Last I checked, that’s called “rape.” Bookmark that.
Throughout the beginning of the video, the other ice-cream cones insist that they did not choose their flavor and cannot change their flavor. Up to this point, the video is crudely expressing normal sexual revolution/social justice talking points. However, as I’ve already mentioned, the video ends with vanilla no longer being just vanilla; he changed. The obvious conclusion is that cisgender heterosexuals not only can change, but should change. And, worse, since cisgender heterosexuality is so undesirable an identity within the sexual revolution, it’s ok to force (rape) cisgender heterosexuals until they see the error of their “chosen” identity and change.
The video is appalling. I would include the adjective “jaw dropping,” but it’s not; it’s exactly what I expect from those who push the agenda of the sexual revolution. I’ve included the video below, but I want to add a slight word of caution – it is offensive, in language and thematic content. It will offend some, and it should offend all. As offensive as it is, I include it because I believe that some Christians need to take their head out of the sand and wake-up to the reality that they are cozying up to and seeking to placate people who feel nothing but contempt for God and His created order. If you are willing to partner on any level with social justice warriors, Bill Nye, his video, and those who want to obliterate all meaningful forms of masculinity are included in your partnership. You have aligned yourself with the enemies of God.
Romans chapter one tells us that because humans reject God and pursue a course of rebellion and sin, He will “[give] them up to dishonorable passions (Romans 1:26).” Our society is seeing the removal of God’s common grace; that removal is being manifest in the full-tilt embrace of aberrant sexualities and the increasing demand that any and all sexual expressions that conform to the creative norms established by God be stopped and eradicated. Please come quickly, King Jesus!
Soli Deo Gloria
 While we’re on the topic, tolerance requires disagreement. I can’t tolerate something I agree with. I simply agree at that point. For example, I believe that those who live their life as a homosexual are wrong; I disagree with them. But, I do not want them imprisoned, barred from employment, or even run out of my neighborhood. I will joyfully dine with them, work with them, and laugh with them. I believe that they answer to God, not to me. In a word, I tolerate homosexuals. However, according to the down-the-rabbit-hole absurd world we live in where words don’t mean what they mean, I am intolerant. To be counted as tolerant in today’s nonsensical world, I must affirm (agree with) homosexuality. Circling back, that’s not tolerance; that’s agreement.
 For those who claim that I’m overstating this point; I’m not. At 1:46 of the video, vanilla attempting to stop the sexual advances of mint-chocolate chip, says, “I can’t. I can’t.” As in, can NOT. As the other flavors join in on the peer-pressuring and attempts to coerce vanilla into engaging in sexual activity, it’s made crystal clear that vanilla is highly uncomfortable, doesn’t want to, and wants them to leave him alone and stop pressuring him. Of course, he eventually gives in. So, for those who claim that my claim of “rape” is an overstatement, I have a question for you. If I were to approach a woman and make very overt sexual advances, the woman says “no” and makes it very clear that she’s uncomfortable and wants me to leave her alone, yet I persist and even enlist the help of friends to pressure her into sexual activity that she clearly doesn’t want to do, what would you call that? That’s what I thought.