The saddest thing about the whole sordid, societally humiliating Weiner affair, is that it highlights once again the morally-schizoid nature of the modern liberal woman.  I've known many of these women -- a great many -- and it never ceases to confound me how smart women can be such ridiculous fools when it comes to choosing men.

On the one hand, liberal women believe wholeheartedly in the idiotic social construct they call, "sexual liberation."  They pride themselves on losing their virginity, as though that "accomplishment" had ever been above the challenge-scale of an alley cat in heat. 

These liberal women I've known, having given away their female V-card over and over and over again, all the while scour their host of intimate "trial runs" searching for that mythical, Hollywood-construct, Mr. Right.  This Mr. Right guy, for whom they are searching, is known to them up front as even more sexually-liberated than they, but this little factoid seems not to register in their liberated little heads as they frantically search for the equally mythical family home with the white picket fence, which somehow never gets hit by any of life's roving tornadoes.  One can almost hear them say in unison, "And they all lived happily ever after." 

As their relentless biological clocks tick towards fertility's Armageddon, these sexually "liberated" women suddenly become obsessed with their medical checkups, running to the OBGYN with neurotic frequency, to make sure their alley-cat lifestyle has not resulted in any of the dreaded, fertility-destroying sexually transmitted diseases.  I've seen some of these women nearly go completely insane as they receive one of those now-common, "So sorry I may have infected you" love notes from a former "lover."  It's enough to make wise women cry for them.  Yes, we pity them and wonder over and over how our sisters, so smart in so many ways, could be so utterly middle-school-level stupid.

Evidently, the liberal woman is capable of the most severe form of psychological denial known to humankind.  Certain that one of the men with whom she has copulated without strings will suddenly morph into a faithfully monogamous creature the minute she can convince one of them to say "I do" in front of a few witnesses, the liberal woman marches blindly down the aisle towards near-certain, adulterous doom.  Yet, no amount of honest reason can dissuade liberal women from this self-destructive, moral myopia.  

What other term but "morally schizoid" could possibly describe this blatantly contradictory tendency among liberal women?

Having spent their youth casually throwing their own sexual morality to the winds of fairytale "liberation," these liberal women still steadfastly cling to the faithfully monogamous ideal for that sometime-later moment when they actually do desire all the traditional things -- the husband, the kids, the white picket fence -- those pesky female-nature embedded longings, which coincidentally ensure the continuation of the human race.

But these liberal women somehow -- in perfect schizoid manner -- convince themselves that once married, they will be the gratuitous beneficiaries of the monogamous respect they still desire, but have never once demanded or deserved.  Intuitively, women know that strict monogamy provides the only real security for themselves and their own offspring.  Yet, they continue themselves to spurn the demands of monogamy until the very last minute, believing that fidelity springs forth naturally in miraculous profusion among all "married" humans.  Such pure poppycock can only be explained as a mental disorder.

At some point, I expect liberal women to have suffered enough public degradation, enough personal heartache and enough wising up, to finally be willing to face reality.  The reality is that "sexual liberation" has always been a social construct without a shred of scientific or rational, much less moral, validity.  

Scientifically, it has been known for more than a full century that human beings, who intimately share infected bodily secretions, spread disease among themselves and all others with whom they later come into intimate contact, and even to their innocent offspring.  Lifelong disease is not something for which sane human beings strive.  Yet it is the absolutely predictable -- scientifically! -- result of this "sexual liberation" social construct.  "Sexual liberation" has produced whole generations of smart people, who wouldn't share a glass of water with a stranger for fear of contracting a communicable disease, but will willingly copulate with the same stranger in scientifically deluded fashion.

Rationally, sexual "liberation" works well in the lower animal kingdom precisely because those lower-ordered animals lack the capacity for reason, and hence, are also absent those pesky little human traits, such as jealousy, vanity, and the need for money.  Sex is a lot like fire.  Properly constrained, sex can light one hell of a fun path through the dark caverns of life on earth.  Playing with it, however, with lots and lots of non-legally-bound partners, can wreak more societal havoc, more quickly, than a California forest fire in the middle of a drought. 

Morally, it would take a complete idiot not to know by now that societally-imposed monogamy produces true liberation from humankind's constant quest for sexual satisfaction, thereby freeing men and women for building civilization -- those higher forms of achievement, such as architecture, art, philosophy, medicine, compiling knowledge, and so forth.  Those pesky morality rules actually do spring from reason, whether one had the advantage of getting that reason at an early age from the Bible, or from trial and error in the adult world.  Anyone past the age of 12 understands that civilizations don't just happen while all the humans are out chasing tail, but somehow, these elementary facts were lost on the oh-so-enlightened, oh-so-faux-liberated liberals.  Especially the women, sad to say.   

Men, not monogamous creatures by nature, could not possibly have designed a more misogynistic lure than "women's sexual liberation," if they had put their little heads (positively, no pun intended!) together for a thousand years to come up with it.  That women themselves pushed this idiocy onto other women is truly the bottom of the barrel for those falsely claiming the feminist mantle.

If these faux feminists are the modern rule, then I would be forced to admit that men who still contend women are stupid might actually be understating their case.  Fortunately, there are enough women -- alas, mostly the conservative variety ceaselessly scorned in the dominant culture -- but there are enough of us wise women left to give pause to those who consider our gender solely to blame for this modern liberal-woman's disease. 

I'm still quite certain that Eve was framed by a bunch of Weiners sitting around a fire in their birthday suits.  True, many of us women may be gullible in the extreme, but that is by no means an indicator that our gender is inferior, much less responsible for the entire fall of humankind.     

Which, sadly, brings us back to this humiliating Weiner affair.

Any woman, who still believes that males are naturally monogamous and that a wedding ring is anything more than a little band of gold, needs to take a long, hard look at the sham of a marriage on display between Congressman Weiner and his wife of less than one full year.  Afterwards, if said woman still does not see the lifelong value in chastity before marriage and a pair of shredder scissors in the kitchen drawer afterwards, she needs to take a very large bucket of ice cold water and dump it upon her own head. 

At the end of the day, this sordid tale does have a pretty valuable moral element. 

There is nothing more pitiable on the face of this earth than seeing a smart woman made such a fool at the feet of a hound-dog Weiner.

Kyle-Anne Shiver is an independent citizen journalist and a frequent contributor to American Thinker and Pajamas Media.  She welcomes your comments at www.commonsenseregained.com.