More thoughts on P**sygate and the "Women's Day" protests

Here are my thoughts on the whole election “p*ssygate” issue where feminist women have slammed Trump for advocating sexual assault. I wrote about in an earlier post that the feminists in the million woman march were actually angry that he stood in the way of Hillary being the first female president.
No one, not even Trump, advocated that it is ok to grab someone unwillingly by the genitals, which would unquestionably be assault. The politically incorrect thing at the heart of the issue is that power is an aphrodisiac, and there are women who are going to be sexually attracted enough to a powerful man to be willing to give their bodies for sexual encounters where they are not seriously expecting commitment in return. Trump’s comments were about taking advantage of being in that position. A powerful man who partook of women making themselves sexually available, would be guilty of womanizing, but not assault-- a moral wrong but not a crime.
It is uncomfortable for feminists to admit that that power is an aphrodisiac and that powerful men have a moral, but not a legal, obligation not to take advantage of women under the spell of their power. It is also uncomfortable that the type of power that makes men sexually attractive to women is not the same as what makes women attractive to men. It is even more uncomfortable to consider that a woman who is sexually attracted to powerful man has a responsibility not to act on her female sexual aggression, to “manize”, taking advantage of a man’s weakness for her body.
These are uncomfortable because they are based on the reality that men and women are wired differently and that women have responsibilities as much as men in regard to their sexual behavior. It is far more expedient for feminists, who believe that men and woman are not different except where women are better and more noble, to slander Trump for promoting assault.
Here is a column by Dennis Prager related to this issue:
Here is article by Katie Hopkins, a feminist who is embarrassed by the Women's Day Marchers version of feminism

Gender Holiness

Your sexuality encompasses both your sex and your gender. Your sex is your inward facing sexuality: your biology, your emotional wiring, your intimate self. Your gender is your outward facing sexuality, expressed as your male or female persona, in dominion, in culture, as the whole of your being operating in contact with others.
What the church understands as “sexual holiness”, not fornicating, not lusting, being internally pure, etc… is holiness in our inward facing sexuality. Scripture though, also has what can be defined as “gender holiness”, holiness in our outward facing sexuality. Gender holiness is reflected in both the Old and New Testament. Dueteronomy 22:5 condemns cross-dressing. 1 Corinthians 6:9 condemns the “effeminate”, men operating with all or some aspect of a woman’s persona.

Any Scripture that condemns the behavior of one gender also condemns the same and similar behavior in the other gender. When Jesus condemns looking at a woman lustfully in Matthew 5:28, the condemnation applies to anyone, male or female engaged in lust or the seduction of wanting to be lusted after. So the condemnation against the “effeminate” in 1 Cor 6:9 also condemns the “butch”, the women who operate with all or some aspect of a man’s persona.

Sex and Gender holiness is about respecting the spiritual purpose of our both our inward and our outward facing sexuality, and the separate but overlapping spheres of dominion that men and women where created to occupy so that sexuality properly reflects God's Image. Cross dressing and being effeminate or butch are two ways of disrespecting the spiritual purpose of gender.