This story shocked me. Sure, I understood how Lesbian Chic propaganda conceals the heartache, exploitation, abuse and violence that occurs between women. Yes, I realized that the “rape culture” rhetoric and angry lectures about “consent” were cynical political posturing intended to leverage the militant anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology of radical feminism being promulgated by Women’s Studies programs on America’s college and university campuses.
Still, even knowing all that, I was shocked by Wesleyan University student Caroline Catlin’s account at Huffington Post:
At first, we laughed about it. My friend and I sat at a small table in a crowded coffee shop on campus laughing about my unfortunate night. Another bad hook up. Another awkward college story. We laughed and I shifted my shirt to showcase the bruises across my shoulder. We shook our heads, wide eyed, and my friend said she knew the well-liked senior girl I had hooked up with the night before with was a little wild — but she didn’t know she was that wild.
After, past the point when a different friend came in and heard my story, past the point where her gentle concern made the hot shame in my stomach rise to my throat, past the point where I lay in another friend’s bed with my shoulders curled around my knees and decided whether or not I wanted to go to the health center and report it, after I first used the words “sexual assault” and realized the extent to which I had been violated, after all of that, I wondered secretly what would have happened if my story had held different pronouns.
I wondered if we would have laughed if I had been with a man the night before, instead of a woman. I wondered if, limping into the coffee shop, my friend’s response would have been awe and respect had I told her of a man who grabbed me too roughly, who ripped my shirt, who left me aching to leave and unsure of how to go.
Would I have seen the warning signs that night long before I did if I recognized the same manipulative, controlling, forceful behavior we are taught to fear in men could also be present with a relationship between two women? . . .
WHOA! Her shirt was ripped, her shoulder was bruised by a “well-liked senior girl” who was known to be “a little wild”? Either:
A. We must always believe the victim, as feminists tell us;
or
B. Caroline Catlin is pitching a cable network movie script here.
Personally, I believe the victim of lesbian assault:
I was violated physically and emotionally in a situation I deemed instinctively to be safe . . . No one at the party blinked an eye when I left with a woman I barely knew, no one texted to make sure the person I left with was safe, that I got home without a problem, that my night was going the way I intended. . . .
A woman assaulted me. I myself am a woman. My story is not like many of the ones being used to move forward in this movement. Yet, still, it happened. I was violated. Something went terribly wrong.
You can read the whole thing. There is no need to wonder why Caroline Catlin “deemed instinctively to be safe” a lesbian hook-up with a woman she “barely knew” — this is what radical feminism teaches implicitly every day in Women’s Studies programs: Men are the root of all evil, male sexuality is dangerous and oppressive, and lesbianism is the only escape from heteronormative patriarchy. As I remarked in February, “Is it a coincidence that this rhetoric sounds like it belongs in a book, Lesbian Pick-Up Lines for Women’s Studies Majors?”
I don’t think it is coincidental. Not in the least.
Let the reader ask these questions: If an adult married mother of two can “discover” her lesbianism by watching a cable TV series, what effect does such media messaging have on impressionable young people? What could be the combined effect of anti-male feminist teaching in schools and overt lesbian themes in popular media? If lesbian Women’s Studies professors can claim that Disney cartoons are encouraging young girls to become heterosexual, is it irrational to suppose the reverse scenario might also be possible? Make up your own mind.
Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying. This isn’t about trying to gin up paranoia or foster a climate of homophobia. This is not about a conspiracy. It’s about a consensus — a shared system of belief — that extends far beyond the Women’s Studies classroom. Rhetoric about “equality” and “progress,” constant chatter about the victimization of women and the rights of gays, reflect a widely held belief among our intellectual elite that normal sexuality oppresses women, especially within the context of “traditional family values.”
Tuition at Wesleyan University is $47,702 a year. A small price to pay for the opportunity of being “violated” by a lesbian.
Nah, I’m just a better cook.
Such a boring story. All gays want to talk about is themselves and how they have been wronged. Wait till the Moslems get established in America and sharia law goes mainstream. Then the gays will really have something to talk about. Then I will find their suffering really interesting.
No, it’s because I would rather stay on friendly terms here. Friendly disagreements are one thing. Religious debates usually get very heated very fast. It’s one reason why I have not done it very much here.
You’ve been nice enough not to insist I have to abide by your religion. Because of that, I have to warn you three times.
Interesting indeed.
And they don’t even see it coming.
Don’t you have to give up your HPN card for that?
There’s no reason I would insist that you abide by my religion. I believe what the Catholic Church teaches, and I believe that the Church follows Christ’s teaching.
FYI, Gene Simmons says Rock N Roll has been murdered.
It’s also proof homosexuality IS a choice
What does “consubstantial” even mean to people who don’t know the make up of a water molecule? People who didn’t have the ability to do an analysis of the Father or the Son? Councils were, in that time, a way align the power of the state against their rivals in the church.
Since we’ve agreed this is a friendly disagreement, I’m content to leave it at that.
Is it really THAT HARD to simply go to college and study?
Lesbians are crazy. Only bitchy bitter women become them. And don’t tell me they are “born that way” because they aren’t. Many of the women I knew became lesbians out of desperation, bad experiences with men, & obvious brainwashing from the pagan Left. Many of them are also penis-envious. It’s one thing to behave like a “man”, but to actually THINK you’re a “man” when you really aren’t, is twisted. Pure insanity. Such delusional people belong in the insane asylums
You’re putting a modern spin on Church councils. The issue was determining what was true and what was heretical. Arianism denied the dual nature of Christ.
You were doing so well, and then you disparage all Protestants. A rather substantial number of same–in fact the majority–no not sanction either same sex relationships or ordination of women. Those that do, i.e. The Episcopal Church of American, Presbyterians U.S.A., the UCC, etc. are bleeding members to more conservative Protestant denominations in buckets.
BTW, the problem in your discussion with NW, is that you make the mistake St. Thomas Aquinas warned us of: Citing as authority something the other side does not accept.
Geeeee…. I would shed a tear.
if I didn’t know that lesbian and gay domestic abuse cases far outnumber straight domestic abuse cases.
Wrong about Luther. Name one book he excluded from the 1534 complete Bible. As for changing language, what do you mean? Yes, he translated the Bible into German, but the RC approved Bible at the time was a Latin translation. If translating the Bible into the vernacular is a crime, then St. Jerome ought to be first in the dock.
There are too many protestant churches for me to keep track of which believe in what.
I’m not sure what you mean by the 1534 complete bible; there were 73 books in the bible from the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, which were once again ratified at the Council of Trent.
Luther threw out Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, First Maccabees, and Second Maccabees, as well as additional verses of Daniel and Esther.
He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.
Latin is the language of the Church; St Jerome’s revision went back to the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic and translated them to Latin to correct errors. Oh, and it was Pope Damasus 1 who authorized it.
Like we need any more…
Maybe it’s the homodysfunctional matriarchy at work here.
All the BEST cooks are men!
The books you refer to were included in his first complete Bible Translation of 1534. (I’m looking at my copy now kept from my graduate school days.) Second, he also used the original source texts, in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
Third, your assertion regarding Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15 is false. The German word “nur,” i.e. “only” or any of several other possibilities to convey the same thought, does not appear.
Fourth, the word “allein” i.e. “alone” in Romans 3:28 is inferred from both the Greek and the Latin syntax and is necessary given that German is a) much less inflected than the languages of antiquity and b) coincides with other statements of Paul in Romans.
I neither said nor did I imply “all” You are reading things I did not post. Especially since I posted links to studies that show lesbians relationships have the highest percetage of domestic abuse
Your paganism is getting in the way of seing the truth.
So that excuses blanket denunciation? Glad we cleared that up.
“The dirty secret they don’t tell you that lesbian relationships are VERY abusive”
Perhaps I did read this line wrong. I didn’t see a qualifier, not even so much as a “can be.”
I am not arguing that there are no abusive lesbian relationships, or even that there may not be more per capita than heterosexual relationships.
I am just saying that a lesbian relationship does not necessarily mean an abusive one.
Just a different perspective. And in this case, not necessarily pagan. Just logic.
Some elements of set B have share elements with set C. Some elements of A share elements with B. No elements of A that are not elements of B are in set C. Therefore, A does not equal C.
True words from my mother: “If you do all the things men do and cook an elegant meal, you’ll have more women than you know what to do with.”
It was only when I was in college that I learned the truth of those words.
The Methodist churches started the Wesleyan universities before they shifted their efforts to ordaining the Wrong Reverend Skipper Buttplugger. John Wesley must be turning over in his grave.
the sickly wan grin of the emasculated sniffing wilted daisies
On the other hand, that’s not even worth a joke.
C’mon, you can do better than that.
There’s a real arrogance in thinking your erudite wit makes anyone “uncomfortable” . Don’t flatter yourself.
How can I when you are so determined to do it for me?
After all, there must be something inspiring these drive-by posts.
I considered Freud myself. I wonder how many raging dykes are angry that all they got for Christmas was a strap-on.
So, #notalllesbians, then?
*grins*
Works for me.
why would they want to let you know that? if they did let you know, and let others know (among many other things) people would not find it so easy to say wahts the big deal…
i wonder how many people she was looking after and texted and did all those things for while expecting it herself…
George Bush’s?
Which is quite a feat considering how open Muslims are about their desire for a worldwide caliphate and their willingness (proved with plenty of action) to kill homosexuals. I’m not quite sure how far one must have their head up their posterior to ignore it, but it must be pretty far.
I don’t know how many versions of his bible Luther created, but he did, in fact, throw out those 7 books, otherwise the protestant bible would have the same 73 books that the Bible has. And he did change the words of the bible; he said so himself and was ignorant in the way he did so, saying that he would have it so.
He also taught the heresy of sola scriptura when the Bible clearly states that we follow both Scripture and Tradition; he also broke his vows, marrying after ordination and was a complete failure in obedience.
There are thousands of protestant sects. How could anyone keep track of which believes what? And most don’t believe in the Real Presence.
To adequately respond to your comment would take hours. Let me suggest, when you acknowledge that your knowledge is lacking and incomplete, it’s better to stop there and not continue with a “but . . .”
Ms. Catlin is a good little progressive who believes that “education” by the “education system” is sufficient to teach sexual predators not to prey. As if “don’t rape” is a truth known only by the enlightened few.
Feminists believe that it ought to be OK for a woman to indulge in all sorts of risky behaviors (such as public drinking, walking alone through bad neighborhoods, on, as in this case, leaving a party to have sex with someone you don’t even know), and explode into hyperbolic outrage when it is suggested that women need to take steps to insure their own safety.
Ms. Catlin had a horrific experience. And it doesn’t look like she learned anything from it.
As I said somewhere else, ignorance of facts generally argues for avoiding sweeping assertions of fact.
I forgot to mention the following scholars who added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28:
Origen
St. Augustine
St. Thomas Acquinas
Are they all anathema, too?
And that’s just a partial list of Pre-Luther RC scholars who did so.
What I don’t understand why the worst elements have to represent everyone.
Because when you’re dealing with these sorts of extremist movements, be it feminism, communism, environmentalism, Naziism, jihadism, or what-have-you-ism, it is precisely the ‘better elements’, the sane, rational, moderate, reasonable people, who are irrelevant. It’s the ‘worst elements’ who write the books, expound the theories, hold the meetings, publish the manifestos, excommunicate the half-hearted, stage the sit-ins, litigate the cases, storm the barricades, pull the triggers, plant the bombs, engineer the coups, take over the universities, and teach the children.
Meanwhile, all the ‘better elements’ are standing over on the sidelines with their hands in their pockets, saying “oh dear, oh dear, we didn’t mean this.”
Now that is interesting!
Two questions, if you don’t mind.
Does the same thing apply to the right side of the political spectrum?
When there is actual social evolution rather than engineered social change, how much of that change started in the fringe?
Okay, I admit I lifted that last bit from Russell’s A Renegade History of the United States.
Does the same thing apply to the right side of the political spectrum?
Theoretically, yes, I think it would have to apply. But historically, the movements that say “let’s tear down the entire social order that’s been in existence for thousands of years and put something completely new in its place, and everything will work out just fine; no really, trust us” have been pretty much left wing. At least, I can’t think of any counter-examples off the top of my head.
When there is actual social evolution rather than engineered social change, how much of that change started in the fringe?
I don’t know; perhaps all social change starts on the fringe.
*nods*
I don’t trust drastic overwhelming change proposed by a handful of elites. Gradual change, that’s workable. Not controllable, but workable.
I’m worried that we’re not going to have much left to work with.
The more I think about Russell’s book, the more I think he’s onto something. Jazz, venture capitalism, Levi jeans, and supermarkets all started and thrived on the fringe or frontier before moving into the mainstream. And none depended on changes in the law to force their way in.
Well said and spot on.