The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Slate Scrapes the Bottom

Posted on | September 19, 2014 | 171 Comments

Or maybe “Slate Spanks the Bottom” would be a better way to describe the nadir of editorial judgment whereby the desperate quest for traffic — let’s face it, they’ll do anything to get hits — led them to publish Jillian Keenan’s perverted prose:

Once again, I’ve been accused of pedophilia. Well, to be technical, my sexual identity was called “somewhat pedophilic.” But we’re talking about one of the most loathsome things a person can be accused of, so why split hairs? I’m also regularly told that my sexuality is “repulsive,” “damaged,” and “abusive.” But all of those feel like Valentines compared with “pedophilic.”
People say this to me so often because I’m kinky, and I’ve written about it. I have a spanking fetish. In my case, that means I like to be spanked, usually with a hand, belt, hairbrush, wooden spoon, switch, or paddle. It sexually gratifies me. I’ve had submissive fantasies for as long as I can remember, and it’s part of my identity. I consider my kink to be my sexual orientation. . . .

Eventually, she gets to her point:

So I have a question: If it’s “somewhat pedophilic” when my adult husband consensually spanks me in a simulated “punishment,” what should we call it when parents do the same physical thing to actual children in an actual punishment?
I realize that many well-meaning parents will disagree with me, but spanking kids is gross. . . .

Stephen Green at PJ Tatler gives Keenan the spanking she deserves, but leaves unpunished the editors at Slate who thought it was “clever” to give Keenan a platform to parade her perversion. This is a perfect example of the 21st-century progressive sexual philosophy: Any Sex Is Good Sex, as Long as It’s Not Normal Sex.

Does anyone suppose the editors of Slate would be interested in an article headlined, “Making Babies With My Wife Is Awesome”?

Only if the author were a lesbian.

This is the logic of the post-Windsor age: Having secured recognition for same-sex marriage — so that everyone is now required to approve of homosexuality, or else — Our Moral Superiors in the cultural elite are hard at work undermining the legitimacy of normal sexuality.

It is not now, nor was it ever, “sexual equality” that the Left has sought during the Culture Wars. Rather, they seek for themselves uncontested power to define what is sexually acceptable, so that the cultural elite (a distinct class of people who include the editors of liberal publications, radical university professors, and Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, among others) displace the moral authority previously exercised in our society by Judeo-Christian belief.

What we are learning — what we should have anticipated, what we should have been warned against, had our leaders been astute enough to perceive the danger — is that no society can long sustain itself when two conceptions of moral idealism are in competition. One or another system of belief must ultimately prevail in government, in law, in social custom, and the subversive enemies of American civilization have always known this. Unfortunately, this cultural logic has seldom been made apparent by our most eminent conservative intellectuals who, wishing neither to appear intolerant nor to risk the accusation of inciting irrational fear, have tended generally to underestimate the danger and have failed to make clear the stark choices our nation faces.

Those who still cherish a traditional vision of the American Dream for themselves, their children and their grandchildren, must recognize that our society cannot forever continue this struggle between two competing moral ideals. We must contemplate the consequences of defeat in the Culture War. While traditionalists have long tolerated perverts like Jillian Keenan — what do we care how she gets her depraved private thrills? — we see that the perverts, once emboldened by the knowledge of their cultural authority in the post-Windsor age, are unwilling to extend to traditionalists a similar toleration. Nor can we afford to ignore the claims of radical feminists like Catherine Deveny, when every day brings further confirmation that their beliefs now enjoy hegemonic dominance within our institutions of higher education.

While producing the “Sex Trouble” series about radical feminism’s war on human nature, I have frequently deployed my habitual sarcasm to mock the absurdity of feminist beliefs. However, no one should assume from my cheerful good humor that I do not take this project seriously. As crazy as feminists may seem, as laughably wrong as their ideas may be, they are extremely serious in their purpose to destroy traditional morality in our society. They and their allies have seized power in the elite precincts of academia and have used that power to influence every institution of our society, from the Supreme Court to your local public school. If you don’t understand what is happening, and in what direction our society is heading, you have not been paying attention.

My advice to anyone who has been ignoring this menace is to wake the hell up. There may still be time to save our nation from destruction.




171 Responses to “Slate Scrapes the Bottom”

  1. NeoWayland
    September 21st, 2014 @ 8:08 am

    So the Catholic Church changed it’s stand on contraception?

    I must have missed those headlines.

  2. NeoWayland
    September 21st, 2014 @ 8:17 am

    Let’s review.

    My “sins” are that I believe and can show that the United States had more than just a “Judeo-Christian” basis. That I believe it possible to have a “national” moral code that is not based on any single religion. And that I have a better grasp of history than you do.

    None of these things affect your ability to follow your faith as you choose.

  3. NeoWayland
    September 21st, 2014 @ 8:17 am

    These things do prevent you from keeping a higher “moral authority” in your back pocket if you need to cower someone into submission.

    Oddly enough, these things also prevent the “cultural elite” from doing the same thing.

  4. bcp4free
    September 21st, 2014 @ 3:15 pm

    Aww…you mad? That is the Church’s position. Why else would they be fighting the contraception mandate? The Church would seem less archaic if they just dropped the matter. It certainly isn’t helping them attract a new generation of young followers.

  5. Bcp4free
    September 21st, 2014 @ 3:18 pm

    You said it: without God there is no objective morality. It’s amazing how supposedly intelligent people can fall for the God trick in the 21st Century.

  6. theoldsargesays
    September 21st, 2014 @ 5:30 pm

    “…precepts of their faithfaith…”

    The word precept itself can be seen as harsh to some.
    Be that as it may these precepts of the Christian faith are not solely Christian. They were adopted by Christianity and , I dare say, very nearly every other religion on the planet. Good rules to live by, as it were.
    I would suggest that those who speak out against Christian precepts or doctrine or teaching- what ever one chooses to call it- they do it because it is Christian and only because it’s Christian.

  7. NeoWayland
    September 21st, 2014 @ 5:58 pm

    Some of them are good rules. Some of them are not.

    My point is that one religion should never be considered The Moral Authority for a society. Morality is too important. We need to argue over it. Competition keeps us honest.

    Once we say that The Moral Authority Religion is what tells the society that murder and theft are morally wrong, it’s way too easy to say that TMAR says that this sexual partner is wrong, or that this fabric should never be sewn to that fabric, or that we should only eat from religiously approved diet.

  8. NeoWayland
    September 21st, 2014 @ 6:33 pm

    Whole wars have been fought by Christians on both sides over that “objective morality.”

    Whatever the Divine perspective, human understanding is limited and very subjective.

  9. theoldsargesays
    September 21st, 2014 @ 8:29 pm

    Society=the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.

    If you accept the above definition, then isn’t a “society” whatever the people living within a certain political boundary decide it is? And yes that would mean whatever the majority of those members decide it should be with minority viewsviews hopefully being at least tolerated if not observed.

    Unfair? To a minority number of citizens , absolutely, from their point of view. It’s the way of the world that we live in. I don’t mean “way of the world” philosophically either- it is the way humans operate.

    The alternative is progressives demanding that government mandate that the majority conform to views or beliefs that they do not actually believe in and in that case you’d have a majority of a given society being treated “unfairly”.

    As I said before, the best we can do is live and let live. Agree to disagree agreeably and all that.

  10. theoldsargesays
    September 21st, 2014 @ 8:30 pm

    Makes sense to me.

  11. theoldsargesays
    September 21st, 2014 @ 8:35 pm

    DeadMessenger as First Consul?
    I mean, if you’re going to be in charge BE IN CHARGE.
    BTW…can’t vote for you because I’ve already planned to vote for me.

    (as I’ve told friends, if you don’t think you’d make a better President than our current one you’re selling yourself short)

    Vote for TheOldSarge in 2016!

  12. theoldsargesays
    September 21st, 2014 @ 8:36 pm

    If you win and I don’t I’d be proud to serve in your cabinet- Minister of War?

  13. NeoWayland
    September 21st, 2014 @ 8:49 pm

    I am totally for live and let live. It’s the core of my most deeply held beliefs.

    I really don’t care about someone else’s beliefs or politics unless they want to impose those on everyone else.

    Going back to my original post on this thread, if the choice is between the absolute on the left side or the absolute on the right, I am going to pick freedom despite both.

    I respectfully disagree with you on that.

  14. DeadMessenger
    September 21st, 2014 @ 10:06 pm

    Sound like a perfect fit.

  15. DeadMessenger
    September 21st, 2014 @ 10:12 pm

    You know, I’d be a great Secretary of State. A devout Christian woman representing the US in the Middle East. BWAHAHAHAHA! Hope they don’t expect any bowing or head covering or anything. Hope they don’t expect me to take my cross off, either. And if they harass me, I can say, “I’ve got Sarge on speed dial, and he’s got the whoe US military on speed dial. I win.”

  16. Zohydro
    September 21st, 2014 @ 10:25 pm

    Not all…

  17. theoldsargesays
    September 21st, 2014 @ 10:55 pm

    The founding fathers did not put it in the Constitution because they did not want to establish any official religion in this country.

    That does not mean the religion would have no influence at all over our government and our society.

  18. Daniel Freeman
    September 22nd, 2014 @ 2:54 am

    It does work, and our smoothly-functioning roadways are proof.

  19. NeoWayland
    September 22nd, 2014 @ 8:03 am

    I think the Founders made a wise choice. They didn’t want an official religion but they didn’t want to interfere with personal religion.

    It ties into individual choice and responsibility. It’s bottom up. The Founders wanted individuals to draw from their faith and influence the nation, not the faith to shape national law and policy and so rule the individual.

    Most importantly they wanted people of faith to watch government closely.

  20. NeoWayland
    September 22nd, 2014 @ 8:09 am

    Pardon, but that is not exactly so.

    “In total, one in nine of the nation’s bridges are rated as structurally deficient, while the average age of the nation’s 607,380 bridges is currently 42 years.”

    “With 45 percent of roads in less than good condition and 12 percent of bridges structurally deficient, the U.S. faces severe infrastructure needs that significantly impact the nation’s economy. “

  21. Bibliotheca ab Nova Roma
    September 23rd, 2014 @ 6:23 pm

    Hello, Mr. R. S. McCain, (wasn’t sure what to write here, heh) how are you doing today? I just wanted to ask you what you felt was so particularly perverse about the idea of a wife being sexually aroused by her husband striking her upon the buttocks. Truly, I am curious, as a young man, sexually inactive, who intends to remain such until (God willing) he meets and weds his beloved future wife and walking partner on the path of service God has laid for him/them to walk. It sounds all pretty written like that, but in reality, every day is a battle. So when I tell you I’m confused, I mean it. Why is it perverse for a wife to sexually enjoy being spanked by her husband, particularly if coitus absent contraceptive immediately follows? Is it not simply another way for a husband to use the body of his wife and she, his to demonstrate their love in the marriage bed? (or other conveniently located flat surface…ahem…) How is it any different than Solomon adoring his beloved’s breasts that were like two fawns, etc? Except in that it sounds less…orthodox? I’m simultaneously processing my thoughts and asking here, so pardon if this begins to ramble into lecture mode… It is obvious that miss…whatever her name was, I’ve typed too much on this tablet’s touchy screen (no pun intended) with my fat fingers to try scrolling up…should never have shared the private, intimate details of her and her husbands marriage bed activities, however, once they were shared, was it the sharing that made her a pervert? Or the spanking? Would bondage (that produced a child) such as binding a wife’s hands and feet to the bedposts, at her request, be equally perverse and unacceptable? I am not…okay I’m MOSTLY not being sarcastic, and any sarcasm is just my frustration leaking through. Seriously, what I’m asking is, is there a list? Do this/don’t do this? I had pretty much thought, as long as no one else was permitted into the marriage bed (absent serious health issues and mandatory discussions with doctors, none of which actually involve the marriage bed ITSELF) basically anything goes. No abortifacients (abortifacients?) And ideally no contraceptives at all, that being mandatory if Catholic, but otherwise, just don’t deny one another the body you just gave to the other person! Right? Or wrong? Because if that’s right, then spanking in the marriage bed is a totally separate issue from corporal punishment spanking, and is in no way perverse. If:then, if you will. Or at least I should think as much.
    All that aside, wonderful blog, I really enjoy it. It’s refreshing to have a sensible, logical, non-liberal-biased commentary on the news, and source for news I’ve not heard! Thanks!