Slate Scrapes the Bottom

Posted on 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 comments

  2. But boy oh boy, if anybody points out the Judeo-Christian roots of the nation (sorry, that’s a fact, deal with it) you immediately jump in and dismiss it. You get butthurt so damn easily about Christianity it’s like all your protestations about how confortable you are with your own beliefs are just so much BS. YOU have a problem with Christianity. The people here? They have a problem with you being an asshole when Christianity comes up in discussion. Has nothing to do with your beliefs and everything to do with your attitude.

  3. Slavery is the obvious example.

    A long cultural institution, ubiquitous for centuries, even the Indians had it … yet it was the same Founding Fathers that planted the seeds of its destruction and their ideological heirs followed through.

    Are you getting your American history via Howard Zinn?

  4. Again, my objections are not about Christianity.

    It’s about Christianity being the “default” choice.

    As I said above, either/or is not a choice, it’s a trap.

    Tell me, what would you do if someone insisted you had to abide by the morality of Confucianism? Would you not speak loudly and say that wasn’t your choice?

  5. As I said, they goofed on a few things.

    And they argued about what was the right thing to do.

    You know, sort of what we are doing now?

  6. Still doesn’t change the point.

    You wouldn’t want to live under the rules of another belief system even if it was a good system and was for everybody.

  7. And do YOU understand it was their foundational values, based in Judaism/Christianity that allowed them to even CONTEMPLATE getting rid of slavery rather than accepting it?

  10. You know, since we’ve spent so much time on this thread about the Founders, I can’t help but wonder if the Brits thought they were being “willfully obtuse.”

    I know people thought Bill Gates was “willfully obtuse” when he had this crazy idea about copyrighting software and building a company on it.

    So it really depends on your point of view, doesn’t it?

  13. I don’t think it works on a cultural level if there are multiple faiths in that culture.

    So there should be an exception in American law on murder so it doesn’t apply to Islamic honor killings?

    #facepalm

  14. Not a weasel word.

    Just a point again that Western Civilization did not begin and end with Christianity and Christian thought.

    Some laws are not moral. For example, right now many police departments are partially funded by civil forfeiture laws.

    Something like 40% of the Export-Import Bank’s loans have gone to support one company, Boeing.

    Not so very long ago, the Federal government decided that the U.S. should be forced to switch to the metric system.

  15. You do know that the basis of civil forfeiture laws was not to allow a criminal to profit from their crime? That is a laudable, moral goal. That immoral people have taken advantage of it doesn’t discount the original intent.

    I do note you’re still still yelling “squirrel” and not dealing with macro arguments.

  16. They did accept it.

    It took a Civil War to stop it. And even then, Lincoln didn’t begin the war with the idea to end slavery.

    That came later.

  20. So apparently it’s either/or. I have to accept that law only has a Judeo-Christian bias or we do without law?

    We couldn’t just sit down, find out what we and others agree on, and make laws based on that?

  22. I never said all systems are equal.

    I said people should make their own choices. And if you can’t convince people that your system is a good one except by using force, then you’re doing it wrong.

  23. if you can’t convince people that your system is a good one except by using force, then you’re doing it wrong.

    So if we make murder laws just suggestions then murder would disappear? It’s just a matter of talking evil people OUT of evil?

  26. “That immoral people have taken advantage of it doesn’t discount the original intent.”

    Yeah, it kinda does. Your own religion has some interesting things to say about good intentions.

    And no one has yet addressed my macro argument. The real question is why should any group be in charge?

    You’ve all been so busy telling me how much the U.S. has a “Judeo-Christian” basis, not one of you has bothered to say why Christianity is a superior system.

    I’m willing to work with people to get an acceptable set of laws. But the second you tell me it’s Judeo-Christian based I will walk away. Not because I hate Christianity, but because I do want ANY religion given the force of law.

    We need people of faith questioning government.

  30. No, dear, they didn’t. They made it a lower priority than defeating the Brits and punted it down the road and leaving it to another generation to fulfill their seeds of destruction they planted with the 3/5ths compromise.

  32. The values of Judaism I outlined earlier were radical. Christianity’s roots & basic values are the same. Ethical monotheism is the basis of Judaism – That there is a God who wants people to be good, and allows them the moral choice as long as they understand the consequences of not following a moral code. Radical, too, that all individuals are equal in God’s view – rich, poor, healthy, sick, man, woman — it is one’s individual relationship with God first.

    The first 5 Commandments deal with an individual’s relationship with God. The second 5 with an individual’s relationship with others. The first 5 makes clear the foundation for the 2nd 5.

    The Declaration of Independence is a distillation of hundreds of years of Jewish and Christian thought dealing with rights/ethics/morality of the individual and his relationships with others.

    Radical.

  33. “Just a point again that Western Civilization did not begin and end with Christianity and Christian thought.”

    No morality did

  35. I’m a big believer in the family. That’s one reason I support the age of consent. I’m from my mom’s first marriage, and I have stepsibs including one from my stepdad’s first wife’s first marriage. I think that the family is the strongest thing is a society.

    But people have to make the choice of their own free will and without coercion or it counts for nothing.

    Virtue under threat is not virtue, it’s slavery.

    Virtue under threat is neither virtue nor slavery; it’s civilization, and I like it.

  36. Seems to me as if all laws are based upon morality. Here’s a good one: anti-pedophilia laws. I don’t feel like leaving that up to somebody’s personal beliefs. That’s a moral standard, plain and simple. And I notice that some groups think that pedophilia is ok.

  37. No. Absent commentary, it is merely an artistic image of some very friendly women. Unless you think that fat is inherently shameful, and/or that the largely traditionalist audience here would be expected to find the classical female form unattractive? Because you would need to support either assertion.

  40. Must have been some Brits.

    The Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783. The Continental Congress adopted the Constitution in 1788.

  41. DING!

    I answered which makes it responsive.

    You might ask yourself why you feel threatened by the merest possibility.

    (P.S. I insist on better sound effects)

  43. It doesn’t matter. Under the terms that people on this thread have set, the religion is immaterial. It only matters if the nation has a basis in that religion.

    No matter what yours may be, you must submit.

  44. And a lot aren’t.

    And they are still offended.

    Are you accusing the Jews who dissent from your views of being anti-Christian and unAmerican?

  45. So if I disagree that American society had a “Judeo-Christian” basis and that all that is good and wonderful comes from the actions of enlightened Christians, I can take a hike?

    It’s not me you have a problem with, it’s dissent.

    You might want to think about that.

  46. Take Daylight Savings Time, that’s not moral, just annoying.

    Why does a nearly microscopic flake of cannabis on the passenger seat cost someone their car but three “suitcases” of beer in the trunk doesn’t?

    Why can’t you legally buy a high flow toilet?

  47. Laws are not moral.

    We should be arguing over them.

    But if you adopt a religion’s moral code into the law, we can’t do that. It’s not up to the people. It’s up to the leaders of that religion.

  48. *grins*

    Thank you. I was waiting for someone to introduce the Ten Commandments.

    Number One on the Hits List there doesn’t apply to anyone not a part of that religion.

    Unless you want to point a gun at my head until I put your god first?

    Don’t you see? I’m not attacking the Christian faith. I’m just saying you can’t use the law to impose it on anyone else. Your choice is your choice, their choice is theirs.

  49. You’re right. I’d walk away from the group. I wouldn’t walk away from the issue.

    You see, I have this thing about freedom…

  50. PSST!

    Under the right circumstances, anyone is an ideologue.

    As you have so deftly pointed out and demonstrated.

Comments are closed.