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. No, it’s a matter of agreeing on morality instead of saying “the Bible tells me this is good SO THIS IS WHAT WE WILL DO or else!!”

  4. All the ca-ca being used to distract the American people is a deviation from the basic moral code upon which all valid laws rest: the “Golden Rule” which states ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. If a law violates that, it is not a valid law. If any religion does not hold that as the base, is is not a valid religion. Any action that violates that is a wrongful action. That moral code is not Judeo-Christian in origin, it is the reality of thoughtful and respectful human interaction and is the precedent for all laws and codes throughout history.

  7. *grins*

    Are you sure that doesn’t fall under “Too Much Information?”

    Speaking semantically, these days I do not usually play for the “win.”

    I make exceptions for special cases. No one I’ve debated here is a special case.

  8. If I was in China I would find that perfectly acceptable as the Confucianism is the basis of Chinese moral values. Of course, I also wouldn’t live in China, so the point is moot.

  10. The person most responsible for abolishing the Atlantic slave trade was the REV. Wilberforce (google the name, because it seems you’ve never heard of him). He argued passionately against it based on Christian ethics. The abolitionist movement in this country (which was religious, not secular) adopted many of his arguments. But even before him, the Quakers in Pennsylvania and Delaware were passionately anti-slavery. Quakers. Not “deists.” Not “secularists.”

    And even those who called themselves Deists among the Founding Fathers, like Jefferson, strongly approved of the “Judeo Christian rule system” as you so awkwardly put it. They were not atheists. They doubted the divinity of Christ, while still believing in a Creator and Christian ethics. You seem to think they were all 18th century Bill Mahers.

    Please stop relying on Zinn and Bill Maher for your American history and read a few books.about the abolitionist movement, Wilberforce and the roots of American Christianity. You plainly know very, very little about both Christianity and history and yet you think you know it all – it’s a very common mental disease these days.

  12. Sweetcheeks, we have ALREADY agreed to use Judeo-Christian values and principles to inform the basis of our law – always subject to subsequent revision at the behest of the majority as long as the revision hews to the inherent rights secured by the Constitution.

    All law has the “or else” built in.

    Since you have failed to posit a better system based on principles NOT rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, you might wish a period of self-examination of your clear anti-Jewish/Christian bigotry.

  13. Are they yet extant in their original form? Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy were not so based. Do they yet exist? No successful society or government can exist long without the Golden Rule as their moral basis. Look at the innumerable examples in European history throughout the ages. They no longer exist as they where. Feudalism is dead (despite attempts to revive it here) and Socialism, even ‘benign’ Socialism is dying for lack of a moral base.

  14. #blessyourheart You would deny the fundamental principles of America to assuage your bigotry. As if a person could (or should) reject such principles because of their ethical monotheist origin.

  16. I of course live in the United States where freedom of religion is the law of the land.

    Not freedom of Judeo-Christian religion, not Judeo-Christian religion placed first, but freedom of religion.

    The Founders were among the best educated and enlightened men of their time. Why do you supposed they chose to make it like that?

  17. First, I wasn’t the one who started with the “Judeo-Christian” phrase, that was RSM in the original phrase. It’s what started this.

    Second (and this is the Really Important Bit), the Founders deliberately did not put religion in the Constitution. It’s not because they did not have faith, it’s because they believed one man should not dictate the faith of another. It has nothing to do with the merits of Christianity and everything to do with personal choice and responsiblity.

    BTW, I don’t read either Zinn or Maher. I think the last history book I read was Churchill’s autobiography.

  18. I’ll let you in on a secret.

    I try to treat people online as they have treated me. I’m nice until someone shows they don’t deserve it.

    For life in general, I have three rules.

    THE GOLDEN RULE – Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    THE SILVER RULE – Do for yourself at least as much as you do for others.

    THE IRON RULE – Don’t do for others what they can do for themselves.

  19. Please tell me again how the Ten Commandments are the “fundamental principles of America.”

    Please tell me again how me NOT putting the “Judeo-Christian” morality above and beyond my own morality rejects American principles “because of their ethical monotheist origin.”

    It certainly seems that you have issues with every single American who does not embrace Christianity immediately and on your say so.

  20. Then why isn’t the Christian God specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?

    Why did it take a Cold War to (mistakenly) change the national motto to “In God We Trust?”

    Why does the Constitution specifically forbid a religious test as a qualification for office?

    Do you get the picture yet? You can be as Christian as you choose.

    You just can’t choose that OR any other faith for another.

  21. No dear, you tell me how the Declaration of Independence & the Constitution are not fundamentally grounded in the ethical monotheism of Judaism/Christianity — inherent rights and the enumeration of those rights with the concurrent responsibility of people as individuals regardless of circumstance.

  23. And you honestly believe that the Judeo-Christian basis is the only possible source of morality for the Founders?

    How curiously limiting.

  25. Because government documents of the time routinely did put it in.

    I keep telling people. This was not an accident. It was a deliberate choice. It was shocking. It stirred debate in the Continental Congress. It was unheard of.

  28. BTW “In God We Trust” started appearing on coinage in 1864, prior to that is a phrase in the lyrics to The Star Spangled Banner (1814).

    The God-centric basis of Americanism – regardless of sectarianism (hence no religious test)- was a given since the Founders intent was to make government as securer of rights rather than grantor of rights.

  32. Most importantly, my religion doesn’t require you to submit.

    Neither does Christianity, despite what some say.

    Even here on this thread, I’m not denouncing Christianity. I’m just telling Christians they can’t use the precepts of their faith to rule another.

  37. But it wasn’t adopted as the national motto until 1956.

    The Founders didn’t do “givens,” they liked to nail things down. If you don’t believe me, take a look at the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.

  39. It’s not a leftwing site. In fact they go out of their way NOT to embrace politics. To my knowledge, they are the only site that examines religion from a civil rights perspective. Real civil rights, not the claptrap that passes for it these days in the U.S.

    Disclaimer: I give them a small donation every month. I approve of the work they do.

  40. I already did.

    I called the Founders among the best education men of their time. I pointed out that the deliberate omission of ANY god in the Constitution. And I told you they argued and debated for years to do the “right” thing even as they made the occasional mistake.

  41. I said,

    “BTW, many Jews are really offended by that term.”

    I don’t have to be a spokesman for the Jews to know that many resent the term “Judeo-Christian.” It implies a continuity which is not recognized by their religion.

  42. Speaking of coinage, have you heard of the Fugio cent?

    Designed by Franklin, one face had “We Are One” and the other face had “Mind Your Business.”

  43. No, they didn’t. In fact some even didn’t like the idea of a Constitution because they believed some later people who use it not as a restraint on The State but as a restraint on the citizen. This is why is was written as a broad framework, not a detailed document of micromanagement.

    Are you really so ignorant?

  44. In fact they go out of their way NOT to embrace politics.

    Liar

    quote: ”

    A recent Health and Human Services mandate
    requires most employee health insurance policies — including those used
    by Catholic hospitals, universities, agencies, etc. — to offer free
    access to birth control to the employees. The church feels that it is
    their religious right to fight its employees’ access to contraception.
    Many of their Catholic and non-Catholic employees beg to differ.
    Numerous court cases are being fought. If the mandate survives, then
    there is likely to be a drastic reduction in unexpected, unwanted
    pregnancies, and thus a massive drop in the number of abortions.”

    You argue in bad faith. Crawl back under your rock of bigotry.

  45. Yep, I knew that. That’s why I mentioned the Anti-Federalist Papers.

    Actually if you examine the Constitution you’ll find that broad framework has some very specific anchors.

    Which makes the omissions all the more important.

  46. I don’t lie.

    Look at your excerpt.

    Did they advocate a conservative position? No.

    Did they advocate a progressive position? No.

    Did they advocate a libertarian position? No.

    They reported on the situation. They said what people felt. They didn’t say which one was right and which one was wrong.

    That’s not embracing politics. Not so very long ago, that was reporting and references were supposed to do. That is what made them authoritative sources.

  47. The church feels that it is
    their religious right to fight its employees’ access to contraception.

    Asswipe, that was never the churchs’ position. That is what you Fascists pretend it is.

    You’re insistence that it is nothing but “reporting” would make Stalin smile.

    Fuck off.

  49. Another great article Stacy. And thanks for the link!

    Still in Nashville, but will start working my way east in a day or two.

Comments are closed.