The Other McCain

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

Is Roy Moore Wrong? And If So, Why?

Posted on | July 14, 2015 | 131 Comments

The Left is having a tantrum over remarks that Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore made at a Baptist church Sunday:

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore told a church crowd on Sunday that the U.S. Supreme Court “destroyed the institution of God” by legalizing same-sex marriage.
Moore, who made national news when he ordered the state’s probate judges to withhold same-sex marriage license in violation of a federal judge’s decision, addressed a congregation of about 150 people at Magnolia Springs Baptist Church in Theodore.
“How do they come out now and say that marriage, which is ordained by God, doesn’t mean what it’s always meant, between a man and woman?” Moore said. “Not between two men, two women, or three women and one man.
“See, they don’t have a definition. They’ve just destroyed the institution of God. Despite what they think, it’s not their doing. Satan drives us. He’s out there destroying everything God created including us as human beings.” . . .
“The issue is not about same-sex marriage. It’s about a sexual revolution. It’s about having people decide whether they are male or female. You’re talking about overturning God’s natural order …. When you start teaching kids that they have the right to choose whether they are male or female. . . .
“What we’ve been taught is somehow Christianity is bad for our country. And that government can’t have anything to do with Christianity . . .”

You can read the whole thing. You will notice that when the Left mocks Justice Moore or other conservative Christians for saying such things, they almost never bother to say what exactly is wrong with believing the Bible. Nor does the Left find it necessary to prove what is wrong or harmful in understanding that our nation’s laws were founded in Christian moral belief. The Left believes in Equality with a capital “e” and Progress with a capital “p.” To the Left, it is sufficient condemnation of tradition to say that tradition belongs to the past; the past is always bad, because Progress has rendered it obsolete, the leftist must believe. And the Left furthermore holds to a dogmatic belief that Progress requires a forced march toward Equality, so that overturning tradition — or, as Justice Moore would say, destroying “the institution of God” — is always good, because this will help inaugurate the egalitarian Utopia.

The problem is that, for all the “success” of the devotees of Equality and Progress, it does not seem to me — nor to most other Americans — that our nation is actually being improved by the destruction of our Christian tradition. We keep being marched toward Utopia, but we have not yet arrived there, and many Americans are becoming suspicious that we are actually heading toward a destination that proverbially awaits those who travel a road paved with good intentions. By more than a 2-to-1 margin, Americans say we are headed in the wrong direction, and isn’t it possible that Justice Moore may be correct in his understanding of how we got ourselves onto this Highway to Hell?

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . .”

Declaring war against God, the Left also wages a War Against Human Nature, and Justice Moore’s comments about “teaching kids that they have the right to choose whether they are male or female” echoes points I make in Sex Trouble:

University faculty devoted to the study of “Gender Theory” reject the categories of masculinity and femininity. What most people understand as the natural traits and normal roles of the sexes are, according to the proponents of Gender Theory, an elaborate deception into which we have been brainwashed by the anti-female, anti-gay social system called heteronormative patriarchy. (page 15)

What has happened in the past four decades is that feminism has waged a war on human nature, and has striven (with remarkable success) to replace our normal understanding of Right and Wrong with a new system of values: Women, good; men, evil. (page 17)

Whenever we hear feminists condemn “patriarchy,” we understand that what they have in mind is not some kind of humanitarian democratic reform project. . . . Four decades have not changed the ideology of feminism as Andrea Dworkin described it in 1974: The family must be destroyed, along with normal sex roles — no more masculine men, no more feminine women. Feminism is “a plane­tary movement to restructure community forms and human consciousness,” as Dworkin said. (page 73)

When we understand this project as essentially destructive, we are entitled to ask what the radicals propose to build upon the bloody wreckage of our society and culture once they finish destroying it. Perhaps they will build a Temple of Ba’al.





 

Category: Gays, Sex Trouble

Communist Professor’s Daughter Is a ‘Lesbian Feminist Witch’ on Tumblr

Posted on | July 13, 2015 | 85 Comments

UPDATE JULY 14: Feminist Deletes Tumblr Blog That Accused Her Father of Incestuous Abuse.

* * *

Feminist Tumblr is one of the strangest places on the Internet, a sort of online asylum where deranged women spew angry gibberish in what sometimes seems to be an organized effort to confirm the very worst stereotypes about feminism. You may be tempted to dismiss these bloggers as irrelevant kooks, deserving of nothing but a point-and-laugh reaction, but Feminist Tumblr is a worldwide online community of thousands of women like this. Their problems have a way of becoming everybody else’s problems, too. Because “the personal is political,” and the whole point of blaming “society” — “patriarchy,” “male supremacy,” “misogyny,” “rape culture,” etc. — is to use their own personal grievances as leverage to force the political system to meet feminist demands. Keep that in mind as you consider this story:

In spring 2012, students in Quebec rioted over a proposal to increase university tuition. In one of the demonstrations — April 27, 2012 — police arrested several protesters who were blocking traffic in the streets, issuing 81 citations. One of the cited protesters was a teenage high-school student named Camille Freytag, who told a reporter, “There was absolutely nothing wrong, [the demonstration] was blocking only part of the road.” This student protester now runs a Tumblr blog called Lesbian Feminist Witch:

Camille, 19, Canada, lesbian, radical feminist, vegan.
I am a survivor of incest and emotional abuse and have been diagnosed with major depression and c-ptsd (Complex post-traumatic stress disorder). I dropped out of school because of that and now i’m on welfare and trying to get better.
I have a dog named Pooky, he’s the cutest, and the smartest, and the nicest.
I was born in France but we moved to Canada when i was 2 years old.
The only person I see in my family is my sister Aurélie, she’s the best.

Camile Freytag has turned 20 since she wrote that, and now read what she published at her blog earlier this month:

My father was the hippie who lived in a commune, did yoga and believed in peace and love
My father was the communist student in the street during may ‘68 in Paris . . .
My father was the struggling artist with a theater company, raising another man’s baby
My father is the respected university teacher and charismatic leader of his union who everyone loves and admire
My father has been many men, but what he always has been behind closed doors is a pedophile and an abuser
So next time you tell me to trust men and try to prove to me that some of them are great by listing their accomplishments or how they personally treated you, I’m still not gonna care, because the risk is too big and I don’t need to be hurt again

What shall we say of this? Certainly, I would never doubt that a university professor is a communist pedophile, especially if he was a Canadian professor from France. This is like learning that a Democrat congressman is a pervert, or discovering that a prominent “male feminist” is a dangerous psychotic. No conservative is ever really surprised about such revelations. To us, phrases like “French communist” and “Canadian pervert” are more or less redundant, in the same way “Lesbian Feminist Witch” is redundant.

“[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”
— Pat Robertson, 1992

Everyone who has read Sex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature ($11.69 in paperback, $1.99 in Kindle ebook format) knows every single word of that quote is true:

All any researcher has to do is to Google “Dianic Wicca” or “Goddess Movement” to learn all they need to know about this, but I went beyond that; I’ve already read five books about neopagan witchcraft and especially about the feminist witch cult known as “Reclaiming.”

Whether or not Camille Freytag is serious in describing herself as a Lesbian Feminist Witch, she seems entirely serious in saying that her father, the communist professor, is a pedophile. In April 2014, she complained on her blog that everybody “at the social assistance office doesn’t take me seriously”:

“like they’re all oh a teenager that wanted to be on her own but didn’t make it she should just go back to her parents house. yeaahhh sure great idea i can either go to my father who’s a f–king pedophile and sexually assaulted me or to my mother who’s emotionally abusive and jsut decided to move to france because she didn’t want to deal with anything suuuure great options i’m just gonna go live with people that keep telling me that i’m crazy and that i should probably be in a psych ward for all my life”

In other words, everyone in her family — with the exception of one sister, Aurélie — believes Camille Freytag is delusional. Her parents divorced and her mother went back to France, and Camille didn’t apply for public assistance or claim to be a mentally ill incest survivor until, after getting arrested during a 2012 protest when she was still in high school, she tried to “be on her own” and failed. Of course, this does not mean Camille isn’t telling the truth about her father, the communist professor, being a pedophile who sexually assaulted her. Did I mention she also said her father is an alcoholic and her mother is a drug addict?

“i still can’t believe how brainwashed i was as a kid thinking my childhood was totally normal when i lived with an alcoholic father, a mother who was stone 98% of the time in an abusive environment no wonder i’m f–ked up now”

And also:

“i really don’t mind people asking me about my ‘family’ i love to expose a–holes. my ‘father’ is a pedophile, manipulative, a drunk, a sh– in general. my ‘mother’ is an emotionally abusive pothead horrible person”

So her father — “the respected university teacher and charismatic leader of his union” — is not only a pedophile, but a drunk pedophile, while Camille’s mother spent “98% of the time” stoned on marijuana, but nobody suspected anything? Well . . . it’s Canada. Maybe every professor in Canada is a drunk communist pedophile married to an “emotionally abusive pothead.” Why not just do the feminist personal-is-political thing of using narratives of the worst possible situations to generalize about an entire society? This is your basic demographic profile of Canadians — pedophiles, alcoholics, drug addicts, communists and lesbian feminist witches. Perhaps the only sane people in Canada are working at the social assistance office, processing applications from suicidal teenagers:

“today would be such the perfect day to kill myself i just thought about it and i felt so light and free for a moment”

That was a couple months after she called herself a loser:

“i’m such a loser tho i just droped out college when it was my only source of incomes with loans and scolarships and stuff and now i’ve just been sleeping and watching tv for months and im almost out of money and i have no skills and not able to f–king get out of bed and find a job and i just f–ck “

Nobody loves her:

“I hate myself so much that I don’t believe anyone can love me”

Before she was a lesbian, she tried another label:

“This is stupid, I have to come out as pansexual to my family and I’m f–king stress about it. . . . Plus I feel really bad about myself, nobody ever liked me or anything so coming out for me is kind of the same thing as saying heyyy I am attract to all genders but nobody likes me, so basically i’m reject by 100% of the people… that’s great.”

She blamed her confusion on her “environment”:

“i’m so mad that i spent so many years thinking i was straight and trying respond to all the beauty standards because i wasn’t normal to not have a boyfriend yet. i realize now that i had crushes on girls from a really young age but i didn’t know that it was possible i just thought that maybe i just really wanted to be like them not be with them i am mad that didn’t feel completely myself during those years and i hate that i was raised in an environment that made it impossible for me to be myself from the beginning”

Clearing up the confusion didn’t really help much:

“i wish a was the hot lesbian who makes straight girls question their sexuality but i can’t even get the attention of lesbians”

She doesn’t have any friends:

“i literally lost all of the friends i had before my depression and anxiety got so bad”

She hates people who aren’t vegetarians:

“sometimes i think of old friends and wonder why i stop seeing them and than i remember meat-eater that don’t have any reasons to eat corpse except their taste buds yep don’t need that in my life”

She doesn’t like heterosexual men:

“straight dudes are so so disgusting ewww”

Don’t try to claim you’re an exception, “nice guys”:

“self-proclaimed nice guys are the worst kind of people”

No, seriously:

“guys are disgusting jerks and i don’t want them near me ever”

Can you guess her New Year’s Resolution for 2015?

“i’m never trusting men again, i don’t care if they’re dating my sister or if they’re your father or brother or if you love them to death, i don’t care. trusting them or even just giving them the benefit of the doubt as only ever ended up with them hurting me or other women and you know what’s amazing? i don’t need any men in my life. there’s literally no reason why i would want to be close do dudes ever. so happy new year, 2015 is going to be 100% men-free.”

Everything she says about her life may be entirely true. Her psychologist seemed slightly skeptical, but then again, this was a Canadian psychologist and we know how Canadians are, right? Please excuse my sarcastic tone, because my father was wounded within an inch of his life in World War II and my mother died when I was 16, and . . . No.

(Deletes long paragraph about all the misery and woe he’s seen.)

Thank God nobody ever offered me victimhood as an identity.

Far be it from me to cast doubt on people’s genuine suffering, or to treat people’s life struggles as a joke. Let us stipulate that Camille Freytag’s father, the communist professor, is every bit the awful alcoholic pedophile she says he is. Stipulate also that her mother was exactly the “emotionally abusive pothead” Camille describes, and further stipulate that all Camille’s troubles in life stem from her dysfunctional family background. Some people I know have actually had it much worse than Camille has, but each person’s suffering is uniquely their own, and victimhood is not a competitive sport, so maybe we shouldn’t rate these situations on a scale. What bothers me — no, what offends me — is when victimhood presents itself as a political cause, and no one is allowed to criticize the cause, because criticism would somehow harm the victims. Those of us who have studied this phenomenon for some years notice that the Worst Ideas in the World always march forward behind a human shield of victims — downtrodden laborers, homeless people, oppressed minorities, illegal aliens, etc. While I don’t know much about Canadian politics, in the United States this victim-based method of political discourse is always used as an argument to (a) spend tax dollars, (b) expand government bureaucracy, and (c) vote Democrat.

Amazingly, most people never even suspect that this is a racket, a hustle, a crooked scam operated by money-grubbing politicians who have figured out that a majority of American voters — at least 65,918,507 of them — are either sucking on the government teat or else too stupid to catch on to the true nature of this racket. Most American’s don’t seem to notice (or at least, they don’t mind) the moral corruption inherent in the Great Democrat Party Something-for-Nothing Giveaway Bonanza.

“Free stuff” is not what I’d call sound economic policy, but as a formula for electing Democrats, it has certainly been successful.

Meanwhile, in Quebec, the Canadian taxpayer is supporting Camille the 20-year-old Lesbian Feminist Witch, but they’re just not supporting her enough to pay all her bills:

hi i’m sorry this is so annoying but i’m gonna be really tight on cash this month and anything would help my paypal is [email protected]
to be completely transparent :
my welfare money is 748$, after rent and my phone/internet bill I have 81.55$ left for the month.
I give 20$ every month to my sister to try and slowly pay back all the money i owe her, so that’s 61.55$ left for the month.
I got to buy dog food this month, i’ll take a small bag, so that will be approximately 30$ so i’ll have 31.55$ left.
I would also like to buy a little something for my sister’s birthday, so yeah i can go to the food bank 2 times/month and the food i get there usually last a week and i’ve got pasta and dry beans and stuff like that at home so i can figure it out, but it yeah if you wanted to give me anything extra it would be super helpful.
ok so i got 40$ (thank you soooo much seriously it helps a lot <3) i used half to pay the minimum amount on my credit card (i forgot that i had that to pay when i made the post) and half to get something for my sister and sugar and bread. I have 10$ left for the month, again i do have dry beans and stuff like that so don’t worry i’m not gonna starve but if anyone wanted to donate something extra so i can get maybe fresh veggies or toilet paper it would be amazing. sorry for bothering you all, much love xxx

Camille Freytag gets $748 a month and, among other expenses, this helps feed her dog and pay her Internet bill — so she can go on Tumblr and explain how much she hates men, especially her father, the incestuous communist pedophile who is, however, a “respected university teacher.” This raises the question: Why doesn’t the Canadian government arrest the professor or, failing that, force him to give some money to his daughter Camille the Lesbian Feminist Witch, so that taxpayers don’t have to fork over $748 a month to pay her rent, keep her hooked up to the Internet and feed her dog?

Exactly who is Camille Freytag’s father, anyway?

If we accept her claim that she is mentally ill because her father sexually assaulted her, and if her father is employed by the Canadian government as a university professor, wouldn’t you think some enterprising Canadian journalist would be investigating this weird situation? Or does this situation only seem weird to me because I’m not from Canada, where situations like this are perhaps routine?

At any rate, everybody’s weird on Feminist Tumblr, which probably explains how Camille the Lesbian Feminist Witch met her girlfriend, who also has a Tumblr blog:

Radical feminist. Spiritualist. Poet. Introvert. Vegan. Light worker. Nelipot.
I believe the energy you expel into the Universe is the energy you receive back, solely due to the law of attraction. No higher force is punishing you for behaving wrongly, it is simply the frequency you give off through your thoughts, emotions, and words.Those are the only things that make up reality on this plane.
I used to follow Buddhism, which led me into Jainism and Hinduism, but it all became very restrictive. I now worship the Earth. She is my Divine Mother. She is alive and I honor Her. Please respect Her.
I do not take any insults personally, so do not waste your time. I will reflect any compliments back towards you, reminding you I am a mirror of yourself.

There’s a whole page of selfies of this worshiper of Divine Mother Earth.

So, after all her worries — remember, she lost all her friends and hated herself so much she believed no one could ever love her — Camille has found lesbian love via her taxpayer-funded Internet connection. Now her new girlfriend Ryley is visiting her in Montreal and the happy couple are posting pictures together on Tumblr.

Welcome to feminism in the 21st century. If you think there is anything weird about it, obviously you’re just a hater.

And speaking of hate, Camille’s not a huge fan of the Pope.

Witches really know how to hold a grudge. The Church burned a few witches and, centuries later, witches still hate the Church.

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”
— Exodus 22:18 (KJV)

Or just keep paying her $748 a month. Take your pick, Canada.





 

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 07.13.15

Posted on | July 13, 2015 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
Daily Signal: Sorry, Slate – Oregon Did Put A “Gag Order” On Those Christian Bakers
EBL: Jonah Goldberg – How I Stopped Worrying And Learned To Love The Donald
Doug Powers: What’s Government-Speak For “Devastating Computer Hacking”?
Twitchy: “Embrace The Suck” – Poor DeRay Has A Major Obamacare Sad, And We’re Lovin’ It!


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: The Political Left Is Very Nervous That The “Silent Majority” May Finally Have Found A Voice
American Thinker: Illegal Aliens Murder At A Much Higher Rate Than US Citizens Do
BLACKFIVE: Photo – M1A2 Main Gun
Conservatives4Palin: With New Documents, Stench Of IRS Scandal Extends Into Third Year
Don Surber: Americans Want Their Border Protected. Now.
Jammie Wearing Fools: As Crime Skyrockets, Racist Baltimore Mayor Tells NAACP Leader Not To Meet With Republicans
Joe For America: Call The Cops, I See A Rebel Flag
JustOneMinute: Social Justice Warriors Never Sleep
Pamela Geller: Ramadan In Paris – Muslims Ransacking, Rampaging In Barbes (Video)
Protein Wisdom: California Lets Me Know I’m No Longer A Wife
Shot In The Dark: All In
STUMP: Unpack Your Adjectives – Weekly Wrapup
The Gateway Pundit: Rock & Roll – Ted Nugent, Kid Rock Team Up To Record “Kiss My Rebel Ass”
The Jawa Report: Same Sex Equality At Last!
The Lonely Conservative: Expect A Big Liberal Push To Change Minds On Sanctuary Cities
This Ain’t Hell: Marine LTC Kate Germano Fired
Weasel Zippers: MoveOn Fundraising For Greek Bailout
Megan McArdle: Frozen Custard’s Last Stand
Mark Steyn: Last Stand Of The Old White Males


Southern Puddings, Custards & Ice Creams: Bread Puddings, Ice Creams, Homemade Puddings, Frozen Desserts & More! (Southern Cooking Recipes Book 9)

Category: Linkagery

Jay Laze Gets a Lesson in Rhetoric (Or, How NOT to Debate a Feminist)

Posted on | July 13, 2015 | 34 Comments

In 2013, Virginia Beach pizzeria owner Jay Laze gained notoriety by offering a 15 percent discount to customers who were exercising their Second Amendment rights. On his Facebook page last week, Laze commented on an article about an incident in Vietnam, where a water park offered free admission, leading to a mob scene in which “thousands” of men reportedly molested teenage girls wearing bikinis.

A girl is rescued amid the chaos at a Hanoi water park.

Laze compared the park’s error — exposing “80% naked women” to “instinctually driven men with no security” — to sharks in a “feeding frenzy.” And this is just common sense, really.

However, a feminist saw the comment and drew Laze into a debate on his Facebook page. She asked, “can you actually prove it’s human instinct or are you just projecting?” She screencapped the entire exchange and posted it to her Tumblr blog, saying that Laze “stated he’d rape women every time he thought he could get away with it, and that he thinks this is normal male behavior.” Did he actually say that? Well . . .

Laze wrote that this incident in Vietnam was a case of “instinct overriding self control,” and the feminist then asked, “how many times have been unable to stop yourself from raping and molesting?”

This insulting insinuation provoked Laze to respond, “You’re asking the wrong question. Ask ‘how many times would you have raped had there been no consequences?'”

The feminist replied, “that’s a great question. how many times would you have raped had there been no consequences?”

Laze then answered: “Since men have the instinct to ‘put their penis in a vagina’ I’d probably say every time.”

This is not how you win debates with feminists, sir.

Online debate can be a minefield, and many people make the kind of errors Jay Laze made, simply because they don’t have experience dealing with troll tactics of this kind. For the benefit of readers, permit me to offer a few suggestions:

  • You have the right to remain silent — If someone attacks you online, you are not required to respond. We are not accustomed to being mocked or insulted in real life, so when it happens to us online, our natural impulse is to defend ourselves. We are not racists or sexists, we are not ignorant or stupid, so when someone makes these kinds of accusations online — when our character is impugned — it is easy to be provoked into a defensive reaction. However, this will often have the opposite of the intended effect. By defending yourself against an accusation, you are pouring gasoline onto the sparks and, as illustrated by Jay Laze’s unfortunate incident, “everything you say can and will be used against you.” Sometimes, silence is the best defense.
  • Know your antagonist — It is evident to me that Jay Laze began this Facebook conversation without bothering to investigate who he was talking to. She knew who he was, but he didn’t know who she was, and this put him at a disadvantage, because Laze didn’t anticipate her skill in steering him into a rhetorical ambush.
  • Don’t get sidetracked — Jay Laze’s original point was a good one. As someone whose business is in a beach resort town, he is obviously aware of how inadequate crowd control can lead to dangerous situations. Yet the feminist, focusing on Laze’s phrase “instinctually driven men,” sidetracked Laze toward a more general discussion of instinct as a factor in rape, a topic that Laze had originally not intended to address. He was inadequately prepared for the debate he encountered on this sidetrack, where his antagonist expertly provoked him into a rhetorical error.
  • This is not about you — Jay Laze’s antagonist pushed his buttons by accusing him of “projecting” his own personal “instinct to rape girls” onto the mob of men at the Vietnam water park. This kind of insulting insinuation should always be regarded as a flashing alarm in any such discussion. The appropriate response to such an unwarranted insult is to call out the rhetorical foul and terminate the conversation. Clearly, your antagonist is not arguing in good faith. Yet it is often the case that people react to these kind of baseless insults the way Jay Laze reacted, by continuing the discussion as if being accused of criminal behavior was nothing unusual, and then cooperating with the antagonist’s interrogation of his personal motives.
  • Beware of hypotheticals — Having let his antagonist steer him onto a sidetrack and then personalize the discussion by accusing him of being at least a potential rapist, Jay Laze finally sets a rhetorically fatal trap for himself by proposing the hypothetical scenario where rape was possible with “no consequences.” That he proposed this as a devil’s advocate is obvious enough. His original point was about the inadequate security that caused the chaotic free-for-all at the Vietnam water park, and Laze himself is an advocate of armed self-defense because he understands the need to safeguard against such possibilities. Yet Laze also intended to make a point about sexual instinct being one of the unruly human impulses that so often lead to violence, and thus was willing to stipulate that, if there were “no consequences,” he would himself behave like a savage beast.

Oops. We know exactly why feminists love to talk constantly about rape, as Ace of Spades observed: “Minus rape, feminism is rather too obviously a list of trivial complaints by comfortable yet hysterical semi-affluent white women.” This why feminists have employed Statistical Voodoo and Elastic Definitions to gin up a phony “campus rape epidemic.” Feminists deliberately exaggerate the incidence of rape, so that they can treat all men as suspects in a criminal investigation and thus silence critics of feminism: “Shut up, because rape!”

Feminism’s mantra, “The personal is the political,” operates as an invitation for women to tell their tales of being victimized by the oppression of male supremacy. Any man is a damned fool if he thinks he can play this game — trying to make a political point by telling a personal narrative — because however innocent he may be of any Sexist Thought Crimes, the mere fact that he is playing the feminist game will effectively put him on the defensive. Never fight a battle according to your enemy’s plan. Do not surrender the initiative by letting your enemy choose the time and place of battle. When you see that your enemy is attempting to provoke you into battle, always suspect an ambush.

As to the substance of Jay Laze’s comments, we can see that he was speaking of the Hobbesian nightmare of a lawless world — bellum omnium contra omnes, the “war of all against all” — and he is clearly against this kind of anarchy. Speculating what we might do in a hypothetical apocalypse, freed from the restraints of civilization, is one of those dorm-room debates that used to occur in the 1970s when everybody had done a few bong hits and was staring at the lava lamp.

Think about that scene in Animal House, where the Deltas have turned the homecoming parade into complete pandemonium — “Remain calm! All is well!” — and Bluto spies his dream girl Mandy Pepperidge amid the chaos. He swoops down like a pirate, abducts her in a stolen convertible and, we learn in the film’s famous concluding scene, they eventually become Senator and Mrs. Joseph Blutarsky.

Everybody applauds that scene, because when you get down to it, everybody understands what feminists call “rape culture.” We recognize the beastly impulses of human nature. Unless we are complete fools, however, we also understand that the fantasy of unrestrained sexuality is nothing like the reality of what would happen under conditions of lawless anarchy. As Hobbes himself explained, in such conditions, human life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

Even worse than Baltimore, perhaps.

OK, so we climb into the Time Machine and arrive at a state university dorm room in 1978. A haze of cannabis smoke fills the air, and the blacklight posters on the wall give off an eerie glow. A Pink Floyd album is playing on the stereo and everybody’s staring at a lava lamp when somebody says, “Hey, man, what would you do if you were in a swimming pool full of Vietnamese chicks in bikinis and there was no security, no rules at all?” Imagining myself at age 18 in that dorm room, presented with such a hypothetical scenario, I am very grateful that (a) there is no such thing as a Time Machine, and (b) there was no Internet in 1978.

Never forget: You have the right to remain silent.





 

Category: Sex Trouble

Rule 5 Sunday: The Persistence of the Bunny

Posted on | July 12, 2015 | 12 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

It’s actually a tad cool in Las Vegas as I write this, which is to say it hasn’t reached 100. Still, the streets and casinos are amply supplied with tourists and locals appropriately dressed for the weather, which is another reason to be glad I moved here. Of course, some of the local workforce are dressed like that in line of duty, such as this young lady, a dealer at the Playboy Club in the Palms.

The magazine may be tottering, but the Playboy Bunnies persist.

As usual, many of the following links lead to pictures normally considered NSFW. Reader discretion is advised.

Goodstuff leads off again this week, informing us that the future is here, and it’s filled with robot strippers. Paging noted robosexual Instapundit! Also, Jamie Chung! Ninety Miles from Tyranny chips in with Hot Pick of the Late Night, Morning Mistress (featuring Cameltoe), and Girls with Guns, featuring Sofia Vergara and her double-breast machine guns. Animal Magnetism has Rule Five Greek Tragedy Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon, while First Street Journal has The Glam Life of American military women.

EBL’s thundering herd this week includes the Womens’ World Cup victors of Team USA, the Reddit Revolt, Logan’s Run, Sinatra at the Beach, Megyn Kelly (pretty when she’s angry), infamous doughnut licker Ariana Grande, and Marine heroine Colonel Kate Germano.

A View from the Beach checks in with The ABCs with Abbey Clancy, The One Minute Time Machine, More Naked News, POTUS Apprentices Daughter to Soft Core Porn Studio, Tuesday Telegram, “Stranger in My House” and Microaggression of the Week.

Postaldog returns with Maitland Ward, Charlie Riina, Zoey Deutch, Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, and Elizabeth Olsen.

Having recovered from a Snoochinator 9000 malfunction* over the Independence Day weekend, Soylent Siberia submits your morning coffee creamer, Monday Motivationer Fur de Fleur, Tuesday Titillation DDumbfounded, Humpday Hawtness Sunny, Retro Fursday Fantasm Linda Lusardi, Trophy Rack, Corset Amalgam, T-GIF Friday Weekender Foreshadowing, Weekender Triple Play, and Bath Night Hunting Camp Story.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Lucy Hale, his Vintage Babe is Annette O’Toole, and in Sex in Advertising, Join The Lamb’s Navy! At Dustbury, it’s Kirsten Vangsness and Denise Richards.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox is midnight (Pacific Time) on Saturday, July 18.

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

Why Do Drunk Sluts Get Drunk?

Posted on | July 11, 2015 | 69 Comments

“Campus sexual assault is an all-hands-on-deck epidemic in America.”
— Rep. Nancy Pelosi, July 7, 2015

Pardon the deliberately provocative clickbait headline, but the campus “rape culture” discourse keeps avoiding this issue. There is an obvious connection between (a) claims that sexual assault is an “epidemic” among college and university students; (b) the phenomenon of binge drinking among students, most of whom are below the legal drinking age; and (c) the adamant insistence of feminists that it is “slut-shaming” and “victim blaming” to suggest how (a) and (b) are most likely related.

A blog post is probably not an appropriate forum to conduct a psychology seminar, but anyone familiar with the research knows how promiscuity correlates with low self-esteem, and how alcohol abuse correlates with depression. It is not necessary to consult the work of academic experts, however, to know that drunks commonly wake up with hangovers and feelings of profound remorse for the irresponsible behavior they engaged in during their night of extreme inebriation.

“The plural of ‘anecdote’ is data,” as they say. There is a negative feedback loop of low self-esteem, drunkenness, impulsive behavior, shame and depression involved in the typical downward spiral of the alcoholic’s life. Getting the drunk to sober up and stay sober is usually just the beginning of recovery, because there are always unresolved emotional issues related to this pattern of irresponsible behavior.

What does it tell us, then, when we repeatedly see stories about alleged “sexual assault” which, when subjected to close scrutiny, turn out to be variations on the same familiar tale of youthful misadventure? Two drunk teenagers hooked up, then the female drunk teenager claimed (often months after the incident) that she was raped by the male drunk teenager? This is actually becoming part of the “consent” message:

Jake was drunk. Josie was drunk.
Jake and Josie hooked up.
Josie could NOT consent.
The next day Jake was charged with rape.
A woman who is intoxicated cannot give her legal consent to sex, so proceeding under these circumstances is a crime.
It only takes a single day to ruin your life.
Think about it! Be responsible.

Are you kidding me? While we may say it is always “irresponsible” to get drunk and have sex, this is something college kids do quite routinely. When two people are both in “these circumstances,” how can anyone fairly assert that the male is guilty of a felony, while a drunken hookup makes the female a helpless victim? How does such a claim — that males bear 100% responsibility in heterosexual encounters, and that females never bear any responsibility — comport with the idea that feminism is about men and women being equal? Am I the only one who sees how “social justice” in this context becomes the exact opposite of justice?

[University of Minnesota student body president Joelle] Stangler describes yes means yes policies as “common practice.” But these policies are anything but common practice. People don’t have sex by asking “May I kiss you?” “May I touch you here?” etc. . . .
Really, anything the accuser decides later they didn’t like can become grounds for an accusation. And if the accuser was drinking, consent is automatically negated, even if the accused had been drinking as well (and would presumably therefore be unable to consent). The policy shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, meaning they have to prove a crime didn’t happen, which, short of a video recording, is impossible in a he said/she said situation.

Under “these circumstances” — where radical feminists are demanding the implementation of policies that have the effect of criminalizing heterosexuality on campus and denying male students their basic civil rights — every college boy who hooks up with a college girl should be advised to seek psychiatric treatment immediately, because any guy who has sex on campus in 2015 must obviously be crazy.

Any attempt to discuss the “affirmative consent” agenda, especially in the context of due-process rights and the climate of anti-male hysteria feminists have created on campus, results in skeptics being branded “rape apologists.” Shrugging off this slander is easy enough for an adult — what do I care what a left-wing Minnesota college kid thinks of me? — but what we must take seriously is how this rhetoric functions as a terroristic intimidation tactic that silences dissent on campus. Ms. Stangler’s student government produced a 20-page report entitled “Guys Don’t Get Consent” (PDF) which made no mention of false accusations and said nothing at all about the psychological factors involved in binge drinking and sexual promiscuity among college-age females. Instead, the UM report blamed “masculinity” and asserted (based on a survey of about 60 male students and focus groups with 18 of those) that male students at the university are all clueless creeps:

“Telling guys to ‘stop at no’ is useless. They already know that no means no. What they don’t know is that not-yes also means no. The idea of affirmative consent is foreign.”

Feminist crusaders like Ms. Stangler seem to believe new laws and mandatory lectures about “affirmative consent” are the solution, but parents of male college students can implement a far more effective solution: Tell your sons to avoid female students, period.

When your sons return to campus this fall, they will enter a climate where all male students are viewed as rape suspects, where new federal policies encourage rape accusations, where accusations are treated as tantamount to proof of guilt, and where university officials are under heavy pressure from the Obama administration to increase the number of punitive procedures against male students. Any heterosexual activity on campus poses a grave risk for male students in this climate of frenzied hysteria, where feminists are hunting for rapists with more fanatical zeal than 17th-century Puritans hunted witches in Salem.

Responsible parents must sternly warn their sons going off to college not only to avoid sex with female students, but also never to speak to any woman on campus. The feminist campaign against masculinity, as evidenced in the University of Minnesota report, will have the effect of producing accusations of “harassment” against male students who attempt to flirt with female students, or who say or do anything that any female student may find offensive.

What do feminists find offensive? Men having sex with women.

“That consent rather than nonmutuality is the line between rape and intercourse further exposes the inequality in normal social expectations. . . . If sex is ordinarily accepted as something men do to women, the better question would be whether consent is a meaningful concept. . . .
“Sexuality, then, is a form of power. . . Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, “Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory” (1982)

The Feminist-Industrial Complex of Women’s Studies programs on the 21st-century campus teaches female students to hate and fear men. Before parents send a son off to college, they should advise him to expect that he will be viewed with contempt and suspicion by every female on campus. No matter how handsome he is or how popular he was in high school, your son would be a fool to presume that any female college student might ever find him attractive. Your son’s confidence in his judgment, based on his previous romantic successes, could be the hubris that precedes nemesis in so many campus tragedies.

If anyone thinks I am exaggerating the dangers facing male college students, let them consider what happened to Paul Nungesser, what happened to Daniel Kopin, and what happened to Joshua Strange. Or consider the cases discussed by Professor K.C. Johnson at Minding the Campus. Over and over, we have seen these stories of male students who had no idea that they had encountered nemesis in the form of a female student whose emotional problems would result in accusations of sexual assault. Nor did these male students realize that such an accusation — often many weeks or months after the incident — would put them into the Kafkaesque nightmare of campus disciplinary tribunals where an accused student has none of the civil rights afforded to any common criminal in a court of law. Feminists have a cynical contempt for truth and no regard at all for the rights of innocent men destroyed by such false accusations. This dishonest campaign of deliberate cruelty is making more and more males casualties “in the Obama administration’s war on men,” as James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal said.

Promiscuity is rampant among female college students, many of whom are infected with sexually transmitted diseases. Wesleyan University’s Ella Dawson is infected with herpes, which is incurable, and a footnote on page 7 of Paul Nungesser’s lawsuit mentions that his accuser Emma Sulkowicz was reportedly treated for chlamydia. “According to Stanford University’s Sexual Health Peer Resource Center, 1 in 4 college students have an STD,” Dr. Laura Berman reports, and parents must warn their sons against this danger. Even if he were willing to accept such a grave risk to his health, however, the male student must be warned that many females on campus are psychologically disturbed.

Joelle Stengler reports that 25 percent of University of Minnesota students have mental health problems, and college-age women are particularly prone to these disorders. The student newspaper at the University of Michigan profiled a mentally ill female student they called “Maria” who has been twice arrested for assaulting police officers while in drunken blackouts. Maria is being treated with four different drugs:

The Klonopin treats her anxiety. The Lomictal and Seroquel act as mood stabilizers. The Vyvanse helps her focus. . . .
Over the last decade, it has become more and more common for college-aged women to be on the types of medication that Maria takes. The chance of a major depressive episode in 18 to 29-year-olds is three times higher than in individuals 60 years or older, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Most of these episodes occur in females. A quarter of American women take a drug for a mental health disorder, compared to 15 percent of men. The ratio of women to men on anti-anxiety meds is 2 to 1.

Whereas emotionally unbalanced young women were once institutionalized in psychiatric wards, now they are on university campuses and, like Maria at Michigan, many mentally ill female students “self-medicate” with alcohol. How can any male student know whether the girl he hooks up with at a college party — drinking, dancing, seemingly eager to be his sexual partner — is among the 1-in-4 with mental health problems? Wouldn’t he be safer if he operated with the assumption that every girl at the party is a psychiatric basket case, a deranged crazy-bomb just waiting to explode?





 

Category: Sex Trouble

FMJRA 2.0: Wait, What?

Posted on | July 11, 2015 | 6 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Illegal Alien Who Murdered Woman Had Exploited S.F. ‘Sanctuary City’ Policy
The Camp of the Saints

Feminist Tumblr: Dreaming of Their Journey Across the Mytilini Strait
Living In Anglo-America

FMJRA 2.0: Independence Day Edition
BlurBrain
The Pirate’s Cove

Rule 5 Sunday: Independence Day Weekend Edition
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles from Tyranny
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive

In The Mailbox: 07.06.15
Proof Positive

Overwhelmed, Sad and Lonely
Dustbury

In The Mailbox: 07.07.15
A View from the Beach

Off The Shelf
Regular Right Guy

My SWATting: Perpetrator Reaches Plea Agreement in Federal Felony Case UPDATE: Investigation Is Continuing
Hogewash
A View from the Beach

Laci Green Talks Dirty to Girls
Living In Anglo-America
A View from the Beach

Sorry, @AsheSchow: ‘Due Process’ IS a Left-Right Issue — and Here’s Why
Living In Anglo-America
A View from the Beach

Feminist Tumblr: It’s Not As If They Hate Men or Anything Like That
Living In Anglo-America

Top linker this week was A View from the Beach, who checked in with five links the hard way. Something apparently went wrong with the pingback widget this week, because I’m pretty sure I saw some links from EBL at Batshit Crazy News while I was doing spam suppression. Apologies to anyone who got screwed by the software.


Shop Amazon – Off to College

Category: FMJRA Award

Are We Hiring Someone So Challenged As To Require A “Business Suit Onesie”?

Posted on | July 11, 2015 | 42 Comments

by Smitty

 Mrs. Other Smitty brought this to my attention. As a generally slack-tacular kinda guy who regularly toggles between sports podcasts and casino apps, I can follow the logic involved in this. Anything you can do to streamline a process, e.g. dressing, is worth doing. Note the shopping avoidance on display: you buy the one thing, and you’re done. Two complications come to mind:

  • You need to make minor adjustments, e.g. doffing a jacket, to fit the office climate, and
  • You want to mix things up a bit, to get more wear out of the upper portion. Typically the trousers reach end-of-life ahead of the shirt or jacket.

Above all these practical considerations, there is this: you’re going home. There is a 1 year-old awaiting you. That one year-old is also wearing a onesie. WHAT. WERE. YOU. THINKING?

You weren’t. Let this blog help you. When someone tries to resurrect the jumpsuit, JUST. SAY. NO.

Category: humor
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin