The Sexual Revolution’s Arab Spring.

There is a naive celebration by many conservatives of California’s new Yes Means Yes law.  The theory is that unleashing a feminist jihad of false rape punishment will somehow end the sexual revolution, bringing us back to either Victorian or Puritan sexual mores.  Conn Carroll looks forward to an explosion in false rape accusations leading to a sudden boon of “committed relationships”.  Heather Mac Donald entertains similar fantasies, explaining:

Mothers worried that their college-bound sons will be hauled before a biased campus sex tribunal by a vindictive female should tell them: “Wait. Find a girlfriend and smother her with affection and respect. Write her love letters in the middle of the night. Escort her home after a date and then go home yourself.”

These fantasies and those which will surely follow are the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of why we have the hookup culture in the first place.  It wasn’t men who drove the creation of hookup culture, it was women.  The sexual revolution asked young women to reshape our culture to best suit their desires, and hookup culture is what young women created. Giving women even more capricious power over men won’t suddenly make today’s campus sluts desire marriage, or even marriage lite.  While the new rules will undoubtedly take some young men (perhaps a large number of them) out of the hookup market they won’t reduce young women’s desire or opportunity to fully indulge in promiscuity.

The law also won’t help the young women fighting against the hookup culture, those who are looking for marriage or at least a “serious relationship”.  The law is designed to create mistrust between men and women, and to destabilize all heterosexual relationships on campus.

To the extent that the law drives (some) young men away from the hookup culture, what will fill the void is not a sudden resurgence in marriage or even a path to marriage, but some combination of men checking out (the dreaded peter pan manboys/grass eaters), turning to porn/VR sex, and homosexuality.  If your favorite sexual marketplace player is represented in that lineup, then aside from the cruelty and injustice of the law you might have something to look forward to.  But for those who want to see a return to marriage, this next wave of feminist sexual insanity will only take us farther from the end goal.

This entry was posted in Feminists, Foolishness, Rape Culture, Traditional Conservatives, Yes Means Yes. Bookmark the permalink.

269 Responses to The Sexual Revolution’s Arab Spring.

  1. earl says:

    “It wasn’t men who drove the creation of hookup culture, it was women.”

    Are you saying women spread the hookup culture…or that they actually created it?

  2. Pingback: The Sexual Revolution’s Arab Spring. | Manosphere.com

  3. Chris says:

    As a Christian myself, it seems strange for me to be nodding at the decline of marriage and relationships, but I am.

    I’d no more get married here in the West than I would skydive, knowing that there’s a 53-or-so percent chance that my parachute wouldn’t deploy.

  4. deti says:

    Spot on, Dalrock. Well done.

    Heather MacDonald is as nuts as any of them. She doesn’t seem to realize that the college girls don’t want the men who are going to be chewed up and spit out by this law.

    “Eh. All you have to do is find a girlfriend and put her on a pedestal.” What utter crap. You might just as well tell the average guy to build a rocketship and fly it to Mars. The average guy has an easier time with that than finding a decent girl (or even a picked over trashed out slut) who just wants to be his girlfriend.

  5. The theory is that unleashing a feminist jihad of false rape punishment will somehow end the sexual revolution, bringing us back to either Victorian or Puritan sexual mores.

    Ahahah! Actually quite the opposite…

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/yes-means-yes-can-teaching-good-sex-prevent-rape-campus-n226416

  6. earl says:

    My way of stopping the ‘rape’ culture.

    Girls:

    Don’t let your biological urges direct what you do. Get right with God.
    Teach them gratitude, caring, and being pleasant…not entitled.
    Get off the birth control.
    Practice modesty.
    Gain homemaker skills.
    Respect the patriarchy.

    Boys:

    Don’t let your biological urges direct what you do. Get right with God.
    Focus on your skills and work ethic. (and education if it requires it)
    Respect the patriarchy.
    Make your mission your priority.
    Teach them they are to love women (protect and provide)…but those are for women who show gratitude for it.

    That’s a lot of work. It’s not as easy as demonizing one segment of the population with laws but it will be more effective.

  7. okrahead says:

    Is it just me, or are the only “conservative” commentators celebrating this law women? If so, one more piece of evidence that team woman trumps all else, including ideology.

  8. Phillyastro says:

    As I said before in the last post…

    The one way to get a guaranteed consent from a woman is to pay her for it. Therefore, you can always claim that the financial transaction implied continous consent throughout the intimate moments a couple are together.

    There is a word for that already, but I’m not sure what it is…

    Just like modern social democracy is just the secularization of Christian values enforced by violence, the new California legislation attempts to regulate monastic chastity for those empathetic enough to care about their fellow female human beings.

  9. Toddy Cat says:

    Modern conservatives are so utterly clueless about today’s culture they might as well be on Mars. Someone needs to tell these idiots to shut up, and fast. These buffoons actually do more harm than the crazy atheist Left does, or at least as much.

  10. YOHAMI says:

    The kind of guy who smothes her and writes her love letters in the middle of the night – is no the kind of man who gets an enthusiastic Yes!, but the kind of man who is now a rapist according to the law, for daring to have sex with a less than enthusiastic partner.

    In other words leave all the sex to the alphas or you’re a criminal.

  11. Leonidas says:

    All because men have forgotten the power they hold over women.

  12. deti says:

    The consistent part of all these commenters is that they don’t understand what the law actually says.

    Morons and old biddies think this law is aimed only at “drunk sex”. It is not. By its plain language it clearly governs ALL “sexual activity”, drunk or sober.

    Said old biddies also imagine that it is aimed only at penetration. It is not. It is aimed at “sexual activity”, which is everything from a light brush on the arm to rawdog anal sex, and everything in between.

    People fantasize that this law won’t be invoked in “committed relationships”. The law clearly says that a prior relationship between complainant and accused is not by itself evidence of “affirmative consent”.

    Read the statute, people. Read what this law says. It should scare the holy hell out of you.

  13. YOHAMI says:

    “Yes means Yes” means that sex with a beta is rape.

    Funny thing – the beta will indeed ask for permission / consent before making any move. The more consent / permission he requests, the more the girl gets turned off: the more he works for consent, the more of a rapist he is.

    Instead the alpha doesnt ask for consent before ripping her clothes off and she screams Yes while having multiple orgasms.

    This law is a massive shit test from a twisted nutjob. My personal recommendation is to move away from California.

  14. earl says:

    “Read the statute, people. Read what this law says. It should scare the holy hell out of you.”

    No more than “Thou shall not commit adultery” does.

    However if this law can also include married people (which from what I can tell that part is never excluded in the law)…then it’s involves any male-female interaction.

  15. Todd says:

    Dalrock,

    Have you considered that all of this “Yes Means Yes” legislation is really just an attempt to provide a “threat point” for unmarried women to wield against men, similar to the way married women can use the threat point of divorce to keep their husbands in line?

    You said yourself in past posts that “the overriding assumption of both conservatives and feminists is that husbands must be held in check, and that wives need tools to threaten their husbands to keep them at bay.”

    Look at the quote you cited in your post and note how similar it is to the idea that “Yes, your wife can divorce you at any time whatsoever. But that’s good, because it means you’ll work extra hard to never displease her.”

    “Mothers worried that their college-bound sons will be hauled before a biased campus sex tribunal by a vindictive female should tell them: “Wait. Find a girlfriend and smother her with affection and respect. Write her love letters in the middle of the night. Escort her home after a date and then go home yourself.”

    [D: Yes. This is part of why conservatives like it so much. It is a secular version of Fireproof/The Love Dare.]

  16. gunner451 says:

    I think that the real thrust of this is still the redefining of our entire concept of innocent until proven guilty. If this “succeeds” here then expect it to roll right into the courts which are already horribly biased against the accused. It’s the same as what happened with the seizure laws, they were supposed to be used against “evil” drug lords but now are used to steal any cash or property (even your house) on a whim by the cops. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Donald_P._Scott is a good example of the greed involved in this and how when things go wrong someone other than the cops end up dead.

    From a practical view point I don’t see there being much push back to this so expect it to show up in your state soon. Also I disagree with most posters in that I believe that this will have a disparate impact on the alpha/players as statistically they will have the most sexual contacts with women and so will have the highest probability of one of them being “unhappy” with the outcome. Bottom line is that this drives men out of colleges and western society more towards a matriarchy.

  17. theasdgamer says:

    It wasn’t men who drove the creation of hookup culture, it was women.

    Indeed. That point is driven home to me every time I go out. Last night I went to my dance studio. There was a new follow there–a 25ish, petite, beautiful blonde (top 1-2% in beauty with D-cups). I asked her why she took up country dancing and she said that she likes country songs and tried to dance country two-step, but couldn’t. She also volunteered that she dances professionally and is recently divorced. (I thought of pole dancing at a strip club.) Very flirty. She showed big smiles and did the boob brush a couple of times. Plausibly accidental. Plausibly deniable. Too soon to be getting back into a relationship since she’s recently divorced. What other explanation for the flirtiness except hookup?

  18. okrahead says:

    Earl,
    It includes married people, and you should be ashamed of yourself for equating Moses with the California legislature.

  19. YOHAMI says:

    earl, I think its only for campuses. You can rape your wife in peace for now
    /sarcasm

  20. deti says:

    CA senate bill 967, which is now law and applied to publicly funded institutions of higher learning in CA, is clearly intended to be a model for expansion into other legal realms. It’s clearly intended to be expanded into general tort law principles to hold men civilly liable in damages to others for failing to obtain and ensure “affirmative consent. It’s clearly intended to be expanded into the criminal law to involve lowering the standard of proof from beyond reasonable doubt to preponderance, for the specific purpose of making sexual assault easier to prove and allowing “iffy” claims of “he said, she said” to proceed.

    It’s clearly intended to capitalize on the conventional wisdom that “women don’t lie about sex or rape” and “women are just more credible when they talk about intimate things like sex” and “men are all horndogs and pigs, and there’s no such thing as a man who doesn’t want sex because men will f*ck anything that moves, so therefore, they’re inherently not credible when it comes to talking about sex and how it happens.”

    It’s clearly intended to shift burdens of proof from the plaintiff/prosecution to the defendant. Ordinarily, the complainant has a duty to prove the claim, that the complainant did not consent. Now, the defendant has a duty to prove consent. The defendant doesn’t have a duty to present evidence to call the nonconsent into doubt. He has an affirmative burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that consent was given. He has an affirmative duty to negate and overcome the allegation. This is unheard of in law — the notion that an allegation by itself is prima facie evidence of an assault; requiring the accused to disprove with affirmative evidence the truth of the mere allegation.

    And I haven’t even talked about the “star chamber” nature of all this — this is a quasi-criminal proceeding with attendant penalties. There are almost no procedural safeguards. The accused can be compelled to answer questions. He has no right to counsel, no right to cross examine witnesses, not even a right to attend the hearing and even BE THERE while others decide his academic future.

    This is extremely dangerous; but it’s where we’re headed.

  21. earl says:

    “It includes married people, and you should be ashamed of yourself for equating Moses with the California legislature.”

    Well somebody has to bring the law of Moses to this place..lolololzozolzozlol.

    Besides the ten commandments got it right. California legistature makes up heavier burdens as they go along.

  22. Dalrock says:

    @Earl

    Are you saying women spread the hookup culture…or that they actually created it?

    They created it. The hallmarks of hookup are deniability and no commitments (women don’t get trapped!). The very term is intentionally vague. What is a hookup? Sex? Kissing? Something in-between? Yes. It is whatever the woman wants, whenever she wants, with confusion added to avoid women having to own up to their choices.

  23. earl says:

    “earl, I think its only for campuses. You can rape your wife in peace for now
    /sarcasm”

    Oh good. And if it wasn’t for California she wouldn’t have the option to no-fault divorce me either. Let’s just say that state has set precidence for these things.

  24. From the article I linked above:

    After the icebreakers, the group turned to the issue of “affirmative consent,” the idea that both partners need to enthusiastically agree to every step of a sexual encounter. And even though they were technically discussing sexual assault, the message was far broader: consent wasn’t only the law, but the bare-minimum requirement for pleasurable sex.

    You got that bolded part Aunt Giggles?

    And we all know how sexy and productive it is negotiating genuine desire by (now constantly) asking for permission and appealing to women’s reason at every step of intimacy. Shit, this has been Beta Game from the beginning.

  25. Looking Glass says:

    @deti:

    I have little faith in the Judicial system in California, but I can’t see this surviving in even State Court. Or until some Star Athlete gets caught. Once actual monied interests get involved, I imagine this won’t last long.

    And/or, I really need to work on my foreign language skills.

  26. Martel says:

    I’ll take a stab at explaining the “consent is sexy” view.

    Let’s say for example you’ve got a woman who’s genuinely good-to-go with her dream guy. She’s already given every indication of enthusiastic consent. He decides to tease her by slowing down every step of the way, almost touching her but then stopping to make her say “yes” first, asking if he can kiss wherever when his mouth is only an inch away.

    This would excite lots of women enormously. In theory, sounds great.

    But in practice you’ll wind up with a whole bunch of betas being even more awkward before they ask for the kiss, being even more hesitant every step of the way, putting the brakes on whatever chemistry might possibly be developing.

    Like has been said before, laws intended to control the Alpha end up being used to punish the beta. Laws intended to restrict male sexuality and choice only serve to restrict the number of males who get to express their sexuality and get actual choice. Those who remain have more power than ever.

    Believing that these laws will tame Alpha males is akin to believing that income caps will eliminate greed. And like we see in communist countries, laws intended to make things more fair invariably result in an even smaller elite with far more control that capitalist oligarch could ever get.

  27. “Some people are invested in this old model of sexuality where men are supposed to convince women to have sex,” said Jessica Valenti, Guardian columnist and co-editor of the Yes Means Yes anthology. “Our feeling is, no, you should not want to have sex with someone who you just spent half an hour badgering about it…what could be more clear-cut than having sex with people who actually want to have sex with you?”

    There you go, sorry Beta chumps, your pussy begging is now illegal. Jessica can now safely bathe in your (beta) male tears. Generation Tinder has made you obsolete.

    Seriously, what woman (besides college era Susan Walsh) is banging Beta schlubs because they successfully pled their case for sex with her?

  28. earl says:

    “The hallmarks of hookup are deniability and no commitments (women don’t get trapped!).”

    Well any man that gets involved in the hookup scene is working from a weak position then. What good is dependability if there is no commitment behind it? Sounds like she gets all the rewards in this scenario and all you get is a bunch of work with the door opened to litigation to have a brief orgasm.

    [D: Edited to fix my spellchecker changing deniabiilty to dependability.]

  29. The Remnant says:

    This law has the same function as laws concerning sexual harassment, “hostile” workplace, no-fault divorce, and the like — to grant women total discretion to unleash the power of the state against men they don’t like. Unfortunately, the types of men whom women like are primitive and incapable of maintaining civilization, but I often get the feeling that women would prefer a Stone Age existence so long as they had this kind of power. We are left with a clear choice: 1) repress women and maintain civilization; or 2) ingratiate women and destroy civilization.

    This was understood thousands of years ago, which is exactly why patriarchy arose and led us out of the jungle. Now that the modern world has inherited the fruits of patriarchy without having to fight for them, everyone has forgotten where they came from and merely assumes that civilization will continue as they indulge in this sort of nonsense. It’s tragic that humanity hasn’t achieved enough self-awareness to break the cycle of history yet, and we’re likely headed for a new Dark Ages.

    The only possible escape I can think of is through technology. If the civilized men whom women despise so much can achieve self-sufficiency without having to interact with women (e.g., sexbots, artificial wombs, etc.), we can truly go our own way and leave women to fornicate with Neanderthals in their caves.

  30. Anonymous Reader says:

    Okrahead
    Is it just me, or are the only “conservative” commentators celebrating this law women?

    It’s you. The TownHall comment Dalrock linked to is clearly by a male human. Almost certainly a pedestalizing White Knight apologist who will defend women’s right to any bad behavior they care to engage in, but carrying the Y chromosome nevertheless.

    leonidas
    All because men have forgotten the power they hold over women.

    Uh, no. Maybe you slept through the last 20, 30, 40, 50 years, but…no.
    Suggestion: learn that “some” and “all” are not synonyms.

  31. Supporters say the California law is only one part of a move toward expanding the definition of consent; the larger culture needs to shift, too. Colgate’s Yes Means Yes class provides a glimpse of what this sea change might look like in practice.

    So much for the “it’s just a campus law, stop worrying” trope.

  32. “I think people have less-than-proud moments, sex they wish they wouldn’t have had. That’s the kind of sex we’re trying to prevent, too.”

    Because no college freshman girl would ever conflate a ‘less-than-proud’ sex moment with rape and destroy a freshman boy’s future.

  33. Man, college years were so awesome and fun. I never had a customer complaint. But it would have been weird to whip out my smartphone to audibly and visually confirm what the girl was DEMANDING that I do. Four beers will do that to you.

    For you kids going into college, just always have your iPhone. You have to. You are one annoyed/dissatisfied girl away from being permanently Google-able and expelled from EVERY university (sad news: other schools will know). You won’t technically be a sex offender, but that doesn’t matter to every HR department.

    The funny thing is, as the fatter/older women continue to abuse younger/fertile women with laws like these, the people who end up getting the worst outcomes are… yeah, those younger fertile women. Men will not be the victims, here.

  34. Bluepillprofessor says:

    Love the title Dalrock. The Arab Spring was a wave of democracy protests that resulted in Islamists being elected which caused even more oppression, and finally a military coup and a new military dictator.

    So let me point out the 3 parts to the Arab Spring/ California Law.

    Action (protests/ California Law).

    Result (Islamist Oppressors Elected/ Women empowered, Men Screwed).

    Reaction (Coup and Military Rule/ ???).

    What will be the Reaction to this unprecedented disempowerment of men and the unbalancing of sexual relationships? Will it remain confined to California?

    “The aim of the party was not merely to prevent loyalty between a man and woman which they might not be able to control. Its real, undeclared purpose was to remove all pleasure from the sexual act. The party was trying to kill the sex instinct, or if they could not kill it then to sully and dirty it. The party triumphed because in the case of women, their efforts were largely successful.”

    George Orwell, 1984

  35. deti says:

    “The law also won’t help the young women fighting against the hookup culture, those who are looking for marriage or at least a “serious relationship”. The law is designed to create mistrust between men and women, and to destabilize all heterosexual relationships on campus.”

    Johnny is a sophomore at Cal-San Diego. Jane is a freshman. They meet at a party and talk for a couple of hours. They’re drinking, but never do get drunk. Johnny takes Jane’s hand in his and slips the other around her waist to pull her in. Jane pulls back and says “Ewww, as IF!” Johnny has violated SB 967, and is now subject to discipline.

    Same facts, but this time Johnny and Jane are “boyfriend and girlfriend”, and have been so for three months. They have done some under the clothes petting and feeling up, but no penetration of any kind has occurred. One day, Johnny and Jane are doing their petting, but this time he slips his hands down her pants in an attempt to finger her. Jane pulls back and says “not yet”. Jimmy complies and pets a little more, but Jane is kind of put off and uncomfortable. Johnny has violated SB 967 and is subject to discipline.

    Jimmy and Sally are both juniors at Cal State-Fullerton and have been “dating” for a year. Sally really wants to wait until the time is right for P in V sex. They’ve done pretty much everything else including fellatio and cunnilingus. On their “one year anniversary”, Jimmy decides to escalate to P in V. He tries to cajole Sally into P in V. She isn’t comfortable with it and declines at first. They continue going on with petting, and he tries again. She’s still not comfortable, but she says “Ok” and says nothing while Jimmy puts on a condom, lubes up, and goes in. During the sex, Sally looks and appears uncomfortable, and starfishes it. Jimmy says “are you ok? Can I do this?” Sally says nothing, but lets him continue. Jimmy finishes and ejaculates into the condom. He withdraws; Sally leans over and kisses him. Jimmy has violated SB 967 and is subject to discipline.

  36. Dalrock says:

    Deti, are you trying to sell this law to conservatives?

  37. earl says:

    My mistake. I don’t know spell checker did that. Now the two words makes sense.

    Probably why I stayed out of the hookup scene altogether. Didn’t make much sense to me and I saw enough people get burned when they fell into it. I was more for commitment and affirmation in matters. They seemed to go together pretty well.

  38. I have little faith in the Judicial system in California, but I can’t see this surviving in even State Court. Or until some Star Athlete gets caught. Once actual monied interests get involved, I imagine this won’t last long.

    The law will not be repealed until it becomes inconvenient for women.

  39. Honeycomb says:

    “It wasn’t men who drove the creation of hookup culture, it was women.”

    Is this even in doubt?

    Women control access to sex (or its rape) and men control access to commitment. This is settled science .. lol

    What we are seeing is a large blackmail crime syndicate trying to influence (perpetrate a hideous crime on) future generations of men through more indoctrination in hopes that they will condition the “PIKE in the Glass Syndrome” thus making it moot whether they get this passed as a state to state or national law. So much the better if this trial run is successful to that end (for the fembots).

    They are, attempting to, re-conditioning the male pain threshold to do as he is told when she becomes that 30+ year old carousel rider has been now looking for a provider. How else can she continue to feel entitled to that High Income Earner when he could reject her at that time?

    In reality they are just trying to make men be available to be controlled like when they had their mother telling them what to do when they were boys and young men. They are trying to bridge the gap of leaving the house to when they enter into marriage with confirmed female consent to avoid a man who can make decisions and be responsible for said decisions.

    Otherwise when a man finally realizes his SMV / MMV he (without this continued re-enforcement training / conditioning) will do like every other man does, he follow’s Rollo’s chart to SMV naturally. Now these women (re: 30+ year old slut carousel marriage postponer) can force men out of their SMV to engage in commitment due to the conditioning they received years prior (ie college). He knows from past experience that he could be slandered and worse from his college training so now she has the upper hand in regards to his SMV and commitment. It’s all a perceived threat from a condition now removed (if it doesn’t become national law). He behaves just like he did in college.

    I have no doubt this is a trial run on a national law (eg enforceable to the highest standards of criminal behavior) but if they only succeed with colleges then it is still a win for women with the provider types (aka beta’s) for down the road.

  40. Dalrock says:

    The reason I ask Deti is you are making the very argument I referenced in my first post:

    Ironically the standard argument against the law, that it will create a chilling effect on the hookup culture, only confirms to conservatives that this is in fact a good law. But the law isn’t designed to put a damper on the hookup culture, it is designed to grease the skids for women to participate more fully in the hookup culture.

    You are saying this needs to stop, or dirty men will have to keep their grubby paws off their pure girlfriends. Pretty much every conservative I know will take your complaint about the law as a sales pitch.

  41. deti says:

    Dalrock:

    “Deti, are you trying to sell this law to conservatives?”

    Ha. Maybe I’m not understanding you. I’m illustrating the far reaching consequences of a law which will end up governing what the so-called “nice kids” who are trying to “do it right” are actually doing in practice. All of this stuff is “hooking up”, with varying degrees of smartness. I’m illustrating that what the so-called “conservative” kids are actually doing on campus and the natural progression of these relationships falls under the big umbrella of this law. What most of these guys are doing – routine escalation to nudge the sex forward – violates this law.

  42. “Some people are invested in this old model of sexuality where men are supposed to convince women to have sex,” said Jessica Valenti”

    Yes, people like the 90% of women who refuse to make the first move.

  43. Anonymous Reader says:

    Martel
    I’ll take a stab at explaining the “consent is sexy” view.

    It’s worse than that. You’re premise is “first time sex”. As Deti pointed out, the law clearly states that prior involvement is no indication of consent.

    A man who is married to a woman finishing up an advanced degree at Cal State Whatever may have 3 or more years of wedded bliss in his persoal hsitory, but that isn’t consent any more. So what’s it going to be like for a married couple ? How about 5 years down the road? 10? There’s no end to this madness, of demanding explicit consent every. single. time. for every. possible. act.

    But failure to do so sets a man up for trouble down the road. So it is mandatory.

    Eventually it gets to the “yeah, sure” stage. “May I touch your breast?” “Yeah, sure”.
    Then what? Maybe the “whatever” stage…

    $usan Wal$sh can babble all she wants about “consent is sexy”, as Cail Corishev pointed out this is some fantasy or other. If she and her husband were required by law to obtain verbal consent for every stage of anything remotely sexual, both would soon find it tedious.
    “Honey, I’m off to work, may I kiss you goodbye?” “Yes, dear, may I hug you as you kiss me?” “Yes, dear, may I run my hand down your back as I kiss you?” “Yes, dear”….how romantic. How erotic.

    The whole YMY(UID) concept destroys intimacy in any ongoing relationship, because requiring explicit consent for each step of any sexual activity just happens to implicity bring Big Sister into the bedroom. “Better not forget to get consent, or BIg Sis might hear about it”.

    I have a suggestion for those who still comment at trad-con / so-con sites: go and strongly suggest to the assembled conservative feminists, manginas, white knights, etc. that they put the Cali U standards into effect in their own intimate relationships immediately. I don’t know if Heather MacDonald is married or not, but if she had to go through the Cali U intimacy checklist every time she kissed her husband she might get tired of it after a while. Or…hmm..maybe not.

    Because in some female dominated relationships, the men are already asking – or begging – for any scrap of affection already. No idea how many tradcon/socon LTR’s and marriages run that way, but the number is definitely not zero. So perhaps some of the support for Yes Means Yes (Until It Doesn’t) comes from male and female humans whose lives are already warped in this way, if they can put up with it, why shouldn’t everyone else?

    So as we’ve seen from many perspectives over the last few days, the real destination of YMY(UID) is female domination of all intimate relationships. No accident that this comes from the same source as the “self defense” laws Novaseeker referred to in an earlier comment thread.

  44. earl says:

    “It wasn’t men who drove the creation of hookup culture, it was women.”

    Is this even in doubt?”

    Well my questioning comes from…did women always have the idea about the hookup culture all along or was it made possible once hormonal birth control, legalized abortion, no-fault divorce, and other technological advancements all came into effect.

    I’d be of the assertion women had the idea or created it and men nurtured it.

  45. earl says:

    Which I cite everytime a woman gave men an idea in the Bible as basis for my assertion.

  46. deti says:

    @ Dalrock:

    “The reason I ask Deti is you are making the very argument I referenced in my first post:

    “Ironically the standard argument against the law, that it will create a chilling effect on the hookup culture, only confirms to conservatives that this is in fact a good law.”

    Not exactly, Dalrock. Let me explain it a bit more.

    What I’m trying to do here is talk about how this law will inhibit the formation and continuation of long term heterosexual relationships on campuses. My hypotheticals illustrate how these so called “nice people”, long term relationships actually get started and function in practice.

    Perhaps you could limit it to the first hypo, where Johnny and Jane meet at the party and he tries to do something overtly sexual (and people, let’s not kid ourselves, any kind of touching between a man and a woman in a social setting like that is a sexual approach and advance; it’s basically Johnny saying to Jane “I want to have sex with you”). The point is that this law will chill men who want relationships from even meeting and finding women of like mind. It will keep people in relationships from staying together.

  47. deti says:

    More to the point: A man’s escalation and attempts at physical contact are all efforts to get to sex, to get to the goal of P in V.

    Touching, hand holding, arms around waist, are all intended to get eventually to P in V.

    Kissing is intended to get there. So is hugging, so is holding her close, so is “cuddling”.

    Groping over clothes is supposed to get to groping under clothes. Topless leads to full naked. Feeling leads to oral. Oral leads to P in V.

    This law is intended to rein in and take control of this from the very beginning — it’s intended to tell men that they are to get affirmative consent even before he TOUCHES her. This law requires him to ask her if he can hold her hand. How else is he supposed to know if he has “affirmative consent” to hold her hand unless he asks? The only other way is to just do it, to take her hand in his, and if she pulls her hand away, then he has violated SB 967. That’s the entire point.

  48. Opus says:

    Perhaps most here are familiar with F. Roger Devlin’s essay Sexual Utopia in Power. I will briefly summarise and quote from pages 15 and 16 where he describes the sort of encounter caught by the new law. A young dude who has not had much experience with women and most of that unsatisfactory (not that he would ever mention that to his peers) one night meets a young woman and amazingly things seem to go well and they go back to his or her room. He is not a saint (albeit intensely interested in sex) but nor is he a criminal. He is in her room and thus appears to have been have given some considerable green lights:

    ” This is a tremendously important moment to him since every ounce of his self-respect is at stake. He is confused and his heart is pounding, but he tries to act as if he knows what is going on . She seems confused too and offers no more than token resistance (or so it seems o him). He doesn’t enjoy it and is not sure whether she does either. But that doesn’t matter; it only matters that now he can finally consider himself a man. Later on they talk about what terms they can be on, whether she will be his regular girlfriend etc. Matrimony is not uppermost in his mind but he might not rule it out – eventually. He asks how she feels afterwards and she mumbles that it was ‘OK’ This sets his mind at rest – an awkward parting follows.

    “Later that night or the next morning our young woman is trying to figure out what in hell has just happened to her. Why had he got pushy all of a sudden? Didn’t he even want to get to know her first, it was confusing it all happened so quickly. Sex, she had always heard was supposed to be wonderful, but this she had not enjoyed at all. She somehow felt used.

    “Of course, at no point does it enter her mind to question her right to have been intimate with the young man if she had wanted to. Moral rule number one we all know is that all sex between consenting adults is licit. She just isn’t sure she had really wanted this. In fact the more she thinks about it, the more she feels certain she hadn’t. But if she had not wanted it, then it was against her will, wasn’t it? And is if it was against her will that means … she has been raped”.

    I do not see how the new law is going to prevent the above scenario recurring. Consider the following: one of my friends (in between wives) was, a few years ago getting some considerable encouragement from a heavy-drinking Czech singleton. She went back to his house and was soon dancing on his kitchen table. In the event nothing happened, but that did not prevent him from subsequently being mocked by another of my friendly acquaintances for being hopeless with women. ‘She was gagging for it’, he said, ‘even a three legged donkey could not fail to have scored. In fast if it had not been him it would have been me’. If this is the ridiculous sort of pressure which men place upon each other to ‘score’ even when they are middle-aged – how much worse for the young man as in Devlin’s story.

  49. Gunner Q says:

    Looking Glass @ 11:03 am:
    “I have little faith in the Judicial system in California, but I can’t see this surviving in even State Court. Or until some Star Athlete gets caught. Once actual monied interests get involved, I imagine this won’t last long.”

    Agreed. This and YMY’s timing with the midterm election is why I’m not bothered by it despite living in California myself. I did California college in the ’90s and saw campus feminism firsthand. YMY just doesn’t change the business-as-usual. Note that campus rape tribunals were free to do these shenanigans before YMY was passed.

    “And/or, I really need to work on my foreign language skills.”
    Russian if you’re an optimist, Chinese if you aren’t.

  50. Fred Flange, hint of minty freshness says:

    Elaborating on deti’s remarks: The “hearing” framework for college student code infractions is not meant to give due process; it’s to deal with things like academic violations or discipline, so there are no lawyers, no evidence, no sworn testimony, no record, no confronting the accuser. Many campuses trumpet this framework as an additional “guarantee” that the accuser will not have to give evidence, and the accused will not be permitted to present any. The goal is to “expel sex offenders”, as one university dean put it.

    The result of the tribunal is not jail, as Amanda Taub crows, and that is true. But the result IS expulsion for “sexual assault”: an allegation of criminal conduct without the crime being proven. Lawyers among us will recognize that as libel: alleging falsely and negligently that someone committed a crime. Damages are presumed. The “sexual assault” expulsion will follow the man around as he tries to apply to other schools or jobs in the future. In the context of a state-sponsored school, ithe “expulsion for sexual assault” is also a Civil Rights violation (the so-called “1983” case, based on the civil rights statute cite). Because now the “academic tribunal” of two SJW’s and a woman studies professor takes on the mantle of the government. And when that happens, due process rights to the victims obtain and it becomes a serious civil rights tort liability for the school.

    These new SJW Prudes, if they knew any history, would recognize that such due process claims in the past were how they were able to win cases that expanded rights for women and gay people (i.e., they couldn’t be expelled just because they were women or gay). It drove civil rights cases founded on the principle that the government should get out of the bedroom and shouldn’t be capriciously prosecuting people for fornication or sodomy based on the cops not being able to find anything else to justify breaking down the door or shining the light in the car window. Now they want to go back on that, not realizing by so doing they put their other personal privacy gains at risk.

    And yet now it’s the liberals who want the government back in the bedroom! Assuring us there “won’t be a lot of these cases, it’s just the principle” – which were the reasons “justifying” the fornication and miscegnation and sodomy laws they were fighting against!! And now wanting to bring back those very same capricious prosecutions to “keep us in line.”

    Some serious constitutional law scholars are weighing in against Yes Means Yes; they see the civil rights issues and the schools that don’t will see sex-figure verdicts to wrongly expelled men. This is happening now. Even the women “victims” could lose their protection: if the school is accused of libel in a court case, it needs to plead “truth” as a defense, and to do that it will have to name and produce the accuser whose evidence the school tribunal relied on! So much for anonymity!

    So I guess the next liberal proposal doesn’t have to be a change in the burden of proof. You want the government back in the bedroom? Just re-outlaw all fornication and non-marital sex, like we had in decades past. Now women are fully protected; let’s face it, they were never prosecuted for fornication, only men were. (Or if they were black men, lynched for fornication). So shall it be again. Consent is no longer an issue – the accused needn’t prove it and the accuser need not prove the lack of consent! Or the “enthusiasm” of the consent! Just being caught doing the nasty. Strict Liability. Not limited to college campuses! So now we’re all safe! Oh yeah, that personal zone of privacy disappears too, so there goes rights for gays, those who engage in interracial dating, and those who practice anything other than procreative missionary position mating. Not a good day to be a libertarian.

  51. It really comes down to one question: who is driving the increase in promiscuity? Or to put in familiar terms: who are the gatekeepers of sex, men or women?

    These people believe it’s men. They believe men have become more promiscuous than they were in the past, so something must be done to control them. Of course, these men are being promiscuous with women, but apparently the women are being tricked, drugged, seduced, or otherwise enticed into having sex they totally didn’t want; so if you give them better tools to keep those rutting men out of their vaginas, they’ll use them. The women are having lots of sex they don’t really want to have.

    If you believe that, then rules like this make perfect sense.

    On the other hand, if you realize that women are the gatekeepers of sex, that men have always pursued as much sex as allowed (with individual virtuous exceptions, of course), and that the increase in promiscuity is due to women deciding to have lots more sex, then it will be obvious to you that rules like this will have no benefit. In fact, by giving those promiscuous women more power to punish others for their mistakes, it will make things worse.

    That’s all it comes down to: did college boys suddenly start wanting a lot more sex and get much better at tricking girls into it, or did college girls stop performing their gatekeeper role and become enthusiastic partners in promiscuity?

  52. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    Well my questioning comes from…did women always have the idea about the hookup culture all along or was it made possible once hormonal birth control, legalized abortion, no-fault divorce, and other technological advancements all came into effect.

    You’re right, Earl. The poor dearies were all virginal brides throughout history until the invention of The Pill, and then thanks to the mysterious powers of chemistry became raging sluts. There, happy? It’s not inherent aspects of the female mind, it’s some horrid outside force that can be dealt with if we just return to the reign of Queen Victoria, or Louis XV, or some other golden age.

    And it’s all men’s fault. Any bad behavior by women is always the fault of all men (except you, of course). Is this the answer you want? The droids you are looking for?

    Seriously, I’ve answered this question more than once. Apparently you do not like the answer, so you keep asking in the hope of a better one, like the above. It’s like a teenager asking for the car keys over and over again.

    Years ago an aging relative took me aside in my teens and said, “Young man, read this story, it will help you in the long run” and he handed me a book of Chaucer with a paper marking The Tale of the Wife of Bath. I suggest you should read it yourself. Bear in mind when Chaucer wrote.

    It was long, long before 1968.

  53. Martel says:

    @ Anonymous Reader: You elucidate another fallacy common to both tradcons and the left: the idea that one of the purpose of law is to “send a message”.

    Under such an assumption, the law need not be uniformly enforced. Sure, it might be technically illegal for a married couple to just have sex, but it won’t be enforced so that’s no problem.

    One problem with this line of thought (among many) is that we end up with law enforcement that’s subjective and capricious. We’ll enforce it here but not there, Person A spends 5 years in the slammer for doing the same thing Person B did because Person A’s judge pays attention to what the law actually says but Person B’s judge doesn’t.

    And law enforcement can’t go after EVERYBODY for EVERYTHING when damn near everything’s illegal, so they’ll go after groups and individuals they don’t like. It reduces law enforcement to whims, shades of gray, and decrees, the exact opposite of what the Rule of Law is supposed to be.

  54. Phillyastro says:

    The Remnant said:

    “The only possible escape I can think of is through technology. If the civilized men whom women despise so much can achieve self-sufficiency without having to interact with women (e.g., sexbots, artificial wombs, etc.), we can truly go our own way and leave women to fornicate with Neanderthals in their caves.”

    That type of thinking worked for the Bene Tleilax. Would banging a face dancer still be considered fornication?

  55. earl says:

    I don’t get the big deal about asking for what you want. I’d rather get a ‘no’ to my open intention than embarrass myself by doing an action and she rejects it. This has mostly to do with going out but it can be for other things.

    Besides…I don’t like mixed signals. She can be an actress putting on an academy award performance. I can stop her act dead in the tracks with this strategy.

    However when it comes to hand holding, cuddling, kissing, etc….most of the time I’ve found she initiates those things without asking.

  56. okrahead says:

    Something else here: Johnny is a junior and a committed Christian who decides to start a campus study group. Sally the slutty atheist is a senior and is offended by Christians, so out of spite she accuses Johnny of rape. Johnny is hauled before a secret court which is already hostile to him because of his beliefs. Johnny is not allowed counsel, is not allowed to cross examine his accuser, and is not even allowed to call witnesses who can testify he was in church when the assault was alleged to have occurred. As a result Johnny is convicted and expelled, even though he never even met Sally, much less had sex with or raped her.

  57. earl says:

    “You’re right, Earl. The poor dearies were all virginal brides throughout history until the invention of The Pill, and then thanks to the mysterious powers of chemistry became raging sluts. There, happy? It’s not inherent aspects of the female mind, it’s some horrid outside force that can be dealt with if we just return to the reign of Queen Victoria, or Louis XV, or some other golden age.”

    You must not have read my ‘I’d be of the assertion women had the idea or created it’ part of my answer.

    You apparently don’t get me. I’m more about figuring out which gender played its part in a problem instead of dumping it all on one and the other is absolved. I don’t like feminism or leftism after all.

  58. okrahead says:

    Earl,
    If she changes her mind later you raped her. If you are okay with that fine, but won’t try to pass it off as a good thing to the rest of us.

  59. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail Corishev
    It really comes down to one question: who is driving the increase in promiscuity? Or to put in familiar terms: who are the gatekeepers of sex, men or women?

    Exactly, and as we’ve seen over and over again, conservatives have bought most of the premises of feminism; they are notorious for pedestalizing women and demonizing the male sex drive, just like 2nd stage feminists. So proceeding from “men animals, women angels” it is obvious that “all you have to do” is (teach men not to rape) (teach men to keep their pants zipped).

    To socons and tradcons, the idea that a college sophomore would deliberately press one of her breasts against the arm of a Teaching Assistant in a quiet, slightly ambiguous, sexual manner is apparently unthinkable. They literally are not capable of processing that thought. Because women are angels, all of them, and that’s all they are.

    So long as conservatives continue to live in a sea of blue pills, they’re observations on anything to do with women will be useless and senseless. And those conservatives who wear The Glasses (Hi, Empath!) will continue to be very, very annoyed and frustrated with both men like me and their conservative brethren (and sisteren).

  60. GeminiXcX says:

    Women got everything they asked for, the free hippie-style love included. And this “free love” means that women wanted the right to just use others for no-commitment, non-judgmental sex. They must have realized that this same “free-love” also granted men that same privilege? “Free love”. . . “Free”. . . “FREE”. No strings attached. No contracts. No marriage vows. No loyalty required. Have sex, nothing owed afterward.

    Women are now frothing because because feminism doesn’t really teach equality, but rather a double-standard:
    That “free love” is in control by women only, and that a man must be loyal until the woman decides to discard him to pursue her “freedom” elsewhere. The sex element is just another facet of women wanting absolute power over men, power that they neither have the intelligence, or maturity, to wield.

    This is why “modern” women are disrespected and seen as cum-dumpsters. It’s YOUR fault, ladies. You can’t blame men for your collective sex and “relationship” problems, because I agree with feminists that you own your sexuality and can do with it as you please. The difference is that feminists only think in childish, immediate, “if it feels good, do it” fulfillment, and must draft every anti-male legislation possible to shield them from the consequences embracing this mode of “feeling” (not “thinking”).

    The reality of “YOU CAN’T HAVE IT ALL” has blown up so much in feminists’ faces, that now the only recourse is to keep shielding bad women from their actions at ANY cost. So a new “reality” has been created. . .

    “YOU CAN HAVE IT ALL!!!”, (and we will assault every basic human right of men and the remnant of decent women who still remain to make sure you special girls never know otherwise.)

    -GXcX

  61. Anonymous Reader says:

    Here, Earl, just for you:

    http://listverse.com/2010/11/14/10-ancient-methods-of-birth-control/

    Note the mention of the plant silphium which may have served as both a contraceptive and an abortifacient. So if you wish to assert that it’s all the fault of contraception, go find the entity that created the plants mentioned. Take your complaint there.

  62. deti says:

    @ Dalrock:

    Something else occurs to me.

    Dear conservative tradcons and socons:

    If you like SB 967 so much, then consider this. The “nice men”, the good men, law abiding rules following stand up religious devout Christian men you want your pure as the driven snow princesses to marry? Yeah, those guys?

    Under SB 967’s regime, those great guys who you like so much will never even talk to Princess. They’ll never even so much as ATTEMPT to speak to or deal with her, much less ask them out on dates. They’ll be too afraid to do so.

    So the guys who WILL be left and who WILL approach Princess will be the men who turn her on; but who have far less regard for ordered society and relationships than you do. The funny thing is, Tradcon Dadcon, is that these are the men Princess wants most but is least able to secure commitment from.

    So Princess will go out with them and have sex with them. Oh yes, she will. Until one day when she regrets it and you discover it. You, the aggrieved Dadcon with humiliated Princess, will rely on SB 967 because there must not have been “affirmative consent”, right? Well, not exactly, Dadcon. The guy(s) Princess was “dating” have her on video, in flagrante delicto, with florid and graphic depictions of her, uh, enthusiasm and enjoyment.

    And those guys state in no uncertain terms that she (and you) should go right ahead and notify the university of claimed “violations”. And if you do, the defamation/public disclosure of private facts/tortuous interference with contractual relationship lawsuit will be on file against you and Princess the next day, around the same time the video of Princess goes up on xHamster.

    So, Dadcon. You still like SB 967?

  63. However when it comes to hand holding, cuddling, kissing, etc….most of the time I’ve found she initiates those things without asking.

    She just sexually assaulted you then. According to this law. You have been violated!

  64. earl says:

    “Earl,
    If she changes her mind later you raped her. If you are okay with that fine, but won’t try to pass it off as a good thing to the rest of us.”

    What do you mean? Why would I be okay with her changing her mind later?

  65. Johnny and Jane have been in a “relationship” for 2 months, and while they’ve kissed and petted intimately on various occasions, Jane tells Johnny she’s still not “comfortable” enough to have sex with him on the occasions he attempts to escalate to sexual intercourse with her.

    While Johnny hasn’t verbally expressed it to Jane, privately he’s becoming fed up with her hesitancy and disappointed by her repeated resistance to his negotiating and reasoning with her for her genuine desire. As a result, Johnny becomes more open to flirtations and the genuine attentions of Sally and a few other girls on campus who’ve given him legitimate IOIs who have the potential to want to “enthusiastically” bang him.

    Jane picks up on the subcommunications of Johnny’s attitude, behavior and openness with engaging these girls, and though she’s still not “comfortable” she reluctantly initiates sex with Johnny one night in her campus dorm in order to maintain his emotional investment in her and their relationship.

    Johnny has violated SB 967, and is now subject to discipline.

  66. earl says:

    “So if you wish to assert that it’s all the fault of contraception, go find the entity that created the plants mentioned.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium

    “It was said that it could be used to treat cough, sore throat, fever, indigestion, aches and pains, warts, and all kinds of maladies. Hippocrates wrote:

    When the gut protrudes and will not remain in its place, scrape the finest and most compact silphium into small pieces and apply as a cataplasm.”

    It appears there was more of a good reason to use this plant. Now tell me…do you take hormonal birth control to relieve a cough, sore throat, aches and pains, warts, or any other maladies?

  67. deti says:

    @ Earl:

    ” Well my questioning comes from…did women always have the idea about the hookup culture all along or was it made possible once hormonal birth control, legalized abortion, no-fault divorce, and other technological advancements all came into effect.”

    Yes, Earl, women always had the idea about hookup all along. When you remove all the rules surrounding men and women getting together and open it up to a free for all, today’s society is what you get.

    Hookup means “have sex with the most attractive men you can for as long as you can in the hopes that you will get one of them to marry you”. Some women have done EXACTLY that, but the difference is that they won the lottery. They hooked up with hawt men and actually got one of those hawt men to marry them, then hold themselves out as examples: “I did it, you can TOO!”

    Alas, 99.9% of women can’t do that. But they have lots of fun trying. And they’re happy with it. They like taking the sex, even if they can’t get the guy long term. To compensate, women now work full time and have careers – until it’s beta boy’s turn to take over the reins and “retire” her (professionally and sexually). And beta boy will always be there, just maybe a year or two later than she wants.

    So yes, Earl, women like this system. Love it, in fact. This is EXACTLY what they want.

  68. GeminiXcX says:

    “Mothers worried that their college-bound sons will be hauled before a biased campus sex tribunal by a vindictive female should tell them: “Wait. Find a girlfriend and smother her with affection and respect. Write her love letters in the middle of the night. Escort her home after a date and then go home yourself.”

    This reasoning is what causes people like M3 to have the INCEL story.
    After taking the Red pill, I was consumed with rage, but also incredible sadness. I had to realize that foolishly seeing Western Women as more than just a hole between their legs is what corrupted my approach and caused them to despise me.

    A man’s painful journey to Alpha, from Beta, has ramifications that modern women do not understand. When guys like me figure this stuff out, we WILL adapt, and turn on you bad women as a group. I understand why Roosh’s boys have the “hate-f*ck” mentality. There was a time when I would have found this attitude reprehensible, but experience is the best teacher and also the most brutal.

    Modern women: “Alpha f*cks; Beta Bucks”.
    Alpha Men: “Modern women f*cks; Foreign women wives”.

    -GXcX

  69. Do this thought experiment: imagine (or remember, if you’ve been there) a college boy and girl having sex in his dorm room for the first time.

    Now, when I do that, I imagine a scenario where they’re both into it. Maybe they’re drunk, but neither one is comatose, and they knew where they were and what they were doing when they got drunk. Both are fumbling at each other’s clothes; both are getting into the dirty talk, and both enthusiastically commit the act and decide what sorts of acts are involved. Either one of them may regret it in the morning, but neither is thinking about that now.

    That’s what I would consider typical. But the feminist or tradcon imagines something much more like Deti’s second scenario, at best. If Jane wasn’t outright drugged or forced, she was overwhelmed by Jack’s popularity or the peer pressure or something, and felt like she had no choice to go back to his room. She really just wants to kiss a little and get to know him, but he keeps pushing for sex, and she wants him to like her, so she keeps letting him go a little further. Eventually she gives in to sex, and lies there crying on the inside while he uses her and then falls asleep.

    That second one is what they think is normal, what’s happening all the time. They have to believe that, because they won’t believe their Dear Daughters are enthusiastically following guys back to their rooms and then bragging to their friends about their notch counts and their oral skills.

    If I believed what they do, I suppose I’d want to find ways to punish those nasty boys and protect the poor defenseless girls from them too.

  70. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    You must not have read my ‘I’d be of the assertion women had the idea or created it’ part of my answer.

    I saw it, but since it contradicted your previous sentences and previous questions, didn’t pay attention to it.

    You apparently don’t get me.

    I get you. You are a decent man with a lot of self control who in an earlier age would be married by now and likely with children…and you still seem to have a definiite tendecy to pedestalize women, which in an earlier age would not have mattered, but now can cloud thinking.

    I’m more about figuring out which gender played its part in a problem instead of dumping it all on one and the other is absolved.

    That’s easy: gender has nothing to do with it. Der, die, das or el, la, makes no difference.
    Gender is a linguistic construct.

    As for which of the two sexes is all at fault? Obviously both, but in different ways, because men and women are different – women are, contra feminists such as Heather MacDonald, not just “men who can have babies”. I’m sure she’s deny this, but it’s a premise embedded in most writers including conservative feminists.

    Pick your model: evolutionary psychology, human biodiversity, Bible-as-narrative, strict 6-day creation Bible literalism – in any of these models of humanity, women are not the same as men, and possess different virtues and vices. Only the feminist MIS-reading of biology, evolution, Bible, etc. leads to the female-dominated “equalty” model where men who act like women are considered “good boys” and men who do not are “bad boys”.

    Both, Earl. Women are just as randy as men, in their own way.

    I don’t like feminism or leftism after all.

    Yes, however you grew up marinating in feminism, so feminist premises are hiding in your though processes, as they are will all the rest of us. I’ve written before, as much to myself as anyone else:

    “If you are not actively opposing the premises of feminism, you are passively accepting them”.

  71. earl says:

    “So yes, Earl, women like this system. Love it, in fact. This is EXACTLY what they want.”

    They want power and they got it.. And what they got leaves them bitter, old, ugly, and in a house full of cats.

    They need love. Which doesn’t happen when they are in control.

  72. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    I don’t get the big deal about asking for what you want. I’d rather get a ‘no’ to my open intention than embarrass myself by doing an action and she rejects it. This has mostly to do with going out but it can be for other things.

    I’m not picking on you, but this is an important point. There is a difference between good manners in daily living and carrying those into the bedroom. A married man and woman should be extra careful to be polite to each other, because of their closeness. If nothing else, one should speak to one’s wife or husband at least as politely as to, say, minimum wage employees at work. Failing to do so will harm the relationship.

    But there’s a difference between “please pass the salt” and “may I caress your arm”. Unspoken assent is a lot sexier than continual, unending requests for consent. Because inside every modern, strong, independent woman is the cavewoman who desperately needs a man that can defend the cave against lions, and tigers, and bears (oh, my!) and that man takes rather than asks.

    Going out with women in a social setting is not at all the same thing as going to bed with a wife of 7 years, nor should it be. The intimacy level in the second case ought to be much, much higher, and since a great deal of communication in any setting is non verbal, insisting on overt, verbal, “yes” is a killer of intimacy.

    Here, try this extreme case: a man and a woman meet, and in time are to marry. The priest or pastor is completing the ceremony, and says to the groom “You may kiss the bride”, whereupon the groom turns to her in front of the entire church and says, “May I kiss you?”. How’s that going to work out? Think she might be a bit, oh, embarrassed? The reducto can be such an illuminating tool of logic. Because if two U-Cal students marry, the sexual conduct code requires this.

    I have a challenge for the YesMeansYes crowd: write romantic fiction in which the hero, Lord Rod, follows the U Cal script. Have him ask before touching the bodice, ask before grasping it, ask before ripping it, etc. Do a print run of several hundred thousand books, and place them in Barnes & Noble across the country. See how well they sell – how many women are willing to put money on the table to read a “consent is sexy” emo-porn novel.

    And then explain why such a novel would be a complete flop. That’s my challenge to the YMY(UID) pushers.

  73. earl says:

    “I saw it, but since it contradicted your previous sentences and previous questions, didn’t pay attention to it.”

    I came to a conclusion which agreed with your assertion. Maybe you should pay attention to conclusions.

    You can look it up in the Bible too…anytime a woman gave a man an idea, and he supported and nurtured that idea…it led to his doom. The hookup culture is no different from Eve giving Adam the apple and he eats it, Sarah telling Abe to mate with his mistress and he does it, Bathsheba bathing with the window open and David sees it and beds her, the adulteress in Proverbs convincing some naive kid to bed her, etc.

  74. YOHAMI says:

    “she initiates those things without asking.”

    you can send her ass to the californian jail

  75. “Men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.”

  76. Ollie says:

    @Chris:
    “As a Christian myself, it seems strange for me to be nodding at the decline of marriage and relationships, but I am.”

    That position actually isn’t strange at all. The fact of the matter is that the current state/radfem sanctioned institution of marriage is about as Christian as a nativity scene in which the baby Jesus has been replaced with Lilith.

  77. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl wrote of women:
    They need love. Which doesn’t happen when they are in control.

    A+, with a gold star, Earl. If you posted that to CAF I bet they would ban you in minutes.

  78. earl says:

    When it comes to marriage it’s a different ball game. That’s why this law is flawed because it doesn’t make this distinction. I’m all for the escalation stuff and no need to ask for consent in marriage…because that’s where sexual consent should be.

    For those who want all that cake outside of marriage…well God doesn’t support that and it’s becoming increasing so that the secular law is tightening the grip on that too. Secular law won’t legislate morality though.

  79. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl on silphium
    It appears there was more of a good reason to use this plant. Now tell me…do you take hormonal birth control to relieve a cough, sore throat, aches and pains, warts, or any other maladies?

    Non sequitur, Earl. The point is that methods of contraception have been known for thousands of years, and some appear to have been close to HBC in reliability. Blaming women’s fallen nature on contraception is confusing causation with correlation.

  80. A Visitor says:

    “My personal recommendation is to move away from California.”

    I moved back to where I’m from and am much happier. Between that law and the ban on plastic groceries bags (which followed a ban on paper bags), registering of pistols or “assault rifles”, and high taxes, I seriously wonder why anyone would ever want to live in California. I lived there for work, pure and simple and was looking to leave as soon as I could.

    Thanks Dalrock for your deconstruction of Fireproof a while back. It’s stunning to see some people supposedly on our side would flaunt that or this law as a good thing.

    “They created it.” Why didn’t the men stop it? It’s a moot point now but is a good historical question that needs to be answered in order to avoid future problems in other realms.

    “Is it just me, or are the only “conservative” commentators celebrating this law women?”

    Some fools from National Review are championing it too, which is just another reason I despise NR.

    “I don’t know if Heather MacDonald is married or not, but if she had to go through the Cali U intimacy checklist every time she kissed her husband she might get tired of it after a while.”

    Exactly! Anyone who thinks this law is a good idea needs their head checked. They don’t understand the reality of the United States from a legal, social, and mass cultural standpoint in 2014. On all three fronts, it is not a pretty picture.

    “Exactly, and as we’ve seen over and over again, conservatives have bought most of the premises of feminism;”

    The idea that women should go to finishing schools instead of going to college now is verboten. Additionally, arguing with people that more penalizing in the NFL due to dangerous hits being a result of feminism is a non starter as well.

    “To socons and tradcons, the idea that a college sophomore would deliberately press one of her breasts against the arm of a Teaching Assistant in a quiet, slightly ambiguous, sexual manner is apparently unthinkable.”

    If you were to poll men anonymously, even those who are devoutly religious, ten to one they’d all say they’ve had at least one experience like this in life.

    @Tomassi

    Good take on SB967 from a Game perspective.

    “They have to believe that, because they won’t believe their Dear Daughters are enthusiastically following guys back to their rooms and then bragging to their friends about their notch counts and their oral skills.”

    It’d be a shock to most people that their daughters/friends really act like that. It must be mortifying for someone who truly knows to send their daughters off to college. That then begs the question, why are they sending them there in the first place?

  81. Martel says:

    @ Anonymous Reader: “The priest or pastor is completing the ceremony, and says to the groom ‘You may kiss the bride’, whereupon the groom turns to her in front of the entire church and says, ‘May I kiss you?’. How’s that going to work out? Think she might be a bit, oh, embarrassed? The reducto can be such an illuminating tool of logic. Because if two U-Cal students marry, the sexual conduct code requires this. ”

    Not quite. The reality’s even worse.

    Consent need not be verbal, it can be implied. To the femmis and tradcons this means he wouldn’t have to ask her.

    HOWEVER, let’s say Mr. Groom just assumes he has consent to kiss her (it being a wedding and all) and just does his thing. She never says “no”, but doesn’t say “yes” either.

    She can then retroactively accuse him of assault for guessing wrong. If in her mind at the time she was cool with it, it’s not assault. If in her mind at the time she wasn’t, it is.

    Of course when she doesn’t say anything, retroactively she can outwardly claim that she felt whatever. If you push to get a “yes” because you’re not sure, you’re being a paranoid dope. If you don’t push to get the “yes”, you’re in her power.

    So if you guess right you’re cool, if not it sucks to be you. Alphas are much better at guessing right, which is yet another way this law favors them.

  82. Zelcorpion says:

    Currently only 60% of men on campus have sex despite women outnumbering them. The law will create even stronger return to caveman-time mating with 10-20% of men having over 90% of sexual encounters, while 70% of men having no sex at all in college. Yes – women desire exactly that and they shall get it. Some of those highly desirable men will have to shield themselves against the Yes-Law-madness – they will do so by recording their encounters and maybe even by having sex only via threesomes and foursomes, so to have witnesses.
    The sexual market place will become even more tilted and more promiscuous with some college guys having orgies while the wide majority is staying alone in their masturbatoriums.

  83. earl says:

    “Blaming women’s fallen nature on contraception is confusing causation with correlation.”

    Whose idea was it to contracept a pregnancy then?

  84. earl says:

    The hookup culture with no distinctions, boundries, or guidelines (all vague language)…has now bled into our law making processes.

  85. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Blaming women’s fallen nature on contraception is confusing causation with correlation.”

    Whose idea was it to contracept a pregnancy then?

    Well, gee, Earl, what’s your opinion? Do plants think and have ideas?
    Or to put it another way: did Eve use contraception before or after grabbing that fruit?

  86. earl says:

    Again…if a woman wants complete control of her life and those involved in it, consent for everything, and have everything done her way…she’ll have power and no love.

    She has the law to back her up and a society that encourages it. She’ll also has the mindset everything is the man’s fault, pumps and dumps, cats, bitterness, childlessness (or kids who grow to hate her), divorce, envy, obseity, and all sorts of other things that come with great power.

    Meanwhile under the evil patriarchy she had a few surprises along the way…like a man sweeping her off her feet, marrying her, and providing a family.

  87. michael savell says:

    It is well known that female domination throughout the west will come into being within the next 20 years or so and perhaps men are too defensive,all they are doing is putting up arguments as to
    why legislation is so bad whereas,possibly they should be carrying the fight to what is now the enemy by widening the concepts and possible legislative subjects to affect that enemy.It is easy to say that there are going to be an awful lot of red blooded males expelled and possibly jailed but
    if it starts happening to women,sex laws will just as easily be rescinded.It just takes a bit of
    imagination.

  88. earl says:

    “Well, gee, Earl, what’s your opinion?”

    Both. Women have the idea and men make it possible.

    “Do plants think and have ideas?”

    No…but humans certainly do.

    “did Eve use contraception before or after grabbing that fruit?”

    After.

  89. Exfernal says:

    Does a plant whose secondary metabolites have a property of suppressing pregnancy in sheep and other grazing mammals need an idea of it for actually developing it? Or, would their usefulness in preventing being overgrazed matter enough without the need for sentience for the plant?

  90. MFG says:

    This is all so very discouraging and depressing

    I agree that a return to traditional values is unlikely as a result of this law, but I hold out hope that the future pogroms and witchhunts against men may be foiled by the legal process as universities get slammed by lawsuits for their coming due processless lynchings of innocent men that are about to occur

    If the pogroms do occur, deepen and then worsen?

    All I can see is further male withdrawal from the whole society, at every level

    I was raised in the deep south in the 60’s and honest to goodness today’s feminists remind me of the Ku Klux Klan more than anything…

  91. AmicusC says:

    @TFH

    don’t forget in that analysis that facebook has the right, per the terms of use, to use any and all pics that have been uploaded to their site for whatever they want. also very good theory.

  92. Dalrock says:

    @The Jaskologist

    I don’t think you’re being entirely fair to conservatives as a whole here. National Review, for example, has been quite negative about the law:

    “An Enabling Act for the Salem Rape Culture Trials.”
    “This is a misguided attempt to micromanage sex, and an insult to both men and women.”
    “California sexual misconduct bill creates a consent muddle.”

    Fair point. I’ve added the word “many” to the opening sentence.

  93. Ra's al Ghul says:

    “One problem with this line of thought (among many) is that we end up with law enforcement that’s subjective and capricious.”

    That is intentional. The law has been subjective and capricious for a long time now.

    The idea is to place a person in jeopardy all the time and in constant fear. Fearful people are more easily controlled.

  94. Anchorman says:

    Why worry?

    In ten years, the aerage 20YO woman will be close to two bills in weight.

  95. zehrgut1 says:

    I’m a conservative and strongly oppose this new “yes means yes” regulation. I can’t imagine other republicans would be for this either, so please stop imagining us being for this. This is nothing more than an attack on men’s rights. I can be for marriage while against idiotic regulation that will do nothing more than punish men at the whim of unstable women.

    [D: Welcome.]

  96. Bango Tango says:

    The more laws designed to “protect” women against men will create more men with hard feelings toward women and then more rapes will follow. AND men who don’t rape actually will have less sympathy and will offer less protection to women who are raped as well. Works the same with terrorism…or doesn’t work I should say.

    But then again that chance at 5 minutes of Alpha probably makes it all worth it for women in the finally equation.

  97. Philalethes says:

    who are the gatekeepers of sex, men or women?

    Any (honest) biologist will confirm that in all (sexual) species, it is the female who controls sexual behavior. In fact, in all species except Homo sapiens and Pan paniscus (Bonobo), there is no sexual behavior except when the female initiates it – by going into estrus (“heat”), producing a flower (plants), etc. Dogs, for instance, do not behave sexually at all unless a female in the vicinity goes into heat. Males of all species have been ruthlessly selected – ever since the primordial seas – to respond to such female initiation with everything they have – to risk (even invite) death to be “firstest with the mostest”. (Those who were not did not become our ancestors.)

    This simple fact has been somewhat obscured by the evolutionary decision, some 50–100,000 years ago, of human females to emulate estrus even when they are not fertile – and use this ersatz sexual availability to manipulate human males. But is the basic fact any different?

    Somehow, though, in our modern, enlightened world, suddenly it’s become the males of this species alone who control sexuality. Very scientific.

  98. thedeti says:

    @ Bango Tango:

    “The more laws designed to “protect” women against men will create more men with hard feelings toward women and then more rapes will follow. AND men who don’t rape actually will have less sympathy and will offer less protection to women who are raped as well.”

    I disagree. What actually happens is that laws like SB 967 designed to “protect” women from (certain kinds of) men do the following:

    It causes most men to do things to follow the law. This has the effect of either (1) making them hopelessly unattractive because they are asking permission; or (2) causing them to drop out and refuse to try altogether, thus removing them from competition.

    It also causes a few men, the top men, the most attractive men, to (1) ignore the law; and (2) devise ways to circumvent and defeat it. This makes them attractive rules-breakers who don’t care about others’ opinions anyway. Since they’re the only ones left in the game, they get the women.

    This will not cause more rapes. This will not cause more sexual assaults. It will only further concentrate more sex in the even fewer attractive men still willing and able to play; who will continue to clean up and give them even LESS incentive to marry. It will cause more MGTOW.

    It will cause fewer marriages, because more and more men who would otherwise be willing to marry will not do so. Their compliance with the law means they will never approach or meet like minded women. The risks of violating the law are simply too great. So they will never meet women who might otherwise be interested in them.

  99. thedeti says:

    I think TFH is right about this — the men who stay in the game and “play” as players are wont to do, will simply video everything.

    Krauser already does this. In the past he has ccasionally posted videos of his conquests. I don’t know if he videotapes them all, but we know he has video recorded some of them.

    It will simply be part of sexual life that sexual encounters will have to be video recorded, for the man’s protection.

  100. Somehow, though, in our modern, enlightened world, suddenly it’s become the males of this species alone who control sexuality. Very scientific.

    Yes, today’s woman is strong, independent, and more empowered than at any other time in history — and also completely at the mercy of any horny man who targets her. Funny how that works.

  101. desiderian says:

    Dalrock,

    “Fair point. I’ve added the word “many” to the opening sentence.”

    As churchians/neocons depart ever further from traditional/scriptural teaching and naturally fall further and further into folly, it may be useful to come up with a label/name for each to more readily distinguish the two.

  102. desiderian says:

    Cail,

    “Yes, today’s woman is strong, independent, and more empowered than at any other time in history — and also completely at the mercy of any horny man who targets her. Funny how that works.”

    If that’s the only narrative out there, it wins by default. We need to decide on a better one and focus on getting it out there. For my money, the truer the better.

    The fact is that (young) women created the hook-up culture because the serial monogamy norm created by the socons in the 90’s to counter the sexual revolution was suboptimal for those women. Being locked into monogamy at the height of her SMV without her partner offering monogamy at the height of his (a wedding ring -> since his height doesn’t come until his mid-30s) was a bad deal.

    Things have deteriorated in various ways since then, but that was why the break happened at that time.

  103. jonadabtherechabite says:

    okrahead – The only time yes means yes is after the question “Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband?”. Once upon a time in this land, as we were being providentially blessed, “yes” under any other circumstance was a crime for both parties and punishable by ostracization, jail or worst of all — forced marriage to a person of contemptible character, base morals and pathetically low standards.

  104. earl says:

    “A businessman who has been forced to pay £28,500 to his ex-girlfriend in a landmark court ruling because he promised her ‘the security a wife would have’ has slammed the decision as ridiculous.”

    Why would a person make that type of promise to a woman?

  105. Is anyone else worried that this standard will soon spread to other areas of criminal law? Your boss says you stole money from the till, and it’s up to you to prove your innocence. The NSA accuses you of treason, and the burden is on you to prove them wrong. Etc.

  106. MarcusD says:

    No children. No future. No hope.

    In 2027, in a chaotic world in which women have become somehow infertile, disillusioned Theo (Clive Owen) becomes an unlikely champion of the human race when he is asked by his former lover (Julianne Moore) to escort a young pregnant woman out of the country as quickly as possible. In a thrilling race against time, Theo will risk everything to deliver the miracle the whole world has been waiting for. Co-starring Michael Caine, filmmaker Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men is the powerful film Pete Hammond of Maxim calls “magnificent … a unique and totally original vision.”

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206634/

  107. Dalrock,

    While the new rules will undoubtedly take some young men (perhaps a large number of them) out of the hookup market they won’t reduce young women’s desire or opportunity to fully indulge in promiscuity….

    To the extent that the law drives (some) young men away from the hookup culture, what will fill the void is not a sudden resurgence in marriage or even a path to marriage, but some combination of men checking out (the dreaded peter pan manboys/grass eaters), turning to porn/VR sex, and homosexuality.

    As long as girls want to “hook up” (and they do) then there will be boys for them to “hook up” to. All this does in California is force the boys (the only ones who have any agency here) looking to “hook up”, travelling offf campus to other schools to meet girls. So when they “hook up” and she regrets it later, she can go to the rape counseling center and say it was rape and they have to do “something” but there will be nothing they can do since he is not a student at HER school. They have no authority over him. She can go to the police but then…. since these are just policies at universities and not crimes, they wont do anything either. And even if it becomes a crime…. well… good luck winning a conviction in court.

  108. desiderian says:

    To be clear:

    A name (useful for communicating with regular people) for socons/neocons/churchians

    A different name for those who follow traditional/scriptural teaching

  109. earl says:

    “Somehow, though, in our modern, enlightened world, suddenly it’s become the males of this species alone who control sexuality. Very scientific.”

    It shows you what a dark age we live in. Giving women more power and control over sexuality and then the means for them to blame it all on men. It’s a suffocation method for all but a few men.

    When it comes to sex women have the power in that arena…they can either use that power for their own means, or give up that power for love.

  110. desiderian says:

    “As long as girls want to ‘hook up’ (and they do)”

    That’s shaky at best statistically. Some do, many seek an alternative.

    Girls want to court a variety of men at the height of their SMV. Girls will naturally follow the herd (whatever norms are in vogue) and are more authoritarian than boys (so will try to follow what their teachers/profs are telling them). Right now, both are pushing sex-pos, but not as convincingly or unanimously as five years ago. Much of the support for YmY is hoping it will at least delay sex. The push to delay courtship itself (get your career established first) came from the same quarters. (Young) women weren’t buying it, hence YmY.

    What is needed are norms that facilitate the courtship while focusing attention on the preparation for marriage (and thus the need to keep N=0), and promoting marriage as the optimal path to personal development and passage into adulthood.

  111. Joey says:

    I think what’s going to happen here is betas and below in the SMV hierarchy are going to ultimately get further shut out of the marketplace. Already timid, this shot across their bow is going to reduce their interest even further, and the more timid they are the less attractive they will be.

    Meanwhile, Alphas and Alphacads are going to have even more poon at their disposal. Cads will kick ass in this confusing environment, and straight Alphas will have greater incentive to be a bit more narcissistic and dominant and cad-y and even less marriageable, in order to keep longer strings of women on the hook and in line. More men than ever will be shut out, the bottom half of women won’t have dates, the top half of women will be subjugated and treated worse than ever, and Alphas and cads will do what Alphas and cads always do. Everyone wins!

  112. John Nesteutes says:

    Any man who consorts with a woman who doesn’t submit to these doctrines is now officially nuts:

    – permanence of marriage (divorce/remarriage = lose your salvation unless you repent and leave the adulterous remarriage)
    – headship of man over woman and submission of wives to husbands
    – head coverings to publicly display such belief
    – membership in a church which holds such doctrines
    – social circle/friends who support and uphold such doctrines and praxis and avoidance of close friendship with those who don’t (no divorced friends allowed)

    I never thought I’d see this day. Life goes on as usual for us, though. A few more people started following Jesus last week. The membership class is crammed full and the deaconesses and other elder women are running out of free time to disciple the new female converts.

    The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Repent and be baptised and turn away from sin.

  113. Anonymous Reader says:

    The fact is that (young) women created the hook-up culture because the serial monogamy norm created by the socons in the 90’s to counter the sexual revolution was suboptimal for those women.

    Serial monogamy, actually serial polyandry, wasn’t invented or created in the 1990’s. It is in fact the preferred form of promiscuity for women. All women, unless trained otherwise, will tend to default to this mode,grasping the next branch before letting go of the one in hand. It’s a feature of hypergamy. It’s the way they are. Chaucer knew this centuries ago.

    It’s part of the Female Imperative.

  114. John Nesteutes says:

    Forgot to mention: we’ve strongly counselled young men and women against going to college (and some sects outright disallow it).

    Guess we were right after all and not “anti-education”.

  115. John Nesteutes says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    Branch-swinging was long ago recognised by the church as adultery—a most grievous sin. Until Christians are willing to preach that branch swinging remarriage will condemn your soul to hell for eternity, we’re going to find heaven a lot… less densely populated than a lot of people expect.

    One only need look at the carnage right now to understand why mean old God declared this a sin, even when a woman has “good reasons” to divorce.

  116. greyghost says:

    John Nesteutes
    Christians have become the worlds cowards. No body respects a Christian. The pope is working on rolling the catholic church over on homosexuality right now. Christians don’t even speak the truth from the bible in their own churches. Some Christian churches have lesbian preachers. Most likely the church is in on this one like every thing else that involves the worship of the feminine. The heroic single mom

  117. To the extent that the law drives (some) young men away from the hookup culture, what will fill the void is not a sudden resurgence in marriage or even a path to marriage, but some combination of men checking out (the dreaded peter pan manboys/grass eaters), turning to porn/VR sex, and homosexuality.

    Sad. So sad…

    With policies like this, we might very well see regainging popularity of the “Real Doll.” After all….

    #1) She’ll never say no.
    #2) She’ll never cheat on you.
    #3) She’ll never divorce you and take alimony.
    #4) She doesn’t need to be listened to nor does she have any feelings.
    #5) She’ll never age.
    #6) She’ll never get fat.
    #7) She’ll always be tight.
    #8) She can’t get pregnant.
    #9) You don’t have to feed or clothe her.
    #10) You CAN cheat on her.
    #11) She’ll never report anything you do to her to the police.
    #12) And if you ever grows tired of her, just throw her in the dumpster and get a new doll.

  118. Rum says:

    It is an old saying that one should not tear down a fence without knowing why it was put up in the 1st place.
    Re: Criminal conviction and punishment only with publically presented evidence that is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. This procedure is/has always been, the only way to get the family and friends of the accused to accept a painful outcome. In the complete absence of this, they will have no choice but to resort to private means to establish justice. They will have reasons to make it frightful.
    None of this was mysterious in the 11th century; but nowadays it is, apparently.

  119. Anonymous Reader says:

    Rum
    It is an old saying that one should not tear down a fence without knowing why it was put up in the 1st place.

    The Roman Catholic author G.K. Chesterton (not to be confused with any modern blogger) wrote that in 1929 in a book entitled The Thing. The relevent paragraph is can be found here:

    http://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/

  120. easttexasfatboy says:

    Here’s the problem from my viewpoint. Feral feminists are going to destroy most chances of a normal relationship in college. I live out in the country, so I’m going to use an example from the country. If you see a rabid dog, you don’t try to help it. Out here in the country, double ought buckshot and bleach takes care of the problem. The thing is…..rabid, feral behavior among women isn’t new. It’s what happens when a civilization destroys itself. Don’t you think that the grass eaters have a point? Let’s see….rabid dog, don’t want to get bit…..completely AVOID the situation. Am I calling feminists dogs? Some of them are. Considering the serious consequences of dealing with one, better to leave them smooth alone. Black knight, yeah, unapologetically so. My survival is at stake. Personal opinion, but that’s what a lot of young guy’s are discovering. I’m fluent in Spanish, and function well south of the border. I would never consider another woman from the US. A man doesn’t have a chance against a stacked legal deck.

  121. infowarrior1 says:

    Why call those people who celebrate this law “Conservative”? Call them: “Femiservative” because this is what they are.

  122. Anonymous Reader says:

    “A businessman who has been forced to pay £28,500 to his ex-girlfriend in a landmark court ruling because he promised her ‘the security a wife would have’ has slammed the decision as ridiculous.”

    Earl asks:
    Why would a person make that type of promise to a woman?

    Oneitis, perhaps. Or laboring under the delusion that it is his job to make her happy.
    Or perhaps he said some words while hot with passion on the trail of adulterous poontang that he later regretted?

    Let me recall the rules that old feller told me:

    “Don’t hang out with stupid people,
    Don’t go to stupid places,
    Don’t do stupid things”.

    Hmm. This Brit may have a trifecta.

  123. MarcusD says:

    http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2014/10/17/second-synod-to-focus-on-learning-fundamentals-of-catholic-doctrine/

    VATICAN–It was announced today that a second synod, tentatively scheduled for mid-January, will solely focus on learning the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church.

    The news comes just days after Pope Francis asked synod participants to “speak clearly,” encouraging them to speak openly. “Let no one say, ‘This can’t be said, they will think this or that about me.’ Everything we feel must be said, without fear,” Francis said. After reading the badly translated, and what many have called “severely flawed” report called Relatio Post Disceptationem, Francis has since regretted the decision to ask the synod fathers to speak openly, supposedly overestimating their intelligence.

  124. desiderian says:

    “Serial monogamy, actually serial polyandry, wasn’t invented or created in the 1990’s. It is in fact the preferred form of promiscuity for women. All women, unless trained otherwise, will tend to default to this mode,grasping the next branch before letting go of the one in hand. It’s a feature of hypergamy. It’s the way they are. Chaucer knew this centuries ago.”

    Yes, that’s why I said they created the norm, not the behavior itself. It is a mark of the gravity of their error that that norm so resembles base instinct in the state of nature. But we no longer live in that state of nature and that norm, in addition to grossly violating scriptural teaching and traditional practice, was also an awful deal for women at the height of their SMV.

    It has earned the socons the enmity of those women to this day and left them vulnerable to the depredations of feminists and worse.

  125. desiderian says:

    “The news comes just days after Pope Francis asked synod participants to “speak clearly,” encouraging them to speak openly. “Let no one say, ‘This can’t be said, they will think this or that about me.’ Everything we feel must be said, without fear,” Francis said. After reading the badly translated, and what many have called “severely flawed” report called Relatio Post Disceptationem, Francis has since regretted the decision to ask the synod fathers to speak openly, supposedly overestimating their intelligence.”

    This is good, and long overdue.

    In my math classes, there are students who never learned their addition tables. The only thing to it is to get it out there, get them caught up, and get rolling. Once the students find out how many other kids are missing various basics, they’re not so afraid to admit it (especially to themselves), and most are able to get back on track.

  126. MarcusD says:

    This is good, and long overdue.

    Unfortunately “Eye of the Tiber” is a Catholic satire site.

  127. desiderian says:

    There is a reason medieval courts employed court jesters….

  128. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock & Deti

    You are saying this needs to stop, or dirty men will have to keep their grubby paws off their pure girlfriends. Pretty much every conservative I know will take your complaint about the law as a sales pitch.

    Because they–like so many “red pill” in the Men’s Sphere–still have the errant idea that “women are the gatekeepers of sex”, and go on about female locks and male keys and all kinds of thoughtless ideas that don’t match what confronts them every day.

    http://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/i-make-you-look-good/

    -women in disrobe in public
    -women drunk in sports bars
    -women reading the same articles with the same “sex tips that will blow his mind”
    -women watching various soap operas
    -women listening to endless and barely-varied love songs
    -women taking selfies
    -…

    Everywhere I go–airports, hotels, movie theaters, malls, schools–women are shouting “I WANNA GET FUCKED! WHO’S DOWN?”

    http://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/this-time-its-personal/

    That fact that a man (or most men’s) attractiveness is not the particular answer those women are looking for this moment

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/the-new-sexual-morality-will-the-bra-open-for-you

    …doesn’t mean they aren’t propositioning us all day in and day out. The lock-and-key analogy is a lie. It’s a mind-trap born of lazy thinking that prefers a quick one-size-fits-all-answer for why a man’s pride is either hurt, or why he’s entitled to it.

    I prefer to not link my own posts, but I thought it best in this case.

  129. easttexasfatboy says:

    Yes, only the foole could speak the truth in a oblique way. But a jester today is up against humorless feminists. Only folks to warn are the young men. But most of them have already got the message. Feral women aren’t any good. Feminists are unsuitable for men. Just the way it is. In the coming social upheaval, well, refuse them protection. If you help a snake, and it bites you, well…..I don’t have to complete that, do I? Just like a drunken coed…..let her aspirate her own vomit. Don’t call 911. Don’t open yourself up to a world of splashing feces. It’s a darwinian situation. Better to let her die, than help her and get accused of who knows what. Now that is really sad, isn’t it? Like my grandmother told me long ago : leave foolish people alone. No rolling the price for getting involved. So, just pretend you don’t see her. That way, things will work out for the best. Perhaps not for the drunk, but for you. Just leave these feral females alone. Get what you need somewheres else. As for dealing with women in a professional situation, it would be best if you could avoid it. Skilled labor, as my Dad put it, what folks HAVE to have…..plumbing, electrical, maintenance….something that can’t be outsourced and is fairly difficult to do is the ticket. I’m going to enjoy the decline, as Cappy says.

  130. infowarrior1 says:

    @John Nesteutes

    How does your church community stand firm and remain immune in regards to this toxic culture?

  131. TheRhoubbhe says:

    I like how you put “Arab Spring” in the title of your post Dalrock. Very appropriate given what is going on in the Western and Middle Eastern worlds.

    Yet again we have a bunch of morons from both parties jumping up and down as if their politicians accomplished something. Add “Yes Means Yes” to other great recent accomplishments like the Banking Welfare, the unconstitutional Patriot Act, the Iraq War (taking care of the Military Industrial Complex), Afghanistan War, Hurricane Katrina, and allowing am Ebola infected individual spread a fatal virus to hundreds.

    Democrats and Republicans should be so proud and thumping their chests with their accomplishments over the last 20 years. The Christian church sold out males in favor of females that are just as likely to follow magical faerie goddesses that provide facebook horoscope wisdom. Christianity is in decline and practiced by a shrinking population, Islam has one billion followers and a growing population.

    Accomplishments like the blatant trampling of the constitution, deindustrialization and free trade to annihilate middle class working men; no-fault divorce, punitive courts, growing gender educational gap, unchecked hypergamy, all leading to a demographic time-bomb.

    I am perhaps overwrought and too pessimistic. It will all be magically better when Hillary Clinton becomes President; at long last a woman will be in charge; never mind she is beholden to legal, corporate, and banking special interest donors that profit from the status quo.

    What possibly could go wrong in any country with easy firearm access combined with angry, underemployed, poor, sexless, disaffected hordes of males?

  132. MarcusD says:

    Can someone please explain “defect of form” as far as annulments go?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=915547

    annulment
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=915598

    what is wrong with me! (I married a man who is a wonderful person but we don’t fit; not from my perspective anyway. )
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=915779

  133. easttexasfatboy says:

    Don’t believe the young white guys will riot. Too demoralized. Can’t really say about the various minorities. Grass eaters and herbivores are gonna be a problem. But what these foolish women don’t realize is that those young men won’t be back. Not to their privileged “behinds”. Decent Latinas are going to clean up. Over at Just 4 Guys there’s a lot made of Black disfunction that is equally intractable. Latinas for the win, again. Those young women are a much better deal than a white marital the if that will end up as a land whale. Work up some Spanish and get after it! They value hard working husbands. So, forget the entitled feral females here in the USA, and go for a genuine first generation Latina. Don’t gamble on a carousel rider. Don’t become a proverbial saying, as it says in the Bible!

  134. evilwhitemalempire says:

    “what will fill the void is not a sudden resurgence in marriage or even a path to marriage, but some combination of men checking out (the dreaded peter pan manboys/grass eaters), turning to porn/VR sex, and homosexuality”
    —————————-
    I agree with all of this statement except the part about homosexuality.
    If going gay was truly a soft option for straight men do you honestly believe ANY man would stay straight?

    And I don’t think for a minute that leftist feminists are telling the whole truth when they say that they’re just wanting to end rape while getting improved sexual performance from the men (although I have no doubt that turning men into walking vibrators whose tongues must never fail them if they want to graduate college was much of their inspiration).
    The other half of the what they think (that they’ve ommited) is the bit articulated by the socons.
    YMY is backdoor ball-and-chainism.
    Give away some milk and threaten to tell the authorities that he stole it unless he agrees to buy the cow.

    ……but it will fail as Dalrock has pointed out.

  135. evilwhitemalempire says:

    “I can’t believe I used to be a staunch Republican.”

    “Is it just me, or are the only “conservative” commentators celebrating this law women? If so, one more piece of evidence that team woman trumps all else, including ideology.”
    —————————————————
    Is it just me or is there anyone else not surprised by those women’s remarks?

  136. earl says:

    “Everywhere I go–airports, hotels, movie theaters, malls, schools–women are shouting “I WANNA GET FUCKED! WHO’S DOWN?”

    Don’t let that cat out of the bag…some guys still want to believe they are alphas based on how much game they have.

  137. Keith Young says:

    Back awhile, in 1920, former legislation was enacted to prevent consumption of alcohol in the USA – essentially an attempt at regulating mass social behavior by a strong, vocal minority – this was the Volsted Act.
    It only took 13 years to run it’s course.
    Worked out really well, didn’t it?
    I anticipate a similar outcome, over the next decade and a half.

  138. Does the Yes mean Yes law deal with that legal fiction known as spousal rape? Probably not which will become one more reason to stay away from marriage.

  139. Sorry guys but I didn’t complete what I was going to say. I missed the bit where these fems are claiming that we will, in essence, be going back to more committed relationship. That would only be possible if that legal fiction known as spousal rape were to be removed from the lexicon.

    What is on offer with this law is more along the lines of “We will increase the risk of you being accused of rape if you hookup but we will not reduce the risk of you being accused of rape on your wife should you decide to tie the knot.”

    Heads they win, tails we lose.

  140. Novaseeker says:

    Does the Yes mean Yes law deal with that legal fiction known as spousal rape? Probably not which will become one more reason to stay away from marriage.

    No, it simply applies in that context (for students who are married, in this case). So, yes, a husband needs affirmative, enthusiastic consent from his wife, if they are students, for every act of a sexual nature in order to avoid being a rapist/sexual assaulter.

  141. Novaseeker says:

    <I agree with all of this statement except the part about homosexuality.
    If going gay was truly a soft option for straight men do you honestly believe ANY man would stay straight?

    This I agree with, although for *women* that won’t be the case. That is, as more men step back into the world of guyland and X-box, ESPN, porn/VR etc., more women will become “choice lesbians” over time, because women are more malleable in this way than men are by a significant degree.

  142. Novaseeker says:

    The more you think about it, really, as this law spreads from college campuses to the rest of us (which will happen almost certainly over the next 10-20 years if not sooner), it will give a lot of women what they want in their marriages to B-list men (compared with pre-marital lovers): a full legal endorsement of the idea that husbands are only entitled to sex when the wife is enthusiastically consenting. If she is less than enthusiastic, he is legally blocked. This is precisely what many women in these marriages (the BB side of the AF/BB life scripting) want, really, so that their husbands stop “pestering them for sex”, and when they are “enthusiastic” about it, perhaps during those high fertility swings each month, that’s when sex is “legal”. Otherwise, hub is a rapist, and his expectation that he should be having sex with her in any other circumstance just means he has a rapist mentality. Isn’t this the attitude we see reflected time and time again from married women all over the internet (most of them presumably in marriages to men who are good husband material but not optimal compared to prior lovers in that area)? This will codify that into law, which I think is what a lot of women want — at least older, married women in those sorts of marriages (which I am guessing are much more numerous than the star-struck, can’t-keep-my-hands-off-my-husband! type of marriages).

    Ironically, if your wife has sex with the neighbor, presumably enthusiastically consenting to the same, there is no legal issue whatsoever — not for the sex nor for the adultery (and the latter not even in the case of marital dissolution). But if that same husband has sex with that same wife an she less than enthusiastically consents, he is a rapist, and can go to jail. This really just underscores how utterly irrelevant marriage has become from the social/legal point of view other than as a means for women to obtain assets from men. That this is already largely the case is something most readers already know. But this law will further solidify that by making marriage even less relevant, because, really, the only thing relevant in male/female encounters is going to be enthusiastic consent — nothing else really matters, not marriage, not emotions, not romantic connection or commitment – none of it. What is relevant is whether there was enthusiastic consent in the moment — everything else is quite irrelevant.

    Obviously, this exacerbates trends in sexual access, because I think most of us know that women are more enthusiastic about their consent to sex with a certain subset of men than they are with pretty much all other men. That’s true whether they are the gatekeepers or not. It all comes down to with whom they will enthusiastically consent, and that’s a fairly small group of guys in any given group. So basically this standard of affirmative, enthusiastic consent just reinforces the overall trends we have been seeing socially (which is what the law often does anyway) and codifies it into law, which hardens it.

    I can see this leading to not less hookups and sex on campus (the first place where it is getting rolled out), but even fewer men being permitted to participate (only the ones who generate enthusiastic consent — basically a legal way of expressing the meaning of the word “tingles”). In terms of marriages, I see it solidfying the trend of relatively sexless marriages due to women being married to BB and having less than enthusiastic consent most of the time, with this now being backed up by the hard stick of rape law — which will act to decrease the overall amount of sex in these marriages from where it is even now (because under current law, a good deal of the sex happening in these marriages now is not “enthusiastic consent” sex, which means that under this law, that sex would be rape). Likely, that will be another factor in depressing marriage rates over time (among many other factors that are acting to do that).

    So, really, it’s a stick that is based on, and amplifies, existing social trends, really.

  143. earl says:

    “I married a man who is a wonderful person but we don’t fit; not from my perspective anyway.”

    Which didn’t stop her from getting pregnant with him.

  144. Farm Boy says:

    it will give a lot of women what they want in their marriages to B-list men (compared with pre-marital lovers): a full legal endorsement of the idea that husbands are only entitled to sex when the wife is enthusiastically consenting

    If that becomes the case, then the cat will truly be out of the bag. Why would any man marry? One can not have sex outside of marriage, and one can not have sex within marriage.

  145. desiderian says:

    “Give away some milk and threaten to tell the authorities that he stole it unless he agrees to buy the cow.”

    I believe a rental agreement is what they have in mind.

  146. desiderian says:

    Nova,

    “This I agree with, although for *women* that won’t be the case. That is, as more men step back into the world of guyland and X-box, ESPN, porn/VR etc., more women will become “choice lesbians” over time, because women are more malleable in this way than men are by a significant degree.”

    Another way in which our situation resembles the late Ming, only our eunuch class running things is lesbian.

  147. Casey says:

    @ Dalrock

    A number of articles ago, you postulated that the most grievous offences against men by feminism may actually start to be dialed back. The reason being that men shunning relationships altogether is a game ender for society.

    While I agree that we will eventually return to what worked; it will not be a conscious choice. It will be one of ‘no other alternative’.

    Enter this ‘Yes Means Yes’ law which takes the tyranny against men up another notch; while simultaneously lowering the accountability for women. I would agree with your statement that the agenda here is to roll this out to other colleges & university campuses across the land……..and then to society in general.

    I see no abatement whatsoever in the tyranny of feminism against men. If anything, it has dialed up to new highs in last 5 years; with examples too numerous to count.

    Women have been utilized as the ‘useful idiots’ to push an agenda of destroying the institutions of church & marriage. These goals have been fully achieved.

    No one ever asks where the money to fund feminism comes from. Follow the money, and the truth is revealed.

    If the patriarchy was so EVIL & OPPRESSIVE, why would the likes of the Rockefellers fund feminism? Were these men kinder & gentler overlords?
    NO, they were not!

    Why did the CIA fund Gloria Steinem’s efforts?
    Because she was a continuing CIA operative.

    They funded feminism to destabilize the family, indoctrinate our children, tax the remaining 50% of the masses, and push down the cost of labor.

    The reason the noise from the feminist camp is INCREASING is because the sources pushing the above agenda wants to ensure misery for the masses, no sense of community, no sense of family.

    Women: Government is your family now.
    Men: Enslavement is your fate; and we will have women be your jailor.

  148. earl says:

    We’re going from a sexual revolution to standards even more strict than the Puritans.

  149. This is precisely what many women in these marriages (the BB side of the AF/BB life scripting) want, really, so that their husbands stop “pestering them for sex”, and when they are “enthusiastic” about it, perhaps during those high fertility swings each month, that’s when sex is “legal”. Otherwise, hub is a rapist, and his expectation that he should be having sex with her in any other circumstance just means he has a rapist mentality. Isn’t this the attitude we see reflected time and time again from married women all over the internet

    Yep. It’ll give them complete legal control over marital sex where they currently have tacit social control.

    In addition, when she’s “grown out of” that marriage and ready to move on, she has a ready charge to lay against him, because of course there will have been sex acts in the latter days that she wasn’t all that excited about. Some women aren’t happy with an “irreconcilable differences” divorce because that implies that there might be some responsibility on both sides. Also, in at least some states, you can’t get the divorce as quickly for no-fault as you can if you allege some kind of abuse. So a woman wanting a faster divorce or a piece of paper that says the ex was 100% at fault will simply say that the last few times they had sex she was coerced, and bingo: a separation order, a crime to threaten him with, and an expedited divorce for fault.

    And the tradcons will cheer along with the feminists, because no woman should be forced to stay in an abusive marriage one second longer than necessary.

  150. I noticed that some already split the hair I normally pick on, that being the fixation on the conservative-tradcon-socon(CTS) label. Realizing that piping up with “not all CTS’s are like that” is not an efficacious point, I have in the past tried to finesse it so that its more than an ideological analog to NAWALT.

    After reading similar assertions about CTS’s in this post and thread, statements Ive read with regularity over the years, here and elsewhere, I finally figured out what puzzles me.

    If you are a Christian, set aside for a moment all the various sorting we do there with churchians and doctrinal variations and so forth, if you can allow that Christians differences of opinion on certain things but still be Christians, I’m interested to know what the differences are between the resulting social mores that should follow from being a Christian, and those that would fall under socon or tradcon (respectively, in case socon and tradcon have differences).

    I completely get the point about the misdirected thinking these groups are guilty of, thinking that is expertly and routinely dissected here. I see it from inside and outside the groups. It is more frustrating, maddeningly, than similar thinking expressed by the ideologically whacked. What I struggle with is that when we, in discussions of this nature regardless the specific topic, be it economics or demographics or any other thing that can be sorted broadly under a couple of ideological diminutives, when we do that there is an implied cause and effect. What i mean to say is, for simple instance, if we are discussing wealth transfer, redistribution, by the state, and we use the terms liberal and conservative, there is a profile we each envision for the person we file under the ideology, and in the profile is a rationale for why they believe the way they do on the topic…in this case redistribution of wealth, and in the imagined explanation of why the person believes as they do is a whole underlying idea of why they are flawed in thinking that way. One may think of the other , “They make choices that appeal to emotion in order to get the immediate fuzzy feeling that they truly care, and they don’t even truly consider playing out the unintended consequence possibilities to see that this is fraught with problems”

    So, when the labels CTS are hung consistently on the people who are guilty of doing what this post and countless others aptly illustrate, I’m curious what similar underpinning is assumed about the flawed thought process of the CTS individual.

    If I assume the same sort of overarching thought process that results in sorting of conservatives and liberals, and apply it to CTS’s, I run into problems.

    I also know that a certain urge to peacock has made simple sorting like liberal and conservative unpopular among groups of self labeled geniuses and comments tend to go on for days while men carry rulers to the locker room/library where historical and philosophical concepts are stored and the winning measurement is the obscurity of the concept. I am ignoring all of that in asking what I’m asking here.

    If I list some social mores associated with Christian faith, and some social mores associated with CTS’s, they should overlap, shouldn’t they? Isn’t it down a level or two on the file tree that the thinking displayed in this topic manifests itself as the CTS is deceived or deluded, where their feelings and failure to test the hypothesis have them embracing wrong headed ideas that are superficially appealing?

    The problem is therefore one of perception and contradiction. A Christian finds himself necessarily defending the first level, overarching social mores of the socon, and the tradcon because they align in an ideological sense, while at the same time making the colossal leap to assigning what is mistaken urges to action that occur a few levels down the outline of what underpins the beliefs of the person who is the socon or the tradcon.

    In other words there is a difference between when conservatives and liberals flippantly assign the label “liberal”, and when we so casually assign CTS as a negative moniker. There are mistakes and false assumptions in all of the above, but functionally the later is more flawed than the former. And it has a terrible side effect when we say CTS venomously. One is that we offer succor to a significant number of people who are actually hostile to the mores we Christian profess. Its conflicted, and its too handy. In many ways, Christians besmirching CTS’s is a bit like the majority of men in church choosing men in church as the target for their ire, always escalating man correcting actions.

    Note how enthusiastic some participants in these conversations routinely make statements that are a blatant affront to values that we Christians hold, done in stealth mode of decrying CTS’s stupidity, but with much schadenfreude. Its like they see us eating our own and they stand on the side suggesting new recipes we can use to prepare ourselves to feast on ourselves.

  151. James K says:

    @IBB:
    All this does in California is force the boys (the only ones who have any agency here) looking to “hook up”, travelling offf campus to other schools to meet girls.

    Unfortunately it is not so. From the statute:

    [Postsecondary Schools] shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, as defined in the federal Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092(f)) involving a student, both on and off campus.

    You might have expected the law to use the more obvious formula, “sexual assault [etc] of a student”, rather than “involving a student”. Isn’t it the victims that concern lawmakers?

    No, it isn’t. They are much more interested in punishing men.

    If the complainant is a student or employee of the college, but the defendant is not, the college has no authority to discipline the latter.

    If the defendant is a student of the college, but the complainant is not, the college does indeed have authority to discipline the defendant.

    The female student who is tired of “May I kiss you?” … “May I have permission to move my hand from your knee to your inner thigh?” can escape the madness by dating a non-student. The male student, in contrast, cannot escape.

  152. Farm Boy says:

    We’re going from a sexual revolution to standards even more strict than the Puritans.

    But of course. They are attempting to purify the quality of tingles available to women.

  153. Pocketspock says:

    I’m really curious to see if male college enrolment is going to track down and hit the skids as today’s first semester students graduate in 2018.

  154. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    We’re going from a sexual revolution to standards even more strict than the Puritans.

    That’s a true statement, although likely not for the reason(s) you think. Contrary to popular fiction, the Puritans knew all about babies, and where they came from, so they were very much in favor of them…within marriage of one man and one woman, for life. Early Puritan settlements in New England were tiny, cramped villages with thin walls; likely everyone knew a great deal about everyone else’s business. I do not know if they used the term “marital debt” precisely but am certain that some term like it was in common parlance.

    The standard that YMY(UID) is more like some primitive tribe, with the head matriarch’s hut in the center, smaller huts around it full of mothers with children and the man-of-the-moment, and various shanties out beyond that where the frustrated bachelors live, hoping someday to get to spend some time in the women’s huts. A tribe where men are allowed into a woman’s hut for a while, then driven out, and thus a tribe where children don’t really know who their father is. It is strict for the men. For the women? Not so strict.

    There were feminists who fantacised about such a world back in the 70’s and 80’s. I’ve skimmed some tracts in used bookstores, and could never see how it would be workable. Well, looks like we are going to find out.

  155. honeycomb says:

    desiderian said ..
    “I believe a rental agreement is what they have in mind.”

    I was told a long time ago ..
    “If it Flies, Floats or F#ucks .. rent it by the hour it’s cheaper!”

    ++++++++++++++++++++
    On a different note of interest ..
    ++++++++++++++++++++

    At another blog I recommended that men have the marriage license ammended for a term of 4 years -vs- lifetime (lol .. what man would have created a legal document for a lifetime .. oh that’s right .. none would!). And he gets HIS kids and she gets no cash and prizes upon divorce.

    Now .. this is a brilliant end run (re: YmY) on that idea. She can claim you did the dirty without consent and .. blingo .. she gets it all and you get jail. So my idea is in point of fact not viable if this becomes the law of the land. She could do it now to though not as frequently as I suspect if YmY was law.

    Forget it boys american women have gone far and beyond most mens idea of what evil is and is not. Good thing the good Lord has provided me with a content heart. He made sure I would be happy without women. Alone time is and has always been my favorite destination. I think more men will reach this.destination before we (the USofA) outlaw being single.

  156. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hello, Empath, I was wondering if you would be along or not. I can’t speak for anyone else, but the notion of saying one thing and then doing its opposite, or holding others to higher standards than one’s own group, i.e. hypocrisy, has been deeply offensive to me as long as I can remember. Pace’ the pop star Gaga, it appears I was born this way.

    For quite some time, those who call themselves social conservatives, traditional conservatives, and so forth have increasingly been in the habit of holding men to ever higher standards, while giving women a pass. They’ve also participated in the decoupling of authority from responsibility when it comes to male and female relations, even as they engage in big talk about the importance of fathers, men as head of the house, etc. Far too many socons and tradcons signed on to VAWA both originally in 1994 and every renewal afterwards, for example, to lend any credibility to their bleating about “sanctity of marriage” or “fathers matter”.

    How can I take seriously the words of ***cons about jobs and fathers when they continue to remain silent about Title IX’s demoltion of ment’s sports in college, about AA’s effects on the careers of men, about the drugging of boys into compliance in schools, etc.? When I try to engage ***cons on the topic of the “preponderance of evidence” standard for sexual misconduct in Uni’s that take Federal funds all I generally get back is either snarky remarks about being “pro rape” or a passive-aggressive suggestion that men in college should just “keep in in their pants”, there is zero actual thought about the reality on the ground…until one of their own young men gets caught up in the web, and then “there must be some mistake”.

    More than once I have read text written by a self-labeled trad or socon and thought I was reading something by a woman, due to the emotionalism, poor to no logical reasoning, fallacies, general tone…only to find out it was created by someone with a Y chromosome. Perhaps it is due to the feminization of churches? I don’t know. But more and more I find that ***con men are more difficult to tell apart from ***con women. This fits in with the overall trend in the larger society, where “good boys” are boys and men who act like women. It can be unintentionally funny to be lectured on manliness by a man who is holding his wife’s purse, so to speak.

    With notable exceptions, I now treat socons and tradcons as women, regardless of their genitalia; I expect no reason but only emotion in any debate, and increasingly I dismiss what they say in order to pay closer attention to what they do.

    If the socons and tradcons actually acted in accordance with their words, if they actually read all the words in Ephesians 5 and not just some, if they would jettison feminism, they would be more worthy of respect. Joseph of Jackson’s fate in the church where he was teaching young men to be more manly is instructive, however.

  157. At another blog I recommended that men have the marriage license ammended for a term of 4 years -vs- lifetime (lol .. what man would have created a legal document for a lifetime .. oh that’s right .. none would!)

    Actually, it’s the man who has the greater reason to make marriage a lifetime contract. A man’s reason to marry (under marriage 1.0) is simple: to get sole, exclusive sexual access to a woman and her progeny. A man marries to make sure that his children will really be his, and to make sure no other man penetrates his woman. Marriage only really offers that if it’s for life. A 20-year contract might cover the issue of children somewhat, but it would mean that she would be moving on to some other guy after the 20 years, which is unacceptable to a man. A 4-year contract wouldn’t guarantee any of that at all; he might as well just shack up. Plenty of shack-up couples last longer than 4 years.

    For a woman, on the other hand, making marriage for life does guarantee her a chance at support in her old age, when she’s no longer able to attract a new man — but that’s only true if her husband lives that long. And if she’s gotten bored with him, she won’t want his support anyway unless the alternative is starvation. But a 4-year marriage contract fits right into the female liking for serial monogamy: she can sign up with a guy, and then if she doesn’t get an opportunity to trade up in a few years, re-up with him. If she has his kids, he’ll sign again. And even in your fantasy scenario where he owns the kids, few guys would take their kids away from their mother when she’s willing to stay. So a 4-year system plays right into the female trade-up strategy. In fact, it’d look a whole lot like what we currently have, except instead of divorces in 2 years or 5, there would be un-renewed marriages in 4.

  158. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    So, when the labels CTS are hung consistently on the people who are guilty of doing what this post and countless others aptly illustrate, I’m curious what similar underpinning is assumed about the flawed thought process of the CTS individual.

    Perhaps a small point, but I didn’t use the term CTS in this post. I simply wrote “conservatives”.  But more to your point, you are complaining that I didn’t do something, when it was the whole point of the post.  The point of the post was not just to highlight the wrong conclusions, but to explain to the best of my ability where I think they went wrong to get there.  It starts with the title, where I make a parallel to the foolish liberal assumption that if the will of the people were set free in the middle east, peace, prosperity, and liberal democracy would reign.  This was a case where liberals chose to believe what they wished were so instead of dealing with reality.  They saw evil aching to be set free, and assumed it would somehow work out for the best to release it.  As a result they naively encouraged the loosing of incredibly destructive forces.  They didn’t want to make the Middle East worse, but by being willfully foolish they did just that.  Perhaps the complaint is I was too subtle in invoking the example of the Arab Spring, in which case you might suggest that I spell it out more clearly. But I did, with the sentence starting “These fantasies and those which will surely follow are the result of…” and the paragraphs which followed.

    As for why I spend more energy explaining the mistakes of conservatives than progressives/feminists, it is because fixing feminists will only make better feminists. If you look carefully I did expose what the feminists are selling in the last three posts, but I don’t try to correct their thinking. The problem is as I pointed out in a previous post that feminists are doing a brilliant job of maneuvering conservatives around the battlefield of the culture wars. It would be better to not show up at all than to fight on the wrong side. The conservatives I’m calling out are like Steve Carell’s character in Anchor Man.

    In many ways, Christians besmirching CTS’s is a bit like the majority of men in church choosing men in church as the target for their ire, always escalating man correcting actions.

    Not at all.  The men in the Church, or more specifically the husbands, are the leaders of the family whether they are good enough or not.  On the other hand, just because someone says they are conservative, or says they are Christian, doesn’t mean they should be followed.  When Glenn Stanton of FOTF tells us that women are innately good, and that single mothers are heroic, we don’t have an obligation to let it slide so that Christians don’t look dumb.  Stanton is the one making Christians look dumb, not the person who points it out.  If we don’t point it out, others will mistakenly believe that Christianity actually is foolish since Stanton is claiming it says such foolish things.

    A better metaphor would be calling out lesbians or feminists in the congregation for dressing like men and saying they are husbands.  The only reason calling false husbands out would make real husbands look foolish is if the real husbands hadn’t been able to tell the difference, or even worse, if the real husbands insist that women dressed as men are as much husbands as they themselves are.  In this case the embarrassment to the real husbands is real but unavoidable.  The only other choice is to allow the charade to continue unchallenged.

  159. AR, thank you for the thoughtful response. Its possible I didn’t make myself clear be cause I’m writing while attending to other household distractions, gaps of time between sentences and no time to reshape, plus, I dont elevate most comments to the level where they deserve that much focus….maybe I should.

    So don’t take it sharply when i say you didn’t address my question at all. You stated the obvious problem with what CTS’s do and say, and the innate contradictions and hypocrisy therein very clearly. Consider your comment liked, endorsed. I agree 100% with it.

    But my issue is not with the accusation that they do the opposite of what they claim to believe, that they hold the wrong party to account, that they frame that as if it is helpful to men (in your example), its the old saw where the pastor tells men on fathers day that they CAN be great dads, and it comes across as a positive message therefore to the shallow thinking ear.

    The issue is best explained in two things i said. One was my attempt to explain what it means, comprehensively, when we throw ideological labels on others and what we mean by it. Usually its done dismissively, to discredit them because after all, the hypothetical topic is absurd (in my example…think wealth redistribution) and only a liberal can believe that way. There is an implied comprehensive profile of said liberal that would chart their thought process (in an overly simplistic manner) and show where they go wrong and why. I don’t like that whole dynamic, but i understand it because Ive done it myself in the past and may even still though I try to avoid the assumptions that inform the simplistic profile associated with the label.

    In this case, if we say CTS, what is the simplistic profile….or better, IS there a simplistic profile that is an analog to the one in my conservative/liberal example? Is “hypocrit” the profile assumed? Maybe. It gets messy.

    If one could clinically list off some characteristics of Christian, and separately as tradcon and socon, how would the mores of the two groups line up? The question is not how do the two groups ACT and do the actions line up, its the clinically assumed mores that a random survey of a large number of people would list under each one. Then, if hypocrisy in action is the assumed profile that illustrates the flawed thinking, we necessarily can and should use the word Christian with the same negative connotation as we do tradcon and socon. I have a problem with that. its a problem that goes beyond the tedious debate over what word best describes what belief set and the ever growing group of people who want to split hairs to illustrate that THEY are above those simple things and have found “the third way”…..like 7man and his sidekick always do for example. I want to be clear Im not trying to REFINE the labels, I am asserting that there is a big contradiction , self flagellation even, for Christians to do this socon tradcon sorting.

    i am not defending CTS’s behaviors. I’m not wanting them left alone, unchallenged. Maybe I want to know what the label is for the Christians who remain after the CTS’s offenders are stricken from the list. What are we? What group(s) do we share the most values with? Are there really so few of us special Christian snowflakes that we have a clique here in these parts and thats it, because we have sorted all of what SHOULD BE natural allies out and away? Worse, when we see the secular AMEN! chorus from soulless left, or the overtly libertine, whatever group that represents values diametrically opposite what ours should be….but they eloquently wax in agreement about that bloody CTS’s do we not get it that we too are held in derision by them, but like a ManBoobs type association with feminists, they tolerate us because it feels really cool to hear what to them is us running us down.

    There are many men who post and are not Christians, and are open about that, and thoughtful, such as yourself. respectful, open about where you are coming from, etc. for the most part. There are far more of the other category for whom we are tacitly endorsing their mockery of things we hold as absolute non negotiable truths.

    I’m beginning to wonder if those of us who are professed Christians have realized this. I do not have a suggestion for fixing this. because I am not just harping on labels used to describe a group, and that a change of label, or that the addition of a qualifier ….”some/most/many/not all, CTS’s” is needed.

    It seems like the old debate that we are women haters because we use the word “women” and do not add NAWALT qualifiers. The difference is that in the case of women the ones who are guilty and those who are not are two separate and distinct groups that are not wed to a shared set of fundamental values.The women that NAWALT applies to actually tend to act differently from the women we include in the generality “women” when we complain. But Christians and socons/tradcons DO have definitional values overlap…and of those groups….Christians and trad/socons both have misguided idiots whose actions and the things they support are counter to what they should be doing/supporting. Therefore, someone explain to me why we cannot use “Christian” in the same way “tradcon socon” is used? I dont need to have explained to me the potential spiritual difference, that a Christian can have with a trad/socon in terms of faith. Its about values that should be ascribed to the two groups. And since the deleterious assignment of trad/socon labels to perpetrators of great hypocrisies has become the norm, it follows that those who are hostile to Christianity but participate because we eat our own would welcome the label “Christian” as a synonym to trad/socon.

  160. Dalrock you’ve taken me wrong. I didn’t

    you are complaining that I didn’t do something, when it was the whole point of the post.

    and I especially did not say:

    As for why I spend more energy explaining the mistakes of conservatives than progressives/feminists

    I allow Ive struggled to explain myself. But please do not see my point as simply suggesting that you focus more on the other group. I’m surprised, frankly that even if I somehow accidentally hinted that, that you’d conclude without some reservations that my quibble is that petty.

  161. But I did muck up the tags

  162. JDG says:

    Christians don’t even speak the truth from the bible in their own churches. Some Christian churches have lesbian preachers.

    How can we know that the people doing these things are in fact Christians? We certainly can’t know this by their actions.

  163. JDG says:

    Why call those people who celebrate this law “Conservative”? Call them: “Femiservative” because this is what they are.

    To me they are all feminists, unless they are actively combating the feminist norm that is our daily experience.

  164. The Brass Cat says:

    TheRhoubbhe says:

    What possibly could go wrong in any country with easy firearm access combined with angry, underemployed, poor, sexless, disaffected hordes of males?

    Look to the inner city as a harbinger for the rest of the country. There you will find full-blown matriarchy and matrilinear “families” with shiftless, criminally-inclined males.

    Technology will mitigate some of the problems of having a non-productive, disenfranchised, male underclass. As some commenters have listed: VR porn, video games, and ESPN. Keeping their time (and libidos) occupied will reduce criminality and rioting.

  165. honeycomb says:

    Cail C. said ..

    “Actually, it’s the man who has the greater reason to make marriage a lifetime contract. A man’s reason to marry (under marriage 1.0) is simple: to get sole, exclusive sexual access to a woman and her progeny. A man marries to make sure that his children will really be his, and to make sure no other man penetrates his woman. Marriage only really offers that if it’s for life.”

    I agree and disagree.

    Only in biblical marriage 1.0 (with zero cuckold men) is lifetime a good deal for men.

    As it stands right now no man is safe from his wife being penetrated by another man. Prove me wrong.

    Current conservative estamates put cuckold husbands around 30%. And that is with just simple blood type analysis.

    Marriage renewal is the only way to put women in check along with zero incentives at exit.

    A good woman has nothing to worry about because a man couldn’t find a better option. Nor should he if she was a 1.0 woman.

    And, no I don’t believe “to death do we part” is applicable today when women have no intention of ever honoring that vow.

    Do I believe biblical marriage was intended for that long .. yes. But a marriage license is a government document .. nothing more than a wealth transfer .. and not written by God.

    The fact remains .. if this becomes a legal standard in the future you will see the long knives come out when men in mass avoid any form of co-hab-uh-tation.

    By then I’ll be retired in a sunny and warm foreign location.

  166. Bluedog says:

    Dalrock, you have been on a roll lately. I look forward to the day when you are interviewed by The New Republic. Not The Nation – you’d be talking across an impassable gap. Not the National Review or The Weekly Standard – there are a few over there who get it, i.e.: Mansfield (although not a contributor but noted), Kristol and Williamson, but the wires are too scrambled to make sense of you. Not Politico where there really isn’t an operating ethos at work anyway. The New Republic is your debut. I’m not saying it will be a welcome reception, you’ll be lucky to find a plurality in support, but what you would find would be a plurality that has the capacity to get you, whether they agree with you or not.

    Earl and Anonymous Reader – this is more for AR than the former – the argument about BC is “off base” in the sense of not getting it – I think Earl realizes this but is having a hard time articulating it. BC is a proximal cause, not a root cause. Also to be clear – I do not have issues with BC myself – I look forward to more options for BC, for men and women. Anyway – to argue that BC isn’t causal to what we are seeing right now is like arguing that antibiotics and general knowledge of VD isn’t causal either.

    Of course – antibiotics and general medical knowledge (i.e.: “…is power”) is of course causal. Proximally, but not root.
    Our underlying moral state (i.e.: “fallen” in Christian parlance) is of course a root cause, and that’s completely irrelevant AR.

    It’s irrelevant because prior to BC, fallen or not, the absence of BC gave women cause to make personal choices that conformed to the normative view of marriage and family adopted by most readers here.
    Because we have … antibiotics, and medical knowledge, and birth control, and greater prosperity, there are not materially fewer “natural world” reasons for women to exercise their own free will, their own personal agency, so as to agree to the normative view of marriage/family of readers on Dalrock.

    That presents you with three options: (1) give up, also known as “MGTOW” or as evocatively stated above by Phillyastro, the “Bene Tleilax” option of Frank Herbert’s Dune (more on that in a minute), (2) go fascist and try to impose against women’s autonomy to force their choices back to the find of marriage/family that is favored here or (3) carve out a space for survival, no matter whether the greater part of humanity takes the Road to Perdition or not.

    I offer you that option 1 will happen – there’s nothing that will stop it.
    I offer you that option 3 should happen – and it is as much as up to people just such as yourselves to reject options 1 and 2 and unite behind leaders who will make it happen in order for it to happen and succeed. You must understand that on this path may very well lie the ghetto for some time – but it’s about putting your lives where your beliefs are.
    And I offer that option 2 is its own surefire Road to Perdition.

    That 2 – fascism – is a Road to Perdition – is so not least because this: women and men, alike, are fallen human beings. With a lifetime’s worth of experience to inform me I know of nothing that persuades me that the male gender is any more morally upright than the female gender – we are all “fallen”, we all suffer a degree of moral corruption and are susceptible to moral bankruptcy, all of us.

    If you sincerely believe that women are specially fallen, or specially odious … which a reader of these comments sections can surely be forgiven for taking away as an understanding of your internal states … then I have no idea why you care so much about women. Go with option 1.

    But if you do care about women and if you agree that women and men both suffer a shared human moral condition – then it is incumbent upon you to reject 2 and commit to 3. The best you can do and hope for is to make marriage/family a viable choice for a minority of people who will choose it.

    I just came from the grocery store this morning where I was buying materials to make breakfast for my sons. There were families there – men and women, with their sons and daughters. They were beautiful.

    Family is beautiful. Making breakfast for my sons and having it with them – was beautiful. Repairing my son’s electric scooter with him last night, was beautiful.

    Take refuge in the beauty of family. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give it up. Find people of good will, of like mind, … find allies as well in the superculture who will defend and protect your right to exist.

    Your strongest weapon is the beauty of the thing you create, and the power it has to withstand challenge where alternatives will falter. Get on with it.

  167. Bluedog says:

    Above “here are not materially fewer ‘natural world'” should read “here are now materially fewer ‘natural world'”

  168. mdavid says:

    empath, Realizing that piping up with “not all CTS’s are like that” is not an efficacious point, I have in the past tried to finesse…

    Men on this thread are angry at the injustices against them. But they seem more upset that others (e.g. TradCons) are not so angry. I find this amusing. Here’s why.

    Most TradCons I know (Catholic types) are like Amish and have separated themselves from the broader culture. They don’t expect the law to do anything but persecute them. So they marry & date under different rules, relying upon their own social network to police women.They certainly don’t attend state universities in CA!

    Expect things to get much worse legally against men. It’s a war. So stop complaining you are being shot at! And certainly stop complaining that TradCons aren’t angry enough; they made their move out of the mess long ago, way back when they were warning about the legalization of birth control…then divorce…and then abortion…and other Christians merely winked. Christians today will get exactly what they have worked so hard for: the freedom (and logical failure) of individualism. For TradCons, nothing will change with these new laws. They’ve been in the ghetto for a long time already.

  169. JDG says:

    We’re going from a sexual revolution to standards even more strict than the Puritans.

    When are people going to learn.

    Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.

  170. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail Corishev
    So a 4-year system plays right into the female trade-up strategy. In fact, it’d look a whole lot like what we currently have, except instead of divorces in 2 years or 5, there would be un-renewed marriages in 4.

    Agreed. There’s a pretty well known danger point in marriage when the youngest child has become somewhat autonomous – typically nowadays when able to go to preschool / kindergarten, and it’s around the age of 4. This seems to trigger the restless desire to trade-up. This sort of contract would not just play into the strategy, it would also amplify it. Instead of a woman having to resist “the whispers”, she’d be having to resist a social and legal norm of the “Oh, everyone does this, honey” sort.

    Based on what we know about women’s reproductive strategies, the 4-year contract would reduce divorce by the simple mechanism of a whole lot of non-renewals, as CC notes above. I guess as a bandaid strategy, “Look! Fewer divorces!”, it would have superficial appeal, but only to people who don’t understand the current issues with marriage in the US.

  171. Anonymous Reader says:

    BlueDog
    Earl and Anonymous Reader – this is more for AR than the former – the argument about BC is “off base” in the sense of not getting it – I think Earl realizes this but is having a hard time articulating it. BC is a proximal cause, not a root cause.

    Two quick points:
    First, you can only make this argument if you assume that contraception is a recent development in human history, yet it clearly is not. The list of herbs and other plants that have various effects is long, and humans have been herbalists for a very long time – longer than recorded history.

    Second, blaming an object for human behavior is an error, unless one is a certain kind of pagan that truly believes in a spirit world capable of making inanimate objects move. Blaming the existence of contraception for bad behavior by women is just careless, and it takes away from women’s agency. “Oh, i didn’t mean to be a slut, The Pill made me do it” is no more of a valid excuse than a child blaming vanished cookies on an imaginary friend.

    In reality, women’s reproductive strategy innately involves serial mating with multiple men. Women can be trained out of that and kept from it by social and legal controls, but in the feral state that’s how it is. AWALT. Gene studies are pretty clear on that. When women are loosed from social, cultural, legal controls, they want to fornicate and will do so, in the process demanding means to contracept or abort – and if that’s not possible, they’ll abandon an infant on the hillside.

    Earl seems to me to be confusing cause and effect. Women’s inherent lusts lead to demanding something like The Pill, not the other way around. Chaucer, again, demonstrates this.

  172. JDG says:

    For those Christians who are bent on allowing the term “Christian” to be co-opted by the non-Christian actions of fallen people, where will you take your stand on a term that signifies belonging to and following Christ?

    Yes Christians do non-Christian things, but that does not change what being a Christian entails. There is a non-negotiable criteria for being a Christ follower. Even if we don’t all agree on some of the details, there are too many clearly laid out principles to loose sight of what Christianity really is.

    If we didn’t have the Bible I could see the point in letting the unfaithful have it, but we do have the Bible. Are we really prepared to say that the Glen Stanton feminists get to define what being a Christian means when we have the Bible to tell us what it really means?

  173. Pingback: Another Example of Harmful Risk-Aversion | Things that We have Heard and Known

  174. TheRhoubbhe says:

    The BrassCat wrote: Technology will mitigate some of the problems of having a non-productive, disenfranchised, male underclass. As some commenters have listed: VR porn, video games, and ESPN. Keeping their time (and libidos) occupied will reduce criminality and rioting.

    That is true, I see your point, but I would say Feminists also seek to invade those areas, #Gamergate is but one salvo of trying to take away male only spaces. They will attack misogynistic games to get young men to stop playing them, after all, somebody has to work to maintain the female welfare system.

    Diversions won’t be enough long term; if males are unproductive and lacking resources, this country is doomed.

    The wonderful technical diversion that is our civilization requires a number of highly educated men with specific technical skills to keep it going. Male education is on the decline, going off a cliff to be honest, and one nasty flu strain pandemic could throw us back to the stone age.

  175. Farm Boy says:

    How can we know that the people doing these things are in fact Christians? We certainly can’t know this by their actions.

    And probably the women don’t make sammiches for their guys either.

  176. Farm Boy says:

    The wonderful technical diversion that is our civilization requires a number of highly educated men with specific technical skills to keep it going. Male education is on the decline, going off a cliff to be honest

    Then perhaps we should try harder to get women into STEM programs. Maybe with one more push it will work. This time will be the time.

  177. The Brass Cat says:

    TheRhoubbhe says:

    That is true, I see your point, but I would say Feminists also seek to invade those areas, #Gamergate is but one salvo of trying to take away male only spaces. They will attack misogynistic games to get young men to stop playing them, after all, somebody has to work to maintain the female welfare system.

    Diversions won’t be enough long term; if males are unproductive and lacking resources, this country is doomed.

    The wonderful technical diversion that is our civilization requires a number of highly educated men with specific technical skills to keep it going. Male education is on the decline, going off a cliff to be honest, and one nasty flu strain pandemic could throw us back to the stone age.

    This is why Feminists hate porn (only male-oriented porn), video games, and men’s sports. The long-term scheme of Feminism ultimately–and ironically–depends upon men participating. They’d love to force men to just “man up,” but slavery cannot produce ingenuity and creativity nor even the desire to exceed expectations. You could say that slavery depends upon the participation of the slaves therefore in the long long-run it doesn’t work.

    If the above diversions are taken away men can always create new ones, such as looting and arson.

  178. Anonymous Reader says:

    Empath
    So don’t take it sharply when i say you didn’t address my question at all. You stated the obvious problem with what CTS’s do and say, and the innate contradictions and hypocrisy therein very clearly. Consider your comment liked, endorsed. I agree 100% with it.

    Ok. So why doesn’t that answer the question?

    The issue is best explained in two things i said. One was my attempt to explain what it means, comprehensively, when we throw ideological labels on others and what we mean by it

    and

    In this case, if we say CTS, what is the simplistic profile….or better, IS there a simplistic profile that is an analog to the one in my conservative/liberal example? Is “hypocrit” the profile assumed? Maybe. It gets messy.

    Why does it get messy? Suppose that we have 100 people who call themselves “traditional conservatives” and 99 of them endorse all of feminist premises with the exception of abortion. How is it messy to say “These people are feminists”? Even when the 1 outlier, poor old Joe, pipes up and says “Hey! I’m not like these other people!” that doesn’t change the facts about the others. What it suggests to me is that he needs to find a new label for himself…

    Are you objecting to where the line is drawn, in percentage terms? 60% vs 70% vs 51%? If so, how is that different from a rousing game of No True Scotsman?

    Your objection seems very similar to what I used to get from feminists. I have known women who called themselves feminists who opposed abortion (there used to be an org, Feminists For Life, no idea if it still exists). They’d gnaw on my ear about how my idea of feminists as pro-abortion was all wrong, because they weren’t and so the exception proves me wrong. Except that NOW and NARAL and a lot of other very visible, powerful, feminist orgs were totally in support of abortion, often on demand and right up to month 9.

    You seem to be complaining to me about the behavior of your fellow conservatives; I don’t have any authority over them, and they tend to not listen to men whom they can dismiss as “angry” anyway, so I”m not sure what you want me to do.

    As for the term “Christian”, I have two things to say. First, it is far above my pay grade to decide who is and who is not a True Christian (see what I did there?) and second of all the term “Churchian” has come into common enough use that it conveys a fairly clear meaning.

    I appreciate your situation, in that you are part of a group, you and the rest of the group agree on a lot of things, a significant plurality to majority of the group is also very wrong headed on the issues of women and frivorce, and you would like something to change in the way righteously angry men refer to your group. But if your group would just get real about frivorce, that would change things, too.

    So what do you suggest? If it’s a disclaimer, consider Not All Traditional Conservatives Are Like That implied as a feature of any of my comments, just as NAWALT is implied. If it’s a finer grained name, then good luck on that, but I’m not sure why it is my problem, any more than it’s my job to correct pedestalizing misandrists like Mark Driscoll or Glenn Stanton.

  179. Anonymous Reader says:

    Looks like Bluedog, or Mrs. Bluedog, has been reading too much Margaret Atwood fiction.

    Nobody here gets to choose anything for the rest of society. We get to argue, to share ideas, and maybe to influence each other a smidge, and that’s pretty much it. We get to do the same offline as well, and while that has influence, nobody here is a veteran of World War I with a black shirt and a lot of friends.

    Bluedog, if you have any male children / nephews / etc., expend your fretting on him or them, not on us. Because the creeping tyranny of feminism has started to run faster, and the future looks more like “The Drones Tale” than the “Handmaid’s Tale”.

  180. JDG says:

    Then perhaps we should try harder to get women into STEM programs. Maybe with one more push it will work. This time will be the time.

    Farm Boy,

    We need women in STEM like we needed women in the Forest Service:

    http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2012/06/how-feminism-wrecked-the-u-s-forest-service/

    Even so, we can’t even get most women to make sammiches. How are we going to get them into STEM?

  181. The Brass Cat says:

    Bluedog says:

    That presents you with three options: (1) give up, also known as “MGTOW” or as evocatively stated above by Phillyastro, the “Bene Tleilax” option of Frank Herbert’s Dune (more on that in a minute), (2) go fascist and try to impose against women’s autonomy to force their choices back to the find of marriage/family that is favored here or (3) carve out a space for survival, no matter whether the greater part of humanity takes the Road to Perdition or not.

    I offer you that option 1 will happen – there’s nothing that will stop it.
    I offer you that option 3 should happen – and it is as much as up to people just such as yourselves to reject options 1 and 2 and unite behind leaders who will make it happen in order for it to happen and succeed. You must understand that on this path may very well lie the ghetto for some time – but it’s about putting your lives where your beliefs are.
    And I offer that option 2 is its own surefire Road to Perdition.

    I haven’t seen anyone here advocating for imposing against women’s autonomy. How does one actually do that? Force and coercion? What I DO see here are many who lament the choices many women make while exercising their autonomy. These women are not beyond reproach.

    Your Option 3 I agree with. It isn’t discussed much and taking it will get me labelled as a fool or worse in the manosphere. But I don’t consider it foolish to take a big risk to get what I want.

  182. Anonymous Reader says:

    JDG, Poe’s Law.

    Or to put it in older vernacular, I think that Farm Boy pulled your leg hard enough that it came off.

  183. Anonymous Reader says:

    Brass Cat
    Your Option 3 I agree with. It isn’t discussed much and taking it will get me labelled as a fool or worse in the manosphere.

    Eh? I’ve lost track of the number of comment threads I’ve seen where that option was discussed from many points of view in the androsphere. Some for it, some say it’s not worth the trouble, some say it just means you get clobbered by feminism later than others (but before the Amish).

    I don’t see what you say you see.

  184. Farm Boy says:

    I haven’t seen anyone here advocating for imposing against women’s autonomy.

    Count me in.

  185. JDG says:

    AR – Farm Boy knows what I meant, and he knows that I knew what he meant.

  186. Why does it get messy? Suppose that we have 100 people who call themselves “traditional conservatives” and 99 of them endorse all of feminist premises with the exception of abortion. How is it messy to say “These people are feminists”? Even when the 1 outlier, poor old Joe, pipes up and says “Hey! I’m not like these other people!” that doesn’t change the facts about the others. What it suggests to me is that he needs to find a new label for himself…

    You are still not getting me. Let me answer the bolded question. It doesn’t matter , it isnt messy to call those two feminists, I’m not on about such a trivial thing as arguing that you cannot take a valid generality and use terminology that to the untrained eye looks like stereotyping. I am not making a NAWALT argument. I absolutely 100% agree with the observations about tradcons and socons. I do think I am clear on that. I may not be expressing what I am digging at clearly, but I think it is obvious I am not playing footsie with NAWALT type goofy arguments that I personally cannot stand when I see them made. I always blow back with the implied statistics, if a majority of X is Y, its ok to casually refer to X’s as Y’s. I get all that. So, it is 100% legitimate to use the terms trad/socon just as Dalrock has done. It is perfectly valid.

    I do not have time nor is it even important enough to try and explain myself better. At least i want to get this particular disagreement put away. That ain’t it.

  187. Quickly, then done. the simplest response I can give, and AR perhaps you are not moved by the question, is to say that because the trad/socon generality is valid, and therefore the casual use of those terms when making these valid points Dalrock makes here is also valid…..necessarily it is equally valid to use the term “Christian” alongside trad/socon.

    (Note, Dalrock did no such thing in this post nor am I fixated on attacking Dalrock on this, we’ve had this conversation many times and found common ground. Thats not been lost to me. These were new thoughts brought by comments)

    “Tradcons, socons, and Christians support policies that promote feminism”. Christians have ben instrumental in creating the hook up culture and in creating a culture of easy divorce. Christians are guilty of helping destroy the family……like that. And frankly it may well be true.

    Then imagine comments:

    “To imagine I used to be a Christian”
    “Christians are stupid, are they not supposed to be the champions of morality”
    “Not surprising from the clueless Christians, so wrapped up min their beliefs they fail to even understand the base nature of woman”
    “No wonder Christianity is dying, only idiots and manginas subscribe”

    Guess I need to say again, the technical validity of these charges may well be as correct as any other efficient phraseology generated and valid because of the numbers of those in the group who are screwed up. I’m asking if anyone would give a crap as that train of thought left the station. Correction, does anyone give a crap that that train of thought HAS left the station because it most certainly has in the minds of those who would relish it, but kept at bay because the enemy of my enemy is my friend type reasoning.

  188. desiderian says:

    empath,

    There are millions who were baptized into the church who are now saying those very things. I’m less worried about people saying those things than I am about unstopping the ears of those in positions of authority whose false teaching and unfaithful living drove those millions out to begin with.

    The very stones cry out.

  189. Novaseeker says:

    Eh? I’ve lost track of the number of comment threads I’ve seen where that option was discussed from many points of view in the androsphere. Some for it, some say it’s not worth the trouble, some say it just means you get clobbered by feminism later than others (but before the Amish).

    I don’t see what you say you see.

    Pretty much.

    I think people need to keep in mind (you understand it, but this is for others) that what he is proposing is closer to a kind of Amish than it is The Duggars. The idea is creating a carved out space where you are allowed to exist with your eccentricities (from the point of view of the mainstream culture) — which is what the mainstream culture does with the Amish and the Chasidim.

    It isn’t a new proposal. The main problem with it is that you can’t really create an Amish or Chasidim based on ideology. These groups exist because they represents tightly-bound religious sects, much more tightly bound than “Christian” or “Bible believer” or what have you. That separateness is both formed and maintained by that basis — and also legitimized by that basis to the culture as a whole. The culture will tolerate the chasidim much more than a bunch of otherwise mainstream people deciding to form a separate group and demanding to be treated like the Amish.

  190. JDG says:

    Maybe this will help:

    Farm Boy, we can’t even get most women to make sammiches. How are we going to get them into STEM?

    Even so, we need women in STEM like we needed women in the Forest Service:

    http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2012/06/how-feminism-wrecked-the-u-s-forest-service/

  191. The Brass Cat says:

    Novaseeker says:

    I think people need to keep in mind (you understand it, but this is for others) that what he is proposing is closer to a kind of Amish than it is The Duggars. The idea is creating a carved out space where you are allowed to exist with your eccentricities (from the point of view of the mainstream culture) — which is what the mainstream culture does with the Amish and the Chasidim.

    Hmm, I must have misunderstood Bluedog. I didn’t think he was saying “go Amish.”

  192. Anonymous Reader says:

    AR – Farm Boy knows what I meant, and he knows that I knew what he meant.

    Yes, but does Farm Boy know that you know that I know what you meant?

  193. Anonymous Reader says:

    necessarily it is equally valid to use the term “Christian” alongside trad/socon.

    Why do you believe that to be true? Are there no Jewish social / traditional conservatives? No agnostic social / traditional conservatives?

    Turning the argument around, I can easily find any number of people who self-identify as “Christian” but who are socially, culturally, politically, fiscally liberal. They have contempt for both social and traditional conservatives.

    I don’t see how you can claim that all trad/socons must of necessity also be Christian.
    If that is what your concern rests on, it is not on a very solid premise.

    Clearly I’m still missing or misunderstanding something.

  194. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    I allow Ive struggled to explain myself. But please do not see my point as simply suggesting that you focus more on the other group. I’m surprised, frankly that even if I somehow accidentally hinted that, that you’d conclude without some reservations that my quibble is that petty.

    Clearly I’m not getting your point.  I’m not sure how to solve that, but I will keep trying.  With that in mind, I’ll respond to some other points you made in response to Anon Reader:

    i am not defending CTS’s behaviors. I’m not wanting them left alone, unchallenged.

    I get that you aren’t defending the behavior, and I believe that you don’t want them left alone.  However, as I wrote above there is an objection here which I don’t understand.  I’ll note that Cane Caldo has a new post up discussing the topic so I propose that hereafter we should move this off topic discussion to his post where it is on topic.

    Maybe I want to know what the label is for the Christians who remain after the CTS’s offenders are stricken from the list. What are we? What group(s) do we share the most values with? Are there really so few of us special Christian snowflakes that we have a clique here in these parts and thats it, because we have sorted all of what SHOULD BE natural allies out and away?

    What I’ve settled on is referring to Modern Christians to distinguish between the modern norm and what Christianity actually teaches,  what was understood for nearly two thousand years.  For “conservative” it isn’t so easy, because we don’t have a solid anchor/blueprint to point to.  The Social Pathologist has been exploring the very question of “what is a conservative”, or at least, what should the term mean.  My intent is to use the term the same way those who consider themselves conservatives generally mean it.  This likely isn’t perfect, but for example in the OP all three of the links are to writers who are pushing YMY because they expect it will push us to more a more conservative sexual morality.

    But the bigger part of the problem is something you touch directly on in your question.  You ask it in relation to Christians but you could ask the same thing for conservatives.  It is easiest to get at by asking another question (I’ll beg your indulgence here).  Where is it (on the web) where this other sort of conservative gathers, where they separate themselves from the conservatives we are trying to correct?  Once we can identify this group/meeting place, all we need to do is see what they call themselves.  As you noted upthread this can get messy because people tend to resist labels, but even if they resisted the label we could point to them as a defined group.  The problem as I see it is that no such group exists, at least not outside of the manosphere.  This is critical, because they don’t see a distinction, they aren’t separating themselves out.  If we create a separate label, not only will it not be recognized because we invented it, but it will be trying to make a distinction which the people we are describing don’t even recognize.  I see no way around this until and unless the non feminist group of conservatives recognizes themselves as different from the feminist ones and acts accordingly.  Note that this wouldn’t prevent a sort of big tent collaboration on common ground.  But it would require a conscious recognition within the group we call conservatives that many, probably most, conservatives are very often playing on the feminist team (wittingly or otherwise).  If they don’t recognize the distinction, we can’t come up with a name for it and expect it to have meaning to them.

    This is incidentally why we have discussions here in the manosphere which generally can’t occur anywhere else.  As you know, bringing up the kinds of issues we discuss with modern Christians doesn’t go over well.  I’m not aware of a non manosphere place where such discussions are permitted (online or off).  This is what makes the manosphere unique;  we permit discussions which threaten the feminist status quo.  Places like Christian Forums, FOTF, Family Life, or the church down the road aren’t the outliers, we are the outlier.

  195. Anonymous Reader says:

    Nova
    The idea is creating a carved out space where you are allowed to exist with your eccentricities (from the point of view of the mainstream culture) — which is what the mainstream culture does with the Amish and the Chasidim.

    It isn’t a new proposal. The main problem with it is that you can’t really create an Amish or Chasidim based on ideology. These groups exist because they represents tightly-bound religious sects, much more tightly bound than “Christian” or “Bible believer” or what have you

    I wasn’t kidding up thread when I observed a separate group would be clobbered later, but before the Amish. The totalitarian impulse that has been more and more visible among the “Social Justice” groups is a concern. The way that campaign finance records regarding Prop. 8 in California to create a enemies list is one data point. When a group believes that their way is the only, true, correct way, then from their perspective any use of force is appropriate in order to save the rest of humanity. HIstory is littered with examples.

    “Tolerance” has become a very fuzzy term. The Mennonites and Amish came to the US to escape a situation they could not tolerate in Europe, but there are also Mennonites in Mexico and Canada. It is not impossible that the “social justice” brigade may demand, some decade or more from now, that Amish oppressors either stop oppressing, i.e. become mainstream, or leave the country.
    Doing that to the Orthodox Jewish would be a much trickier proposition. Perhaps only groups that claim to be Christian would have to conform or leave. Or perhaps low level harassment of all such groups to the point where they want to get out would be acceptable – after all, they’re all bigots and haters….

    Now, if the option is “conform, or else, but you can’t leave” then there will be martyrs of one sort or another. History is clear on that as well.

  196. Just Saying says:

    Write her love letters in the middle of the night.

    While she’s pulling a train with the guys that are treating her like the slut that she has been taught by the Feminists that she is…🙂

    This law will have zero effect – why? Because most college women are hooking up with older guys who aren’t in college. All it will do is to drive the college guys to the high-schools, and surrounding areas for some of those unhappy housewives that are bored. It certainly won’t have any effect like the idiots seem to think it will… But that is what liberals always do – pass useless laws to try to penalized the people who actually follow the rules. The ones like me, will keep treating women like the dirty little sluts they are… Why? Because they LIKE it! And I’m going to keep giving it to them every opportunity that I get.

  197. JDG says:

    Yes, but does Farm Boy know that you know that I know what you meant?

    LOL!

    I love how you always know what I mean even when apparently I don’t. It’s a reoccurring wonder of the world.

  198. galloper6 says:

    This could be understood as part of the feminist agenda to outlaw betas.
    Imagine Twilight Zone episode: They Get Their Wish. They will be surprised how few alphas there really are. And how many men it takes to keep the lights on and the grocery trucks full and rolling.

  199. TheRhoubbhe says:

    The Brass Cat: If the above diversions are taken away men can always create new ones, such as looting and arson.

    That is the truth. Good point. Those are already good diversions, especially when your football team wins a national championship or the Super Bowl. Flipping cars, looting stores, and assaulting people require little reason or cause honestly. When that becomes commonplace, look out below.

    That world is one that women won’t much care to live in. The very thing feminism seeks to combat will come to pass. Ironic.

  200. The Amish get away with being Amish because A) there aren’t very many of them, B) they make no effort to proselytise, and C) they keep to themselves out in the hinterlands where the urban elites don’t see them except when they’re on vacation and go shopping for locally-grown organic strawberries. They’re seen as kind of a quaint museum piece that can safely be kept around.

    If a group tried to be “Amish” while living in the cities and going around preaching to others, there would be much more pressure on them to conform to social norms. If a larger group tried to act Amish, it would be shot down, both socially and politically. The Amish went to the Supreme Court to win exemption from Social Security, for instance, arguing that depending on people outside their community violated their religious beliefs. They were allowed to opt out. But imagine if Catholics or Methodists tried to do that. It simply couldn’t be allowed, because the scheme would collapse without their numbers.

    You can be “different” as long as you’re a small group and you keep to your ghetto, but that doesn’t mean you could replicate that on a larger scale and be tolerated. As long as you’re satisfied with carving out a space for your family and close friends, and don’t expect to change the world, it’s not a bad strategy.

  201. JDG says:

    Without men, what becomes of roads, construction, electricity, and plumbing? Without roads, construction, electricity, and plumbing, what becomes of feminism?

  202. Ang Aamer says:

    This law will have VAST unintended consequences.

    Example: Every actuary that monitors risk and Liability Insurance rates are burning the midnight oil to figure out how much this will cost. And in the abundance of caution prior to any test cases all Colleges, Fraternities, Sororities, social clubs, campus religious clubs liability insurance rates will probably double. Thanks Cali Legislators!!!

    Other odds and ends for consequences.
    Will this law make 3somes more popular due to the need for verification of consent?
    Will girls need to “check in” on the Yes Means Yes app to hook up with a boy?
    Should a boy be concerned when his new love is overly familiar with the Yes Means Yes App?
    Will Tinder hookups with OFF CAMPUS chicks be more the norm?
    How will the providing of alcohol be seen in the context of this law? Alcohol != consent?
    Will DropCam sales in the state of California skyrocket?
    Will prior “Yes Means Yes Selfies” be used by boys against girls saying consent was not given?
    Will there be “Craiglist Consent Bodyguards” to ask the girl ‘do you consent’ for 3rd party verification?
    Will you need to be certified or pass a test to have consent sex on campus now?
    What about teachers and admin staff how will they handle the laws ambiguities?
    Will this cause more boys to seek college elsewhere like what is happening in U of Vermont Burlington/Girlington?

    And think of all the BENEFITS!
    Sociopaths will have much more prospects with desperate girls since sociopaths will a) be in school only 1 year anyway b) not care about any law
    Girls will more likely be victims of aggressive sociopaths because “duh she has to say Yes”

    I give it 6 months before there is a BIG media firestorm about a girl who thought someone was playing by “Yes Means Yes” rules and was actually just some guy off the street not enrolled.
    THEN of course the answer is make Yes Means Yes the Law of Californication!!!

    I can see it now.

  203. Anonymous Reader says:

    I love how you always know what I mean even when apparently I don’t.

    Eh? I’m not sure what you mean, here, but probably Farm Boy knows what I don’t know.

  204. Farm Boy says:

    Eh? I’m not sure what you mean, here, but probably Farm Boy knows what I don’t know.

    All that I know is that I want a sammich.

  205. TheRhoubbhe says:

    galloper6: This could be understood as part of the feminist agenda to outlaw betas.
    Imagine Twilight Zone episode: They Get Their Wish. They will be surprised how few alphas there really are. And how many men it takes to keep the lights on and the grocery trucks full and rolling.

    In the world they the feminists are creating, the modern beta of today will go extinct; men will become far more ruthless and violent; harkening back to earlier times.

  206. JDG says:

    All that I know is that I want a sammich.</em

    Me too.

  207. Farm Boy says:

    This could be understood as part of the feminist agenda to outlaw betas.

    Do they want to outlaw them, or just make direct interactions with them impossible?

  208. Farm Boy says:

    Without roads, construction, electricity, and plumbing, what becomes of feminism?

    Tingles would still exist, so what’s the problem?

  209. JDG says:

    WHAT!!! They would???

    Does that mean still no sammiches in the of the anarchic and matriarchal mud hut society that arises from the ashes?

  210. Farm Boy says:

    And how many men it takes to keep the lights on and the grocery trucks full and rolling.

    Actually quite a few based on what I see here at this McDonalds. All of the women here are fat. Young ones, old ones, the ones behind the counter, the customers. When I was in high school almost none of the girls were fat. Now, not so much.

    I suppose that the market has changed throughout the years.

  211. JDG says:

    AR – I just wanted to say that IMO this:

    That’s easy: gender has nothing to do with it. Der, die, das or el, la, makes no difference.
    Gender is a linguistic construct.

    As for which of the two sexes is all at fault? Obviously both, but in different ways, because men and women are different – women are, contra feminists such as Heather MacDonald, not just “men who can have babies”. I’m sure she’s deny this, but it’s a premise embedded in most writers including conservative feminists.

    Pick your model: evolutionary psychology, human biodiversity, Bible-as-narrative, strict 6-day creation Bible literalism – in any of these models of humanity, women are not the same as men, and possess different virtues and vices. Only the feminist MIS-reading of biology, evolution, Bible, etc. leads to the female-dominated “equalty” model where men who act like women are considered “good boys” and men who do not are “bad boys”.

    and this:

    “If you are not actively opposing the premises of feminism, you are passively accepting them”.

    should be repeated periodically, every where possible, and frequently.

    Very well said IMO.

  212. JDG says:

    Actually quite a few based on what I see here at this McDonalds. All of the women here are fat. Young ones, old ones, the ones behind the counter, the customers.

    Do you live in the great white north per chance? I ask because I’ve noticed a lot of robust women where I live too. I lived on the southwest coast back when most girls were skinny, so I don’t have anything to compare with.

    It’s funny, I remember girls made sammiches often in those days, at least the ones I knew did.

  213. greyghost says:

    I hate to see such a waste of men’s mental ability. No solution will involve women at all. The only thing to remember I that women will ALWAYS take a selfish route for them selves always. MGTOW is the fix. It is logical and peaceful. And it works with the nature of women. Think of the advances the beta male have made in female medicine and every thing else directed towards enhanced MGTOW. Robot wife, (sexbot) , Artificial womb, egg banks, male birth control pills etc.
    We just had an article about the productivity of the family man. Think of the productivity of the MGTOW family man a community of MGTOW family men. I bet it won’t anything like the community of baby mommas and CS collectors we have now.
    One of the things that makes MGTOW special is that when someone walks away self preservation says leave them alone.

  214. John Nesteutes says:

    @infowarrior1

    Our lifestyle is centered around obedience to scripture, including parts that are very difficult to reconcile with being confirmed to mainstream culture.

    Plain attire, nonresistance, not suing at law, head coverings, headship order of men and women, being part of a tight knit brotherhood, and avoidance of a worldly lifestyle like watching TV put us at such variance with the mainstream culture that rejecting divorce/remarriage lifestyle really isn’t a big deal.

  215. Farm Boy says:

    Do you live in the great white north per chance?

    Yes, I do. It would seem that the women maybe still make sammiches, but they eat them themselves.

  216. JDG says:

    Yes, I do. It would seem that the women maybe still make sammiches, but they eat them themselves.

    Might this be a good time for the sammich woman pic?

  217. Anonymous Reader says:

    JDG that first image made me very hungry.

    But now I have totally lost my appetite.

    Just saying….

  218. desiderian says:

    “Will this law make 3somes more popular due to the need for verification of consent?”

    Looks like that’s the plan.

  219. TheRhoubbhe says:

    I think that picture JDG posted is kind of like watching a “train-wreck”. Look how small that sandwich is she drew. I just don’t see her eating something so small; she has to be a footlong sausage and meatball girl. That Ice Cream tattoo is a definite giveaway that body hasn’t seen the vegetable food group in several years (except in the potato chip form).

  220. desiderian says:

    Cail,

    “As long as you’re satisfied with carving out a space for your family and close friends, and don’t expect to change the world, it’s not a bad strategy.”

    Doing so would give us a tremendous advantage over the thinking globally crowd. That is, after all, how our Savior spent his last days with us, both before and after his resurrection. He left the world-changing to His Father in heaven.

  221. desiderian says:

    Dalrock,

    “Where is it (on the web) where this other sort of conservative gathers, where they separate themselves from the conservatives we are trying to correct?”

    Is it necessary as Christians to separate ourselves to correct one another? Do we not all fall sort of the glory of God? Are we not all sinners deserving God’s wrath and thus motivated by his Grace to examine ourselves, confess our sins, and repent into a new life in Christ? In doing so, do we not seek out the aid of trusted brothers and elders who can see our sins more accurately and honestly than ourselves? Are not we all still Christians as we do so, indeed never more fully Christian than when we faithfully carry out this spiritual discipline?

    Why can it not be likewise with Conservatives? Was it expected that there be some Conservatives that get everything always perfectly right? Obviously not. So it should come as no surprise that there are Conservatives who have lost their way regarding issues of marriage and feminism, even to the point of wandering over to the other side.

    The Steve Carrell comparison is an apt one. Does the news team leave him over there with Vince Vaughn’s gang? Do they start their own new News Team without Steve Carrell? No, they aren’t shy about admonishing him, but they never consider breaking up the team. They need his grenade and trident after all. And who knows what potential Carrell has in the future…

  222. BradA says:

    John N,

    Sticking to the Scriptures is a good thing and something the modern Church must do. Though we must not add to them as you do.

    > permanence of marriage (divorce/remarriage = lose your salvation unless you repent and leave the adulterous remarriage)

    Can you please give me the reference where it says the divorced go straight to hell?

    Though I suspect you have a very simplistic view of what it means to be reborn and your version is nothing more than a works-based approach. Do something wrong late in the game and you are hosed. No assurance of salvation is possible, because any mistake could mess you up.

    Also note that the Pharisees missed Jesus on His first coming because they added their own rules on top of the Scriptures. Watch that you do not do the same.

  223. Luke says:

    TheRhoubbhe says:
    October 18, 2014 at 7:46 pm

    “galloper6: This could be understood as part of the feminist agenda to outlaw betas.
    Imagine Twilight Zone episode: They Get Their Wish. They will be surprised how few alphas there really are. And how many men it takes to keep the lights on and the grocery trucks full and rolling.

    In the world they the feminists are creating, the modern beta of today will go extinct; men will become far more ruthless and violent; harkening back to earlier times.”

    One plausible outcome: remember how in the USSR after WWII (and the Stalinist purges, Russian Civil War, WWI, 1905 Revolt…) there weren’t many man well into 1970s? And, alcoholism, smoking, a lousy diet, and poor industrial safety kept men there dying much earlier than did women? The solution the gov’t there came up with was they forced women to take jobs as garbage collectors, highway repair (REAL shovel work, not just worthless flag-shakers), construction, etc.

    Imagine your typical HR/marketing/advertising parasitette digging up asphalt at -20 F all day 6 days a week for the next 25 years, and making in real terms under what is currently minimum wage for doing it. Smiles…

  224. greyghost says:

    One plausible outcome: remember how in the USSR after WWII (and the Stalinist purges, Russian Civil War, WWI, 1905 Revolt…) there weren’t many man well into 1970s? And, alcoholism, smoking, a lousy diet, and poor industrial safety kept men there dying much earlier than did women? The solution the gov’t there came up with was they forced women to take jobs as garbage collectors, highway repair (REAL shovel work, not just worthless flag-shakers), construction, etc.

    Imagine your typical HR/marketing/advertising parasitette digging up asphalt at -20 F all day 6 days a week for the next 25 years, and making in real terms under what is currently minimum wage for doing it. Smiles…

    This kind of thing works wonders on the path taken by the wicked selfish female nature. All the PUA/ hook up sites comment how feminine and attractive the women there are.

  225. hoellenhund2 says:

    That 2 – fascism – is a Road to Perdition – is so not least because this: women and men, alike, are fallen human beings. With a lifetime’s worth of experience to inform me I know of nothing that persuades me that the male gender is any more morally upright than the female gender – we are all “fallen”, we all suffer a degree of moral corruption and are susceptible to moral bankruptcy, all of us.

    …except that men have an innate sense of morality and justice but women don’t. That’s a crucial difference. Besides, limiting female autonomy also necessarily means limiting male autonomy as well.

    If you sincerely believe that women are specially fallen, or specially odious … which a reader of these comments sections can surely be forgiven for taking away as an understanding of your internal states … then I have no idea why you care so much about women.

    I’m sure most of us here don’t. Shouldn’t women be caring about themselves anyway?

    But if you do care about women and if you agree that women and men both suffer a shared human moral condition

    There’s no such thing as a human moral condition shared by men and women. Women have no concept of moral conditions.

  226. seth says:

    the jooz are behind the banks and wars. Their evil knows no bounds.

  227. Tam the Bam says:

    Fixed that for ya Heathers:
    Mothers worried that their college-bound sons (recently demoted from beta to omega by the YMY law) will be hauled before a biased campus sex tribunal by a vindictive female should tell them: “Wait. Find a girlfriend and smother her .. in the middle of the night .. then go home yourself.”

  228. earl says:

    “Earl seems to me to be confusing cause and effect. Women’s inherent lusts lead to demanding something like The Pill, not the other way around.”

    What part of “this was their idea…and men nutured it” don’t you get?

  229. Brad A. If you sin and do not repent, what happens?

  230. John Nesteutes says:

    Brad A,

    I believe that wives who frivorce their husbands and marry another (or just sleep around) are in a state of grievous sin, and that the wages of sin is death.

    I find it interesting that whenever I cite our sect’s extremely low divorce rate and high birth rate, I get accused of legalism or someone wants to start a fight over doctrine. I do not believe that sitting around in a plain suit on Sunday is what saves me. I believe, and everyone else in my men’s group that I’m close to, believes:

    – that unity of the body is important according to Ephesians 4
    – that other Christians are saved, even if they have a lot of unscriptural and worldly practices and lifestyles
    – that the most important thing in my life is knowing Jesus, seeking him through personal devotions, prayer, reading the Bible, and finding fellowship on church
    – that an outwardly righteous lifestyle is a sign of inward righteousness, not the other way around

    When I enter the average church or meet the average Christian on the street, I don’t run into someone struggling with legalism by dressing overly modestly. I tend to run into the exact opposite.

  231. John Nesteutes says:

    @TheRhoubbhe

    Another part of the feminist agenda to outlaw betas is the push to declare most sex within marriage as sexual assault or rape. Recently I read an article which described any woman who lives in a conservative community/church like my own as “oppressed” and “subject to a system of sexual violence”, and thus unable to consent to sex at all.

    Despite the fact in Canada a vast array of social services are available… and those of is in towns with a lot of conservative people deal with outsiders proselytising us on a weekly basis. It’s the easiest culture in the world to leave.

  232. Bee says:

    @John Nesteutes,

    “The membership class is crammed full and the deaconesses and other elder women are running out of free time to disciple the new female converts.”

    Tell us more about your church.

    How does your church attract new people to the membership class?

    What do the elder women teach the new female converts?

    How much male oversight is there over what the deaconesses and elder women teach?

    Is your church membership growing or do a similar number of people quit to offset the new members?

    Does your church have a written policy statement regarding divorce and remarriage?

    Does your church have a written policy statement regarding excommunication/shunning (1 Cor. 5)?

    Does your church have a written policy statement regarding birth control? Does it teach details regarding birth control?

    How often does your church give a sermon about wives submitting to their husbands?

    Do many divorced members attend your church for years knowing they can not remarry?

    Is your church; Mennonite, Amish, Orthodox?

    Thank you,

  233. BradA says:

    John N,

    > whenever I cite our sect’s extremely low divorce rate and high birth rate, I get accused of legalism

    That is not what I noted. You said she would go to hell. You have yet to prove that.

    It is a sin and it is wrong, but we are all in trouble if our death has to always be timed after any sins we might commit. We would not need the ability to be forgiven in an ongoing manner if we did not need that, thus we will be struggling against sin the rest of our lives. I can find nothing that says divorce is worse than lying, for example. (Even misleading can be lying.)

    You noted nothing about your denomination in the post I took the quote from (that I recall) and my quote certainly did not cover that. Why the chip on your shoulder? Perhaps you see the legalism as well.

    I do believe that women who frivorce are walking far from their Lord and are walking in a wicked way, but that does not mean they may not still be in heaven, even though all their works will be burned to a crisp and she may be saved, “as by fire.”.

    Keep in mind as well that Jesus didn’t tell the women at the well to return to her first husband, or any previous one for that matter. You need a little more Scripture to say that an existing marriage should be split up. It may have been built on a sin, but it is still a marriage. Jesus acknowledged she had ten husbands, something that would be impossible in the view that only the first “counted.”

    You are free to believe as you wish, but you need Scripture to support something if you are going to make it a Scriptural doctrine.

  234. BradA says:

    Also,

    > When I enter the average church or meet the average Christian on the street, I don’t run into someone struggling with legalism by dressing overly modestly. I tend to run into the exact opposite.

    And what does this have to do with anything I brought up? You proclaimed a specific sin sent a woman to hell. You still have not provided the Scriptural evidence for that.

    You are living a works-based religion based on what you noted. The things you note are good things, but they are still works. They must proceed from salvation, not secure your salvation. The latter is as much of a heresy as the sloppiest agape we have today. Keep in mind that Jesus told the church at Ephesius that they left their first love in spite of doing all the right things. Following this, that and the other steps is not sufficient if you miss the core principle.

    I will risk standing in the middle to say that both sides of this are bunk. We are not in the place of God to decide who goes to hell and who does not. Many Christians do some very bad things, including those who are “firmly tied to the faith.” Review some of what people like John Calvin did to those they disagreed with if you want examples of zealousness turned awry. He is considered a man of God by many, but he did some very nasty stuff to those who disagreed with him.

    This can be the case with anyone who stands for the truth. It is far too easy to start acting like God and that gets us into trouble.

    One thing I do like here is that Dalrock has no problem clearly identifying stupid behaviors, but he does not (that I recall) put himself in the place to judge someone’s salvation. That is an inner work and the reason the outer man must be renewed is to conform it to the inner reality in our lives. It takes a lifetime and is easy to get off focus, so I have a bit more trust that many will be in heaven who I strongly oppose in this life. I expect that will be the source of the tears God will wipe away, as those people realize how misled they were and how many they misled by their false doctrines.

    Though this is going a bit beyond things, so I will stop here.

  235. trugingstar says:

    Hello! I now have a blog with some manospherian topics. I y’all are bored and want to navel gaze, feel free to stop over!😀

  236. JDG says:

    When I enter the average church or meet the average Christian on the street, I don’t run into someone struggling with legalism by dressing overly modestly. I tend to run into the exact opposite.

    This exactly. For years I kept hearing about all those works based fundamentalists preaching fire and brimstone from the pulpit. Where are they? Why couldn’t I find a church like that? The church where I attend eventually matured to the point where we now teach biblical principles, even the politically incorrect and unpopular principles. But it was a struggle to get there.

    I haven’t heard many complaints against holy living lately though. Maybe it’s because the ‘do your own thing’ crowd no longer feels guilty when they see people actually walking the walk, but I hope not. I hope it’s because more people are realizing that doing your own thing isn’t working out so well, and we need to be doing what God has told us to do.

  237. Don Quixote says:

    BradA says:
    October 19, 2014 at 8:40 am

    Keep in mind as well that Jesus didn’t tell the women at the well to return to her first husband, or any previous one for that matter. You need a little more Scripture to say that an existing marriage should be split up. It may have been built on a sin, but it is still a marriage. Jesus acknowledged she had ten husbands, something that would be impossible in the view that only the first “counted.”

    You are free to believe as you wish, but you need Scripture to support something if you are going to make it a Scriptural doctrine.


    I realise your question isn’t addressed to me but there are examples in Scripture of marriages being split up. An example of divorce in the Scripture is found in Ezra 10 and Nehemiah 13. After the Babylonian captivity, when Jerusalem was in the process of restoration, it was discovered that many of the children of Israel had married foreigners, in direct contradiction of the Law. Deut. 7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them… 
So Ezra and Nehemiah insisted that the mixed marriages be separated:
    Ezra 10:19 And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their trespass.

    Neh. 13:3 Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude.

    I am not advocating divorce, but the topic you mentioned is addressed in these examples, and in the case of David and Michal. If the New Testament is based on better promises than the OT is it reasonable to ask why don’t similar circumstances produce similar results?

  238. Opus says:

    I have just come across your National Council for Family Relations which practices Family Science – but Wiki has it under the label of social work. I suppose they are blue-pill rape-culture supporters of child support despite their academic pretensions.

  239. Pingback: Yes Means Fear |

  240. BradA says:

    Don Q,

    We do not meet the specifics of the Ezra and Nehemiah situation. We are not returning captives from the nation of Israel. That was a specific situation for a specific group of people, not an ongoing principle.

    I certainly do not favor divorce and remarriage, especially as it is practiced today, but we need to be very cautious when we declare our desires to be Scriptural. I remember seeing this teaching a couple of decades ago and I found it lacking then. I have seen nothing to reinforce it since then.

    The problem here is that some are trying desperately to solve the serious problem we face without thinking it through all the way. A legalistic response that adds to the Scriptures is no better than a loose one that adds to them. Both are wrong as we should not be adding our own ideas to what is written, only attempting to build on what is written.

  241. Alex says:

    You know, when you look at this school policy from a woman’s point of view, you realize that less money will be flowing towards women. No “Let’s go grab a pizza” after class, with the man reaching for his wallet and the woman studiously searching through her purse, pretending to look for hers. No free drinks at the local watering hole, fewer dates, fewer orbiters. Forget sexual mischief, if you’re hurting their bottom line they won’t be pleased.

  242. JF says:

    John Nesteutes,
    Bravo to your church if it really is a bulwark against all of this western civ exponentially increasing decadence.
    Is your church NON-501c3 and NON-State Incorporated? I must assume it is such a wonderfully rare anachronistic throwback in our time.
    However, if your church IS 501c3 and/or State Incorporated, like 99% of churches in the U.S. now are, then you are leaning upon a splintered reed for a staff, an unequally yoked, double-minded, unstable, Caeser-created entity.
    Have you personally seen your church’s charter or lack thereof? Have you inquired?

  243. evilwhitemalempire says:

    You don’t get to ‘Yes Means Yes’ until you’ve spent a few decades internalizing ‘No Means No’.

    YMY would never have happened had not men already accepted as just and fair the outrageously misandric notion that it was perfectly acceptable for a certain class of people to cruely dangle raw meat in front of a hungry dog and not even expect to get nipped much less get their hand bit clean off.

    One of the biggest problems I’ve had has been getting fellow manospherians to stop taking for granted that the values they’ve been raised with are the natural order of the cosmos and to start thinking more 4th dimensionally about their problems.

    Maybe YMY is a wake up call.

  244. MarcusD says:

    New America: Ordained ministers threatened with jail unless they perform same sex marriages

    “City officials in Coeur d’Alene Idaho have told a married couple who are both ordained ministers that they will go to jail if they refuse to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples.

    The Alliance for Defending Freedom has filed suit against the city and asked for a temporary restraining order to prevent officials from carrying out their threat.”

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/10/new_america_ordained_ministers_threatened_with_jail_unless_they_perform_same_sex_marriages.html

  245. Don Quixote says:

    BradA says:
    October 19, 2014 at 5:37 pm

    We do not meet the specifics of the Ezra and Nehemiah situation. We are not returning captives from the nation of Israel. That was a specific situation for a specific group of people, not an ongoing principle.


    I agree.
    But the point I was trying to make was that in the Old Testament it was forbidden to marry ‘foreigners’. And there is at least one example of marriages being broken up for the sake of the OT covenant.
    In the New Testament it is forbidden to marry divorced women. Therefore should it be a surprise that there are some cases of marriages being broken up because of this? Most churches these days wheel out their statement on divorce and remarriage and show why Jesus didn’t mean what He said.

    I certainly do not favor divorce and remarriage, especially as it is practiced today, but we need to be very cautious when we declare our desires to be Scriptural. I remember seeing this teaching a couple of decades ago and I found it lacking then. I have seen nothing to reinforce it since then.

    The problem here is that some are trying desperately to solve the serious problem we face without thinking it through all the way. A legalistic response that adds to the Scriptures is no better than a loose one that adds to them. Both are wrong as we should not be adding our own ideas to what is written, only attempting to build on what is written.


    The problem I see is that the New Testament is very hard on remarriage. How do you deal with Jesus’ statement ‘whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery’?

  246. SC says:

    Dalrock, I disagree with your statement about women creating the hookup culture and men having no part in its creation. I believe that men and women are equally to blame for the creation of hookup culture. Hookup culture was created when the number of men and women who wanted to have casual sex reached a critical mass.

  247. greyghost says:

    You are comparing cads to normal women. The 80% beta males were never really apart of the party culture they were learning to be law abiding and making themselves stable for marriage. Feminism liberated women to be able to be just like the men they can see. The PUA /players (cads) SC you are wrong in your thinking “normal” women are now in the slut game and they called it the hook up culture just a way to normalize and biblicalize being a slut. heroic single moms.

  248. Michael Neal says:

    @easttexasfatboy

    I never really looked at that angle before, that latina women will compete against white women for white men. It would be very funny if this happens because it is the liberal white beta males that comprise part of Barack Obama’s coalition pushing for more immigration. Beta males continue to do themselves in.

  249. Michael Neal says:

    what I meant to say was liberate white women feminists doing themselves in by pushing for more immigration

  250. Michael Neal says:

    That is funny regarding women in forest service, we went camping one weekend and there was a ranger presentation for kids one night around a campfire. I had to make the campfire because the female ranger was unable to.

  251. Anonymous Reader says:

    texasfatboy, michael neal:

    Latina or Hispanic women are still women. They acculturate just as quickly as other women. They are no different than the Thai, Russian, etc. women who when brought in to the US become just as entitled as the rest of American women.

    Both of you seem to forget that Puerto Rican women have been part of the US for generations, and in California Mexican women have the same status. They frivorce, too, I personally know some men who have been through the divorce machine courtesy of a “family values” Latina / Hispanic.

    Women are women first, and anything else second. They respond to incentives…

  252. Michael Neal says:

    yes true but they are more family oriented than the typical white women, all women are a risk for sure

  253. Anonymous Reader says:

    yes true but they are more family oriented than the typical white women

    If you are a gringo, that “family oriented” part can mean you don’t just support her and any children, but many of her relatives as well. Because everyone knows gringos are rich, and they can afford it.

    They’re women first, everything else second. AWALT.

  254. trugingstar says:

    I know the young & Conservative leadership crowd fairly well. They’re very hardworking, nice or mean, and basically just overachieving, childhood-deprived nerds who want to “fit in” in and maintain their idealistic standards. Every young person now has a “cause”: gay marriage, ___ rights, whatever. The traditional values of “pro-life” are now boring to these young men and women, who just want cool friends to pay off their hard-work. “No Rape” is edgy, mainstream, and feel-good.

    What I’m saying is that my generation isn’t big-picture. They aren’t thinking about “oh will this really solve anything, in the long run?” They’re thinking about having a conversation with their friend: “Oh, well I’m campaigning with what’s his candidate, and then I’m trying to rally support for that “No Rape” bill, then jousting lessons, then I’m cooking a roast for my friends.”

    Now, objectively, yeah, “We’ll make those rapists marry!” isn’t going to happen, if the bill’s about outlawing rape. It could actually be about the price of cabbage, for all I know, it’s one of those Facebook Fever things I’ve avoided. Those men aren’t the marrying type. The hook-up type is still the hook-up type, the marrying type the marrying type, etc.

    Fact: Rape and theft are getting worse. Our country is getting worse.

  255. James K says:

    The Heather MacDonald article states Occidental College professor Caroline Heldman, a leader in the campus rape movement, asserted that campus rape cases should not be taken to criminal trial because juries are steeped in rape culture—i.e., they cannot be trusted to convict. (Heldman also argued that the preponderance of evidence standard which Obama regulators are forcing on colleges for rape findings is too high. Apparently requiring that the fact-finder have a negligible 51 percent certainty that a rape occurred does not guarantee enough convictions.)

    There is an obvious discord between the character of the “rapist” whose expulsion from Occidental College was described in Heather MacDonald’s article, and Heldman’s characterisation of rapists in this blog post:

    http://carolineheldman.me/2013/11/07/emily-yoffe-is-helping-campus-rapists-hide-in-plain-sight/

    Caroline Heldman is married to Danielle Dirks, an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Occidental College.

    How did we get into a situation where a “leader in the campus rape movement” is someone who appears to have an unconditional, visceral loathing for heterosexual sex and the men who practise it?

    It would be equally stupid if legal regulations governing lesbian sexual activity were to be provided by the men of the Manosphere!

  256. BradA says:

    Don Q.,

    > In the New Testament it is forbidden to marry divorced women.

    No it is not. It is definitely called adultery, but that can be forgiven. No follow-on command was given to break up the second marriage.

    We have the promise of forgiveness when we repent for a reason. We will sin. We should never try to do so with a flippant attitude, but neither should we propose a remedy that is not directly given, especially in a case like this.

    As I said, Jesus did not give any related command (that we are told) to the woman at the well. Why not if that is so important?

  257. How did we get into a situation where a “leader in the campus rape movement” is someone who appears to have an unconditional, visceral loathing for heterosexual sex and the men who practise it?

    Academics have been saying things like “marriage is rape” for decades now, and Americans kept sending their kids to them for indoctrination, along with ever-increasing tuition/tax dollars to pad their wallets and allow them to spend more and more on ideological side projects.

    That’s how we got here. If the first time some leftist professor said something like that, half the parents had yanked their kids out and demanded a refund, it would have put an end to it. But people told themselves, “Well, we have to be respectful of different opinions, and I want my kid to see all sides of issues.”

  258. donalgraeme says:

    @ trugingstar

    Fact: Rape and theft are getting worse. Our country is getting worse.

    Really? Have you any stats to back this up? Because from what I recall, rape (the real kind, not this modern PC nonsense) has become much less common over the last few decades. And I’m not aware that theft has become any more common.

    Our country is getting worse, yes, but those two things aren’t the reason for it.

  259. Don Quixote says:

    BradA says:
    October 20, 2014 at 3:37 pm

    No it is not. It is definitely called adultery, but that can be forgiven. No follow-on command was given to break up the second marriage.

    We have the promise of forgiveness when we repent for a reason. We will sin. We should never try to do so with a flippant attitude, but neither should we propose a remedy that is not directly given, especially in a case like this.

    As I said, Jesus did not give any related command (that we are told) to the woman at the well. Why not if that is so important?


    Thanks for your response Brad, we probably won’t agree on stuff but I’m sure it won’t be an argument. We agree on the definition of adultery, I suppose it comes down to how you join the dots. Regarding repentance I think most folks would assume that includes not continuing in the offending sin. Or better still not going there in the first place, which brings me back to my original statement, about marrying divorced women being forbidden.
    The woman at the well is interesting because when she asked for the ‘Living Water’ a question that Jesus pre-empted He commanded her to get her husband. If there were any bystanders listening to the conversation it would have sounded very out of place. But Jesus knew that unless He dealt with that situation first she would continue with in it, i.e. her 6th lover hadn’t even bothered to attempt to dress it up as a marriage, it was what it was, adultery.
    We know she was pivotal in the conversion of her village, I’ve often wondered what effect it had on her current relationship…I’m guessing her new found religion didn’t sit well with lover but I could be wrong. Imagine that woman managed to get 5-6 husbands in that era…!?!
    She must have been a stunning looking woman in her youth. But by the time she met Jesus her SMV would have been very low. And MMV in the negative.

  260. Anonymous Reader says:

    Here is a pointer to an article in The Atlantic Monthly in which one Conor Friedersdorf dicusses and defends the U Cali “Yes Means Yes (Until It Doesn’t)” law. The comments are pretty predictable given that Atlantic uses Disqus and thus has full moderation. What is not said is as important as what is said: no discussion of married U Cali students, zero actual quoting of the law in question, just for a start. This sort of puff-piece is what we can expect for a while, with little hints of “Well, the law is the law, so just don’t rape, har-har” feminist triumphalism.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/why-a-college-student-abandoned-affirmative-consent/381650/

  261. Seth Allen says:

    Dalrock, slightly O/T but caught this video on FB where the feminists are using little girls dressed as princesses dropping more F bombs than a sailor trying to push forward their agenda. Pretty disturbing stuff.

  262. There is no excuse, not even marriage of commited relationship. Constant ongoing enthusiastic consent has to be ascertained every step on the way. Your wife an claim, in 17 years, in 2034, that on Octover 28. 2014 she was too tired to enthusisatically consent, and you forgot to ask her permission to touch her privates. You try to prove the contrary, or else you are ready to get raped in prison.

    It is a very wrong understanding that long term relationships keep you safe against the Yes means Yes law. It is more like Yes means NO.

  263. BradA says:

    Don Q.,

    Note that you need to both read into the story to back up your position and add to the Scriptures. I will pass on that. I take what is written and try to live with that. You would seem to be the same as a modern day Pharisee who added your own rules on top of what is written. Jesus didn’t have kind words to say for that practice, though I am sure those following the extra rules they made felt quite good about themselves. (We are told they did.)

    I take what is written, and only that, to build doctrine.

  264. Pingback: How To Destroy The Church (Part 3) | The Society of Phineas

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s