Power, Purity, Meekness and God. The Ugly Reality of Rape Culture.

I know that you have a rabid irrational hatred of liberals, but not everything is about left-wing vs. right-wing. It's about human decency vs. moral corruption.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So why are Josh’s beliefs any less conditioned than Anna’s? Josh was conditioned by his life experience to elevate fulfillment of his sexual desires above adherence to his religious indoctrination, hopefully Anna’s experience with Josh’s behavior will condition her to question the value of aspects of that indoctrination that are counter to her best interests. The only hope any of us have to escape the pitfalls of our less than ideal conditioning is to be conditioned otherwise. I don’t ascribe to the notion of free will, so my reference to Anna being free to follow Josh’s lead would in reality be a description of a future conditioned action of hers.

I’m thoughtless and insensitive because I suggest the she abandon aspects of an ideology that don’t best suit her needs, or those of her children? How does your mere sympathy for her conditioned state of ineptitude free her from this bondage?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

In the first place, that's not how the conditioning is set up to work. Well, okay, the part about men elevating fulfillment of sexual desires is indeed the underlying taboo, but few in purity culture ever acknowledge the point. But the grooming of sexual behavior that starts before some of these girls are out of diapers really does have its effect.

Indeed, it even magnifies certain concerns that I would at this time, beseech you to recall. And here I will offer you a contrast, for illustration. The clickbait at the top is a song called "D City Rock"↱, and is marked as the "TeddyLoid Live Remix"; I like how this one sounds, and whether or not the word is actually in the studio mix, this one sounds better in part for not being bleeped. And for the lack of autotuning. And it's just flat out a better mix.

Still, though:

My name is Panty the Crazy. Sexy Panty, and I'm not done breaking the news, now, Boys, us Girls, we're full-time horny, too.​

There is a crude ritual in one of my social circles; it doesn't come up as much, anymore as, well, we're not as young as we once were, and, you know, any joke gets old after a while. But every once in a while women meeting certain aesthetic standards will, by their behavior, make themselves unavoidably noticeable in certain crowds. And where others used to mutter something contemptuously about bitches or dumb hos or, you know, sluts, someone in this circle might―there is no guarantee that anybody would, these days―say, in a particularly hopeful voice, "Oh, hey, sluts!" And the ritual answer is that someone else should just nod and say as sagely as possible, "Sluts are good." And I swear unto you, this idiotic innovation on juvenilia, derived from I don't know where, predates any of our conception of SlutWalk by well over a decade. And well it should; while not derived specifically from the notion, the sluts are good line is inextricably linked to the old joke about the difference between a bitch and a slut; it still denigrates women to a certain degree brought into question only by the presence of an idea of women's liberation, and that's because it hopes to exploit the slut reputation. It is also a ritual and therefore largely useless self-denigration: Sluts are good because my chances of getting something just notched up a little bit. And that's actually the meaning of the joke.

It would, in fact, be a good thing, in certain ways, if Anarchy Panty―played, on this occasion, by Debra Zeer―preaches the truth. Or so says me. Still, though, compared to the history of how society views women's sexuality, it's a hell of a contrast. I might try to pick through my memory in order to account the clues suggesting truth or falsehood, but in the end I am not a woman, nor should women be regarded so monolithically. As with the men, we might expect some women would disdain being thought of as perpetually horny.

The contrast, the older, other way of looking at women's sexuality is much more familiar to me; Mark Steel might be British, but there isn't much about his 1998 explanation of the "Sexual Revolution"↱ (that's also the title, which is why it's in quotes) for BBC Radio that isn't familiar. And in the context of gendertyping, the 1996 Solution° for "Sexuality"↱ is also worth the time.

What I remember from being young is that whether or not the girls were just as horny as us, they fretted mightily about specific potential consequences. And it is perplexing to me, given that most STD transmission statistically favors delivery unto a receiving partner, and the simple fact of pregnancy itself, that we might overlook this in the question of any woman's sexual behavior, be it an assertion of a wife's right to adultuery, or the questions of whether she was horny and what she was wearing. Or anything else. The closest I can get, as a receiving homosexual, is that the spectre of disease is terrifying. But even on this count, it's not the same. True, it is sufficient to prevent me from seeking a roomful of men to suck off without invoking any observable neurotic response; that seems practical enough, and probably to the best. But it's also likely interfering with the endeavor to find a regular, trusted partner, because let's face it, in the moment, with a couple of drinks in me, I'm puttin' out. In that context, it's certainly capable of neurotic backlash. But I'm also male, and in addition to the lack of pregnancy concerns, as well as general cultural empowerment, I encounter this consideration at a different time in my life. And in this context, the difference is powerfully significant.

I think back to the gravity of these concerns for my female age peers; part of what I never learned until fatherhood is what a person's brain is doing during these years, and that is essentially paring down pathways in order to prioritize, organize, and regulate function. This is a fundamental component in how significant behaviors from this period of development become living habits in adulthood.

And whatever context any of my female age peers might have individually engaged these spectres, in addition to other burdens you're well accustomed to seeing me denounce, were being reiterated and habitualized at the same time I was reiterating and habitualizing my full-time horny. I'm approaching the STD aspect from a completely different context; I have no idea what any one woman feels, but the behavioral evidence of this gravity is evident throughout the catalog of my memory from the time I started waking up to it. And, well, yeah, I'm not a morning person, so it took me a while. In fact, if we hunt the Sciforums archive closely enough, we can probably witness the last couple transitions in real time. That's how long it took. And it's almost, but not quite zen: The only thing I get is that I have no fucking clue. I can see it happening, and it looks bad enough; I do not, and by nature itself cannot actually know how it feels.

But in addition to the history describing purity culture as a system of exploitative masculine privilege, and the grooming of women toward subservience, there are also the inherent, natural, "Congratulations, you're a woman, so worry about this!" burdens that society so discouragingly awards the female human condition.

Double-X is not a disability; it is our human baseline. The Y chromosome exists specifically to serve the perpetuation of that baseline. Yet somehow, we've turned this into something of a curse.

Every once in a while, I get into a row with atheists here or there about the question of a moral linchpin. If one converts away from faith, say, Christianity, a basic psychological function is thrown into disarray. God, and one's understanding thereof, previously constituted the linchpin of moral prioritization and organization. How does one engage and comprehend fundamental questions of right and wrong? 'Tis true, the answers are myriad; for me the canon is damn near silly, ranging from Albert Camus to Zeno's Paradox, with doses significant and otherwise pulled from various manners of art and philosophy. But the world is full of clues, and for anyone who tries, it really is a difficult explanation in part because it is so individual, and unlike religious faith, such moral constructions are not specifically confined to a template. And perhaps this complexity is part of the problem; the reason it becomes a row is that the primary answer, when forthcoming at all, is to simply disclaim atheism itself. And I would agree it doesn't really matter in that isolated context, but in a more evangelical advocacy, it's a question worth giving some thought.

I raise the point now in order to wonder at how other people see the prospect of moral reorganization. In this case, you; it just seems that―

―your suggestion seems nearly blithe compared to the general human behavioral condition in our society.
____________________

Notes:

° There are three radio series: The Mark Steel Solution, The Mark Steel Revolution, and the Mark Steel Lectures; the latter was recycled into a television series, and, you know, the list of peripherally relevant episodes ... is ... well, let me think: Sylvia Pankhurst↱, obviously; Mary Shelley↱, Lord Byron↱, and Sigmund Freud↱ leap to mind. Actually, there's a fourth series, but the latest, Mark Steel's in Town↱ is a bit more obscure.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm sure Kandinsky had a point to make as well.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Author Jenny Block↱ makes the point:

Of course Josh Duggar was on Ashley Madison. Of course he has an alleged penchant for strippers. Can we please stop pretending that religion can somehow alter human nature? Humans are animals. They are sexual creatures. If you cage them, they will claw their way out or claw themselves to death or claw the eyes out of those they purport to love.

I could not feel any sorrier for Josh Duggar. He has desperately needed help for so long and his parents were so busy worrying about their image and their TV show and their commitment to a "religion" that blames the victims of sexual abuse rather than the abusers that they couldn't be bothered to get him the help he needed. Instead they swept it under the rug and "prayed."

Let me be clear here. He sexually assaulted his sisters. He's a criminal. He belongs behind bars for those crimes.

But the Ashley Madison account? The affairs? The strippers? I only have one thing to say on that front -- Duh.

Of course he behaved that way. He was kept from a normal life, a normal childhood, a normal upbringing. He was raised to believe that the natural, healthy feelings he was having about sexuality were wrong. He was taught that there shouldn't even be any kissing until marriage. Are you kidding me? Think about that for a minute -- telling an adolescent that they are to bottle up all of their healthy, happy sexual feelings because they are "bad" and "wrong." It's sick. It's dangerous. And, obviously, it's escalating all around.

In fact, I believe it was that very upbringing that lead him to the criminal behavior with his sisters. He was taught that victims were to blame. He was taught that women were put on this earth to serve men. He was taught that life barely existed outside of the four walls of his family home. What on earth did we expect to happen?

How many more examples do we need? Seriously. If you teach nothing but abstinence, girls get pregnant and contract STI's. If you damn homosexuality, young people run away or kill themselves. If you teach a child that sexuality is bad or wrong or dirty or only for married people in love making babies, they go on the DL. They join Ashley Madison. They do untoward things because they are not "allowed" to do perfectly healthy natural things.

I truly believe that if Josh Duggar was taught the scientific truth about human sexuality (and about evolution, while we're on the subject), if he had been allowed to date, if he had been taught about the health and joy of masturbation, if he had been respected and supported as a human male, none of this would have happened. None of it. Including the molestation of his sisters. ​

It's a hell of an assertion, there at the end. In truth, it is so absolute that it is difficult to line up behind it. However, it is also true that such an outcome is within the range of possibilities. Then again, start with the idea that Josh Duggar is not a pathological sex predator, that instead he stumbled down a path marked with bad decisions that harmed other people. If we say, for instance, that Josh Duggar was just a normal guy warped by the gravity of habit enforced at the stake of the most powerful and valuable currency he recognizes, his immortal soul, then we do also need to pause for a moment to wonder what constitutes normal. Statistical normalcy representing actual beliefs consistently appears more cruel, demanding, and self-centered than the statistically normal assertion of normalcy. Purity culture, while exhibiting among Quiverfull and other such Christian movements concentrated doses strong enough to bring nausea, and demonstrates influence outside its borders, is actually a distillation of the . Deliberate and calculated purity cult as we see see in the Duggar family and other creepy examples↱.

But normal among my age peers and cultural cohort in this corner of these United States includes a stiff shot of male chauvinsim, and it is observable even among the more allegedly enlightened portions of Generation X that we failed to figure these issues out in time. Our normal includes masculine privilege, continued harassment of female intimate partners after they say no, presupposed denigration as the female condition, and so on.

Statistically speaking, shit is going to happen. It is virtually impossible to say it won't happen again; the functional question involves questions of frequency and magnitude.

For this reason, it's probably a bit of an overstatement to say it never would have happened; still, though, Block seems confident enough, and even affording the counterpoint it is easy enough to take her meaning.

Purity culture is only superficially about men's behavior; its purpose is to shape and groom women's behavior and expectations. Generally speaking, one of its obvious effects when deliberately cultivated is to pretend piety about sexual considerations while wallowing in sexual thoughts. And this is where its contribution to Josh Duggar's outcomes become very important. Perhaps in another context, such as capitalism, his predatory outlook might serve some arguably useful function. But sexual behavior was a formative subject, demanding apparently disproportionate attention. And from that vantage, it seems reasonable enough to suggest one need not be predatory in order for temptation to occur and some manner of shit happen.
____________________

Notes:

Block, Jenny. "Here's Why It Makes Perfect Sense That Josh Duggar Cheated". The Huffington Post. 21 August 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 23 August 2015. http://huff.to/1LtYgcb

 

Yes, but how much agreement is there in its meaning? Was the intention vaginas or penises?

 

[QUOTE="[/QUOTE]
This os not a forum it is promotion of self gratification

 

Illinois!

Oh, yeah. This happened:

Illinois' Republican governor on Thursday signed a law banning mental health therapists from trying to change a young person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

The measure signed by Gov. Bruce Rauner outlaws the controversial practice of "gay conversion therapy," sometimes called "reparative therapy," on people younger than 18. Once the law takes effect on Jan. 1, violators will face discipline from their state licensing board, according to the text of the measure.

The law makes Illinois the fourth state to ban gay conversion therapy for minors. California, New Jersey, and Oregon―as well as the District of Columbia―also have outlawed the practice.

(Bellware↱)​

Meanwhile, American Clarion↱, a right-wing messaging website, reposted an undated press release promoting the upcoming PFOX "Safe Exit Summit", featuring prominent bigots Dr. Michael Brown, Dr. David Kyle Foster, Rev. Stephen Black, and the infamous David Pickup. Then again, at least we learn of the newest homophobic buzzword: "therapy freedom".

Oh, also be on the lookout for a slightly unwieldy term: "authentic change therapy".

Then again, who else but a pack of Christian supremacists would have the temerity to call jacking the suicide rate "safe"?
____________________

Notes:

Bellware, Kim. "Illinois Bans Gay Conversion Therapy For LGBT Youths". The Huffington Post. 20 August 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 1 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1VutB0k

Newswire. "Former Homosexual David Pickup Advocates for Therapy Freedom". American Clarion. 1 September, 2015. AmericanClarion.com. 1 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1VutB0k

↳ Note: The "Newswire" attribution from American Clarion is, technically, incorrect. Newswire is a website where some organizations post press releases; the original is not easy to find at the Newswire website, so we'll go with the byline from American Clarion. For the record, the appropriate attribution would have something to do with the organization Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays [PFOX]. This note occurs at all because American Clarion even goes so far as to disclaim that, "This article is printed with the permission of the author(s)", which makes the botched byline stand out.​

 

A man pulled a gun on a female server, and he was arrested and charged. Umm, I'm not exactly seeing any male privilege here? You might have had a case if he were thrown a parade and given a garland of roses for his behavior.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

You do realize nobody believes you're that stupid?

No, really, what I never understand is why people think arguments like you just posted, Tali, might actually fool anyone.

There is a stunt people sometimes try in discussions like this where they say something about not reading the post because it's too long, and then try to offer a critique as if they had. This isn't that. This is more like the childish trick of looking everywhere but at something or someone and saying, "What? Where? I don't see anything!"

In the end, though, it always leads to the same retort: It's one thing if you disagree, but you could at least have the courtesy of either putting some effort into your retort or simply skipping it and sparing everyone else yet another reminder of just how stupid you want us to think you are.

Thus, as gently as possible, so you might comprehend:

• "What I am curious about, however, is why no one said it wasn't appropriate to him when he started with the crude sexual remarks and sexual harassment? Why did it have to get to a point where he felt he was justified in shooting his gun for them to act?"​

― There are two essential points, here. First, that Officer Sheka would even think this sort of behavior is acceptable, that he might behave this way toward women. Second, the narratives we have available suggest that for other agents of law enforcement present, harassing women like that is apparently acceptable until he starts shooting because the ladies are telling him "no".​

• "While we can certainly ponder the fact that the man was stupid enough to pull this sort of stunt in a room full of police officers, we should also be wondering about how this sort of personality escaped notice until he felt it was acceptable to pull a gun and fire it into a crowded room because a woman rebuffed his sexual harassment."​

― The idea that someone so stupid could be on a police force is at least a little troubling. But more to male privilege, what distinguishes Officer Sheka is not the sexual harassment itself, but the escalation to premature and dangerous discharge. And while cops and irresponsible discharge is a very important issue in and of itself, the point remains that as long as he was just harassing and physically assaulting the female service staff, well, boys will be boys.​

It's all right there in Bells' post↑.

If you're not seeing the problem, Tali, we can only wonder if your trouble is ignorance or apathy. In either case, though, it reminds of an old dualistic proposition: Sinister or stupid? At some point, the one requires the other.

No, really. If you need it spelled out any clearer, wander into the bathroom, look yourself in the mirror, and recite the following: "Well, it's not like he's actually raping her. As long as he's just harassing and groping her? Yeah, that's fine. After all, how's he supposed to meet women?"

Seriously, Tali, this isn't difficult.

 

No. After all, it's not unheard of for a woman to lash out when her sexual advance is rejected, hence the phrase 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'.

How long is 'a while'? 1 minute? 10 minutes? 30 minutes? An hour? Using such vague terms to support your prejudicial views isn't doing you any favors.

How do you know no one 'raised an eyebrow'? This is yet another assumption of yours to highlights how you invent 'facts' to support your prejudices.

Why do some women react with violence when they are rejected or broken up with? Female privilege? Or do we just assume that certain individuals (both male and female) have personality flaws that prevent them from handling rejection well? Why are you so quick to rush to the conclusion that some sort of societal 'male privilege' is responsible for a man committing what is considered a felony by our society, when there are more tenable explanations?

By the way, I recall a thread I started recently where I posted a news article about male waiters having to change their kilts to pants in order to avoid molestation by female patrons. I asked the audience here about why these women behaved in such a fashion, and only one person responded. That individual stated that alcohol was the likely cause. I didn't find such an explanation tenable, as it's quite a stretch to say that all of the women in question were drunk, and not all drunk people engaged in sexual harassment. When pressed, he admitted that the situation was 'complex', although he didn't divulge what others causes might contribute to sexual harassment perpetrated by women. So I'm rather curious as to why alcohol hasn't been mentioned as a contributing factor in this case?

 

I'm pointing out that similar behavior is observed in women, therefore it's misleading to portray said behavior as something fueled by the nebulous 'male privilege' you keep referring to.

So you're not going to support the specious claims you made? To re-iterate, here is what I requested of you in my previous post:

"How long is 'a while'? 1 minute? 10 minutes? 30 minutes? An hour?"

and,

"How do you know no one 'raised an eyebrow'?"

You're backpedaling. First you claimed that 'nobody raised an eyebrow' (a claim you have yet to support), and now you're fallen back on 'well, no-one said anything!' (which is yet another unsupported statement, by the way). If you're going to move the goalposts, you could at least have the courtesy to support your new claim.

The women in my case groped the mens' genitals on a number of occasions, to the point the men were required to change their dress code. I know you'll just brush this off, as did a number of participants in the relevant thread, but that only further supports my observation that you have a certain prejudice against men.

So you admit that society doesn't condone or support such behavior. Are you now admitting that 'male privilege' wasn't a contributing factor in this case? Have you actually done a backflip on this entire issue?

I'm always more than happy to address points raised by posters (time permitting), if they are relevant, coherent, and not based on raw emotion. Unfortunately, that excludes 95+% of the points left-wingers raise. I started the sexual harassment thread with the purpose of analyzing why certain women engaged in sexual harassment, and a number of posters took it upon themselves to derail the topic, answer questions with (irrelevant) questions, and continue baiting me when I realized the discussion was a lost cause and chose to end it. It seems that whenever I engage left-wingers in a frank and good faith discussion, they can't go long without resorting to intellectual dishonesty, internal inconsistencies and personal attacks. Oh, and they *always* have to have the last word, even when they claim their opponent isn't 'worth their time'. Continuing to argue with such people is like wrestling with a pig, because even if you win, you still end up covered in muck. It's far better to just walk away and let the intellectually dishonest wallow in their own filth.

Unfortunately I'm seeing this entire pattern all over again on this thread. I asked you to substantiate some vague claims you made, and you instead attempted to misrepresent me as supporting the behavior exhibited by the officer. I mean, is it even worth continuing our discussion at this point, when you won't even back up what should be easily supportable claims? If the moderation here was responsible and fair minded, they'd compel you to support your claims and censure you for misrepresenting me, but we both know that won't happen.

I'm still waiting for you to explain what compels some women to sexually harass men. Or will you be like the participants in my 'Sexual Harassment' thread, and continue to deflect and evade?

 

Sexual inducement should be part of the sexual harrassment equation. This point is where liberalism tends to use the dual standard. If I said a derogatory remark to someone, and they got angry and acted, we would not fixate on their anger. We would say that person was induced to anger by me using a taboo PC trigger. It is possible to trigger reactions. The same is true with sexual harassment.

This will be caused by a trigger. For example, this may be due to a passive male, who is not seen as threatening, and who may appear to need/want to be dominated or schooled. The female becomes compelled to dominate. She may assume all guys like sex and therefore the ends will justify her means. Guys can't always assume girls want sex, however many assume once they get started, the lady see how good he is, the ends will justify the means.

In culture, dressing like a hooker is considered acceptable due to marketing. This uniform will give women certain advantages in terms of dealing with men, since many men become 1-D. Even so, many men are still in the dark ages, like many liberal women accuses them of, therefore the modern hooker look, although acceptable in culture, can be a retro trigger, just like people who fixate on the civil war or slavery can be triggered by retro; flag.

If a male is considered to be living in the past with respect to women, hookers had a uniform way back when and one could proposition hookers directly. This is how business was conducted. These women were tough and would put him in place, while making a transaction.

Hookers know men and can size them up. They will become what they think will turn on the man, to help speed up the transaction. A modern hooker look alike, may react naturally with fear to being harassed this way. This may be exactly the trigger the male wants from a hooker. There is confusion.

The work around is for a PC like movement to sanitize female sex triggers in the work place. If men act after that, there is no excuse. Not all women will want this because the hooker uniform has advantages based on its ability to trigger men, with these women knowing how to handle triggered men. The amateurs suffer.

 

They asked for it because they dressed sexy? What the fuck is your problem?