tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post2247057994559421915..comments2024-03-27T23:28:20.274-04:00Comments on Face to Face: When a girl gets taken advantage of, liberals cry rape, pseudo-cons shrug shouldersagnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-37578652520590514192014-10-17T13:48:59.322-04:002014-10-17T13:48:59.322-04:00Part of the theory is that cocooning psychological...<i>Part of the theory is that cocooning psychologically damages the younger generations, the ones that mature during the crime decrease.</i><br /><br />See I differ in that I think that I think very sharp, fast change, whether of the sort where people are socially withdrawing or where the environment appears to be getting more dangerous, can't be good for the mental balance of the young either way. <br /><br />Although a protective, withdrawn environment is probably going to be worse than an environment which seems to be getting more dangerous but people are socially connected.<br /><br />I don't really believe in the idea that dangerous environments encourage people to become pyschologically stronger and work together - maybe to a certain extent, but it seems that people, at least modern people, when it happens fast, become overwhelmed to the degree that they just start to withdraw, drop trust, etc.<br /><br />Changes in violent crime rates, as I see it, are mostly just a consequence of a shift to a more outgoing disposition that has built up during the tail of peaceful but boring times where people have stopped getting more paranoid (particularly in generations that have their formative years in these times). I don't really think people respond to violent crime by becoming more cohesive and daring.<br /><br />Look at Generation X - they have some strong qualities compared to complacent, enthusiastic, go-with-the-flow, positivity embracing Boomers, but these mostly seem to me to end looking like varying kind of distancing self and other skepticism, not really full blown inabilities to cope emotionally in groups, but exaggerated beyond a useful degree.<br /><br />If you compare early Boomers who grew up during a falling violence period to early Generation X who grew up during a rising violence period, I don't really think the early X come out as more psychologically healthy.<br /><br />Probably the most psychologically healthy people grow up during slow rates of change, whether higher violence, higher outgoingness or lower violence, lower outgoingness, because stability of the environment is more important.Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-61715931650366012192014-10-16T10:06:40.963-04:002014-10-16T10:06:40.963-04:00this is why I believe cocooning may represent dysf...this is why I believe cocooning may represent dysfunction rather than a natural cycle of human history. for one, its irregular, and for two, it causes people to become dysfunctional.<br /><br />the cycling between equality and inequality, on the other hand, seems even, changing every 50-60 years, and does not make the younger generations dysfunctional.Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-7700177199406723432014-10-16T09:57:17.267-04:002014-10-16T09:57:17.267-04:00"
Not sure mental illness is involved, I thin..."<br />Not sure mental illness is involved, I think it's mostly like predator-prey dynamics like agnostic says, only with actual predators taking a peripheral role (but they're there for sure)."<br /><br />Part of the theory is that cocooning psychologically damages the younger generations, the ones that mature during the crime decrease. Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-28226166738546069592014-10-12T15:43:18.264-04:002014-10-12T15:43:18.264-04:00"In fact, in a culture of honor the man who d..."In fact, in a culture of honor the man who defiles a woman is coerced into marrying and supporting her (contra the Men's Rights delusion that forced child support is something new and anathema to the hard-as-fuck olden times,"<br /><br />Old Testament, I believe. So, if you can convince America to return to its Old Testament roots, Men's Rights Activism will be unnecessary.<br /><br />"or that there used to be a sex-blind standard -- it was always the woman's purity that mattered)."<br /><br />Yes, but the purity of the woman mattered the most to the men who both ruled, and saw their sons as ruling after they had gone. So once you convince America to return to patriarchy, Men's Rights Activism will be unnecessary.<br /><br />"The alternative is getting killed or run out of town by the woman's male kinsmen."<br /><br />So once you restore family unity apart from the state and the ability of that family to take extralegal actions with little to no expectation of punitive consequences, Men's Right's Activism will be unnecessary.<br /><br />"This is all to restore purity as much as possible, not to alter his intentions, or her consent (she also has no say in getting married to him)."<br /><br />So once you restore a society-wide public and legal representation of the importance of female purity over female consent, Men's Rights Activism will be unnecessary.<br /><br />I just get the strange feeling that anyone who makes knee-jerk condemnations of MRAs is either a liberal fully invested in the destruction of his society who recognizes them as a threat, or a conservative too worried about what the cool kids in HR will say about him to go for broke on what he really wants. I WANT SEX or I WANT RIGHTS is at least an actionable demand, but I've seen very little systematic I WANT PATRIARCHY or I WANT ADHERENCE TO OLD TESTAMENT LAW or I WANT UNANIMOUS SOCIAL RECOGNITION OF THE FOLLY OF ALLOWING FEMALE DECISION-MAKING coming from you or a lot of the so-called secular reactionaries.Dystopia Maxhttp://www.mypostingcareer.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-82724373816631074682014-10-12T05:22:59.924-04:002014-10-12T05:22:59.924-04:00Curtis - Going back, it appears more irregular in ...Curtis - <i>Going back, it appears more irregular in the 19th century and before. For instance, crime is reported as falling for most of the 19th century in America.</i><br /><br />Curtis - <i>I'm not sure if the cocooning is a natural part of human affairs. Maybe some kind of dysfunction caused by overpopulation - John Calhoun's experiments with mice showed that overpopulation caused young mice to become asocial.</i><br /><br />Yeah, can be slower. <br /><br />Not sure mental illness is involved, I think it's mostly like predator-prey dynamics like agnostic says, only with actual predators taking a peripheral role (but they're there for sure). <br /><br />People become outgoing and open so get into more incidental conflict, so begin to perceive the world as more dangerous so get less outgoing and open, so get less incidental conflict, so perceive the world as less dangerous, so get more outgoing and open, etc. (with an adjustment that I think the Millennial generation tends to view other people as not that dangerous really but has some poor / fragile social, risktaking and emotional ability thing going on from their developmental environment which still keeps their preference for being outgoing low).<br /><br />That all seems very natural but could be that urban living accelerates these cultural patterns agnostic's noticed so they're faster and maybe deeper / more extreme? <br /><br />Previous cultures maybe don't have as much breakneck generational change as smoother clines.<br /><br />Might be due to mental illness or something like that causing overly extreme reactions (e.g. people become unnaturally outgoing then unnaturally closed off), and mental illness correlates with urbanization and dense living. Or there could be other explanations - e.g. one pattern in the past was for urban cultures to be replaced by fresh influx of young people from the country - internal and external migration. And people may not locally have always been on the same cultural epicycle, we forget how isolated a lot of the world used to be, at least for poor people). So it might be that cultural "learning" that changes attitudes (in one direction or another) was slowed down by this.<br /><br />That cycle of naivety / caution or outgoing / cocooning could change on a 2 or 3 generation scale in slower moving / slower cultural learning cultures.Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-72476258273207581332014-10-11T22:35:36.197-04:002014-10-11T22:35:36.197-04:00I've always thought that taking advantage of a...I've always thought that taking advantage of a drunk girl, even if she is coming onto you, is a shithead move. But I thought the big issue was when they are <i>both</i> drunk. Even in that situation the guy always seems to be the only one responsible.Robert What?https://www.blogger.com/profile/03863449539859132763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-91856968720192156542014-10-11T20:01:15.462-04:002014-10-11T20:01:15.462-04:00I'm not sure if the cocooning is a natural par...I'm not sure if the cocooning is a natural part of human affairs. Maybe some kind of dysfunction caused by overpopulation - John Calhoun's experiments with mice showed that overpopulation caused young mice to become asocial.<br /><br />The philosopher Nietszche argued that cocooning("Apollonian") culture is fairly recent in human history, not happening until Socrates, but maybe he was wrong.Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-89316796195428610582014-10-11T17:43:41.028-04:002014-10-11T17:43:41.028-04:00"Supposedly violent crime and public behaviou..."Supposedly violent crime and public behaviours follow a more or less 30 year epicycle, although it's more open vs closed generations initially. We'll see if this is actually the case."<br /><br />Its followed this pattern in the 20th century. Going back, it appears more irregular in the 19th century and before. For instance, crime is reported as falling for most of the 19th century in America.<br /><br /> However, that may have been because of poor methods for reporting crime, or something like that.<br /><br />Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-40115779980736348412014-10-11T10:39:57.800-04:002014-10-11T10:39:57.800-04:00I wasn't specifically referring to a particula...I wasn't specifically referring to a particular generation, I'm talking about people of all ages becoming more stoic and less naive in the face of bad things after a sustained period of greater non foreigner/non terrorist perpetrated violence. <br /><br />Naturally some gens will have an easier time adjusting; I think that the 1990-2005 cohort will have it a bit rougher since they didn't deal with wildness (drugs, violence, abuse etc.) at all in comparison to a fair amount of people born in the 80's. the Post 2005 births will have the benefit of adolescence (in later births, their childhood and adolescence) of encountering increasing wildness within 5-10 years if they aren't already.<br /><br />Also people will lose interest in talking heads psycho analyzing dirt bags. In the Warriors from 1979 the only motivation given to the villian Luther is when he says "I just like doing stuff like that". Not like the long winded pseudo intellectual discussions about motives we've been having regarding real and fictional villains since the early 90's.<br /><br />I like M's observation that the mistrustful Gen Xer's basically halted the outgoing, chaotic period of the 70's-early 90's because they didn't have the temperament to put themselves in volatile situations like the Boomers did. 70's and 80's movies sure featured a lot of bar brawls. Roadhouse ('89) basically is one long bar fight with the mullets flying as fast as the roundhouse kicks.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-37497902856518201492014-10-11T05:13:11.379-04:002014-10-11T05:13:11.379-04:00Curtis This applies more to the Late Boomers. Gex ...Curtis <i>This applies more to the Late Boomers. Gex X were more idealistic, IMO.</i><br /><br />Don't see how that description fits the Late Boomers very well, but X may be idealistic in some ways. I wouldn't shit on tough times (economic or crime) making people more idealistic in some ways. I'm thinking about how their idealism translates in idealism in public behaviour.<br /><br />If Gen X are idealistic, it seems more like "My parents got divorced, and it was horrible. Ideally, children wouldn't have to go through divorce, so ideally I don't get married" or "These freaks / mainstream people don't meet my ideals, so I'm not even going to approach them". Probably tuned up beyond a realistic level. Very much to be the sort of idealism, tending towards harsh or avoidant idealism, not a naive optimism where people go out and take chances. X are tight and loyal with whatever Frat Pack style small group they've got.<br /><br />I don't think Gen X were like this as much when the Boomers were still young and calling the tune in music, film and nightlife, and there was more expectation to live their lives in the open, but it seems really striking how this took hold as soon as they began to become tastemakers and role models in the late 80s through the 90s.<br /><br />The GI Generation was seen by the Boomers as grey, cold, old men much more than Silent by X or Boomers by Millennials (Silent seem like they seen by Boomers as frazzled, repressed people missing out on life, not really mean old men?). I think it might be that way with X and "Z". Thankfully they'll both be relatively small generations so that'll limit the cross generational outright culture warfare some (although it'll have an ethnic twist with X being mostly White and Z being much more other).<br /><br /><i>it still escapes me why we're supposed to wait with anticipation the arrival of a new tough and street-wise generation</i><br /><br />Supposedly violent crime and public behaviours follow a more or less 30 year epicycle, although it's more open vs closed generations initially. We'll see if this is actually the case.<br /><br />You'll wait with anticipation for them if you liked the way of life and culture of such times (I've never lived through one really, not sure if I do).Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-36910939662152124312014-10-11T01:26:45.013-04:002014-10-11T01:26:45.013-04:00"When people start to toughen and wise up aga..."When people start to toughen and wise up again"<br /><br />I've been following the generational discourse on here for quite some time, but it still escapes me why we're supposed to wait with anticipation the arrival of a new tough and street-wise generation.<br /><br />Moreover, there's a sort of hubris that assumes that such a generation is right around the corner. I've said it again and again - but let everyone who makes such predictions be available ten years hence when the results are in. Cahokianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-55648737324045705342014-10-11T00:34:25.864-04:002014-10-11T00:34:25.864-04:00I don't think Gen Xer's are very idealisti...I don't think Gen Xer's are very idealistic, sure they've had their causes, hopes, dreams and so forth but they've been through too much crap to fight very hard for anything or even have much conviction in anything. The smug as ever Baby Boomers still think they can fix it all even after decades of ample proof that they've caused many more problems than they've solved. <br /><br />"As people became less naive in the 70's and 80's was this hysteria about unpleasant phenomena less common?"<br /><br />"People paid more attention to it and victims got more sympathy."<br /><br />I'm not so sure it's about awareness/sympathy (though in less mind more heart periods people are warmer) as it is about appreciation and insight into how these things are a part of human nature. When so few people deal with various domestic "outrages" (murders, rapes, kidnappings, torture etc.that are NOT committed by foreign terrorists) people have an incredulous reaction on the rare chance that they occur. After enough exposure to these things people will be more stoic.<br /><br />It's a sign of how autistic and immature people are that they can scarcely believe these things happen to begin with, let alone have any insight into the psyches of the perps.<br /><br />It's also laughable when "experts" are cited for the supposed motivation of the scumbag. Reminds of the scene in Dirty Harry when Clint interrupts the shrinks by grumbling 'he does it because he likes it.' He being the villian Scorpio.<br /><br />When people start to toughen and wise up again we'll begin to think for ourselves and trust our instincts instead of wasting our lives watching charlatan "experts" debating and lecturing when we could be doing better things.<br /><br />As people got dorkier and PC in the 90's guys like Tim Mcvay were subjects of all kinds of half baked speculation and finger pointing especially on the Cable News channels that got huge in the 90's when people stopped having lives. "See, this is what happens to blue collar white guys who go too right wing". Really though, in hindsight McVay was actually a surly drifter who hung out with other losers and developed an autistic love of guns and a persecution complex. This eventually intensified into being able to rationalize killing hundreds of people. Because they were a symbol of the government that enraged him. Course he was too cowardly to, say, assassinate the president.<br /><br />Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-33598213487413756932014-10-10T20:32:00.776-04:002014-10-10T20:32:00.776-04:00"Opposite of naive, instead streetwise to the..."Opposite of naive, instead streetwise to the point of jadedness, cynicism, apathy and paranoia (more or less how they were described as kids and how people like Bret Easton Ellis still describe themselves)."<br /><br />This applies more to the Late Boomers. Gex X were more idealistic, IMO.Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-50297049389987266512014-10-10T20:11:35.482-04:002014-10-10T20:11:35.482-04:00"As people became less naive in the 70's ..."As people became less naive in the 70's and 80's was this hysteria about unpleasant phenomena less common?"<br /><br />People paid more attention to it and victims got more sympathy. Teen magazines and sitcoms were far more likely to cover issues like teen pregnancy, date rape, etc. than they are today. For instance, in the movie "Fast Times at Ridgemont Times", a freshman girl gets pregnant and has to get an abortion. Or there were the slew of exploitation flicks where innocents take a wrong turn, trust the wrong person, etc.<br /><br />It is a paradox that, when there is a rising crime rate, people are nicer and more sympathetic to each other.Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-65304733336425227372014-10-09T18:37:15.922-04:002014-10-09T18:37:15.922-04:00@ Feryl - Way I'd see naivity vs jadedness is ...@ Feryl - Way I'd see naivity vs jadedness is that it mainly changes with Gen X vs everyone else and just leads to cocooning.<br /><br />Based mostly on this blog :<br /><br />Silents / Millennials - Naive, but early years in a dangerous / paranoid climate and socialising with paranoid Xers limit social experience so don't socialise much with non-friends and family (e.g. in community organisations, bars). Develop poor self control and interpersonal skills (bratty, toxic, touchy) and high risk aversion (cowardly).<br /><br />Low socialising with strangers leads to low violence.<br /><br />Silents were family men, who left their youthful friends behind and spend all their time with family (as family formation is encouraged by economics, Baby Boom) while Millennials hang around with friends all the damn time until almost middle age as family formation is late. But neither of them really socialise openly and publicly in public spaces with strangers very well.<br /><br />Early Lost / Early Boomers / "Z" - Naive, raised in a peaceful climate, higher risk taking (memories of burnouts and casualties of risk taking are long gone), so gain more social experience and socialise more publicly = sharp rise in violent crimes (due to personality clashes, etc.). Booms in bars, speakeasies, live music as mass social movements rather than hangout joints for a hipster / scenester / muso minority.<br /><br />Late Lost / Late Boomers - More streetwise and cynical, still high risk taking, positive view of other and naivety from peaceful early years and upbringing not yet outweighed by cynicism = continuing rise in mass sociability and violence.<br /><br />G.I. / Gen X - Turbulent upbringing. Surrounded by acid casualities, etc. Opposite of naive, instead streetwise to the point of jadedness, cynicism, apathy and paranoia (more or less how they were described as kids and how people like Bret Easton Ellis still describe themselves). As teens and adults retreat from the social sphere, especially bars once Lost / Boomers age out of bar going age. Cocooning replaces "Cheers" style open, public, nightlife socialising typical of Boomers with "Seinfeld", "Friends", "Heathers" style intense socialising with small groups of acquaintances = falling social friction, vulnerability and violence. <br /><br />Without large groups of passionate, excitable, naive, open young people music splits into a small authenticity focused muso faction ("You probably haven't heard of it. It's pretty obscure.") honing its techniques and textures (very complex jazz, electronica, math rock, etc.) and a larger corporate, inauthentic, plastic faction.<br /><br />More public than Millennials / Silents as G.I. / X low sociability and low charisma comes from irony, guardedness, hostility, suspiciousness, pessimism and dismissiveness rather than low ability, lack of maturity, brattiness / dorkiness.<br /><br />Assuming the predictions here line up, the difference between the distrustful, unrealistically jaded, closed off Xers and naive, kumbaya, outgoing Zs will probably become huge, just as it did between the GIs and Boomers. The Millennials like the Silents with Boomers will be broadly supportive of the Zs trust in people (late Millennials might even form the early counter cultural figures for the Zs), but won't quite understand the Zs' exuberance or confidence or the downsides of the risks they take.Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-2682657068913993332014-10-08T23:36:59.647-04:002014-10-08T23:36:59.647-04:00The obvious needs to be said:
20 something girls ...The obvious needs to be said:<br /><br />20 something girls consciously calibrate their drinking in correspondence with their receptiveness to sleeping with men who attract them.<br /><br />Meanwhile, most girls, even of the socially awkward Millennial generation - if they're consciously making the decision to not have sex with a random guy - will have only a couple of drinks.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-11377234540237371742014-10-08T03:28:10.902-04:002014-10-08T03:28:10.902-04:00The word conspicuously missing from this post is F...The word conspicuously missing from this post is FATHERHOOD. And until that's publicly respected as the last word on a woman's behavior, all the complaining in the world about the polarizing effects of equality will be useless, because no fixed final authority means no ability to fix intermediate positions and punishments on the sliding scale of acceptable and unacceptable. Many excellent impressions can be had and communicated, to few or many, but there still has to be a universally and arbitrarily recognized authority before any intermediate social agreements can be made. Otherwise your structures collapse and your phantoms melt away in the hellish heat of naked self-interest.<br /><br />And while we're on the subject of ignoring the constant vilifying of any end state goals for positive exercise of rooted male authority, did you see <em>Gone Girl</em> yet?Dystopia Maxhttp://www.mypostingcareer.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-87484970717548911382014-10-05T09:54:58.635-04:002014-10-05T09:54:58.635-04:00As people became less naive in the 70's and 80...As people became less naive in the 70's and 80's was this hysteria about unpleasant phenomena less common?<br /><br />I think that the relatively gentle, non-violent environment that has taken hold since the mid-late 90's has deluded some people into utopian type thinking about how certain nasty things "shouldn't happen". Even if potential victims do everything but tattoo screw me on their foreheads. Times of low domestic criminality seem to instigate a lot of naivete about human nature. <br /><br />The sheltered upbringing of Silent Gen/Early Boomers eventually led them to be exploited by various forces (rapists, serial killers, radical professors, drug gurus, cults etc.,) in the dangerous late 60's-80's period. I think we're gradually transitioning to a period where Millenials/ Post Millenials will be easy prey for the predators who'll get bolder in the 2020's and beyond.<br /><br />As Agnostic has pointed out several times, older Millenials literally look like children compared to the preceding generation. Hopefully they'll toughen and wise up a little with experience. Who wants them whining their entire lives?<br /><br />There's a price to be paid for tranquility. Being around danger makes people grow up faster. A threatening climate makes people learn quickly what naive behavior to avoid while also more likely to take responsibility for such naive behavior and it's consequences.<br /><br />The frat boy attitude that takes glee in others misfortune is sad. That also reflects how degraded and anti-social people have become in the post 1992 era. Course, in the ongoing war between the sexes I'm sure that some guys figure that sex with drunken sluts is an acceptable weapon. Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-43646351622843397972014-10-05T07:10:32.221-04:002014-10-05T07:10:32.221-04:00the stoner trusted the shopkeepers to give him hon...<i>the stoner trusted the shopkeepers to give him honest treatment</i><br /><br />Yeah, but maybe if the stoner cares, it's because he thinks his interests have been harmed - even if he benefited at the time, overall he's been cheated out of the value of the receiver and lost out financially and suffered long term financial harm. So it's hard to separate in this example.<br /><br />Like, if he was lied to and given more money than it was worth that would help him over time and not harmed, he probably wouldn't care or would be thankful (depends on how much value he put on the thing). Loyalty or unfairness seem often to function like intensifers of harm ("I've been harmed by my kinsman, who I'd expect better of") that are more than the sum of their parts, not really something which stands alone. Exploitation needs harm - it relies on the idea that someone has been placed in a relatively worse situation than they would otherwise, not that they've been misled only, or that a ritual act of betrayal with no real significance has occurred. That's why Liberal morality is vulnerable to stripping out this complexity adding intensifier.<br /><br /><i>"Meh, what was she expecting? Anyway, no crime, no punishment. Next topic."</i><br /><br />Pretty callous, but in practice seems like a reaction based in the idea that if women know there's no protection, they'll retreat from situations where there's a risk of rape (or cocoon, I guess you could call it).<br /><br />It's probably unrealistic, like much "Starve the Beast" stupidity - women won't actually respond by avoiding situations being taken advantage of, perps will only get bolder without male hostility to keep them in check and women will get more hostile to men as a whole, as a child-like mindset of interdependence and deserving protection becomes upset. <br /><br />But not *genuinely* based on the idea nothing wrong has happened, just the idea that giving women the idea they deserve protection only feeds the problem, because it encourages them to get into rape situations.<br /><br />Many of them care, but don't want to translate that into an empathic response or legal presence to encourage the Conservative (or pseudo-Con?) dogma and mantra of personal responsibility.<br /><br />Bear in mind these guys don't really want mate-target women going around hanging around lots of non-kin males - they probably skew towards generally monogamous "doofus dad" provider types uncomfortable with that whole scene. <br /><br />They're not like PUAs who are genuinely out to exploit women and enjoy that climate (the real guys who would argue that you better embrace the unwholesome, you pussy) - instead they want to discourage women from hanging around lots of riskily exciting men who cut sharp, risky dance moves or whatever and encourage the idea that women that do are morally worthless.<br /><br />Some of them are bitter Men's Rights Virgin Avenger type losers (see commentators above), who actually have great schadenfreude glee about rapes, but few of them are actually guys who would enjoy or thrive in the unwholesome environment and prey on women.Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-61478442943523483222014-10-04T20:28:19.651-04:002014-10-04T20:28:19.651-04:00I don't know for sure but you sound like just ...I don't know for sure but you sound like just another white knight fucktard out to save women from their own choices.<br /><br />At the core of feminist rape politics is the basic conceit that a certain group of people not only have the 'right' to cruelly dangle raw meat in front of a hungry dog but actually expect to not get nipped in the process much less get their hand bit clean off.<br /><br />The wholesale internalization of this meme as the natural order of the cosmos, even by those that consider themselves to be 'red pill', is the most egregious piece of misandric slight of hand ever perpetrated by women against men. evilwhitemalempirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10247858808218667825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-88957291684140887832014-10-04T00:18:14.071-04:002014-10-04T00:18:14.071-04:00"In fact, in a culture of honor the man who d..."In fact, in a culture of honor the man who defiles a woman is coerced into marrying and supporting her (contra the Men's Rights delusion that forced child support is something new and anathema to the hard-as-fuck olden times, or that there used to be a sex-blind standard -- it was always the woman's purity that mattered)."<br /><br />The old standard was that the man was forced to be the woman's husband, <em>and the woman forced to be his wife - to obey, and to submit.</em><br /><br />This was radically different from child support, and supplied children with they actually needed, which is fathers.<br /><br />This is not the same as the present standard, rather it is the opposite, for the old standard was intended to protect children, and the new standard to get them killed.<br /><br />Further the old standard was not a it was a woman's purity that mattered. The old standard was that you needed certainty as to who the father was and that all the children of a woman were by the same father so that children could have fathers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-86928589827015730752014-10-03T18:13:31.070-04:002014-10-03T18:13:31.070-04:00awhile ago, a relative claimed this may have happe...awhile ago, a relative claimed this may have happened to her in high school, though she doesn't remember - there were rumors. What can/should I do about it?Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-87749872656266835352014-10-03T15:34:25.328-04:002014-10-03T15:34:25.328-04:00Is it taking advantage of someone to ask them what...Is it taking advantage of someone to ask them what time it is? They have a watch, you don't. Should they be upset with you?<br /><br />Either sex matters or it doesn't. If it matters, it needs to be protected or controlled in some fashion (preferably self-). If it doesn't, almost by definition no one "take advantage" of someone else. The more "liberal" strand of American society (which has aligned itself with Democratic Party) says it doesn't. If it feels good, do it.<br /><br />This is the problem with jettisoning tradition. Tradition happens because it works to the advantage of individuals that make up the society holding them. PMikehttp://www.althouse.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-13207921587360774722014-10-03T11:44:51.136-04:002014-10-03T11:44:51.136-04:00Kapustin, I suspect that's mostly right. Cons...Kapustin, I suspect that's mostly right. Consider this description of Weimar Germany:<br /><br />http://28sherman.blogspot.com/2014/09/weimerica.htmlRedneck Fundamentalistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-84045950420455133172014-10-03T11:21:19.320-04:002014-10-03T11:21:19.320-04:00Redneck: Your last argument is particularly inter...Redneck: Your last argument is particularly interesting. In short, liberals defend the sanctity of the slut. (I just Googled the phrase "sanctity of the slut" in quotes; no hits, so I guess you can claim originality.)<br /><br />By the way, the 1% of civilizations that didn't regard those moral assertions as blindingly obvious are particularly interesting. If I understand right, most or all of them were wealthy empires in their final decadent stage of steepest decline. As the American Empire is now.<br />Kapustinnoreply@blogger.com