Get PJ Media on your Apple

Dr. Helen

This is a comment over at CNN in response to an article by Roxanne Jones entitled, “Young men, get a ‘yes’ text before sex”:

It seems nearly every week, we hear news stories about sexual encounters at parties where everyone is drinking — and a young woman says she was raped, and a young man insists the encounter was consensual.

Make no mistake, no woman — no matter how much she parties — is asking to be raped. But too often when heavy drinking is involved, the meaning of consent can be misconstrued on both sides. But I know from my own fun-filled years at Penn State that campus life can be confusing even for the best of kids. So I taught him how to do his own laundry, grocery shop and cook — just so he wouldn’t have to depend on anyone else to do those things. But lately, I’ve been worried that I left out one important piece of advice that is a must-do today:

Never have sex with a girl unless she’s sent you a text that proves the sexual relationship is consensual beforehand. And it’s a good idea to even follow up any sexual encounter with a tasteful text message saying how you both enjoyed being with one another — even if you never plan on hooking up again.

Crazy, I know, but I’ve actually been encouraging my son and his friends to use sexting — minus the lewd photos – to protect themselves from being wrongly accused of rape.

I think the commenter hit the nail on the head. Why is it that women can’t think if drunk but men can? Why is it always about men controlling themselves and being responsible for any sex act while women are treated as children?

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Apparently, so much weaker in considering the consequences of their actions, or managing their own bodies, since it takes the acts of other people to decide if she was raped, able to consent, or to pay for her birth control, and to provide armed guards when she decides to get sh!tfaced and stumble around downtown. Somehow, one more damn time, her body, her choice, but my responsibility. Because, "Patriarchy", or some other stupid rationalization that makes women hapless wards of the state, aka "Adult children".

It's difficult to consider women to be 'my peers' when different rules of personal responsibility, consequences and accountability are in play. Maybe when we are *actually* equal before the law, actually equal in entitlements, actually equal in prosecutions and punishment for crime, or actually equal in family court, or actually equal in consideration for the draft.

Thankfully, I'm at an age where I don't give a damn any more.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I have the easy answer: because it's not about those things. That's a smokescreen to hide political disdain for males. If it wasn't, responsibility would go two ways, which is how most people, normal people, see it.

In identity-based political correctness, right and wrong reside within the identity itself. There is always an opposition identity: gay-straight, male-female, white-non-white. The straight white male is never right, the opposite never wrong.

With normal people, like or dislike follows an event. In the PC world, like or dislike is preordained. That's why the logic which follows is always so weird, shoddy and contradictory.

This is the "sl-t-walk" logic at work. Women can walk through a dark alley in the worst part of town drunk and naked and get riled if anything bad ensues. That's cuz even reality itself is wrong.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
If we as a society decides that certain groups of people cannot be considered responsible for their actions, should not they denied the rights of competent adults such as being able to enter into contracts?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (46)
All Comments   (46)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I was reading "Myth and the Movies" by Stuart Voytilla last night. It is tome based on (through Vogler's book) "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" by Campbell. Briefly, all societies have a foundational myth that presents a Hero confronted with a problem, undergoing ordeals, triumphing and returning to the society with a gift of the elixir he has won for the betterment of all.

The Hero is the societal ideal around which the norms of the culture are built and handed down. It is for the most part subliminal, but sort of like during times of tribulation the thought occurs to you, "What would the Lone Ranger do?.

As Voytilla points out the Hero myth changes in the different cinematic genres and our society. It occurred to me last night that no society ever had a foundational myth of the "victim". I will suggest our society has evolved into a victim myth; continued, extinguishment is the only outcome.

What would a community with a "Victim Myth" look like? Men, particularly productive white men, would be denigrated. Where, thank you Fail Burton, Identity Politics would be the normative value. When was the last time you saw and ad on TV or the internet where a white father was anything other than someone who could fill "Dopey's" shoes in the Seven Dwarfs? It would be where a waitress can fraudgently claim a missed tip and an alleged message becomes "news!", where last I heard she had gotten some $10K in sympathy funds from concerned folks. One wonders at the report that she is a former marine and longs to see her service record. What happened to, "SUCK IT UP BABY?"

Without the character/integrity foundation of the Hero myth there is only making money and making it by vulgar means for vulgar ends. The great interrogative of life is what ultimately fulfills you and I'll suggest that money is a poor life's goal.

What does the worship of victimhood mean? I'll suggest that WWI decapitated Western Civilization; Europe more than the US. Carroll Quigley in his book "Tragedy and Hope" said that instead of Western Civilization dying out it reinvented itself three times i.e. transitioned from manorial to mercantile to industrial. Now we are at another point of transition, what myths do we have to draw on this time?


51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Why is it always about men controlling themselves and being responsible for any sex act while women are treated as children?"

1. Because they are?
2. Was marriage originally invented to protect men? (As opposed to women's nesting impulses)
3. Do men now need signed, witnessed and notarized consent forms? Sex can become as clinical as a hospital visit. Maybe we need a living will for our assets as well. Bring on the sex-bots and let so-called alphas sell sperm collected in the bot. I could have used the extra income.
4. Why do modern women think they know so much more than, say, women of a millennium or so ago? Birth control is about hormones, not brains...or???

sarc off.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Edison did not invent the motion picture. He did invent the light bulb, among other things.

The motion picture was invented in France. It was specifically designed to film race horses, because there was this disagreement over whether a horse's feet all left the ground at the same time. The motion picture proved that they do.

The first still picture is at the HRC in Austin. However, that is not really the first picture. The Shroud of Turin is. I saw a fascinating documentary on this subject a couple of years ago. The chemicals for developing a photo all existed at the time, and Da Vinci figured out how to use them. The guy, some scientist in Italy, explained exactly how he did it. Da Vinci simply put a lens in a widow, used sunlight, and made an image on cloth, then developed it with photochemicals. This is why the image was not discovered until the 1950s, when a photographer saw it on a negative he was developing.

I have no doubt that porn drives the film industry, cable television and the internet. But there is a big difference between pornography and erotica.

Break down the word, porno--from the Greek, meaning prostitute--graphy--also from the Greek, meaning writing. Just as biography means the writing of a life, so pornography means the writing of a prostitute.

Erotica is a celebration of human sexuality, and it goes way back. But pornography is something else.

Read the Iliad, generally considered to be the first work of literature. It dates to about 800 BC, give or take a generation or two. Helen, the most beautiful woman in the world--the face that launched a thousand ships--has an affair and runs away with Paris, her lover, to Troy. This caused a war that lasted for ten years, because her husband, Menelaus, was really pissed.

After defeating the Trojans, through trickery, thanks to Oddyseus, Menelaus storms into the bedroom and confronts Helen. And she just simply drops her blouse and shows him her breasts. He falls to his knees and begs for her forgiveness.

Do you get that? The Trojan War probably occurred sometime around 1425 BC. It was fought over a woman. Men died because of it. And in the end, the man who instigated the war, collapses to his knees and begs forgiveness, because she showed him her breasts.

The Greeks, I got to tell you, they really knew human character. And it hasn't changed since. This story is what 3500 years old? Of course, the woman is not held responsible for her betrayal, and the man apologizes for his behavior. It's a story that is as old as time.

As far as alcohol goes, humans have been drinking it since they first saw animals eating fermented fruit. That goes back tens of thousands of years.

Ever seen a falling down drunk giraffe? I have, on a documentary about 30 years ago. Fruit falls off a tree, ferments in the sun, animals eat it, and get drunk. And you think that primitive humans didn't notice that?

So, first it was wine, then it was beer, then it was whiskey, which is an Irish word meaning "water of life." There's always been sex. First it was erotic, then it was pornographic. And yet to this day, after thousands of years, women are not held responsible for their actions, and men are apologizing for theirs.

Can't we just stop all this nonsense now? Drunk or sober, shouldn't everyone, man or woman, be held responsible?

If all sex is rape, or prostitution, then what does a man have to gain? He's going to get blamed and have to apologize for it anyway, if he can avoid jail time and a serious financial settlement. It's been this way from the very beginning. Read the literature.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Why is it that women can’t think if drunk but men can? “

For the same reason that only whites can be “raciss:” ideology, that combination of hatred and stupid reformed into political morality.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Let's tell the truth about the fraud of feminism and female incompetence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP32behCki8&list=UUXzU-ga7_6hCMQYbnQF4jeQ
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I hate to just state the obvious double standards, because I like to have situations where the college girls dress sexily and I get a minor buzz too, but that is very akin to having people drink to the verge of drunk driving and having car racing duels. The people who go over the line are over the line and responsible.

In college I found myself half-drunk alone with half-drunk women, and I never went further than we both agreed to, but the line at that point is very small. I was in situations where we both regretted it in the morning. It is a narrow line when you are half-drunk, and I don't recommend anybody get in that situation.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"...first, I think of a man. Then I take away all reason and responsability."
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
There was a question at the end "Why is it always about men controlling themselves and being responsible for any sex act while women are treated as children?"

As a general rule, if the man wants to and the woman doesn't, the man can have his way. As Spiderman once said "With great power, comes great responsibility". In the heat of passion, this is why men need to be the responsible one.

Interestingly after the fact, the power balance often shifts. And it is still true that "With great power, comes great responsibility". This is when women need to step up and be just as responsible. If you changed your mind part way through and never got around to mentioning it, what happened to you probably isn't rape. Chalk it up to experience and move on.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Q. "Why is it always about men controlling themselves and being responsible for any sex act while women are treated as children?"--fustian

A. Go with the simplest explanation. Men are adults and females of any age are children.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
If there aren't bruises or a supervisory/custodial relationship, it isn't rape. Period.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Here's a shocking idea: why not keep it zipped until you get married? I know, I know, it's a primitive, barbaric idea. Forget I mentioned it.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, since there's really darn little evidence that it has *ever* worked, I will.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
As I read these sorts of stories, I begin to ask a question. Why is it that the political class seems bound and determined to impose a preference of the feminine on society? On one hand, it could just be a historical accident owing to the rise of feminism and the failure of institutions to think matters through. But, increasingly, I'm arriving at the conclusion that there might be a more sinister motive in play. If I were dictatorially minded, I might prefer a feminized society to one with more of a masculine bent. Such a society would be much more amenable to dependence on the state, with the massive increase that such a inclination would entail of the authority of those in power. Such a society would tend to downgrade notions of self-reliance and independence, with the consequent reduction in possible resistance such qualities imply. Such a society would be more "practical", with principle more easily subverted to pragmatic needs to go along to get along.
I'm not intending to ascribe these qualities to every woman. Our hostess, for example, strikes me as a fine example of womanhood for whom these qualities wouldn't apply. And I can think of a great many other women who would reject such a world. But, I'm talking in generalities. And I don't think entirely misguided ones. The fascists and strongmen of old might have been playing the game all wrong. In aggrandizing the masculine, they were sowing the seeds of their own destruction. If you want a stable dictatorship, you'd probably want to do quite the opposite. Make the women the model of your society. The leadership just winds up playing the role of the overbearing husband.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is an answer to your question: post-modernists are still completely hung up in the crypto-Marxist ideology of oppressors, victims and group identity. Women are identified as oppressed, because, well, because, well, ... yeah, you get it. It's because they once were treated differently and discriminated against in some areas (but for in others).

A leftist without an oppressor group to condemn and a victim group to defend is a very unhappy leftist.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"There is an answer to your question: post-modernists are still completely hung up in the crypto-Marxist ideology of oppressors, victims and group identity."

But that's kind of just another way of saying the condition I'm wondering about. The question I'd ask is WHY those hung up in the ideology of oppressors, victims and group identity ended up winning out. By and large it's an intellectually vacuous doctrine that suffers from huge falsifiability problems (anything that contradicts its conclusions is either "false consciousness" or "set up that way by the oppressors"). So, it's not like it succeeded on it's merits. But, when you note its Marxist origins, I think you get at the heart of the matter. It's very well suited for tyranny. It sets up a powerful enemy to hate, sets itself as the standard of justice, and promises a golden future at the victory of the revolution. As such, it attracts and deliberately appeals to those willing to play the role of a cog in the apparatus.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
The 'why the victim-hood game wins' is that it's an appeal to an emotional, lazy mindset that is easily sold on the idea that life is a lottery, or that the game is rigged, and that all that *should* be necessary to be a bajillion-aire is to show the hell up. Why work when you can ambush some hardworking slob for it later?

Why work when the government will steal it for you? Why study hard, go to work for long hours, sacrifice home life and partying, or make good long term decisions for delayed gratification?

Grievance mongering wins because it defies any rational rebuttal. It's quick and easy to blame "teh patriarchy", or "white men", but accepting responsibility for your failures in life, failed relationships, meager income, diminished prospects, etc., or 'unlucky events', takes a bit of study and candid self-assessment to identify your own contribution to your problem.

It's even easier when there's a government industry out there that grows richer and more powerful by catering to every petty grievance, and never has to account for any of it. When people see civil judgments that hand out millions for whatever crazy rationalization, it's clearly become a rational decision to be professional victim, rather than working for it.

Whatever you want to call it, it's all mob mentality thuggery - either directly or by proxy.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All