Archives:
Quote Search:
Fundie: Board:
Quote:
Comment Search:
Author: Comment:
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20
Quote# 138518

I’ve seen a lot of people in the manosphere blame women’s suffrage for many of the excesses of feminism. “If only women hadn’t been granted the franchise,” they say, “we could have avoided all of these problems.” Sure, that’s probably true, but in a one person one vote system like Democracy, politicians will always have an incentive to extend the franchise, as we are seeing today with the Democrats’ push to give illegal immigrants citizenship.

There’s a simple explanation for it:

Say you’re a politician who wants to keep his job, and you have an opportunity to gain a lot of grateful, supportive voters who will keep you in office. If you’re ambitious like most politicians, you’ll do what you can to make that a reality. When that chunk of potential supporters actually exceeds 50% of the adult population, as women do, you’ve got an enormous incentive to be the guy who gave them the vote. This would give you great job stability.

Maybe some male voters would drop their support for a candidate based on that issue, but knowing men most would not, and even if a politician lost a large proportion of his male supporters, he could still come out ahead with significant female support, which would be all but guaranteed if he were the one who gave them the vote.

As one can deduce from simple arithmetic, the more voters one stands to gain, the stronger the incentive. I’m not sure what percentage a given population of non-voters has to reach to provide a strong enough incentive for a politician to defy his constituents on their behalf, but it’s probably far lower than 50%. I’d guess it’s around 15-20%, which suggests that if illegal aliens came to be that large a proportion of the national population, there would be overwhelming pressure to give them the vote. Whatever the number is, I think this would be the sort of thing on which a statistician could base a revealing study.

So why weren’t women given the vote immediately after Democracy was implemented in the US? First, most of them didn’t ask for it or care much about it. Female literacy wasn’t all that high in the early 19th century. Then, there’s the fact that traditions – even newly established ones – are more firmly followed in young, vigorous nations. Finally, in pre-industrial America men and women had essentially the same interests, so for most of the country the idea that there was a conflict of interest between the sexes was simply an alien notion, and therefore men and women in a given family would vote the same anyway.

The latter is highlighted by one of the first states to attempt to legalize women’s suffrage: Utah. Because polygamy was still common in Utah in the mid 19th century, giving women the vote would substantially increase Mormon clout relative to non-Mormon neighbors. The Mormons did in fact give their women the vote, and they promptly voted in favor of polygamy and other Mormon norms, which ultimately triggered the federal suppression of traditional Mormonism and the delay in granting women suffrage in other parts of the US.

As we can see from the above, there will always be an incentive for some people to grant universal suffrage, and all it takes is one change to the law for it to become permanent. Therefore, if a country bases its political process on the one person one vote standard, women’s suffrage is all but a certainty.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 2 Comments [7/3/2018 2:09:02 PM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 137289

["Hey ladies, if you're so equal why are you mad about getting raped? Checkmate feminists."]

One of the reasons I brought up the naughty teacher in LA and the contradictions in the law is that something that’s been on my mind is this idea that there is equal responsibility for sex. It’s something feminists will never fail to bring up when one suggests that it isn’t fair that a guy is on the hook for 18 years when he slept with a woman without intending to have a child. What they consider a rock-solid, ironclad justification for demanding the support is “he didn’t have to sleep with her.” Well, no, he didn’t. But take a 17-year-old boy and a mature woman of, say, 29, and who has more control over the sex act? Who is the gatekeeper? If the woman isn’t in any position of authority over the boy, it’s a legal sex act in most states, so she is free to sleep with him if she wants. However, realistically speaking, the woman has far more control over whether sex will actually happen. A boy of 17 has very little self-control over sex.

So why is it that the law puts the burden of child support on the boy when the responsibility for pregnancy lies overwhelmingly with the woman? It’s another one of those contradictions that characterizes feminist thinking.

Another thing that highlights this is the feminist claims of mass rape throughout society. If as many rapes happen as they claim, chances are someone on your street has been raped recently. There must be multiple simultaneous rapes occurring at any given time within your zip code. Can you hear the silence screaming around you? (this is probably what goes through the minds of feminists). Anyway, the point is that if men are so irrepressibly prone to rape and so sexually voracious, and women so prone to being unwilling, then who really is most responsible when consensual sex does happen?

One of the most sacred and cherished rights of feminists is the right to say “no” — that is, the right to deny sex. Do men value the ability to deny sex as much as women? Perhaps when it comes to forced sodomy, but that isn’t a common issue. One rarely sees men marching down the street with placards declaring that “NO MEANS NO,” and when they do, they are generally just holding signs for women. So, if women actually like denying sex, and are more likely to exercise that power, who has more choice when it comes to whether or not a given sex act will occur?

When a woman gets pregnant as a result of consensual sex, who bears the bulk of the responsibility?

Let’s break it down:

Men have a higher sex drive than women
Men have less control over their sexual impulses
Women value the ability to deny sex
Women are far more likely and able to deny sex than men

If the above are true, then barring outright rape, surely women are more to blame for pregnancy than men. So why does the law treat males and females as equal participants in the sex act, and why does policy hold the man to be more responsible? Clearly, the female has more control.

Additionally, it creates a double standard where statutory rape is concerned. If women have more control over whether a sex act will occur, then older women who sleep with with adolescent boys are guilty of a more serious crime than older men who sleep with adolescent females. The adolescent female has more control over whether she will have sex than the adolescent male, who is hopelessly overwhelmed by surging hormones. However, men who sleep with underage females are generally punished more severely than women who do so with boys.

There’s been a lot of hand-wringing over the disintegration of the American family and marriage, but few people dare to point out the obvious reason America is fast becoming a nation of bastards. It’s actually fairly clear: women are not being held to the appropriate level of responsibility where their sexual choices are concerned. In the old days, it was understood that, barring rape, women were more responsible for who they slept with than men, and if they screwed up they had to deal with it. This is why the rate of illegitimacy was so low for so long. However, today, women can get pregnant and receive guaranteed support from not only the government, but whatever random man they permitted to have sex with them.

Holding men more responsible than women for sex has been an abysmal failure, yet the policy remains in place despite thousands of years of received wisdom that lets us know it is a bad idea. Holding men and women equally responsible would be inappropriate as well, but we’ve gone past even that. Without some change in policy soon, the majority of all births in the United States will be illegitimate in a decade or so. The current system, which absolves women of responsibility for a choice that is largely in their hands, and for which they have even more options and tools at their disposal to deal with the consequences than ever, is unsustainable.

CH, The Spearhead 2 Comments [3/20/2018 8:53:25 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 137288

[I'm honestly impressed with how much of a soft-focus lens Price manages to put on what is basically Marxist-Rodgerism]

One of the most common epithets hurled at men by feminists, and probably the most genuinely hurtful, is that men are upset at women because they are bitter about being unloved. The reason this one hurts more than the typical “small penis” or “mother’s basement” insult is because it is so often accurate to some extent. The best insults always hit a weak spot. It’s true that many men are very bitter about loss of love, betrayal or lack of attention from women. This is why some pick up artists have such commercial success with their ventures, and why men flock to gurus who say they hold the secrets to a woman’s heart.

Actually, if these cruel women only knew, it goes a lot farther than mere heartbreak. The abandonment of men in contemporary society is so comprehensive that a man who has lost a wife or lover not only suffers from the loss of that deep personal connection, but from a fairly comprehensive rejection by society in general. First you lose your wife, then your kids, and then even your own family turns against you in many cases (this is a lot more common than most people realize — American men’s own mothers very often blame them and side with the ex in what is usually a futile effort to maintain contact with the grandchildren). The thrashing you get from the police and courts is just gratuitous abuse; in many cases guys are simply numb to additional pain by that time.

So, yes, these are bitter, unloved men. They are hated and they know it, although many have no clear idea why. They think to themselves “I’m not a criminal… I never hurt anyone… How could this happen to me?” Some can’t handle it. There are many suicides that simply don’t make the news. In a small minority of cases, they snap, and then there’s the “domestic disturbance” situation that has become so routine these days in which a police gunman puts the man out of his misery, as though he were a rabid dog. However, in most cases the men simply accept their doleful fate and live their miserable lives.

I was one of those miserable, unloved men for some time. But not entirely. Circumstance gave me a considerable amount of time with my kids when my ex decided to make her move. She left just as she obtained a good job thanks to my promise to work part-time and take care of the children while she trained for it, and she didn’t want to pay for daycare, so she proposed and received a parenting plan that had me caring for them much of the time she was working. Although being abandoned without any warning was devastating, my children never abandoned me, and despite the horror of separation I had them almost half time. All it took to snap me out of the most morbid thoughts was the sound of my kids’ voice, or the thought of them growing up and wondering why daddy did such a selfish thing as to leave them.

But if it weren’t for that time with my kids, I would have been totally, utterly alone. When I didn’t have them I had no desire for human contact. I really felt that the only people in the entire world who cared about me at all were my little children, aged one and three at the time. I suppose I digress a little here, but I can’t help feel that they were little angels, even if I did have to change their diapers and wipe food off their faces after every meal.

For men who don’t even have that, it’s almost unimaginable. It’s such a shockingly horrible experience that I wouldn’t wish it on anyone, yet here we have feminists taunting men for feeling unloved. And still we have people whining about “misogyny.” Young feminists whose most important concern is the ability to have sex entirely free of consequences, and who shamelessly raise their voices for the right to kill their children in the womb. Lesbian gender feminists who wreck families for profit and sex. Male feminists who boast about fathering children and shuffling their responsibilities onto some duped cuckold, and who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls.

All that said, men have every right to be angry, and righteously so. But deep down, I think what most of them want is far simpler and more benign than revenge or some political payback. They want some love, some security and the opportunity to be a part of a family. They want to grow old with a woman who is true to them, and to see their children grow tall and strong. It doesn’t always come out that way, and there are those who have rejected the idea entirely, but it’s an ideal that I think most men would agree is worth some effort, if not for themselves then for a better society in general.

So, I’d like to say to the feminists out there that yes, there are men who are bitter and sad about being unloved. Yes, it is often why they malign women, and it isn’t always a pretty thing. But if you really take pleasure in people’s loneliness and despair, you’ve got a cold, dead heart, and no reason to be proud of yourself. Instead of waxing triumphant about unfortunate men’s loneliness and misery, why not work for a world in which everyone can feel loved? Are you woman enough to do that?

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 6 Comments [3/20/2018 8:04:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 137287

A girlfriend or wife doesn’t have to have the looks of Giselle Bundchen, the homemaking skills of Martha Stewart or the bedroom skills of a professional call girl to make a man happy. All of these would be nice bonuses, but they are not nearly as important as the ability to make a man feel relaxed, content and appreciated. A woman who is mediocre in all of the former attributes can easily make up for it by being a sweet, pleasant person who takes the edge off at home. Men are surprisingly easygoing that way, but for some reason women can’t figure it out. Perhaps it isn’t in their nature. It may be that being pleasant goes against their instincts, and is impossible for them in our hyper-competitive society. Maybe seeing a man content and wanting for nothing is a disgusting sight to a woman, who prefers an ambitious, striving man. Or it could be that she feels as though his contentment suggests that he doesn’t appreciate her enough, and she has to agitate and badger him into making some display of devotion.

...

[When you contradict the rest of your ideology by admitting housework isn't a pressing matter that requires a partner to forego careerism]

What is most confounding about the refusal of American women to simply lighten up and stop going after their husbands is how they refuse to do so despite the fact that it would make their lives much easier. The chores issue is a perfect example. Rather than do battle with a man over how many hours are going into housework, why not just ease up on the housework themselves? Lots of women put in nearly twice as much work as necessary, and then expect husbands to do the same. Additionally, do women really need that brand new car? Do they need a mcmansion (with all the attendant extra housework) to be happy? The striving and consumerism in the US is driven mainly by women, who account for over 80% of discretionary spending, and it can turn them into very unpleasant people.

...

That ad is no exaggeration. Nor was Kate Gosselin’s treatment of her husband Jon. This is the norm in the US, and it’s driven in large part by our women’s status obsession (envy) and consumerism (greed). Perhaps the value placed on economic competition and consumerism is a major part of the problem with our women. Rather than domestic harmony and peace, that new car, new house or new shoes take priority. In days past, this kind of obsession with material wealth was frowned upon, so much so that those with money went out of their way not to make too much of a show of it (and in fact most wealthy people continue to do so), but today it’s about the only “virtue” we have left.

So, I’ll offer a theory as to why American women have become so downright unpleasant over the past few decades. Women’s liberation liberated them not only from restraints on fornication, hypergamy and other sexual impulses, but from the acquisitive and competitive impulses that were also kept in check by old-fashioned morality, and for women these may be stronger than lust. We have to recognize that Western capitalism and consumerism were largely driven by female spending, so perhaps this explains some of the support for feminism from above.

If women are constantly striving for more, bigger, better and shinier, they won’t have time to relax and enjoy life as it is. I suspect this plays a major role in the dissatisfaction wives feel, and explains why they cannot stop pushing their husbands harder and harder. It robs them of the ability to be pleasant, and suppresses their better nature, as they struggle and strive with the frenzied crowd for that next shiny bauble. Today, our women are truly possessed and ruled by the dark forces of greed and envy, which rob them and the men in their lives of peace and contentment.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 2 Comments [3/20/2018 7:39:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 137343

["Hey ladies, if you're so equal why are you mad about getting raped? Checkmate feminists."]

One of the reasons I brought up the naughty teacher in LA and the contradictions in the law is that something that’s been on my mind is this idea that there is equal responsibility for sex. It’s something feminists will never fail to bring up when one suggests that it isn’t fair that a guy is on the hook for 18 years when he slept with a woman without intending to have a child. What they consider a rock-solid, ironclad justification for demanding the support is “he didn’t have to sleep with her.” Well, no, he didn’t. But take a 17-year-old boy and a mature woman of, say, 29, and who has more control over the sex act? Who is the gatekeeper? If the woman isn’t in any position of authority over the boy, it’s a legal sex act in most states, so she is free to sleep with him if she wants. However, realistically speaking, the woman has far more control over whether sex will actually happen. A boy of 17 has very little self-control over sex.

So why is it that the law puts the burden of child support on the boy when the responsibility for pregnancy lies overwhelmingly with the woman? It’s another one of those contradictions that characterizes feminist thinking.

Another thing that highlights this is the feminist claims of mass rape throughout society. If as many rapes happen as they claim, chances are someone on your street has been raped recently. There must be multiple simultaneous rapes occurring at any given time within your zip code. Can you hear the silence screaming around you? (this is probably what goes through the minds of feminists). Anyway, the point is that if men are so irrepressibly prone to rape and so sexually voracious, and women so prone to being unwilling, then who really is most responsible when consensual sex does happen?

One of the most sacred and cherished rights of feminists is the right to say “no” — that is, the right to deny sex. Do men value the ability to deny sex as much as women? Perhaps when it comes to forced sodomy, but that isn’t a common issue. One rarely sees men marching down the street with placards declaring that “NO MEANS NO,” and when they do, they are generally just holding signs for women. So, if women actually like denying sex, and are more likely to exercise that power, who has more choice when it comes to whether or not a given sex act will occur?

When a woman gets pregnant as a result of consensual sex, who bears the bulk of the responsibility?

Let’s break it down:

Men have a higher sex drive than women
Men have less control over their sexual impulses
Women value the ability to deny sex
Women are far more likely and able to deny sex than men

If the above are true, then barring outright rape, surely women are more to blame for pregnancy than men. So why does the law treat males and females as equal participants in the sex act, and why does policy hold the man to be more responsible? Clearly, the female has more control.

Additionally, it creates a double standard where statutory rape is concerned. If women have more control over whether a sex act will occur, then older women who sleep with with adolescent boys are guilty of a more serious crime than older men who sleep with adolescent females. The adolescent female has more control over whether she will have sex than the adolescent male, who is hopelessly overwhelmed by surging hormones. However, men who sleep with underage females are generally punished more severely than women who do so with boys.

There’s been a lot of hand-wringing over the disintegration of the American family and marriage, but few people dare to point out the obvious reason America is fast becoming a nation of bastards. It’s actually fairly clear: women are not being held to the appropriate level of responsibility where their sexual choices are concerned. In the old days, it was understood that, barring rape, women were more responsible for who they slept with than men, and if they screwed up they had to deal with it. This is why the rate of illegitimacy was so low for so long. However, today, women can get pregnant and receive guaranteed support from not only the government, but whatever random man they permitted to have sex with them.

Holding men more responsible than women for sex has been an abysmal failure, yet the policy remains in place despite thousands of years of received wisdom that lets us know it is a bad idea. Holding men and women equally responsible would be inappropriate as well, but we’ve gone past even that. Without some change in policy soon, the majority of all births in the United States will be illegitimate in a decade or so. The current system, which absolves women of responsibility for a choice that is largely in their hands, and for which they have even more options and tools at their disposal to deal with the consequences than ever, is unsustainable.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 11 Comments [3/19/2018 5:11:19 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 136525

As thousands cower under the howling rockets and bursting shells unleashed by the Syrian regime, opposition leaders have released thousands of emails exchanged between the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and his wife Asma, a British-born and educated beauty who has long been held to be a shining example of modern womanhood, featured many times in fashion magazines and the like.

Some of the emails show Asma making jokes at the expense of the people of Homs, who have been under siege and sustained attack for some time. Several Western journalists have been killed while covering the assault, which current reports describe as brutal and indiscriminate. In another email, Asma claims to be the real power behind the regime, saying that Bashar al-Assad has no choice but to listen to her. Evidently, her advice has not been merciful.

Not long before the Arab Spring revolts that erupted last year, the first ladies of the Arab world were regularly praised as trail-blazing feminists who commanded great influence and power. Of 22 Arab states, 15 first ladies signed up for a feminist organization called the Arab Women Organization. In 2009, Helen Smith of The Guardian described the group as “founded with the express purpose of empowering women…” and lavishes praise on its members.

The list of member states is eye-opening: Jordan, the Emirates, Bahrain, Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan, Syria, Oman, Palestine, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, Mauritania, Morocco and Yemen are all members. All but a couple of these states have faced unrest over the last year, and nearly half open civil war or regime change.

One of the things feminists often claim is that if women ran the world, there would be no more war, conflict, hunger, etc. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of history knows this to be ridiculous; female heads of state have been every bit as warmongering as their male counterparts, if not more so. From Queen Isabella and Elizabeth I to Empress Dowager Cixi, female leaders have been associated with bloodshed and chaos. Now, if we are to take her word for it, we have Asma Assad to add to the list.

One thing Westerners tend not to understand about the Arab world is that although the people themselves tend to be deeply conservative and traditional, their elites and leaders are far less so. This is beginning to become more the case in the US, but the divide is far more stark in places such as Egypt and Syria. Many of the leaders – and their wives – were educated in the liberal Western tradition when anti-traditionalism was at its peak, while opposition leaders are more likely to have gone to school in madrassas to study classical Arabic and the Koran. The Arab people see these first ladies traveling around in limousines bedecked with priceless jewels and wearing the latest fashions while mouthing platitudes about women’s rights and “progress.” In the meanwhile, young Arab men can’t find work and many of their would-be wives are stuck at home with little chance of starting a family of their own.

We aren’t there yet, but we’re getting closer by the day. If our feminists can’t see their role in creating the kind of social decay that eventually leads to regime change, it’s only because it isn’t in their nature to concern themselves with these matters. As for the Arab elites who let their wives rule, we have only to read the newspaper to see what eventually happens to men who grow soft and seek counsel in the bedchamber.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 2 Comments [2/15/2018 8:00:44 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 136622

The popular “50 Shades of Grey” romance/porn novel has been making waves in the publishing industry as women from all walks of life find themselves aroused by its theme of utter surrender to a man. According to a Fox News article, feminists, too, approve of the book, which began as a fanfic spinoff from the Twilight series (naturally).

Given how the story is described, it looks like a rip-off of the Story of O that Heartiste enthusiastically recommends as the key to understanding women’s erotic desires:

The plot of “50 Shades of Grey” centers on a young and naïve college student named Anastasia Steele who is seduced by a rich and powerful entrepreneur named Christian Grey. Grey persuades Steele to sign a contract that allows him complete control over her life, in and out of the bedroom. Yet despite the fact that Steele becomes completely submissive to a very dominant man, feminists aren’t up in arms.


You know, I’m starting to wonder whether the models of domestic violence touted by feminists in which men seek utter control over women aren’t really a pornographic fantasy. I recently watched “Sleeping with the Enemy,” a film from the 90s starring Julia Roberts as a battered wife. Although the film wasn’t all that well done, there was definitely some erotic element to the dominance and control exerted by her psychopathic husband.

Contrary to what popular myths might lead one to believe, the book is more distressing to men than to women, but that makes perfect sense. Most men are disturbed by the idea of being objectified and dominated in the bedroom, and have a hard time relating to female sexuality.

While women are applauding the book, some men are expressing concern over whether women should be insulted by a plot dominated by a man who tells a woman when to sleep, eat, work out and even how to groom herself. Television host Dr. Drew Pinsky recently called the book a “rape fantasy” on his HLN show. Women writers laughed off Pinsky’s remarks, saying there is absolutely no reason for men to weigh in on this issue at all, and certainly no reason for them to use the term rape.


Perhaps what’s most demoralizing to men is that most of them have been instructed to behave in exactly the opposite manner from what turns so many women on. Additionally, most men simply aren’t all that dominant whether they restrain themselves or not. “Christian Grey” is a figment of the female imagination — guys like that hardly exist in real life. When they do turn up, other men take them down.

Nevertheless, the book and the discussions surrounding it show that the cat’s out of the bag. Men who have been fooled about women’s true nature for their entire lives, and who still try to fool themselves, are finding themselves demoralized by women’s enthusiastic endorsement of utter objectification and submission.

For more on the novel, check out Paul LaRosa’s take on it. Paul seemed a bit confused by its success, asking “Is it possible that so many women dream of becoming the submissive partner of a dominant male partner which, after all, is the central plot of the book?” He discovers that yes, in fact, this is what they dream of.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 8 Comments [2/13/2018 1:28:08 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 136621

Yep. Pattinson’s a younger guy who hasn’t yet developed the confidence and swagger that years of being in charge of hot young starlets gives a guy. As a director, Sanders is quite literally the boss of beautiful young women. For these girls, who are used to being catered to hand and foot by ordinary men, that’s erotic, and probably hard to resist. It’s yet another reason we should think twice about putting young wives to work with men who have higher relative status in the office than their husbands do at home. That’s obviously a recipe for marital disaster.

However, some may ask why this is such a big deal. Pattinson may have just gained the opportunity to be done with a slutty girlfriend, so what’s the problem?

Well, think about how this will play out. Pattinson is young enough that this will eventually be forgotten, but in the meanwhile he’s going to pay for it. Older, higher-status men taking women from their younger boyfriends/husbands is nothing new, and quite frankly it’s often how they put up-and-coming young men in their place. Nobody really feels sorry for a chump whose woman cheated on him — they tend to laugh at him. It’s unfortunate, but it seems to be human nature.

In a business like Hollywood, losing respect is not very good for your career. A guy whose girlfriend cheated on him is going to have a harder time landing a leading role. The girl, for her part, takes some punishment as well. But the alpha male cheater doesn’t really lose. In fact, he tends to gain respect (whether people admit it or not). Therefore, the woman who cheats betrays her man socially and professionally as well as sexually. It’s a very nasty thing to do to a guy, because unlike a betrayed wife, he gets ridicule instead of sympathy.

Cheating women don’t just make you feel bad; they make you look bad, too. And that does have real life consequences. When women betray men, it really is worse.

The one positive thing is that this will probably damage Stewart’s career more than Pattinson’s. He’s got decades to live this down, but by the time it’s forgotten she’ll already be over the hill for an actress.

Sluts just screw things up for lots of people. That’s why we shame them, and should continue to do so.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 0 Comments [2/13/2018 1:27:57 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 136546

Actually, Dragnet, I think white privilege is very real. I was the beneficiary of it while in China. White Mexicans do very well for themselves. A mediocre white female teacher in DC makes a whole hell of a lot more than most of her neighbors. When I was in Latvia I met some Americans who, although not privileged for their skin color, were definitely privileged by virtue of their nationality. There’s no way some of the mediocrities I met there could have had such high positions here. So perhaps “white” privilege is an inaccurate term, but elite privilege has always been a feature of civilization.

However, this privilege is conditional. And it’s predicated on a particular lifestyle and social system that is better suited to colonial Latin America than the dynamic democracy we have here. In some cases, privileged minorities can exist in a mutually beneficial relationship with their hosts, as in Sephardic Jews in early modern Holland, who invented modern finance with their Dutch colleagues and paved the way for the industrial revolution. However, what we have in the US is a privileged white minority that seeks first and foremost to be a parasite on other, non-privileged whites, and is trying (but failing) to do so through moral appeals.

Instead of trying to find a working solution, they are increasingly turning to divisive, confrontational politics, much as the white elite of the antebellum South forced the issue prior to the US Civil War. As much as it may cause cognitive dissonance to modern readers, I definitely see the white elite in this country as the modern incarnation of the Southern slaver culture. With a good grasp of history, it isn’t much of a stretch, but they’ve succeeded in casting themselves as champions of everyone but themselves even while they are perhaps the most tenacious parasites this nation has seen in ages.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 4 Comments [2/10/2018 1:36:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 136545

There’s been a major shift in the public attitude concerning what is proper sex since the sexual revolution of the 1960s. When I was a kid in the 1980s, it was already taken for granted that sexual mores from earlier times were outdated, and only backwards dinosaurs adhered to them. For example, the idea that there’s anything wrong with extramarital sex has been laughed at for decades now. Additionally, old taboos concerning other sexual activities, despite clear evidence of their danger in the form of AIDS, divorce, etc., were portrayed as out of date and oppressive. Pornography was deemed legitimate political speech and therefore a right, and obscenity laws repealed.

To listen to the supporters of the sexual revolution, you’d think this would have led us to some sexual utopia where everyone’s sexual needs are met with no problem, but the human impulse to control sexuality returned in fairly short order, only in a different form. The result is that today, we still face a great – perhaps even greater – amount of control where sex is concerned, and a lot more people are locked up for sex crimes than in the bad old days of “oppression.” What compounds this problem is that it’s possible that even more men are sexually repressed now than a hundred years ago.

Today, there are essentially two kinds of bad sex: “nonconsensual” sex and sex with underage people. The bad actors in this regime are overwhelmingly male for a couple reasons. First, forcible rape is far more likely to be committed by males than females, for obvious reasons. Secondly, men generally prefer younger partners and women older. One could argue that prostitution remains in the “bad sex” category, but prostitution is increasingly held to be an example of male sexual exploitation. Examples from Superbowl sex hysteria and the Secret Service scandal highlight this. Essentially, prostitution has begun to fall under the nonconsensual or rape category. Pioneering Swedish legislation that only punishes johns for prostitution transactions will probably be introduced in the US soon, and then the process will be complete.

While only a few fringe characters have ever argued that rape or pedophilia is justifiable, what’s wrong with all this is that practically no female sexual behavior is currently seen as negative, whereas men are responsible for almost all of what’s deemed bad sex. Not all that long ago, this was far from the case. While rape has always been seen as the most serious sex crime, neither fornication nor adultery were held to be innocent activities, and women were seen as equal participants in these acts. In fact, in the majority of cases, a woman was just as responsible for “bad sex” as a man. Where prostitution was concerned, females were held to be more responsible than their clients, just as drug dealers are held to higher level of accountability than drug buyers, because they profit from the transaction.

However, lest we try to draw parallels, it should be recognized that most of what society considered bad sex was not criminalized until relatively recently. Fornication, sodomy, prostitution and adultery were definitely frowned upon, but they were not typically formally punished until the Victorian era. In the US, it wasn’t until the mid-20th century that these laws were widespread and regularly enforced. Nevertheless, people were a lot more careful about engaging in these activities, because social consequences could be severe.

Since then, aside from a brief period from the late 60s to early 70s when there was a sort of sexual free-for-all in the West, we’ve seen a steady crackdown on male sexuality combined with a loosening of restrictions on female sexuality. What has happened is that the entire burden of sexual control has been increasingly foist upon men, while women’s load has been lightened.

Probably the most important and liberating change for women has been the relaxation of the social prohibition on fornication. In the old days, fornication was definitely seen as bad sex. A loose woman was considered socially irresponsible and wicked for a number of reasons. She could lure a husband from his wife, seduce a young, naive man and capture him in a marriage against his interests, and have illegitimate children who became a burden on the community. Such a woman was not seen as marriage material. In general, men preferred virgin brides. Today, of course, the virgin bride is as rare as the horse and buggy.

A lot of men might say we have it a lot better than in those times, because “sex is easy and available” now whereas it used to be more difficult to obtain. I’m not sure I agree. Fornication is as much a risk for men as ever, and probably more so, because now only men are held responsible for the consequences. Get a woman pregnant and it’s on you. Sleep with a couple women, make one angry and jealous, and you risk a rape accusation. Sleeping with a married woman is another good way to get accused of rape if she changes her mind and decides to stay with her husband. Sleep with a woman who said she was 19, she turns out to be 17, and you’re in trouble. Visit a prostitute and you could be arrested or, if she tells the press, lose your career. There isn’t much of a difference from the old days, and you’re more likely to face jail time for slipping up. For men, fornication is clearly still bad sex. Possibly even more so than it was when it was generally recognized as such.

For women, on the other hand, the benefits are clear. Fornication has virtually no social consequences and the most minimal of risks. Pregnancies can be easily avoided, and if wanted the man will be forced to pay child support whether he committed or not. Male lovers can be easily controlled and kept in line, and as many taken as any woman pleases. Women even go so far as to proudly march in slutwalks to further demand rights to behave sexually in any manner they please. The slutwalk was actually very clear in demanding more of the status quo, i.e. less control of female sexuality and more control of male. For women, particularly young and attractive ones, this has been a real bonanza. But what has it done for society?

Let’s see…

Marriage rates dropping precipitously, men taking path of least resistance and dropping out, illegitimacy skyrocketing, class divisions hardening, children growing up fatherless and with fewer options. For most of us, it’s been quite negative.

I wish I could say there was a solution to the problem, but it looks pretty hopeless. The alternative to what used to be seen as bad sex – marriage – has been all but destroyed by the liberation of female sexuality and the redefinition of marriage as little more than a federal tax status; a sort of very risky corporation with arbitrary rules. The result is that for men, there is really no such thing as “good sex,” that is, socially-approved sex — it’s a risk no matter what. Furthermore, a society in which the overwhelming majority of women are fornicators gives men no choice; you just aren’t getting a wife in the traditional sense of the word, so why bother with marriage?

I think men ought to realize that we got suckered in this deal, and perhaps we should have listened to the old sages who have warned us over the centuries. We overreached in our naivete, thinking we’d get more of what we desire if we only tossed out the old attitudes, but all we ended up with was more responsibility and fewer rewards.

...

[Wait, aren't women supposed to be the uncontrollably lustful sex? Goddamn keep you misogyny lore straight]

Nah, she ruined herself. In a sane society (like most in the world), women are considered more responsible for sexual restraint, because they are better at it. It’s the same reason men are considered more responsible for fighting, carrying heavy things, etc.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 4 Comments [2/10/2018 1:27:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20