Time to move to Bulgaria

There’s a surprisingly reactionary article over at the New York Times. Any time an article starts off with “THIS is a strange moment for sex in America. We’ve detached it from pregnancy, matrimony and, in some circles, romance.” you know that something has gone awry in the order of the universe. What, O Progressive, is “strange” about detaching sex from the entire context in which Christian and Orthodox Jewish society have held it for so long?

We continue:

Is a person guilty of sexual misconduct if he fails to get a clear “yes” through every step of seduction and consummation?… According to the doctrine of affirmative consent — the “yes means yes” rule — the answer is, well, yes, he is. And though most people think of “yes means yes” as strictly for college students, it is actually poised to become the law of the land.

Uh-oh. Like Woodrow Wilson, Political Correctness, the Antioch College Rape Rules, and Microagressions, a new plague has been brewing in Academe, ready to sicken the world. Perhaps it’s time to pay attention.

Thankfully, there are those ready to use humor and absurdity to fight this before it becomes law. An example in the article follows:

In a memo that has now been signed by about 70 institute members and advisers, including Judge Gertner, readers have been asked to consider the following scenario: “Person A and Person B are on a date and walking down the street. Person A, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B’s hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch. Person B does nothing, but six months later files a criminal complaint. Person A is guilty of ‘Criminal Sexual Contact’ under proposed Section 213.6(3)(a).”

Well, some things are too far, even for the far-gone Progressives at the New York Times. Some excellent sample comments. From Jonathan Katz:

If only 1–5% percent of actual violent rapes are prosecuted, these people should devote their attention to increasing that to a more appropriate fraction, something approaching 100%, and not criminalize ordinary and harmless behavior like reaching out to touch someone’s hand.

Think of the possibilities for extortion: “You didn’t ask permission to kiss me on the cheek. Pay $XXX,XXX or I’ll file a criminal complaint and you will go to jail, lose your job even if acquitted, etc.”

From AJ, demonstrating WHY Christians should keep their kids out of most colleges:

My daughter who is 18 agrees with you. Her sweet boyfriend had the necessity for affirmative consent drilled into him by his parents who are college professors. Although I as a parent am all for it, she reported to me that she finally told him ” look this is too weird. I’ll tell you when something isn’t ok.”

From Siobhan, whose anti-Boomer-hypocrisy comment was highlighted by the Times:

Boomer women were the first generation of young women to be able to have sex without fear of pregnancy (the pill). But the young men they had sex with were largely controlled by the old rules.

Hook up culture changed all that. And it was boomer women who largely encouraged this culture–by encouraging their college-going daughters to not get involved in relationships, but instead have “free sex” while focusing on their studies. And claiming that women could and should have “meaningless sex” as easily as men.

This has left young women vulnerable to sex without rules, often longing for relationships that don’t exist, using “meaningless sex” as a way to get close to a young man. And it has left young men with a seemingly endless supply of young women encouraged to have meaningless sex while hoping for more.

So we come to this–these insane laws. Where, on the one hand, sex means nothing, and on the other, someone could potentially be jailed and labeled a sex offender for holding hands without permission.

We need some kinds of rules again–but rules determined by the young men and women who are being affected. Not by boomers with agendas.

(Honorary Patriactionary is Siobhan, methinks)

Kate sounds like a feminist with sons:

Having high school and college age students, I now hear of many situations where young men’s lives are being destroyed because the girl’s word is taken as fact, when there were two parties involved and maybe things went a bit too far, but it was not rape. Rape is fearing for one’s life. Rape is a crime of meditated violence and forcing of one’s will over another. Rape is feeling so hopeless that this other person might kill you if you do not allow them to overtake you.

Lizzie8484 notices that greater “freedom” for homosexuals is tied up with a police state for the rest of us:

Finally, gay people can get married and everyone else (the unmarried, I mean) gets to become a monk or a nun (before becoming a full-fledged criminal on the sex assaulter list), whether we want to or not. This is sickening. I had hoped the brainwashed young college women who are turned off of sex by the anti-rape brigade (who have turned a hand hold into an assault) would get out of college and grow up. Does not seem likely.

Josh Hill notices that the laws represent anarcho-tyranny:

I think these laws will have little effect on the actual perpetrators of these crimes, who, after all, use drugs, threats, or force to get their way and so are guilty of rape under the current definitions.

Juries will rightly reject most cases brought under these criteria but an unscrupulous prosecutor could nevertheless use the possibility of conviction as a bludgeon to force a guilty plea, with terrible consequences for the defendant.

These laws target the innocent while leaving the actual rapists as free as they ever were to continue their abuse.

Richard notes that the analogy used by an advocate for the law is wrong:

‘As long as “people know what the rules of the road are,” he says, “the overwhelming majority will comply with them.”’

What country has Prof. Schulhofer been living in? People well know the traffic law (we can imagine, at least), few comply.

(I would add: the overwhelming majority do NOT comply with speed limit laws. They’re not there to protect, but to mulct.)

Greg Shenaut poses the reductio ad masturbam:

I wonder if it’s necessary under affirmative consent to say “Yes, I consent” out loud before masturbating.

My favorite comment comes from “lavn” of Bulgaria. When Bulgarians make more sense than Americans, it’s game over for the Progressive Great-Satan World-Bestriding Colossus:

Thanks god I don’t live in the US. You people are on fast track to becoming the laughing stocks of humanity. Apparently your law cast is under the impression that you are all at the mental level of third grader that needs clear instructions for even going to the toilet. Here is my suggestion, there should be a highly trained lawyer embedded next to every American citizen 24/7 to help him navigate modern life’s many challenges like kissing a girl or going shopping.

What is going on here is simple to see: Progressivism is fine when it targets the “bad” people, like ones who don’t like to bake cakes for gay weddings (or, in that case, not). When it starts to target either the children of the Progressive elite (see concerns in comments above, and in story), or retroactively convict lascivious Progressive Boomer men of rape (which they would frankly all be guilty of under the proposed law), or threaten to end the I-Am-Charlotte-Simmons despoliation of young men and women, then that law has no chance of passing.

Antioch College was SO Progressive that they spent their endowment to nothing and went out of business. The same would happen to any country that tried to implement its rules, so perfectly spoofed on Saturday Night Live. You can stop worrying about “yes means yes” on a national level. The Devil cannot abide mocking, and the hand-holding sexual assault has mocked him something fierce.

Addendum: Two more comments worthy of inclusion. BlixKrogg says:

Sociologists and gender studies academics have been filling the heads of students with misconstrued data and easily falsifiable arguments for decades and they’ve brought their insufferable propaganda into schools, teaching kids in elementary school – before their hormones kick in – about sex and gender. It’s no wonder undergraduates are going to be rewriting laws in ways that completely go counter to Hammurabi’s Code of Laws, a code of laws which has been the foundation of laws for millennia.

As a Democrat, I always laughed at conservatives when they freaked out about what is being taught in schools. After witnessing radical feminists make their arguments, I totally understand it all now.

(emphasis added, and welcome to the Dark Enlightenment, BlixKrogg)

And, lastly, note who is now a Manosphere ally in fighting ridiculous feminist laws: Spinsters. As Liz writesSeriously? As if I don’t have enough problems trying to find a partner in my forties. Affirmative consent sounds like the ultimate wet blanket.


Posted by on June 29, 2015 in Uncategorized


The Flying Up Your Own Anus Path to God

Will S.:

That Remnant article is excellent. Everyone should read it!

Originally posted on Not Equal But Different:

The following is an excerpt from an informative and humourous article at The Remnant on the ‘encyclical’ from Pope Francis on climate change.  The world is getting wackier indeed and this is just another facet of it.  This was simply too good not to share.  Catholics will certainly appreciate the in-jokes and jabs at certain apologists who went wacky long ago.

Our goal is not to amass information or to satisfy curiosity, but rather to become painfully aware, to dare to turn what is happening to the world into our own personal suffering and thus to discover what each of us can do about it. (19)
If the goal of the pope was to make me “painfully” aware of something, then mission accomplished. I have not experienced this much pain from reading a text in quite some time. However, all I became “painfully aware” of is that our pope has…

View original 1,162 more words


Posted by on June 29, 2015 in Uncategorized


Father Knows Best: Late June Edition

Duck pond; Clarington, Ontario.

Duck pond; Clarington, Ontario.

Strange Herring: On Refusing to Watch ‘Kingsman: The Secret Service’; Pope Francis vs. Jesus

Not Equal But Different: The Imagined Never-Ending Fantasy; Strong Independent Wife; Religious “Red Pill” Men Evaluate SMV Women for Marriage

Unmasking Feminism: But WAIT, I thought Seduction was a Good Thing?

Hawaiian Libertarian: On Towards Helter Skelter; Hoist the Black Flag and Join the Culture War

Throne, Altar, Liberty: Captain Ahab Gets His Whale; The Collective Madness of the Age

The Gods of the Copybook Headings: Scott Walker’s Fight Against Tenure; Friday Night – Hitler in World War One

David Garrett: One Man In State Of Five Million Kills Nine People; Governor Removes Confederate Flag

Pat Buchanan: Love and Hate in Dixie

Aaron D. Wolf: After SCOTUS: Welcoming Apocalypse

Idaho Royalist: Rhodesia, the South Carolina Shootings, and Deliberate Misunderstandings; On South Africa

memoirandremains: Pride is

Blowhard, Esq.: Stray Thoughts on Today’s SSM Ruling

Citadel Foundations: Ukraine and the Black Hundreds

ReactionaryThought: London Schoolchildren (First Lady)

Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar: German teenage girls less important than Muslim “refugees”

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology: Supreme Court Says That Gays Can Get Married; Women Hardest Hit

Social Extinction: Trump, Coulter, and how the culture of payasos* kills their message.; Japanese jungle fever: now we know what those women really want…

Free Northerner: Nobody Cares About You; What the Bullet Sang; Why Young People Leave the Church

Robert Joyner: The Charleston Shooting in Perspective



Old Life Theological Society: Where Do You Stop?

Cranach: Newspaper won’t allow opinions against gay marriage

The Heidelblog: We Acknowledge And Bewail Our Sins; A Win For Free Speech


Posted by on June 28, 2015 in Linklove


We Owe it to Our Country…

Originally posted on Zwinglius Redivivus:

To rid our land of every flag that racists have carried or displayed! Because- #Mericu


oh. um…. hold on then……

View original


Next Up: Polygamy

Originally posted on Zwinglius Redivivus:

Or as Politico says-

Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.”

The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance…

View original 166 more words




Professor Says Doctors Should Amputate Healthy Limbs to Accommodate ‘Transabled’ Persons

Professor Says Doctors Should Amputate Healthy Limbs to Accommodate ‘Transabled’ Persons.

‘Transabled’, now. Heaven help us!

A Canadian professor who has interviewed a number of people who believe that they are a disabled person trapped in a healthy person’s body is stating that doctors should amputate the limbs of such people to accommodate their feelings and desires.

As previously reported, a recent article published by a Canadian newspaper outlined that now following transgenderism is a class of people who believe that they are disabled people trapped in a healthy person’s body—and are going so far as to injure and maim themselves so that they can align with their preferred identity.

“As the public begins to embrace people who identify as transgender, the trans people within the disability movement are also seeking their due, or at very least a bit of understanding in a public that cannot fathom why anyone would want to be anything other than healthy and mobile,” Sarah Boesveld with the National Post wrote on June 3.

One of the experts on the matter cited in her article included Clive Baldwin, an associate professor of social work at St. Thomas University in New Brunswick, who has interviewed nearly 40 “transabled” persons. Baldwin also appeared on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on Sunday, in which he further explained the condition, which is also known as Body Alignment Integrity Disorder.

“[I]t’s usually a very specific disability that people want,” he said. “It might be an above left knee amputation, or a right below elbow amputation. Some people want to be paralyzed. They don’t want their legs to work.”

Baldwin said that he has spoken to one person who even expressed a desire to be blind.

“Do you think that in Western civilization, therefore, doctors should indeed amputate an arm, or a leg or make somebody paralyzed or make somebody blind who is suffering from this issue—from being transabled?” Klein asked. “Do you think that we should go there?”

“After long, hard consideration, yes, that is a medical option to deal with this condition,” Baldwin replied. “It’s not a decision that is or should be taken lightly but it’s one medical option to deal with it.”

He said that those who have had the operation feel better about themselves as a result.

“Certainly those people who have had an amputation, they have [experienced] physical feelings of relief, they feel more confident in themselves. They feel empowered,” he said. “Having one arm or one leg is actually empowering. Our society has difficulty with that idea, I think, that having a disability is empowering.”

But Klein expressed hesitation, opining that the matter should be researched further to see if psychological treatment could rather be provided as opposed to making such a permanent decision to accommodate the person’s feelings.

Others have also expressed concern over the concept. Marsha West of Berean Research said that with “trans” persons becoming more vocal in today’s society, right and wrong is further becoming muddled.

“What’s really at issue here is that it’s no longer deemed appropriate to view people as having psychological disorders—and the fact of the matter is that trans-people do have a psychological disorder,” she wrote in a blog post earlier this month. “Because the Left is bent on making the most perverted and bizarre human behaviors ‘normal,’ pretty much anything goes in our moral relativistic society.”


All this, just for a better parking space! ;)


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 373 other followers