If you want to talk about "slut shaming" . . .

There are certain things that enrage me. Rape apologists and "slut shaming" are right up there, toward the very top of the list. Get a load of this:

When a woman walks down a crowded sidewalk in revealing clothing, she is forcing herself on every man nearby.

The woman fully understands the powerful biological drives of men. She knows they cannot ignore her, not even if they want to.

She has chosen to advertise herself to everyone passing by, but she is looking only for a few men. The wealthiest, the most famous, the most powerful men she can attract. Yet her display is bound to be noticed by hundreds of men in whom she has no conceivable romantic interest.

That crap is from a post by a Giovanni Dannato, titled "Provocative Female Attire is an Assault Against Men."  You know what? I have "powerful biological urges," this is true, and if a woman I find attractive is dressed in whatever way I find sexy, it's hard to ignore. But so what? Part of puberty was learning a little self-control. The woman isn't responsible for my control. And speaking of control:

There’s an old elementary school custom…when you bring something tasty to class, it’s understood that you should put it away unless you intend to share it with others. The rationale:

• It’s a distraction to the entire class.
• The goodies are blatantly advertised without any possibility of fulfilling the promise of the advertisement for everyone.
• It’s considered impolite to show off what you don’t intend to share.

Likewise, a woman who puts her goodies blatantly on display is making false advertisements. Nobody supposes or expects that she could share herself with her entire audience—not even if she wanted to.

We're not children. Even the teenagers going through puberty aren't children. Children DO often have issues with control, and boundaries, and understanding things like "It's mine, not yours." Adults should not. Oh, and women are not products. They are not billboards showing off their goods, they're people.

These feminists and manginas completely miss the point and resort to a straw man. They suppose that their critics believe it should be illegal for women to dress provocatively! They fail to understand that the rule of law is hardly the only set of rules that binds us.

Somehow, they are unable to understand that women exposing themselves without intent to reciprocate the attention they attract is impolite and inconsiderate – an act of aggression in which they use the power of their sex as a weapon. They publicly and proudly demonstrate callous disregard towards others without the faintest understanding that common courtesy is a two-way street…

 "An act of aggression"???? Are you kidding me!? Ok, look. I am not harmed by seeing a sexy woman, and not getting to touch her. Not even a tiny bit. I rather enjoy it, actually. So that's a pretty damned ineffectual weapon women apparently have.

When I studied abroad in Latin America during college, I was in a group of students from my school that consisted mostly of spoiled women. They would insist on going out in low cut tops and become outraged when local men started catcalling at them.

Rather than sharing their sense of righteous indignation, I found myself hiding a smile. It didn’t take me long to understand that tastefully dressed women never received catcalls. This sort of behavior was reserved for women who broke their side of the social contract.

They became enraged by the catcalls because those men were treating them as objects, and not people. They became enraged because those asshole men were assuming that women dressing a certain way meant the men could act a certain way, when there is no social contract specifying any such bullshit. As for your "tastefully dressed women," at one of my previous jobs there was a young woman who never once -that I recall- had a low-cut top, or dressed in any way that sane people might consider "provocative." Jeans and work appropriate shirts. She wasn't supermodel material by modern standards, had a little weight "problem" (as in, her doctor might have cared, but I didn't), but every time I saw her walking around I couldn't help but be immensely attracted to her. Why? Attitude, and sheer confidence. It practically radiated off of her. I loved it. No other woman there could draw my eye like that, and there were plenty in low-cut tops. I chatted with her a few times, found out she had a fiance, and chatted some more. Never once flirted, but always enjoyed her company, and remained extremely attracted to her. Still am just thinking about her. What's my point? Simple: how the fuck do you propose she should have avoided that? Answer: she shouldn't, and couldn't. Well, ok, she could have worn a burqa, and stayed at home where I couldn't see her, but hey, you know what? That would have been bloody stupid, and insulting to me. I was not harmed by her presence, I loved it. And it's not her job to control me, it's mine.

Catcalling, I realized, was a defense mechanism used by lower status men against women flaunting themselves publicly – for the benefit of millionaires only. Feminists and their defenders have a special place in their hearts for this sort of retaliation. They are reminded of horrible days of yore when Western women actually had social responsibilities – when even ‘loser’ males they considered beneath them could resort to public shaming when pushed too far.

Present first world societies allow men no defense whatsoever against predatory and false female advertising. In every social venue, women are free to treat men as they like and should males reciprocate their wanton sexual displays with similarly crude and aggressive behavior, it’s called ‘sexual harassment.’

"Lower status . . ."? "Defense. . . "?? "Predatory . . . "???

First, let me repeat: women are not billboards, they're people! Second, what lower status? Money? Yeah, sure, some people seek out the rich for partners, but most just want people they're compatible with (I was dirt poor when my very sexy wife met me, and she didn't seem to care). Socially lower status? Take a look at not just some history, but the modern world. Men STILL have more social and economic power than women.

Third, what harm are you seeing that you require defense from these "predatory" women? Because honestly, if you can't just enjoy their company as fellow people, and enjoy being able to admire beauty when you see it, the one with the problem is you. Not them. And you need to get over yourself.

Thus men are effectively strapped down, gagged, and muzzled while females can flaunt and taunt with impunity. For many men this pretty much sums up every single day of an entire lifetime at school and at work.

Bullshit. Total bullshit. If someone's harassing us, we've got the same options as a woman to address it. Women are not responsible for your reactions just because they're in your field of vision. If you don't want to see them, I recommend a monastery of all men, high in the mountains somewhere, preferably with no internet connection.

Western Women don’t just abuse their incredible sexual power, they pathologically lie about their inability to understand the effects and implications of their actions. In fact, they seem to derive a sort of sociopathic pleasure from being able to sow unpleasantness and discord without consequence – all while playing innocent. They express their contempt and hatred for men even as they troll the populace for providers. Their enormous power comes without responsibility and they love it that way.

Maybe they just expect better of us. I know I do.

For those who would doubt for a moment that these women know exactly what they’re doing, let’s take a look a recent events. How do Western women collectively respond when some male displeases them?

In the most vengeful, derisive, and mocking way they know how.

They call it a ‘SlutWalk.’ 

No, that's how they react when there's a culture that thinks how a woman dresses dictates how men can treat her. It's called a "rape culture," and it's perpetrated by crap like this. They are making a very key point that it doesn't matter how she dresses, YOU still need to control yourself, and not try to control her. You still need to recognize her humanity, her personhood, and her right to not be controlled by men.

In other words, Grow Up.

An attitude problem about abortion

I saw a comment on Facebook tonight regarding abortion that bugged me. I couldn't comment since it was one of those "friend of a friend" threads that you can sometimes see when people don't have their privacy controls set to prevent strangers from seeing their posts. Let me paraphrase the comment, since it's a general attitude I've seen before:

They made the choice to have sex, knowing they could get pregnant. If they didn't want to get pregnant, they shouldn't have sex.

I doubt I'll hit on all the things wrong with this, but I'm going to try highlighting a few.

First, the easy one: rape. While I realize that some anti-abortionists make an exception for rape, not all do, and yet they will still trot this one out. By definition, a woman does not choose to be raped. Statistically, I've seen the numbers at "1 in 6," all the way up to "1 in 4," woman have been raped or sexually assaulted in the United States. Given how many go unreported, the actual numbers are probably higher. What does this mean? It means you probably know someone who's been raped or sexually assaulted. It means I've stopped being surprised when a woman tells me she was assaulted at some point, because so many have told me that -- and I find that lack of surprise sad. It means, well, there was no choice in getting pregnant from rape.

Second, health issues. Sometimes, a woman would love to carry to term and give birth and raise the resulting child. Unfortunately, during the pregnancy she develops health issues, perhaps directly related to the pregnancy, perhaps not. Doesn't matter. What matters is that the pregnancy is complicating things to a degree that it may be healthier to terminate the pregnancy, and at times, life saving. Some treatments cannot be used while pregnant, so even if life isn't threatened, long term health may be (and certainly short-term health is). It was not the woman's choice to develop these health issues, so even if she deliberately got pregnant, shouldn't she be able to reevaluate that choice in the light of new circumstances?

Thirdly, contraception failure. We do lots of things that have a risk to them, and we don't just tell people "you made the choice, deal with it." For example, eating steak rare (increased risk of getting sick), not flossing (increased risk of cavities or gingivitis), driving while tired (increased risk of car accidents), crossing the street (increased risk of a car hitting you), not washing our hands before and after eating (increased risk of getting sick), or any number of other things that you can probably think of. We especially don't say "deal with it" to those who have taken every reasonable precaution, and still have something bad happen. We let them get treatment, and well we should if we have any empathy at all. So if properly used (or even improperly used) contraception fails, contraception that has a 99% success rater (the pill, and a bunch of others), then in what way can it be said the woman "made her choice when she had sex knowing she might get pregnant"? If you wouldn't say to the person "hey, you chose to eat that steak rare, so quit complaining about your food poisoning, and you better not be using tax-supported Medicare to pay for treatment," then you bloody well shouldn't be saying the same damn thing about getting pregnant after contraception failure. The choice to avoid pregnancy was clearly there, regardless of the sex involved.

Fourth, and for now last, ignorance. Many teens are victims of poor sex education, such that they might believe the rhythm method, one of the least reliable contraception methods available, is actually effective. Many don't realize that when the guy says "hey, I'll pull out before I finish," his pre-cum will still have sperm in it, meaning the woman can get pregnant even if he doesn't ejaculate inside her. And some, in a truly atrocious display of poor education, don't even realize sex can get someone pregnant. How does choosing sex in this case mean someone's obligated to carry a pregnancy to term that they didn't think could happen?

Matthew 7: 1-5

Once again I'm going to select a passage from the Bible, consider it, and render my judgement of it. Today, with a wee sense of irony, I shall select Jesus's words from Matthew 7:1-5. Here's the text (King James Version):

 ¹Judge not, that ye be not judged.

 ²For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

 ³And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

 ⁴Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

 ⁵Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

For comparison, here's the text of the New International Version:

¹ “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. ² For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

   ³ “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? ⁴ How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? ⁵ You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. 

This one's a bit of a mixed bag, and could be read in two or three different ways it seems. In the first couple of verses, we've got an admonition to not judge, with a warning that if we do, we'll be judged as well. Then we have 3 verses cautioning against hypocrisy. So we have 1) Do not judge, 2) Don't be a hypocrite, or 3) Don't judge, because that makes you a hypocrite.

Let's deal with number one first. That first verse captures the essence, doesn't it? Well, bad essence. Apart from the fact that it's probably impossible to completely avoid judging someone, it's really a bad idea to even strive for that. We have a moral obligation to judge others. That's right: an obligation. If we refrain from judging others, then how are we to say that it's wrong for a priest to rape a child? Or a man to kill another for the money in his wallet? How can we say it's good for a person with money to spare to donate to the poor? Or a father to donate his time as a Little League coach? We must judge these things. Note that it's perfectly acceptable to judge something as morally neutral. Dancing to a song with a good beat? Getting a tattoo?  Morally neutral. And certainly there may be nuance to consider in various cases, but nonetheless, we must judge. To claim that beating one's wife for going outside the house without a male escort is okay because that's the culture, that we cannot judge the man because we are not in that culture? Wrong, so totally wrong. Of course we can judge him, and we must!

Nor should we consider the warning ("you too will be judged") to be a warning, but a promise, and a welcome one. If we're of good character, we should welcome it when our mistakes and immoral actions are pointed out to us, because then we have the opportunity to correct our mistakes and make amends for our actions -- or at least try.

That's interpretation one, let's deal with number two, "don't be a hypocrite." Sound advice, and a good policy to follow. It can't be judged moral to scold someone for stealing when you're cheating on your taxes.

Well, that was easy! On to number three, "don't judge, because that makes you a hypocrite." Um, no, it doesn't. True, if you're judging someone for stealing when you're cheating on taxes, you are a hypocrite, and that's bad. The person you're judging is fully justified in pointing out your own failings. However, this doesn't mean that either should avoid making the judgements, or excuse the first thief for thievery, it only means the hypocrite has more that he's doing wrong. Each should be dealt with accordingly.

So, here's my judgement of this passage:

Interpretation one: Immoral.

Interpretation two: Moral.

Interpretation three: Immoral and silly.