The Atlantic explains that Cat Person went viral because it connects with the current mood of women & feminism:
Into this steps “Cat Person,” a New Yorker fiction story by Kristen Roupenian that explores how badly people can misread each other, but also how frightening and difficult sexual encounters can be for women, in particular.
The feminist objective is to remove all risks that women face with promiscuity, including the risk of having a dissatisfying sexual experience. This is the meaning behind the new standard of “enthusiastic consent”:
What are we to make of a sexual encounter that is technically consensual, but which Margot still considers to be “the worst life decision” she’s ever made?
In the recent powerful-man purge, and in the rape-on-campus crisis before that, there’s been a reckoning over the true meaning of consent. Some have questioned whether women who get drunk, go to men’s dorms, and even initiate intercourse could later have a genuine claim of sexual assault. Margot was at his house, wasn’t she? To some women, this passage in the story underscored the importance of the “enthusiastic” part of the new “enthusiastic consent” standard.
Not only must the woman’s satisfaction be guaranteed, but she must also be freed from the constraint of considering the needs and feelings of men. The Atlantic quotes the author of Cat Person:
She assumes that if she wants to say no she has to do so in a conciliatory, gentle, tactful way, in a way that would take “an amount of effort that was impossible to summon.” And I think that assumption is bigger than Margot and Robert’s specific interaction; it speaks to the way that many women, especially young women, move through the world: not making people angry, taking responsibility for other people’s emotions, working extremely hard to keep everyone around them happy. It’s reflexive and self-protective, and it’s also exhausting, and if you do it long enough you stop consciously noticing all the individual moments when you’re making that choice.
As Rollo observes in Dangerous Times Part 2, the new standard of enthusiastic consent will not just be applied to casual sex, but to sex within marriage as well:
What were witnessing here is the insertion of college campus consent laws into Marriage 2.0, and as designed its intent is to further disrupt marriage and family. Even in the old books presumptions about marriage a man could expect his commitment to a wife and family meant a plenary exchange of sexual access. But when enthusiastic consent is a prerequisite for legitimizing sexual encounters, anything resembling a woman’s putting out duty sex for her husband, even starfish lack luster obligatory sex is defined as rape.
This may sound far fetched, but in a way feminists are just catching up with conservative Christians, who clearly anticipated this feminist desire. For several years conservative Christians have been teaching that a wife’s sexual desire for her husband is a sign from God that her husband is a godly man, and a wife’s lack of sexual desire is God’s punishment for bad husbands. As Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, explained back in 2012, a wife’s enthusiastic consent is a sign that her husband is worthy in God’s eyes:
Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.
Pastor Dave Wilson and his wife Ann have been teaching this the same message at FamilyLife since at least 2015. Ann wasn’t attracted to Dave, so she wasn’t giving enthusiastic consent:
And I knew it, too, because our sex was terrible. I was so resentful when he touched me—it didn’t take a crockpot / it took for eternity. I could never, ever get used to Dave’s touch. It was a red signal going off…
Ann finally told Dave how she felt, and Dave realized God was speaking to him through Ann’s [non] burning bush:
Dave: Yes. Here’s all you need to know about that night—the thing that changed our marriage is when Ann was sharing with me what she felt—I had a pretty unique encounter with God. I sensed God was speaking to me, through Ann;
…and the word I heard from God was only one word: “Repent.” I knew, when I heard that word, what it meant—it wasn’t “Repent of being a bad husband,” or “…being gone too much.” It was: “Repent of your relationship with Me,”—God / vertical. See, I had been so busy that my walk with God was sort of on the fly—I wasn’t sitting with Him / I wasn’t studying His Word. I got into His Word—why? So I would have something to preach. I hadn’t been intimate with God in months.
And I knew it, too, because our sex was terrible. I was so resentful when he touched me
Ouch. Cue the “enhusiastic consent is what purifies sex” and makes it holy.
Of note…it wasn’t a red signal there was something wrong with her, it’s always the man’s fault. Perhaps her resent was the bigger issue. Perhaps her resent was the result of offending God in some way…perhaps she needs to repent. Nah it’s the husband’s fault, always.
Removing all risks and responsibilities for women is the continuation of blaming men for everything.
Now not only is (woman’s) consent the standard for sexual morality…but it will also include how she feels about the sex. Heaven forbid the courts take that approach when it comes to justice. We really need to get back to the God standard of what is licit and illicit sex…otherwise we will keep going down this road.
Every time you think it can’t get any dumber, it does.
Meanwhile, acquaintances of mine I argue with from time to time about the state of marriage and gender in our society are adamant that no True Scotsman – I mean nice church-going girl – would ever think this way unless they’ve explicitly stated so to me, so I have no reason to worry about what’s happening.
Pingback: Satisfaction guaranteed. | @the_arv
Yeah no, you guys can keep your marriages. Fuck this shit.
Cue the “enhusiastic consent is what purifies sex” and makes it holy.
YEah. Bad theology, right? Because “enthusiastic consent purifies sex” then leads to “it is good and right only if I am sexually attracted to him” and the converse, “If I am sexually attracted to him, then it’s a sign from God that this man is The One” and “God would not allow me to be sexually attracted to a bad man” and “if I am not sexually attracted to my husband, it is because my husband is in sin or is not following God well enough”.
And the kicker:
“My vagina prophesies for the Holy Spirit.”
It’s becoming harder and harder not to succumb to the “sit back, enjoy the decline, and let the m*****f***** burn” mindset.
And the kicker:
“My vagina prophesies for the Holy Spirit.”
Seriously, I think we’re very few years away from this becoming all-but-official-and-written doctrine in some evangelical churchian franchises.
At the rate these broads are going repressing sex, they are going to make the Puritans look like Lotharios.
Wouldn’t God love to know that his message is now being divined by the snatches of whores…
Heaven help us if our relativistic attitude gets to the point a woman’s sexual attraction is the basis for ALL morality. Their god complex means troubling times for men.
The only ones in this set-up who are having the sexual natures ‘repressed’ are those men not deemed attractive enough. This is just complaining when she doesn’t orgasm properly or when the appropriate resources she thinks her vag deserve are not forthcoming.
We are already there if you haven’t noticed.
One of my worst sins in my previous church was having an unhappy wife….
@ Dalrock
Non-burning bush will be hard to top.
You really have a way with words. Another great one that’s educational, cutting, humorous, and annoying all at once.
This is just a regression to pre-Christian, pre-Greco/Roman Goddess fertility cults, where, yes, female sexuality and procreativity were precisely what was worshiped. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
When did being a holy roller turn a woman on? How then do you explain all the intense take me in the bathroom sex that they love ? Smh
These women have elevated themselves to be goddesses who are devoid of sin and simply perfect in every way. If they (heaven forbid!) experience a negative feeling then it obviously isn’t something they’ve done wrong now is it? Because they’re a goddess! Some evil, vile, man must have sinned against their holiness!
Earl
At the rate these broads are going repressing sex, they are going to make the Puritans look like Lotharios.
The Puritans were enthusiastic supporters of sex as part of marriage. There still exist copies of 17th century Puritan marriage manuals that include sections on “sexual congress”, i.e. intercourse. Puritans in New Englad would even go so far as to chide men who had not “approached” their wives often enough.
The myth of sexually repressed Puritans was invented by 19th century fiction writers as far as I can tell.
This is more along the lines of mythic matriarchies that feminists used to chatter about. It’s like a modernized version of Margaret Mead’s fictional “science” in Coming of Age in Samoa, or Gimbutas fantasies about the Scythian tribes.
Of course TradCons, being the sock puppets of feminism, will find a way to embrace the new “enthusiastic consent” standard. Because “For the WOMEN!” is always root password to the Constitution for those brain dead pedestalizers.
It would all be laughable, if not for the way laws have constantly mutated for the last 40+ years.
Well, isn’t it a shame that crap like this is the face of the Christianity in America.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pastor-standing-ovation-admitting-sexual-incident-article-1.3747183
It was a tongue in cheek comment.
Satisfaction guaranteed, or your virginity back!
Wouldn’t God love to know that his message is now being divined by the snatches of whores…
He saw this coming long before Adam and Eve were even blueprints. It would be very interesting, though, to hear women try to rationalize and justify such blasphemy as they stand before the judgment table.
One of my worst sins in my previous church was having an unhappy wife….
Along with “oracular vaginas,” getting de-fellowshipped for letting your wife be unhaaaaaaaaaaaaaappy will become a fact of life for any man ignorant, masochistic, and stupid enough to remain in the Western church. Or are we already there?
If I were to question his thesis to him, I’d go Protestant on the bit (he is Southern Baptist after all). Where in Scripture does God say this is the case?
The original explanation I think is that “enthusiastic” is a legalistic term meaning “uncoerced, freely given”. So its now morphing into mean “strong, exuberant, intense desire”. If that’s the case, then that belief is inconsistent with traditional marriage,
Talking of mission creep, this “enthusiastic consent” was meant to prevent cases where a partner (normally the woman) was physically or legally unable to say no. Severely intoxicated, asleep, underage, “paralyzed with fear” (which according to feminists can happen frequently and unpredictably to women mid sex). Nows it morphing into meaning “completely free of any doubt or hesitation” which requires the initiating partner (i.e. male) to virtually be a mind reader.
Off Topic: Some time ago a Mr. Schuchardt interviewed Hugh Hefner. Christianity Today reprinted the article, but edited out a number of things. What exactly did CT censor? All the arguments which showed how pornography has made women more like men. That was the message which CT didn’t want to spread.
A comparison of the original interview with the CT article is available below:
https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/10/02/hugh-hefner-porn-and-the-homosexualization-of-sex/
Well of course she doesn’t want sex with her husband.
That’s what Chad,Tyrone,and HarleyMcbadboy are for.
The modern married man has to accept his cucking,and the churches are more than willing to help.
If hubby doesn’t like it,he can talk to Killer Joe, Sixgun from the Sheriff’s dept.
Two redflags I watch out for in any consideration of a woman as a romantic interest are:
1. does she give off the impression that I am seen as nothing more than someone out of a romcom (romantic comedy)? Does she make any attempt to understand, much less consider, my struggles and viewpoints?
2. does she suffer in any degree from ABT Syndrome or AnythingButThis Syndrome, a term I made up to describe a woman who is extremely self-centered and destructive to any man because her emotions are too dominant. She doesn’t have the ability/maturity to come up with solutions and alternatives, instead choosing to complain and eventually poison the relationship out of a need to ‘be free’.
Then there is the obvious sign that a woman is potential trouble when you try to find out her ‘moral center’, the set of values upon which she makes serious ethical decisions.
Why is there this focus on women achieving an elevated level of sexual satisfaction (rather than the nuts-and-bolts aspect of temporal stress relief that encompasses a lot of sexual desire for men. Sure, we also want to ‘reach those heights’ but every time? Yeah right).
Possible reasons:
1 they simply want to sh!t test their men, keep them on a tight leash;
2. they want to hide the fact their desires are just as, if not more, base and physical than men’s in order to perpetuate the female mystique
3. they are chasing after the high of peak sexual experience from their young age. To return to God, so to speak.
4. feminist groupthink has pervaded their thinking so they automatically follow the latest trend.
The thing that’s really messed up about this is that the feminists aren’t wrong about the problem, just the solution. For a woman, it can be very difficult to say no to somebody. Women will sometimes sleep with a guy they don’t want to sleep with because they can’t say no. We’re simply wired that way. However, society used to protect us from this by making sure most women wouldn’t find themselves in that position; ie, confining sex to marriage, ensuring that older family members had a say in who their daughters married, and so on. I think that a reasonable amount of social protection is a very good thing (expectations and rules, not stoning and burkas).
But feminists just want to punish men. As usual, they find their own shortcomings, decide that it’s a man’s job to fix it for them instead taking personal responsibility or re-evaluating their point of view, and then throw a hissy fit when they don’t get what they want.
I wonder what the churches will have to say when it’s the anal sex with strangers that satisfies her
Goddess.
I guess it will be ok, we’ve already got queer marriages going on in there.
God knows a happy woman is a Godly woman.
Let the lesbians roar from the pulpit.
Lovecraft
ABT Syndrome or AnythingButThis Syndrome,
Succinct, accurate description of something way too common.
Excellent.
It’s difficult for a guy to get rejected but no one cares about protecting a guy. These STRONG EMPOWERED WOMEN are unable to tell a guy no. It’s ridiculous.
“Into this steps “Cat Person,” a New Yorker fiction story by Kristen Roupenian that explores how badly people can misread each other, but also how frightening and difficult sexual encounters can be for women, in particular…”
A couple of things stand out here:
-People do indeed badly misread each other. Especially women. If you don’t believe me, ask one about how many ex-boyfriends were “b@st@rds” and ”@rseholes”.
-If sexual encounters are frightening and difficult, then perhaps they should be confined to the context that God and civilization had intended them for: marriage.
Marriage, properly defined and applied, would mean that a given woman would take the time to properly assess a man so that he isn’t a abuser /flight risk /alcoholic / baby daddy of 12 / molester / crook. Even her father can have a long look at him and tell her he’s suitable or not.
A man then properly screened would then presumably be far less frightening and difficult, because he’s been screened to be a trustworthy, faithful, steady, calm, providing assuring, husband-material man.
So the solution, what protects women the most, is patriarchy and traditional marriage. This means that they all should flock back to it…..
…..Right?
Earl
It was a tongue in cheek comment.
Ah. You got me.
Ha Spike I know you’re being facetious, but sadly it seems casual sex with exciting dangerous bad boys is the best sex many women have. Sex with her husband cannot compare with the exciting rush that bad boy sex brings.
Pingback: Satisfaction guaranteed. | Reaction Times
-People do indeed badly misread each other. Especially women. If you don’t believe me, ask one about how many ex-boyfriends were “b@st@rds” and ”@rseholes”.
That’s not a problem of misreading. These women knew what their exes were, and that’s why they were attracted in the first place.
Earl — “It was a tongue in cheek comment.”
Anonymous Reader — “Ah. You got me.”
It was hard to tell. When I read the original comment, my thought was, “Well, that might intend one of two totally different meanings.“
“That’s not a problem of misreading. These women knew what their exes were, and that’s why they were attracted in the first place.”
I think the point was something like this —
1) It’s common “knowledge” that women are far more “people oriented” than men are, that they have an uncanny, almost infallible, ability to size up a person (especially a man, because we’re so “simplay”);
AND
2) if you ask women about their former “partners”, almost without exception, they will claim that they were deceived by him, that they just didn’t know, and couldn’t tell, that he was bad news.
Our society is very messed up: http://www.newnownext.com/arrest-troy-murder-lesbian-couple-myers-children/12/2017/
“Police have arrested two men in connection with the brutal murder of a lesbian couple and two children in Troy, New York, the Times Union reports. …
Authorities say that one of the defendants knew one of the victims but did not provide a motive for the murders. Both men have criminal records and Mann is on parole.
“For a woman, it can be very difficult to say no to somebody.”
I’ll show you a billion men who say otherwise.
I wonder if men will be able claw back money that wasn’t enthusiastically given?
What are we to make of a sexual encounter that is technically consensual, but which Margot still considers to be “the worst life decision” she’s ever made?
We’re supposed to consider it the worst decision she’s ever made. Period. We can hope that she would learn from the experience, but that would require introspection. Instead, it’s easier to just blame men and society in general. Such is the solipsistic female mind.
On another note, low quality Rachel has deleted her blog once again. I think we scared her of the internet.
-If sexual encounters are frightening and difficult, then perhaps they should be confined to the context that God and civilization had intended them for: marriage.
But there’s no dramain that! Remember, all humans need food, oxygen, and water to survive. Women, in addition to those three, also need drama.
Of course it’s the solution…but that would mean feminists would have to give up this idea of ‘strong, empowered, independent’ nonsense along with blaming men for all their faults when that path in life leads to failure. That’s not going down without a fight.
1) I still think that a marriage vow gives consent to sex, that continues until divorce. Else, what meaning is there to the vows from a man’s POV? He could just pick up a blank Power of Attorney form from his local county courthouse, fill it out giving her permanent rights to 100% of his property and future income, sign it, and hand it to her, and accomplish the same thing as modern marriage
2) I think I remember that chronic refusal of conjugal was called “Marital Abandonment”. What was the standard for how long that act took to constitute legal divorce grounds? IMO it should just annul the marriage upon hitting the time limit of, say, one year. That is, alimony or other income transfer for ANY reason, receiving assets, etc., would be automatically ruled out.
“Women will sometimes sleep with a guy they don’t want to sleep with because they can’t say no. We’re simply wired that way.”
No, sweetheart.
Unless you are:
A) mentally deficient,
B) a mute, high-level quadriplegic,
or, C) ravished by horny space baboons with mind-control rays,
you can always say no to sex.
Even if you posess a vagina. Even if it feels lousy to do so.
Lying to yourself about your capacity and culpability for sin is bad. Lying to others about the nature of sin is really bad.
These things make Jesus sad.
(Churchians’ avid acceptance of this sort of deception is what’s sad. At least feminists have the excuse of serving satan. And/or abject stupidity. lol.)
“She assumes that if she wants to say no she has to do so in a conciliatory, gentle, tactful way, in a way that would take “an amount of effort that was impossible to summon.” And I think that assumption is bigger than Margot and Robert’s specific interaction; it speaks to the way that many women, especially young women, move through the world: not making people angry, taking responsibility for other people’s emotions, working extremely hard to keep everyone around them happy.”
WTF? This is fiction. Do writers like Kristen Roupenian actually live in the real world, where the phrase “mean girls” came about for a reason? As for getting turned down, enough women reject men insensitively that the “laugh off” is a Hollywood punch line — and one that rings pretty true.
If anything this writer wrote is true, please direct me to where all these women are who “take responsibility for other people’s emotions” are. I’d like to live there.
@cynthia
Except for the fact that they can say ‘no’. Of course, most of the time the outcome matches the intention, and the justification comes after the fact (not just the “born that way” reason, either).
Glenn Stanton has found a time machine, is posting to 12 / 2017 from somewhere back 20+ years ago.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/12/20272/
This is terrible. There is a few pearls of truth here and there. But it makes the mistake of putting the blame for decrease in marriage, increase in out-of-wedlock sex and babies, etc. on men. All the blame on men.
“Ask women today their biggest obstacle to achieving this goal. It’s not a shortage of males, but of responsible adult males. Men. If they cannot find marriageable men, they often go with other choices. ”
You see, women inherently want to marry safe reliable responsible men, but are forced by circumstance to chase hawt exciting bad boys, because they are the only men available.
Earl,
Many only use the Scriptures when it supports their point, even those who claim to base their lives on it. They may pull a few “proof texts” out to prove an errant point, but most just ignore that.
The same pride in their own position those in the RCC were getting challenged for in another thread is just as common among those who claim to follow God’s Word, unfortunately.
Cynthia,
I think this is rarer than you think. They don’t want to have sex when they should (in marriage, with their husbands), but they do want to have it sometimes when they shouldn’t. They are not the inherently chaste beings who just can’t say know this type of statement implies.
It is also often a decision made in retrospect, after they have done something that didn’t turn out the way they wanted – another attempt to avoid consequences.
Though taking this argument seriously would indicate that women need to be firmly controlled to keep them from being pressured into something bad. Few would accept that, even those who enthusiastically support the idea.
Most church goers today ironically blame God far more for things going bad in life that He had nothing to do with (directly at least) than they do of women who directly cause their own problems.
Women are sages, God is a murderer. Annoys me to no end.
“Women will sometimes sleep with a guy they don’t want to sleep with because they can’t say no.”
Women have no problem saying no to a date they don’t want to go on. But sometimes they do agree to go on a date even though they know they aren’t attracted to the guy at all, but hey, it’s a free dinner and she wanted to feel desirable.
They do the same thing with sex. It’s just that less-than-ideally-engaged-in-sex has bigger psychological repercussions for women, in my opinion, based on the same instincts that make them choosy about who to have sex with in the first place.
The thing that’s really messed up about this is that the feminists aren’t wrong about the problem, just the solution.
Laughing my ass off.
This is just a regression to pre-Christian, pre-Greco/Roman Goddess fertility cults, where, yes, female sexuality and procreativity were precisely what was worshiped. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
“Procreativity”? Would that indeed we lived in a time when female procreativity was worshiped! No, the modern world doesn’t worship procreative women. They worship barren women who murder their own children.
Dave realized God was speaking to him
through Ann’s [non] burning bush
ROFL
@ tkatchev
No, Nova is right.
If you recall in the Bible, Moloch, some of the Baals, and other Canaanite gods had child sacrifices.
A bit more in the context of today’s culture: https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2016/09/21/usurpers/
Many people who claim to be Christians are deluded by the the idea of “progress,” but human nature is the same today as it was in the Bible. We worship the gods of money and selfishness. The culture offers human sacrifices and defiles what is holy and good.
@AR
Glenn Stanton has found a time machine, is posting to 12 / 2017 from somewhere back 20+ years ago.
That’s handy. Glenn Stanton writes an article in direct support of Novaseeker’s comment.
This is just a regression to pre-Christian, pre-Greco/Roman Goddess fertility cults, where, yes, female sexuality and procreativity were precisely what was worshiped.
Mr. Stanton doesn’t directly state ‘worship female sexuality’, but he does say:
– Men have become the weaker sex
– Womanhood is natural. Manhood is not
– Girls become women and their fathers must “bow to and honor it”
– Female sexuality has the power to create human civilization
– “If a particular man desires to be involved in the life of his child, it is the child’s mother, and she alone, who determines whether and how he may do this.”
– Etc.
These and other ideas presented in his article should link up perfectly with “Satisfaction Guaranteed”, and will no doubt be applauded by all women.
Disclaimer. I seized upon the remarks that perhaps can only be seen clearly through the red glasses, and I’m thinking Mr. Stanton doesn’t own a pair of those. Most men like that are unaware of the undercurrent generated when they write such things. I was like that myself once so I get it, but man, this stuff plays right into the hands of what Rollo calls the Feminine Imperative.
Mr. S does mention he is the father of four girls. That is probably a factor.
No, Nova is right.
If you recall in the Bible, Moloch, some of the Baals, and other Canaanite gods had child sacrifices.
He isn’t. Or, rather, he is only half-right.
Yes, it’s an old, very old pagan cult. But no, this cult has nothing to do with fertility or being feminine.
It’s a very ancient cult that worships the primordial chaos, which is viewed as a chthonic, dionysian force.
The very first ancient man was a monotheist who worshiped God the Father. The first leftist then invented a “Mother Earth” in opposition, which was supposed to be the opposite to God. (“Female” vs “Male”, “Earth” vs “Heaven”, “Amoral” vs “Moral”, “Irrational destruction” vs “Rational creation”, “Ugly” vs “Beautiful”, etc.)
There’s traces of this very early satanism everywhere — eco-nuttery about “saving mother Earth”, Chinese taoism, the myth of female irrationality, etc., etc.
But the key point, the very key point, is the fact that all this stuff has nothing to do with fertility, femininity or female political rights.
It’s just plain old satan worship in ancient pagan clothes. Women only go along with it because they’re susceptible to peer pressure and flattery. (Remember the story of Eve.)
What about men who have sexual intercourse with a woman – frequently a one-night stand – well it would be – but as to which the man thinks that it was just at best perfunctory, or that the woman was sexually clueless and at the same time insanely demanding or once about the act the man realised that she was entirely unattractive and thus he wanted it over in the shortest possible time which (you understand my meaning) became increasingly difficult of achievement. Do such men (and I am obviously having a quick rummage through my own past) have any legal recourse for these unsatisfying sexual experiences. I didn’t enjoy it. Had I known it was going to be that bad I would never have done it. I was misled but am now stuck with an N somewhat higher than I would prefer.
I got so fed up that I would then seduce the woman but just for the Lolz and then refuse to take her to bed or Game her and then fail to turn up for the date or on a date just go ghost – hey that other bar looks far more interesting. This tended to make women very unhappy and seemingly far unhappier than those women subjected to my Rapey encounters set out in the earlier paragraph. Men, Blue Pill white-knighted men would also tell me that i was a bastard and that ‘she really loves you but you treat her like dirt’ Envious yet critical.
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
“Women will sometimes sleep with a guy they don’t want to sleep with because they can’t say no. We’re simply wired that way.”
Yeah if that was the case there wouldn’t be so many husbands with stories of a dead bedroom marriage.
I don’t believe for a second a woman isn’t capable of telling a guy no to sex (or if she can’t where’s that strong empowered female they keep saying they are). Doing that act which puts her and her body in a vulernable state should be serious enough that she can say no.
Her moral compass is in her vagina. Clearly.
“But when enthusiastic consent is a prerequisite for legitimizing sexual encounters, anything resembling a woman’s putting out duty sex for her husband, even starfish lack luster obligatory sex is defined as rape.”
Initiate dread protocols.
“Ann finally told Dave how she felt, and Dave realized God was speaking to him through Ann’s [non] burning bush”
Dalrock, that is pure gold! Well played, sir.
BTW, even if Ann wasn’t really into her conjugal duties with her husband, hasn’t she ever heard of “lay there and take it”?
Mr. S[tanton] does mention he is the father of four girls. That is probably a factor.
Add his wife to the mixture, and the poor slob is drowning in an ocean of estrogen. This is tbe overriding factor in explaining his manginic ways.
It’s indeed very hard to not get cynical.
Be aware that history has shown the collapse of many societies after moral decline. Prepare!
Sexual immorality is one of the few sins for which Christians are explicitly warned to actually flee.
Somehow that message has fallen on many deaf ears and cold hearts.
“Enthusiastic consent” here implies for me that the authentic purpose for the act of sex has been regarded as only an act. If you are indeed an unwilling participant then you surely do not know your self. The act is therefore more important than the reason for the act. If this is true, then there is probably much more in your daily life that you approach in this way. #anunconnectedlife
I think I remember that chronic refusal of conjugal was called “Marital Abandonment”. What was the standard for how long that act took to constitute legal divorce grounds? IMO it should just annul the marriage upon hitting the time limit of, say, one year. That is, alimony or other income transfer for ANY reason, receiving assets, etc., would be automatically ruled out.
The legal system has decided, in a de factor fashion, that women are not to be legally bound by anything that resembles a binding contractual obligation. In making this a reality the Law has, obviously unintentionally, put women in the same category as infants (the legal term for anyone not yet of majority age). May some legal mind far sharper than mine make an unimpeachable legal case that this has removed from women any legal right to oversee any aspect of their own affairs (hint: all that is needed is for said legal genius to borrow Glen Stanton’s time machine and go back a mere 125 years or so to when most of the Western world recognized this obvious fact and saw to it that women had proper guardianship accordingly. Again, the wisdom of generations gone concerning the sexes, which we have chosen to discard, proves that we moderns are the true savages).
From the Stanton article.Womanhood is a natural phenomenon. A female’s biological make-up usually ensures that she will grow into a healthy woman. Leave her to herself, and it’s likely to happen. It’s why the phrases “woman up,” “be a woman,” or “make a woman out of her” don’t exist.
The opposite is true of manhood. As George Gilder explains pointedly in Men and Marriage, “Unlike a woman, a man has no civilized role or agenda inscribed in his body.” The boy has no onboard GPS directing him toward his future. His transition into manhood can only come into being with significant, intentional work by other men. As a behavior, manhood must be learned, proven, and earned. As an identity, manhood must be bestowed by a boy’s father and the community’s larger fraternity of men. His mother can only affirm it. “ Glen Stanton
Womanhood is NATURAL. They don’t need to be taught anything. Apparently they have an internal GPS directing them to their future.
Manhood on the other hand cannot be found unlesss taught to them. It must be simultaneously EARNED and BEQUEATHED.
Well I’m starting to use the phrase woman up because I don’t believe that nonsense. And plus the majority of women are acting childish.
The new feminist consent is a ruse. Regardless of if it is ‘given’ with great enthusiasm, it can be retroactively revoked at any time. Consent cannot be truly ‘obtained’ by men for purposes of self protection.
The arguments over consent are to distract men from realizing that they have no rights, so men will chase after what they cannot obtain.
“Women will sometimes sleep with a guy they don’t want to sleep with because they can’t say no.”
This sounds like something Emma Sulkowicz would say.
Womanhood is NATURAL. They don’t need to be taught anything. Apparently they have an internal GPS directing them to their future.
Manhood on the other hand cannot be found unless taught to them. It must be simultaneously EARNED and BEQUEATHED.
If so, then the world is in a heap of trouble. Women now have child custody most of the time, and no woman is qualified to teach or bequeath manhood to her sons. You can’t give what you don’t have.
But I am confident that this charade won’t last long, since nature is self-correcting. The whole top-heavy feminism edifice will soon collapse under its own weight. Some women are already seeing the handwriting on the wall, and are taking notes.
Men must strive to abolish the so-called family court system. Marriages, from the state perspective, should be treated purely as contracts, guided by the ordinary laws. Divorces should follow predetermined terms of the contracts, and no judges are needed, unless there is a dispute between the parties.
I ahev expressed very real concerns about this trend, and how it ties into all the #MeToo crap going around. My concern is that my daughter will not find anyone worth marrying and having grandkids with (the holy grail for any married woman with kids in her 50’s)….they will be too smart and wary to marry, and they will be massive avoidance of young men to any semblance of relationships with woman in the not too distance future (i .e. today!)
At first my wife thought I was exaggerating…but with every new crazy #MeToo hashtag and items & articles like this, she has come around to my point of view, and actually shares my concern. My next act is to get her to woman up herself and her friends…think it is a great way to sham/dread today’s old woman to get the younger generation woman back in line.
Also, this is the reason my wife and I don’t go to church. Plus that fact that the local RCC church we registered with (both of us raised RCC) thinks that a young person just past the age of 7 should be baptized and have their first communion and confirmation with the same process…..um, no. Ridiculous the thinking that goes in today’d church institutions.
Feminists are predominantly masculine:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4158978/
Confirms the stereotype of the manjawed feminist. Too much T for a woman creates harpies.
Unrelated and kind of related at the same time, from our neck of the woods. A woman working as a contractor for our local county jail has been fired for taking selfies with inmates, one of whom was shirtless. Now according to this quote straight from the article, “Now investigators are busy pulling surveillance tapes to see if anything else may have transpired, perhaps something that these photos didn’t capture.” And I think we all know what that may mean. She was probably getting banged by them bad boys in the kitchen. Now it doesn’t say if she’s married and has children, although it does mention she has a Facebook account. If she is married and or with children, then it ties perfectly with this article. Beta husband can’t satisfy her, or she won’t let him second her up. Because, you know, consent, so she’s probably giving it up to inmates who may or may not have had sex in a while.
http://www.cbs7.com/content/news/Investigation-into-selfie-taken-with-Ector-County-Jail-inmates-is-far-from-over-468731703.html
The most laughable lie of the “enthusiastic consent” campaign is its slogan “Yes Means Yes.” The whole concept of “enthusiastic consent” is finding ways in which “Yes” does NOT mean “Yes.” Because if a woman consumes alcohol or other chemical substances, or is emotionally or psychologically vulnerable, or feels pressured or under duress, or feels obligated not to hurt somebody else’s feelings, or just doesn’t have her heart in it, etc., any “yes” she issues is invalid and any sexual activity done on the basis of that “yes” is rape.
This just seems to be a way of enacting Robin Morgan’s definition of rape:
But of course, we know that somebody can retroactively declare that her “affection and desire” was not “genuine” and so it was rape all along.
“Women will sometimes sleep with a guy they don’t want to sleep with because they can’t say no.”
This sounds like something Emma Sulkowicz would say.”
My elders, but oddly enough, especially older female relatives, had a saying: a man goes as far as a woman wants. If a woman wants sex and she doesn’t say no or push a man away, the man will take it as a cue. Or even if deep inside the woman wants no sex, but if she’s doing it for say, and acting gig that might land her an Oscar and she doesn’t walk out, the man will take it as a cue.
“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire”
This is a pretty vague statement. For one, what if she hits on a man and he doesn’t want her. Will it count as rape if the roles are reversed? And because men aren’t allowed to initiate contact because of rape allegations, what then? Women will accuse men of not “manning up” and engaging in conquering them.
Pingback: How to guarantee satisfaction. | Dalrock
That’s probably by design.
Of course not. Just like only white people can be guilty of racism, only men can be guilty of rape (or domestic violence). Feminist/progressive special pleading.
Morgan said it has to be “initiated by the woman.” It mentions no such reciprocal requirement for the man to initiate or have “genuine affection or desire” on his part.
Women already make that accusation. I presume some men will find being labeled “unmanly” preferable to being labeled “rapist.”
Pingback: Digit ratio redux | Christianity and masculinity
Women are destroying their own idols. First they insist on being their own betas and “outperforming” dominant alphas (with huge social engineering efforts) undermining both provider attraction (settling) and hypergamy. Now with #metoo they’re basically making evidence of preselection a crime in itself.
It’s fixing to be a desert in those parts…
So as I understand it: a man owes his wife fidelity, support (financial and otherwise), all his attention, deference, and great sex (by her standards). Anything else? And a woman owes her husband absolutely zip. Correct?
And a woman owes her husband absolutely zip.
Well, now, wait a just a minute.
You forgot her awesomely awesome awesomeness that she allows him to experience…he could even get to wear the T-shirt, if he’s nice.
https://empathological.wordpress.com/2017/06/04/a-name-so-powerful-it-could-be-like-having-bullet-proof-bracelets/
Robert What: Nice softball, thanks. It’s sad how Stanton and most Prot pastors would answer. Stanton says they owe notbing because they are so perfect. Church says the same and adds some bible to it for good measure by saying, she only owes God, nobody else. Then they might ask you a question, “Are you dumb, what part of servant-leadership don’t you get?”
The whole concept of “enthusiastic consent” is finding ways in which “Yes” does NOT mean “Yes.”
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/547e507fe4b0c3afcacef95a/t/553544cbe4b0b546116be407/1429554387137/
The most laughable lie of the “enthusiastic consent” campaign is its slogan “Yes Means Yes.”
It’s actually beyond Yes Means Yes (YMY). The YMY standard was criticized by feminists because “yes doesn’t always mean yes” (as in the photo linked in this thread, the Cat Person story, etc.). So “enthusiastic consent” is a step beyond YMY, or rather YMY on steroids, because not only must she say yes, she must also do so enthusiastically. If the sex is consensual, but she isn’t enthusiastic about it, it’s rape.
This standard, it has been pointed out, makes almost all sex with betas rape, and much marital sex rape. It basically says that sex with men who are not alphas is most likely rape most of the time.
ya know this whole consent thing could be made simpler.
But most wants to have sex with whoever they want/can. So we can’t use in marriage/out of marriage as a deliniator. I know I know, how early 1900s? (1800s? 1400s?) of me to say that only married people should be having sex.
@jonnycomelately “I wonder if men will be able claw back money that wasn’t enthusiastically given?“
Of course not but the corollary would actually be if men could have women arrested for theft with respect to money not enthusiastically given.
You’re right, of course. However, a lot of the feminist propaganda corps are still conflating the two. I’ve seen feminist activists and organizations simultaneously use the “Yes Means Yes” line while promulgating the “enthusiastic” and “affirmative” consent requirement.
The book that popularized the “enthusiastic consent” requirement was entitled “Yes Means Yes!”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Means_Yes
The California law which mandated this “affirmative consent” standard for colleges was referred to as a “Yes Means Yes” law.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/09/29/352482932/california-enacts-yes-means-yes-law-defining-sexual-consent
The website YesMeansYes.com says:
https://www.yesmeansyes.com/consent
So even though it’s dishonest for feminists/progressives to say “Yes Means Yes,” that hasn’t stopped them from chirping the line to sell their new wave of sexual criminalization policies.
From the Stanton article.
This guy is a 24-karat idiot. Of course he is by no means unusual for his “vocation…”
Isn’t it funny how we went from full sexual liberation to having it only count as true sex (and everything else is rape) with it is with enthusiastic consent.
Then again when you have relativistic standards on sexual morality, that’s what you get.
@Lost Patrol
Mr. Stanton doesn’t directly state ‘worship female sexuality’
Au contraire. Go back and read that article again. Stanton is pretty much a living example of Novaseeker’s point about the modern church devolving into fertility cults and goddess worship. He certainly seems to have no qualms about admitting that he himself is in thrall to the feminine:
“He must bow to it and honor it.”
No one should miss what he’s doing here. He’s taking the process of physical maturation that young people go through and deeming it to be a mark of moral maturation as well — but only for females. Stanton marvels about how he has daughters that are little girls now, but will one day undergo a physical change that will leave them “a different person,” who is naturally good and thus worthy of respect. OK. For point of comparison, I’ll point out that at the age of 6 I myself was a little boy in a household that was run by my full-grown father. But just 11 years later a few “natural changes” had made me both taller than him and more muscular than him, and physically able to challenge the rules that he’d set for his house if I’d wanted. Would Stanton — or anyone else in the modern church — ever be silly enough to believe that the natural processes that had made me a into “different person,” had also naturally made me into a better or righteous person? Or that my new powers were also naturally coupled with desires that were inherently moral, and could always be counted upon to be directed towards the good of society? No?
So then why do they believe this about girls who become women?
‘He must bow to and honor it. I’m the father of four girls. I know it all too well.’
Is this another example of DOOD (Dad’s of only Daughters or whatever it’s called) syndrome?
I know my dad didn’t bow down and honor me going through puberty…if anything he kept reminding me he was my father.
Is this another example of DOOD (Dad’s of only Daughters or whatever it’s called) syndrome?
That’s DODO (“Dad of Daughters Only”). And yes, it is a textbook example of the condition.
‘A father shudders at it, as it forever changes the way he interacts with “his little girl.” He must bow to and honor it.’
To me it sounds like he’s making it to where just because his girls are becoming women…he doesn’t have fatherly authority over them anymore. And if that’s the case…heaven help his daughters.
@Earl
Is this another example of DOOD (Dad’s of only Daughters or whatever it’s called) syndrome?
Not quite. Stanton’s official bio says that he’s a father of five, and with him talking about his “four daughters” that presumably means there’s at least one son in there. He doesn’t talk much about him in his work. Probably just a coincidence . . .
I stumbled on this Fabius Maximus article from a couple years back. It shows the lyrics for several Taylor Swift songs. Now you just hear these songs in the background and never pay much attention to what they are saying, but when you read the lyrics they are quite explicitly about the thrills of bad boy sex. It seems most of her songs have been on this theme. These songs were all carefully crafted to appeal to girls and young women, so what does this say about the inherent angelic virtue which Stanton thinks all girls possess?
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/05/02/taylor-swift-how-women-relate-to-men-83800/
this god sounds like he doesn’t care at all about men.
that presumably means there’s at least one son in there.
I bet that poor kid hasn’t gotten a word in edgewise in that household in years.
Pingback: Vagina worship. | Dalrock
Pingback: Dog bites man, women and children hardest hit | Zippy Catholic