Why Men Rape - Aeon
Until we treat rapists as ordinary criminals we won't stop them.
"Conservative men: Women’s bodies are private property.
Liberal men: Women’s bodies are public property"
Women merely exist for the sake of "commercialized female sexuality" (commercialization is the process of total objectification) for male servicing in market terms, which can make more for free market capitalism as an exploited commodity than can fabricating the arms race, as it is rooted in life principle as opposed to a death principle. -As you can see, the social conditioning is working very well (and obviously has nothing to do with religious imposed 'morality'):
Just the artificial (fake) commodification of sexual hetero union in itself is the foundation of unparalleled fortune. "Romanced by the Stone" -Word. "Fashion"
Nutshell: Don't fall for the secularization of patriarchy pitched as gender liberation, because that's what they're selling to anyone below Generation X. In the interest of its preservation it's a wet dream come true.
Fallen Angels: The True Cost of Sex Tourism, Phillipine's Fatherless Kids - RT -fun fact: in the Phillipines, only the sex workers are criminalized, not the buyers
Unethical practices produce New York Times’ ‘sex work’ story - Feminist Current
Secularism has no particular claim on civilizing impetus. The secular courts involved in the witch-burning hysteria were more brutal and more selfishly motivated than the religious courts, and preceded them as well. (The lack of codification allowed bias (meted as open barbarism) to rule even more strongly.)
We now return you to the regular de-programming, -back to the essay:
This is still an apt summation of the entire mentality of the US medical profession with its bottom line incentive to profit to this day. This article exhibits the social disaster that is artificial pacemakers for profit by one individual example; this the existing financial disaster of one treatment, colonoscopy, where it is said “total spending on health care would eventually account for all of the country’s economic output”. In a nation that has gutted its manufacturing base, what else would be the goal, and why practice preventive medicine and nutrition when illness is the engine of the economy (apart from (foreign) oil and the military). This is the reigning conflict of interest (and it is still attacking herbalism; consider that growing well over 100 herbs was made illegal in Canada (as an illegitimate subsidy against the pharmaceutical profession) with the ratification of the FTA).
Though this is subject to argument, there is no question that Medicare and Medicaid are exploited (unnecessarily milked) to obtain funds from the government for needless procedures. In the same manner that the industrial military complex is simply a massive system for the transfer of public wealth to the private sector, this is what the system best serves, i.e., in this structure, massive waste and over spending is also the equivalent of mass “profit”. As the military industrial complex is inherently doomed to promulgate war for profit (to the point of outright fabrication of the cause), the same incentive exists when it comes to medical procedure for profit, with waste spending of the government’s “free” money creating a climate where medical fraud is profit, which taints the entire practice’s mentality in terms of its goals to the point of the ensuing question, is anyone actually dedicated to preventing cancer or is it simply a growth industry? (The answer is an obvious one; too obvious in fact.) This type of fraud is eradicated in a universal healthcare system (or at least protected against), as the entire medical system is in fact invested in not bankrupting universal healthcare (unless they are so profit mongering motivated as to opt for a system that ends up spending nearly double per capita and a third more as a percentage of the GDP, despite 70% of health care spending being covered by the Canadian government, vs. only 46% in the US). It has of course been argued at length how these are the vestiges of a centuries old system of patriarchy. It is so entrenched you can’t even reform it. (Interesting? –Yes.)
That the doctrine of patriarchal dominance appears to be inherently abusive might seem to be indicative globally, given its still present religious effect in other faiths. It was pervasive in the so called civilized western cultures in the institutionalized ethical forms (Christian religion). Their enforcement in culture was hardly benign, considering the outcomes of sexual abuse by the celibate repressed priesthood, and particularly in their educational or “charitable” dispensations working hand in hand with governments, namely boarding schools and workhouses for the “wayward”, not to mention forced adoption programs that removed tens of thousands of children from unwed mothers. The same happened to many young Irish women, though this was far from simply being a national or Catholic systemic abuse of female slave labour. This consideration is based on the lurid institutionalized abuse resulting in Church run institutions, not to mention the rash outbreak of sexual abuse by the priesthood /(nun hood) in which spiritual dominance conferred to the priesthood combined with the enforcement of celibacy eventually malformed into the physical inversion of massive institutional child and child sexual abuse (you can tell a tree by its fruit, though to point out that the priesthood’s abuse record is actually lower than that abuse rate of males on children in the general population may well be a sound argument; the real metric is patriarchy, and it is even more uncivilized when not institutionally run).
This however does not manage to somehow sanction the level of systemic child abuse concealed (and thereby aided and abetted) by the Church, as well as what happened in an array of Church run institutions. The defense that it is no worse in the rest of [secular or other] patriarchal society is a pretty lame duck argument in terms of holy leadership; it points to the homogeneity of patriarchal society in generating the climate conducive to sexual abuse, tacitly sanctioned within as well as without the faith, and certainly not reformed by it, when it is society that has called the Church to account. The dispensation of rape culture as defended and acceptable thrives in its most fundamentalist confines.
In Canada (where this patriarchal dispensation was toxically conjoined with racism) there were average death tolls ranging over 60% in the (Catholic and Anglican run) forced attendance residential schools used to forcibly culturally obliterate Native Americans one by one, killing them literally as well as culturally. According Dr. Peter Bryce (Medical Inspector for the Department of Indian Affairs), students were deliberately kept with classmates who had tuberculosis, with whole classes of children being forced to attend despite being too ill to learn. (Arriving at documentation on this page is by no means an endorsement.) There was also the matter of the electric chair. There is also an existing eye-witness account of infanticide in a residential school (an infant born to a twelve year old in the school basement was killed by hurling the newborn into the school furnace as soon as it was born); the infant was conceived by the priest who murdered it. These legacies do not simply vanish (though the children did).
The 1885 to 1951 ban has led to a patriarchal culture where women are excluded from leadership - CBC
Not to avoid the fact that the above was unleashed not by patriarchal sexism but racism, it still begs the consideration that it was religious institutions and faculty performing this genocide and religious teachers rather than those trained as educators who were specifically recruited for the purpose. As Catholics and Anglicans, they were indoctrinated in a religious system that established from the very inception of Creation within its Holy Book the treatment of one gender as subordinate. It was the attempted justification of this mentality by objectifying women negatively in order to rationalize this tenet that could lead to qualifying other cultures as even less than sub-human in order to qualify genocide. Racism was not Biblically entrenched (it would more accurately fall under the then existing inherent suppositions of discrimination between the seamless self-identity of respective god mythologies and their tribe/city-states, where all were vying for the same supremacy, just the same way slavery was socially acceptable, systemic and hence codified).
Discriminatory sexism was entrenched in the Bible however, and sexism is far more lethal and insidious a division in the sense that by dividing the genders and making one inherently subordinate and inferior, you have already proven capable of attacking and imposing division within the self-same species, literally dubbing one half of the species less human than the other. Once you are capable of institutionalizing and enforcing that division for centuries (one which is in fact inherently self-attacking), you’ve created a mindset that is far more capable of attacking other humans of far different culture and appearance and technology than yourselves on the pretext that they are also (and by disparity of difference far more) sub-human than yourselves. Thus it was the established subordination of gender that provided the springboard for entrenching and establishing the racist pretexts to qualify the North and South American genocides (and prolonged African slavery) as also being of God. And by highlighting this core discrimination I am by no means imputing it exclusively, as Deuteronomy is effective enough. That is what you might call the seed that provides a template of Godly dispensation for any exclusionary racist imperative as genocide (which in the Americas it certainly was), based on God’s command to Joshua in the conquest of Canaan. Polytheism meant death. While Chirstianity has a whole body of argument as to why the Old Testament law became inaplicable with the advent of Jesus, eclipsing these dictates, that evaulation would depend on how they metasticized throughout history and whether the verses were used to support the North and South American genocides and enforce slavery. It seems a sure predication. Of course Paul insured that the subjgation of women was not left behind, but carried into the New Testament.
I am pointing out the potential lethal elimination of empathy when it is instituted at the level of gender, and what a far more dangerous lethal toxicity of justification that will naturally generate in a matter of race, when the divide already exists more fundamentally in a manner that eliminates empathy. (The witch burnings were proof enough of this.) While there is an absolutely un-qualifiable luridness to history, it is fully conceivable that the current prevalent disproportionate mass abuse (of females) will maintain the omnipresence of being so high as 1 in 4, ranging to an astronomical figure of 45% of European women experiencing either sexual or physical violence (1 in 4 of female students in the UK), 1 in 5 women being raped in the US, 1 in 4 SA males being rapists).
This maintained trend or status quo can be argued as prevailing in secular society thanks to immoral “liberated” forms of abuse (overt rather than covert forms) as ethical social mores go through an upheaval which has deliberately been subverted into hyper-sexualisation for the sake of commodification (directed further and further youth wards, though her assertion of these porn trends arising from hatred is a misnomer, it’s a decidedly more primal backlash), basically the prevalent depiction of females as no more than male sex objects in advertising (who was really impelling Kate Moss’s push of the envelop), to the extent of becoming a viable industry (porn) which then diversified and re-assimilated back into popular culture as it went hard-core, resulting in the increased pervasive awareness of sex in general, but only in the form of objectification/ gratification/ abuse/ power (leading to mass modification). It is merely the hyper-obsession that creates the result of objectification; when so much of the popular culture is consumed and dedicated to sex and the sex object; there is little room for alternative or considered thought, just by virtue of sheer dominance. You will not stop this sort of economical juggernaut without enormous concerted resistance. It will fight to the last dime to justify itself. (Note the US is responsible for 89% of porn pages on the web, and note that the wealthier the demographic, the higher the consumption. –There’s your lobby.) Some of the largest revenue streams existent in the world today) largely subsist on the attack of women and their children; (-porn to the tune of 13+ billion dollars in the US, more than the NFL, NBA and MLB combined in the US alone, or 97 billion globally, just slightly below the GDP of the Dominican Republic, apparently ; “If this industry was a country, it would be ranked 36th in the world.” Prostitution? -$32 bil/yr -?)
“Of the 304 scenes analyzed [in the best-selling pornography videos] , 88.2% contained physical aggression, principally spanking, gagging, and slapping, while 48.7% of scenes contained verbal aggression, primarily name-calling. Perpetrators of aggression were usually male, whereas targets of aggression were overwhelmingly female. Targets most often showed pleasure or responded neutrally to the aggression.”
“Child pornography matters accounted for 82% of the growth in sex exploitation matters referred from 1994 to 2006” and “made 69% of sex offenses referred to US attorneys in 2006”.
If indeed 58% of all child pornography domains are hosted in the US, there is no argument that can defend to legitimacy of your liberalized culture in terms of its already existent social consequences. The level of directness of the sale is about the only difference. The trajectory of popular culture, its assimilation of porn on the web, (including the assimilation of its trajectory) has accompanying requisite social trends: concerted peer pressure demand for sexting and pornographic imagery, cyber-stalking and sexual blackmail that tends to target young girls, the marked increased prevalence of minor on minor child sexual abuse perpetrated mainly by male children, the attendant prevalence of gang rape in modern civilized society (especially against female minors), the prevalence of spousal abuse and battery, date rape and abuse and drug induced rape, (especially with the prevalence of the binge use of alcohol among the young, which in terms of furnishing sexual predation is a double edged sword (yup), but not in the manner you presumed or expected by a patriarchally conditioned society).
The real indicator of how blanket exposure to unlimited depictions of every form of sexual abuse affects society is how sexual abuse is trending downward in age. If you have real questions about this trending, try isolating what sort of coercion women face in the bedroom (and teens in virtual chat with total strangers) face today; do a study of what is wanted by teens, and find out whether that corresponds to the trajectories defined by porn? The results are expectedly predictable (“22% [of teen girls] report [having] anal sex within the last 60 days” (current US survey out of Atlanta, 600 male adolescents) 20:35, 25:48), which it’s safe to predict will even be apparent in the crime trends of sexual abuse among minors, when they aren’t just blaming porn directly. Here porn was used to excuse the rape of a four year old and a rape by a twelve year old. Incidentally, how’s this for an observed cycle of conditioning? (Oh, it has no corrupting influence according to these studies; that certainly wasn’t the ruling of the court. To all those studies claiming no causality (and yet claiming it has led to a reduction in rape), causality cuts both ways. (-Wait a second...and you can now find the opposite. (Entire.) At the threshold where minor on minor court cases are demanding leniency on the basis that the rapists acted out what they’d viewed in pornography (and so being exonerated), this is the most basic of sound measures (Hurray, rejoinders 1, 2). It’s almost amusing to see how this culture of desensitization really exists and really can have existing results; couldn’t be more deserved. -First “take-away”? -Can we hope it will inhibit their breeding? (This mass sociological experiment might actually be sophisticated in its intentions.) It makes perfect sense, but the social toll exacted upon all the female teens who were abused in the course of these male teens attaining this level of dysfunction don’t register; none of its effect on the other gender a concern until it actually may become a male problem (which is just as sad (40:20). We will resort to “60 years of studies” even when the attribution between violent porn addiction and a murder is direct, the broader situation more nuanced.
By sanctioning anal sex when you already have a vagina (which has already been tacitly socialized as acceptable in teen promiscuity according to the above stat), you’ve tacitly informed the other gender you don’t mind if they put you at a completely unnecessary risk not only of rectal tearing, but a far higher risk of contracting sexual diseases. (To quote this link: “Oral sex is ten times safer than vaginal sex [but also not safe; all promiscuity carries risk; social sexual mores on monogamy are reality based]. Anal sex is five times more dangerous than vaginal sex and 50 times more dangerous than oral sex.”) There are other motivators, obviously (or women wouldn’t find any appeal and men wouldn’t be after it), but among teens especially (apart from the rampancy of this practice in porn), obviously a crude form of birth control is a prime one. This has been substantiated another national sex survey in 2010, with the percentage of practitioners (again) rising dramatically at younger age brackets. (The article (or study itself) obsequiously avoids the root for rise in demand from what gender.)
If you want a sense of the lethal efficacy of anal sex as a STD vector, you have only to consider the epidemiology of AIDs’ onset in North America, which community it took out first and to what extent, and what the primary risk factor was (in an aggregate) that allowed it to do this. Not fun reading, but readily available. Again this socialization trend is one that, while in this instance could conceivably put both genders further at risk for STD’s, in a masculine-feminine context greatly increases the risk of the female in terms of being coerced to opt for this instead of her vagina, which automatically placed her at greater STD risk in the first place. Given how rare, proportionately, penetration of males by females would be being performed and that this would be taking place by a device, once again the advent of this social trend is literally an attack on females in light of the inherent increased risk.
Moreover the social sanction of unlimited casual sex (based on unlimited availability capacity to modify cultural perception in this direction based on media saturation of the same) has unspoken consequences in terms of the prevalence of unwed childbirths that weigh far more heavily on women as primary caregivers (likely subjecting them and their offspring to a lifetime of struggle and impoverishment, when not being subject to concerted programs, say, of forced adoption), not to mention the disease consequences of promiscuity. A woman is more than twice as likely to contract AIDs from a male than vice versa due to penetration and ejaculation for example, with similar differences in risk being exhibited by other STDs (scroll down to “Women’s Biological Susceptibility to Infection” followed by “Women’s Greater Social Vulnerability to Exposure”). Hence the liberal graduation to sanctioned promiscuity inherently puts women at higher risk, not just of the risk of pregnancy and having to deal directly and solely with the outcome of a child without support (which face it, without our present social welfare safety net, would be a poverty sentence putting her and the offspring at great social risk (why the offspring were forcibly removed for adoption in recent history)); it also puts women at far higher risk of contracting disease as well.
The inherently conflicted vice grip is often joined at a fulcrum in terms of concerted coercion and desensitization on the one hand (it is “good” to be readily available to please males sexually and to only exist in terms of being sexually appealing, with males sanctioned to embark on an unlimited campaign of repeated individual seduction), working in direct but utterly illogical complement of total concerted ostracization on the other hand for a female who succumbs, a two edged sword dynamic resplendently thrown into relief as being fully in operation to this day in light of this suicide case (Amanda Todd, now seconded). No matter how young, no matter how sophisticated the sexual predator in this instance, the root cause was obliquely avoided and ignored; what got grandstanded was a generalization against “bullying”. The existing social climate (or causes, i.e., barely assessed social media impact (31:05)) that provided for this level of permissiveness and requisite, omnipresent, vicious backlash were hardly referenced or considered in this case, with practically nothing or no one breathing a consideration that the cause of her death was rooted in socially conditioned misogyny in the form of blame the victim (no kidding), - not to mention having generated the social climate that readily provided for her victimization in the first place. Even if she was an exhibitionist subsequent to having been so conditioned (first by the existing social climate (35:08) and then specifically initiated by a sexual predator), and so subsequently had a hand in victimizing herself, this remains true, because it was the hyper-sexualized society that conditioned her to seek validation in this manner and made it appear socially acceptable, and had indeed created a social climate of peer pressure where it became common to relate sexually at this level at her age (prematurely).
She was caught in the vice grip between astronomical social peer pressure whereby validation could only be granted as a sex object (at twelve years old), then condemned for having succumbed (so early), with practically no one in her social milieu reacting in terms of the existing reality that this was sexual predation of a minor, with the attendant considered enormity of how manifestly easy this had become to do. Rather she was treated as a “whore” for refusing to be blackmailed sexually, branded such for precisely what she’d refused to do. She was punished for having the temerity not to fully become a “slut” by relinquishing herself against her will to the sexual predator. For standing up to someone who was trying to force her to be an exhibitionist against her will, she was branded the exhibitionist.
And perhaps we have the further added absurdity that she attempted to liberate herself by staking out what was supposed to be the tacit accepted social reality of her peers, that she should have been fully within her rights, based on how she was constantly approached by males, to assert her right to autonomously be an exhibitionist and act as promiscuously as they were behaving towards her, but of course in terms of the opprobrium she received, this sanction appears to only work in one direction, i.e., if it satisfies male desires while in turn confining women socially to be most amenable to doing so. The reality was and is that these girls, when “outed” without their volition against their will by males abusing the access they’ve been given by wielding this as power (exacting revenge by dissemination), employing this access so that their objects are socially destroyed through wildfire voyeurism combined with public opprobrium, (the www being able to tag and follow them in ignominy for life), female victims are being subject not just simply to rape, but technology as an even more destructive form of social violence equivalent to rape in its process and even more devastating, a complete action of social violence employing the misogynistic norms that pervade the culture itself; the culture itself is so degenerate it is the bludgeon tool of personal abuse. What is of interest is that it is the society that provides these exploiters with such access in the first place through the hyper-sexualization of the culture, enabling sexual predators to access minors, while simultaneously it also provides them with the ability to destroy their objects if the situation doesn’t work according to their wishes, if they happen to be vindictive and easily betray trust. While the same level of cruelty exists in the vindictiveness between girls in competition (a framework also curried and directed by the present hyper-sexualisation of the culture (“these magazines claim to empower women and boost their body image, but when you look at their messages closely, many are just telling women how to lose weight and please their partners”), -impelling them to compete and culturally inculcating them with the notion that this is primary to their existence is just another form of subversion into patriarchal submission, as the competition is for males; it’s also a matter of divide and conquer, -oh and btw, this cultural stricture of accomplishment with the loss of virginity in college as the metric (where your success in engaging women’s promiscuity is social status)- costs everyone), -the level of social opprobrium for male exhibitionism at the same age could never hope to achieve the scale of concerted brutality that emotionally destroyed Amanda Todd.
It was Amanda Todd’s existing (so called liberated, progressive Canadian) society that furnished the threat of the male sexual predator and made it true, by targeting the victim rather than the predator, who in terms of his probable age was in all likelihood a pedophile, at least in virtual. It was the society that equipped the predator and carried out his threat of social ostracization, and did so quite automatically, after having also provided him the “liberated” cultural conditioning and social leverage he could employ to access to the victim in the first place, with the sexual predator tacitly being able to rely in turn on the culturally enforced moralistic repression brand of misogyny to destroy the victim. This is completely inculcated into the culture from both directions in a manner that best aids and abets the misogynist perpetrator, a social climate designed to best provide for and gratify male sexual predation, to the point of readily sacrificing a fifteen year old girl without the perpetrator having to do it. The society was so accommodating of her predation it was well capable of doing his dirty work for him. By this manifest reaction how we are raising her peers to treat others can readily be judged.
Instead of considering any boundaries to DIY rampant sexual abuse on the internet that fuels sadomasochism on film (which in turn makes inroads into the sexual socialization of our young), Forbes is falling over itself to defend the unlimited dissemination of sexual abuse with unlimited access; (sanctioning child rape (the only way these pictures come into existence) in the name of child free speech) –with a consistent prevalence of these articles. (they’re not the only one). -Um, when are we going to address the minor on minor sexual exploitation brought on by the unlimited dissemination that in turn facilitates broader, more perverse exploitation of minors? -It’s not like we can’t distinguish between interpersonal dissemination (right to privacy), such dissemination for malicious purposes (is it ironic they’d use this law on a female minor first) and the parasites of mass dissemination, or when child porn springs from interfamilial sexual abuse. This in fact points to the larger question of the social climate generating a complete inability to regulate against extreme sexual abuse and its depiction, meaning the socio-sexual climate is being “optimized” so that real sexual abuse becomes almost impossible to detect, i.e., rape and abuse in broad daylight is contested as “consensual”. That is the reigning idea. In the meantime, the culture has become so desensitizing and abusive that surveillance of minor on minor abuse using dissemination to abuse victims is a primary and legitimate concern now (legislation is having to be developed for “aggravated sexting” (37:53), which is primarily the psycho-social sexual abuse of minor females by minor males).
This is actually the primary pathway presently putting young vulnerable females at risk. Thanks to the climate of having imposed absolutely no social limits, we are now going to have to start dealing, legally, with minor on minor sexual abuse thanks to the level of social sanction of sexual solicitation and inundation of sex and sexualisation of females in media. Interpersonal social media dissemination is now being used to coerce and abuse on a mass scale, which also services child porn and paedophilia sites in the bargain without even realizing it. It would seem basic common sense when we’ve reached the threshold where we will now be compelled to deal with a huge swath of socially sanctioned minor on minor social media sexual abuse, mainly on the level of sexual blackmail, to consider back-pedalling on these trends as opposed defending the status quo by putting it on exhibit. It is no castigation of innocence and innocent transmission or casual culturally sanctioned nudity (all known not to be the issues, which can be protected by a right to privacy, which those coercing the images should also be protecting), but this is hardly in fact the larger social picture of what is going on with sexting and picture dissemination between minors, -quite the opposite. It is just another vehicle for social sexual oppression, with the majority of dissemination likely trending in the direction of interpersonal abuse by minor males on females in our present social context, simply transferring the power and ability of sexual abuse to the psychological plane thanks to the power and access and immediacy of social media, which actually is being employed as blackmail and coercion to furnish real sexual abuse. It is intrapersonal sexual violence of female minors that is presently the largest category in terms of domestic violence, and not just in the UK.
What is the implication, then, that when these stats are touted by Safe-Teen violence prevention, for example; -the group most at risk of becoming a member of this 1 in 4 [females will be sexually abused in their lifetime] statistic is children, followed by 14-18 year olds. –That’s astonishing. (It’s a pretty terrible article that can only apply social oppression and restriction rather than approaching the social roots; (the local underground Rave scene has endured for more than twenty years without any incidents like this, the problem is what becomes tacit social conditioning when we filter nothing and how this has affected the present generation, not the underground parties; if the kiddies hadn’t been saturated with every form of misogyny possible in the realm of rape and sexual debasement; they could congregate at underground parties without this happening (gang rape has proven far more prevalent in college fraternities, indicating the broadness of social sanction (to a rate of 70-90% of incidence. (Any bet as to whether it’s actually trending downward to high schools now?)). The stats are worthy of consideration.)
Has the law over-reached when not even in Canada can a sixteen year old obtain prosecution of the individuals who gang raped her in a drug induced coma (not even, in fact, of one of them) –with twelve witnesses, when the pictures and video of her gang rape were disseminated all over Facebook (where only public opprobrium garners any reaction)? Was it in fact beneficial (or vastly ironic) that the legislation provided that this public dissemination of the gang rape was at least able to be prosecuted was that for disseminating child pornography? (-With a tacit wrist slap of 12 months’ probation for deliberately condoning and disseminating drug induced gang rape.) This apparent impassivity to sexual violence among teens is deeply alarming; the implicit consideration is that a fair spectrum of dissemination between them hardly qualifies as harmless. This is the most vicious form of sexual attack extant, with its dissemination exhibiting the level of sanction between minors; after all, it is readily viewable in all manner of porn on the web without limit.
The threshold to the real world and that being the best realization of the scenario has already been breached; the minors themselves were so socially inoculated to this level of sexual depravity as to readily see no distinction in their conduct in the real world (where publically disseminating the rape was also “normal”), with the poster obviously thinking such dissemination was “cool”. Either witnesses condoned the gang rape (as many took and disseminated the photos), or were too afraid to even intervene to stop it. Twelve witnesses: not one willing to corroborate the rape allegation. What does that tell you? (It didn’t qualify in their regard as a crime just her stupidity. 37:06) All that footage, no prosecution, yet the police assert there was no denying what happened to her. What does that tell you? What does the nature of retribution in the judicial system (who pays and who doesn’t in terms of sentencing (as in, you’re out of your freaking minds)), tell you as a reflection of this society?
What we see is the unleashing of male subjugation and abuse of female kind whether the existing culture is based on patriarchal moral/religious repression or whether it considers itself sexually “liberated” (with continued defense by the establishment). There is practically no difference in their results of abuse and sexual predation, just in the forms that are unleashed. It can readily be argued that one form is just as lethal as the other and that they are guilty of aiding and abetting, with religious cultural repression giving sanction to spousal and inter-familial sexual abuse by unspoken avoidance and the sanction of unlimited male power towards the female (conferring the same requisite power of the patriarchal priesthood over the larger public, and male authority in general), combined with the break-down of sexual mores amplifying and facilitating every other variety of abuse outside of it. One is simply institutionalized abuse, the other its opposite. One is covert in its results, the other overt. One works through suppression by institutionalized submission, the other by broadening the definition of what’s socially acceptable to modify culture to endorse all conceivable forms of degradation and submission, so they will be tacitly accepted as “normal” and autonomously embraced in individual interaction. How laudable is it that we’ve arrived at a cultural threshold that fully unleashes both forms at once?
If you want it thrown into starker relief how both these mechanisms are employed seamlessly in the destruction of very young women to provide unlimited male sexual predation/service, simply look at how the conjunction between “morality” (social condemnation of the defrocked) works with “immorality” (sold into sexual slavery and condemned to remain there by existing social mores while the traffickers go unpunished) to provide a ready, unlimited prostitution market for male society in India for example, which readily demonstrates how the same pattern is simply realized more extremely in more patriarchally abusive societies (the Hindu land emergent from child “brides” and suttee, still holding onto the child “brides” and rape culture), enabling more resultant sexual abuse and sexual servicing of the male. That the moral castigation of prostitution is a cultural system to in fact reinforce it is exhibited by the fact that female prostitutes rather than johns are prosecuted; it is enforced so punitively as to punish juveniles and children who are being pimped out, rather than rescuing them from their pimps and customers; nor is there any consideration of the backgrounds that put them there in the first place, i.e., rehabilitation. Therefore the trending to the complete erosion of sexual mores needs to be viewed in light of this existing relationship; for equating this with sexual liberation is deceptive (the debate is in the comments). It simply trends the existing dynamic of the inverse relationship of sexual abuse enabled by the conjoined cultural employment of morality and immorality to a new plane of experience. It isn’t disappearing, merely evolving. The female gender has been co-opted into developing new thresholds of tolerance; in fact as much sexual abuse as the gender can conceivably bear is what’s being portrayed on screen in the concerted attempt to gain social sanction.
On the matter of prostitution in Canada, yes, the laws were so punitive and so obviously abusive to [female] prostitutes that the Canadian Supreme court was forced to strike them down. However in the re-writing, if trends are considered to fulfill themselves in a predictable manner, the net benefit of the changes will sanction prostitution in order to provide patriarchy [males] with unlimited servicing by a growing stable of prostitutes, compounding current issues as opposed to eliminating them, as the social biases that exploited and imposed social break down cloaked in the guise of an intolerant morality in order to merely use women as sexual fodder for consumption/servicing male pleasure are quite unchanged. That prostitution merely sanctions this as a legal transaction inherently will benefit the consumer gender over the one offering the service, and is ultimately to gain legal sanction for the consumers by participating in a legal business now permitted to thrive, thus sanctioning the sexual transaction as a financial one making it merely product has got to have an impact on the gender offering the service in terms of objectification. What is the dropping of a pimping prohibition if not a signal of things to come? (-Conflict of interest?) -In other words, if the conservatives were to gain ground on the matter in criminalizing prostitution, guess who the cost will come down upon? If prostitution gains legal sanction out of the kerfuffle, -guess who the social cost is most likely to come down upon, again? –When the fundamentals of why the transaction even exists are being ignored in the battle, in Canada especially. The inherent risk of male violence in this “transaction” cannot be defined as a “labour safety” issue! And here’s the thing about Canada; the demographics of prostitution are what prove it is not a matter of a woman’s choice, -but rather a legacy of marginalization into poverty and cultural genocide in the form of protracted family fragmentation over generations, generations of physical and sexual abuse, mass starvation and abrogation of citizen rights that reflects in crime statistics to this day.
"According to the 2006 Canadian Census, Aboriginal peoples (North American Indian - First Nations, Métis, and Inuit) made up 3.8% of the total population, with just over half (51.2%) of the Aboriginal population being female. This is nearly 4% of the total female population in Canada. Although they are only a small percentage of the population, Aboriginal women and girls are severely over represented in sexual exploitation and trafficking in comparison to the general Canadian population (Seshia, 2005; Sethi, 2007; Saewyc et al., 2008; Sikka, 2009; Farley, Lynne, & Cotton, 2005; Ursel et al., 2007; Barrett, 2010).
In an extensive research report conducted over the period of two years and involving some
181 participants in the sex trade in Vancouver, 31.1% of the women participating indicated they were Aboriginal (Cler-Cunningham & Christensen, 2001, p. iv)." Source
The cultural demographics highlighted by the Canadian condition are all you really need to know to know the ugly truth about prostitution in terms of prior generations subject to social genocide, -how this population has been “predisposed” by the residential “school” system, -and how this pre-conditioning of familial breakdown making it a climate for early sexual abuse (combined with destitute poverty) -literally is your social feeder of female bodies for market.
The cultural double standard of morality vs. immorality surrounding prostitution merely frames itself to optimize access to an unlimited number of female prostitutes providing a service that accords only to male clients’ wants (buyer’s prerogative, legalized or no), -with buyers being almost 100% men, providers are 80% female (give or take), and holding steady, with the minority of male prostitutes catering to other males by large majority). “In a 2013 study of prostitution in 150 countries, wherever prostitution was legal, trafficking increased.” If your consumer male market is nigh 1 in 4 (as was extrapolated in this study in Georgia on the commercial sexual exploitation of children (read adolescent girls –“12,400 men each month in Georgia pay for sex with a young female, 7,200 of whom end up exploiting an adolescent female”, the optimum sale medium being Craigslist)), every cultural social manipulation in your power is going to be geared to optimizing the sating of that level of consumer demand. That is the existing nature of our prevailing and present culture.
“Economics tells us that the elimination of demand will prevent the production of supply; yet, the elimination of supply will do nothing to prevent demand.” –This alone highlights the utter fallacy of castigating and criminalizing the prostitutes in the equation, more or less all we as a culture have ever done.
The two conflicting patterns of morality vs. immorality actually combine for the same end result. For example in recent history 150, 000 women in Australia forcibly lost their infants, with the reverse happening to 150,000 British infants who were relocated to Australia and elsewhere, with possibly 350,000 more coerced adoptions taking place in Canada. (It’s not like Canada is immune.) For the crime of succumbing to the tacitly sanctioned constant male pressure to have sex, all these women lost their children; the British relocated children lost their childhoods. They were abused in much the same manner by Church institutions as the Native children in Canada, the vulnerable children in Ireland, the vulnerable in Switzerland, the Aboriginal children in Australia, all stolen on the pretext of moral sanction against immorality, which amounted in its result (for many if not most), to nothing more or less than enslavement, physical, psychological and sexual abuse, which turned genocidal in the context of racism. (Why this price for being the first people on the landmass? Is racism informed by religious superiority merely a spurious ideological justification to deny covetousness?)
This is the clash in itself between the immoral vs. the moral trend: who paid the price here in this instance for a plague of wandering dicks? This is based on the analysis of the North American courting climate authored by behavioural anthropologist Margaret Mead in Male and Female (1968 edition, scroll to Chapter 14). Where was the abuse of this situation, the price of immoral promiscuity, where did the abuse take place and who did the abusing? Was it “the” crime that these women had these out of wedlock children, or was the real crime what happened to them, and even worse to their children? It was of no cost to the males who spread their oats, though some did recognize and feel the loss of their children. Who is paying the price now, today?
The result was much the same confluence of two conflicting social tides where both were a concerted attack against women (with just a different focal point, i.e., forced adoption being a specific result of the combined conflict between structured coercion to succumb to sex, (then of socially sanctioned “petting” on date nights)), tacit acceptance that seduction and pursuit was inevitable and constant by young males, a culture that put the onus on only the woman to impose limits, vs. the resultant opprobrium that only disparaged and cost the female in the bargain (with no social safety nets to speak of and the social opprobrium guaranteed to both mother and child, this was the better option). This continual pressure exerted by males existed in full force while simultaneously exacting the “moral” consequence of the loss of the mother’s child for succumbing to pregnancy out of wedlock through sanctioned forced adoption; an outrageous punishment suffered only by women at childbirth, with the male usually being far removed existentially and/or emotionally from the situation thanks to the existing sanction of wandering “oats”, in all likelihood not even being aware he’d parented something or reaped any consequence as the female would be removed from society and sequestered for the shame of it. For the male in the vast majority of instances it would have been quite inconsequential. In other words, given what we now know of the numbers, this social structure as analysed by Margaret Mead exacted an enormous hidden social toll on hundreds of thousands of very young women by socially ostracising them and coercively and/or forcibly removing their children, a great number of whom paid a terrible price by being robbed of parental upbringing.
Here is a liberal notion being used as subterfuge with much the same end result; he got away with it; this man got away with approaching his own daughter for oral sexual gratification, because in the instance of her word vs. his, guess whose word is going to be taken (despite the fact that he was soliciting his thirteen year old daughter with marijuana, cigarettes, pornography and a vibrator). What we are witnessing, (again), is the orchestrated subversion of any real reform of human society, with patriarchal society still managing to get what it wants, which is to gratify male sexual desire as exploitation of the female sex without any limits or constraints on their abuse of the female gender, with the female gender landing the price. The obvious way to do this is “get ‘em while they’re young”, the internet being the best of all mediums to do so (in terms of “compulsive use”), so let’s just unleash every variety of sexual napalm on our minor population and see what happens! It’s not TV, y’all. Then again, given the elevated impact of porn on high-speed broadband (shown in studies), it is. So what if we are dealing with something that modifies the brain circuits of male teens while their circuits are forming in a manner that replicates drug addiction in the course of unleashing every virtual fantasy sexual debasement imaginable? And then it goes nuclear in its consequences: the divide between viewing child pornography, circulation and action that has been so stringently asserted in the past is not evident. (In this study the correlation between viewing and participating in a survey of those incarcerated was found to be 85%).
Institutionalized religious patriarchy seeks the way of automatic submission, to the extent of physical enslavement in service to all father/male/rapists in the home. Whether this is based on an institutionalized religious doctrine that claims women are lesser, (ranging to the most extreme deviance of polygamist religious sects which again abuse and exploit female minors no differently than their counterparts in the nations they accuse of different faiths or cultures, again through very refined control, excommunication, and restriction of information), or whether women are actually made so by mass participation in the manner they are sexually publically objectified, demanded upon, and/or ostracized, is beside the point. This abuse of sexual gratification by obliterating any limits or boundaries on human sexual decency creates a climate more liberated in its ability to abuse women than it has ever existed before in our history (through the satisfaction of voyeurism or its opposite, for instance, with both extremes accommodating exploitation or repression), creating the optimum climate for patriarchy unleashed in its vilest, fullest form, via both the vehicles of “liberation” and repression. Put it this way, thanks to the sanction of promiscuity, sex divorced of any responsibility or emotion has been fully unleashed (which inherently benefits males at the social cost of females), or, more sexist subjugation based sex is far more likely to be happening in the present permissive climate than when it was supported by the strictures of religious “moral’ confines tacit of unspoken sanctioned spousal abuse, with wives and women in general being forced to submit. (In toxic combination in this instance with institutions who repeatedly blamed the victims and didn’t press charges (for four years, even ignoring a sample of DNA evidence). Compare this institutional attitude to the victims by comparison in terms of social sanction verses ostracization, with what happened to this perpetrator who was left free and went on to rape other female children). The pervasion of cultural attitude still reinforces the same male sexual exploitation that was enforced and entrenched by religiously institutionalized patriarchy (in this case all but two were female victims).
Here’s the thing, if this is indeed statistical fact (that females in the UK between 15 and 19 are “at highest risk of sexual assault, stalking and domestic abuse” than any other age group), if this rise is manifest across the board we already have ample testament that our present state of socialization is already succeeding in transmitting a climate of domestic abuse to the next generation. It’s not the institutional enforcement of patriarchy that’s responsible. This is the generation that has been raised on liberal sexual mores and pornography amidst the hyper-sexualisation of the general culture, i.e., all its modes now are cultural. This is the present state of affairs we’ve conditioned in popular culture. Adolescent females are either most at risk from their peers, or most at risk due to sexual predation by individuals who shouldn’t be targeting them in the first place. The title of “new Generation of domestic abusers” (quoted from the prosecutor) indicates this is trending to peer on peer abuse. We are beginning to have ready indication of the results of our present socialisation and conditioning of the culture. The results are in: we’ve “succeeded” in shifting the risk generationally. As per the goal, the present climate is more successful at patriarchy’s goals for gender dominance for the sake unlimited power to abuse than religiously insitutionalized patriarchy ever was. This has been achieved by blowing apart social sanction and sexual mores.
From the “sexual liberation” front, witness the steady encroaching sanction of BDSM and what sort of victims that provides for, and who they invariably tend to be, when such victims are made. You can hardly argue the price of socially sanctioning BDSM is worth even one of these victims having to exist. (Examine its effect on rape cases, for example.) It doesn’t even matter which gender is performing which role (to the extent of whether this is female on male, female on female or male on male), since the theme of the dominant abuser (master) and the victim who enjoys bondage and pain and autonomously chooses it is perhaps the most extreme and favoured realized dynamic of patriarchal society, actually the liberty it would choose at its most extreme deviance. This is rooted in the simple physical reality that males are generally physically stronger than females. The sexual master and servant dynamic depicts the desire to subjugate all women (those not physically dominant) one on one in sexual relations to what its male perpetrators individually deem (giving them the prerogative of why, when, where and how without limit, rather than the pretext of something to be engaged in equally at will), to the extent of equating sexual ecstasy with the conjoined enjoyment of inflicting and enjoying pain, which is very much related to patriarchy’s enforcement in creating a climate where pain is part and parcel if discreet (facilitating the outcomes of spousal/partner sexual abuse, child sexual abuse, rape, unwanted pregnancy and interfamilial incest, and facilitating a climate where these occur more readily and are more readily concealed). Socially sanctioned BDSM simply facilitates a climate where the ultimate victims of relationships controlled by the most extreme deviation of one on one dominance (physical torture) can exist in plain sight within the culture itself, as has already occurred more than once. In addition to its corollary of the worst victimizations possible, why would arrival at this threshold of autonomy be considered laudable when it embraces physical torture in the context of sexuality?
What the campaign to morally sanction BDSM between consenting adults blithely ignores is the actual definition of sadomasochism; the one that really fulfills its definition in the context of a dominant and a submissive is when the submissive has been confined to that situation by force, which is replete in all forms of abusive porn the world over, which could easily be contested is “healthily” divided between those situations which are enacted and those that are not, with non-consensual rape (not to mention the realm of abuse existing in child-porn) creating a large margin of what is produced out of Russia for example (social breakdown being the best contributor). The arrival at the true definition of sadomasochism is in situations that are forced without consent. A context between consenting adults actually fails the definition as it is defined by cooperative consent, i.e., it is really a situation of equality play acting at sadomasochism, but in seeking to sanction itself socially, runs the risk of sanctioning, in turn, real sadomasochism in the attempt to obtain respectability, as if it is fit to be morally desired by attempting qualify it in this aspect as if it fulfills this definition or is the majority situation, which when considering the realm of abuse taking place that currently qualifies under the definition of sadomasochism, is most definitely not the case.
If you can get wholesale endorsement (by women, even if you write poorly) to the tune of 60 million units sold about a context that by its very definition is not really sadomasochism (being mutually consensual), you actually achieved what exactly? The answer is truly disturbing (56:50), as in, let’s get her absolute compliance with the maximum latitude of male sexual dominance, with her informed consent. When you make this a matter of individual “choice”, you blur the line by implying that it is in fact “good” in the context of being consensual, rendering the refusal to be abused purely subjective morality on the woman’s part, defined purely on her refusal, rather than being enforced by the moral boundary that pain and abuse in the context of sex are immoral, which puts more blanket pressure on women, from men, to consent to being individually abused. It works to desensitise the issue and further force it into the individual woman’s court, making her more prone to arguments that she doesn’t really have the right to stop it. If it’s fine between consenting adults, it’s just a matter of rationalization and more concerted coercion, facilitating a more vulnerable realm of confusion. The book is in all likelihood simply an indication of the social climate we’ve been so actively creating; it literally fulfills the type of demand we’ve dedicated ourselves to cultivating and developing in women as curiosity in order to gain its social sanction (have them arrive at the threshold of being mutually complicit in their own abuse as they dismantle patriarchy and destroy the mechanisms that suppressed them there in an institutionalized form). It’s actually a natural consequence of the channels in which the “free love” explosion of the ‘60’s was deliberately confined to sanction realms of sexual abuse as titillation, if not a natural consequence anyhow. Given the success, guess what the market will seek to commercialize and capitalize on next, and so it will go. We have world publishers falling over themselves to capture the existing market, scrambling to sanction the demand by parading torture in sex as “good”; validated by mutual consent. Could you be much more self-defeating of your enterprise to emancipate women, than this sort of apparent, indifferent sacrifice of real women in nations at differing stages of development? –For the sake of a dollar? What is the result of the cultural clash between this sort of abuse’s blanket availability on film (with the tacit sanction being commoditised in pop culture (here comes the film trilogy)); -what happens when this meshes with still existent patriarchal cultures? Answer: The cocktail can be absolutely toxic; it’s toxic anyhow. Now let’s crash that with the present immediacy of media and see what happens. It’s the unlimited dissemination that is creating the larger climate of risk of abuse rather than any attempts at seeking limitations, wherever and whatever the circumstances.
Thanks to the feminist campaign to morally sanction play-acted sadomasochism between consenting adults and validate the incorporation of pain in sexuality if autonomously chosen, we descend into the quagmire where the only differentiation under morally sanctioned BDSM in consideration of the swath of rape videos emanating out of Russia et al is whether or not the rapes, including those which are drug induced and/or gang rapes are an act by all the participants, i.e., if they’re acting, it’s consensual; that’s OK. The reality is we don’t know the difference.
So if you asked the women and children being forcibly raped (including gang rape) in porn being disseminated from other countries, doubly victimized by having it all captured on film in a climate where no one knows who’s who and the real sadomasochists get away with it, what do you think the victims’ answer would be on the morality question? Do you have any comprehension of what sort of cultural divide has been deliberately orchestrated via enforced western ignorance if these are the real facts on the ground pertaining to “Pussy Riot”? That would make the express intent creating a perceived Western attempt to foist the wholesale denigration of women within that country by leaping to the defense of something too lurid to ever be considered “activism”, indicating assumed arrogance beyond comprehension or calculation in its apparent endorsement of depravity. (Yes, Amnesty International advocates legalized prostitution, as well as campaigning for Pussy Riot, and deep-sixing Libya with false propaganda. With humanist advocacy of this nature you don’t need enemies.)
In the possible example of “Pussy Riot”, you could have struck no greater blow to Russian cultural perception in creating the conclusion that Western culture is utterly degenerated and corrupt, and must be ignored at all costs, effectively wiping out any possible inroads of feminism, erecting a permanent impenetrable barrier against itself and further isolating women to be left to fight for themselves in a worse climate. For its alignment with sexual liberation trends that in fact undermine women (more is better to the point of every deviance potentially possible, and making it the prime definer of women’s liberation to the point of obscuring much else) it contributes to reactionism that is inherently self-terminating. Maybe it should have been recognized that this may have been the goal; subverting the movement to prevent any lasting change.
Since it would have provided Russian society with a mechanism to protect women from being forcibly raped on film (they moved on it; Cameron moved on it, guess who resisted elsewhere), would it have been more sensible to have banned rape in porn (but then in terms of abuse actually received by the female participants, this would prove indistinguishable to legislate against anyhow, the “acting” issue aside), making it unsanctionable to disseminate, in order that the real sadomasochists would not be permitted a market demand for their crime? Yes, there’s no question that censorship on this level will be exploited for authoritarian repression unless it’s explicitly defined, but it looks like they’re actually trying in recognition of the scope of the existing problem. Given what’s at issue in Russia at present and the vulnerability of their society and children, it may well pan out to be the lesser evil.
What may have been simply intra-cultural espionage carried out with Russia exhibits the larger idea in the propensity for undermining the entire feminist movement through its official and public endorsement of absolutely no limits on porn and BDSM, all for the sake of defending and demanding the “self-empowerment” available in the context of autonomously defining and controlling the context of sadomasochism on the altar of pure individualism as gender liberation. How ludicrous is this to those who are real victims of sadomasochism? There is no real self-empowerment in consciously opting to hurt one’s self or have someone do it to you for mutual enjoyment; this is what’s happening in every variety of sexual enslavement engaged in today. Why would you seek moral sanction in a controlled setting of the most harmful form of abuse endured by women and children the world over? Could feminism prove any more self-defeating in its spine snapping contradictions in logic of what it defines and considers “politically correct”? (Consider the slut walks with their declaration, “I am a slut” to deal with the Toronto Chief of police, which appears to be a walking text book case of informed self-inflicted redundancy, as it literally could not be embraced as a form of liberation by any woman anywhere else.)
Think of the full enforcement of “No means No”. –Fine and good, but if this is what you can get out of “yes”, what’s the bloody difference? Are you really surprised by retorts like this: “No Means Yes! Yes Means Anal!” -How do you expect men to take the enforcement seriously when you’ve thrust it into a context where an individual woman’s refusal to engage in sadomasochism is now subjectively based purely on her own personal morality? (Any moral repulsion to anal sex has already been tacitly demolished (despite this being a far riskier vector of sexually transmitted diseases).) This is due to the same branch of campaigners who defined “No means No”. Thanks to their efforts, this merely means the men are now entitled to debate women individually on anal sex and BDSM (ad infinitum). Since her morality has been rendered individually subjective in all these arenas, it is the equivalent of tacit permission for men to debate women individually to seek whatever they want, with the sole express intent of destroying women’s individual morality. The statement is not so much deliberately sexist and misogynist; rather it’s a statement of already conceded latitudes that have been granted by the opposition and their absurdity placed side by side, pointing to the fallacy in logic and how they’ve already “won” (reflected in the astronomical growth of this activity among young people (in the interest of avoiding pregnancy we will unleash sexual disease rates); “anal becomes the new oral”, an obvious social sanction promulgated by the inundation of this activity in porn on the web).
Let’s approach this from an entirely different direction to have this thrown into relief: you can fully rationally “qualify” BDSM between consenting adults. You can also use the sexual autonomy of sixteen year olds (or 18 year olds) to rationally preserve unlimited portrayal of sexual abuse (along with real sexual abuse of unlimited scope being made available on the web).
Let’s just not forget Rahab could fully define her sexual autonomy as a sixteen year old as having been fully legally viable in the UK; her only breach of the legal envelop was with whom. Rahab in the same turn was fully capable of rationally qualifying her incestuous relationship with her father as a situation between two consenting adults that made inroads in consciousness that actually may have had serious ramifications and results that could be inferred to somehow qualify the situation; her father was exonerated by having broadened her mind in a way that ended up bursting what were considered the normal human limitations of thought via the enormity of the exception he’d tried to create. So how come, seeing as both instances sanction the autonomous choice to choose pain in different contexts or forms in the context of sexuality (she autonomously chose what would be categorized as an inherently abusive relationship in choosing to commit incest –social ostracism); given she could preserve her own life and prevent the dread outcome of a child being born through birth control and the legal sanction of abortion (also advocated in the context of female liberation (which prevented the potentially heinous outcome from being inflicted on anyone else, so it was simply a matter of her autonomous choice to remain there)); how come active BDSMers seeking to morally qualify their play-acting variant of BDSM and those qualifying unlimited abuse in porn would find Rahab’s argument reprehensible, especially considering her personal goal had had absolutely nothing to do with an interest in conjoining sexuality with suffering pain?
It was not as if her personal goals hadn’t in some sense been laudable, comparably they had. Moreover, if they seek moral sanction to find sex in combination with the infliction of pain or unlimited depravity enjoyable, what existing moral barrier was there to her seeking to qualify an individual context of incest between two consenting adults? Do you realize that all the arguments they would have foisted on Rahab to imply she was patriarchally controlled or manipulated into doing something to her ultimate harm; that she wasn’t equipped to choose the relationship, work equally against the individual autonomy held as the ultimate qualifying benchmark by all participating advocates of so called BDSM? Most of this had occurred by her decision to remain in the relationship after reaching the legal age of consent where she was. What argument do “feminist” BDSM advocates have to stand on when “violentacrez” does it, employing the same latitudes they have sanctioned on mutual consent? It is interesting that along with all his desensitizing activities on Reddit (including a category for incest), “violentacrez” bragged about the mutual enjoyment of oral sex with his 19 year old stepdaughter in real life, and how it didn’t hit the fan. You have to examine the net social costs and potential ramifications of exonerating a position before endorsing it. This one is a net loss.
Interestingly, the exact same argument, the construct of Rahab’s ability to rationalize her position under the assumption of God-given individual sanction, was just as potentially lethal against the neo-conservative embrace of “manifest destiny” based on Godly sanction (being explicitly based on “Providence”, i.e., “God”). Also note the quotation asserting it provided the right for expansion over the “Saint Lawrence”, i.e., a tacit right to invade Canada, and that it played a role in the “Oregon dispute” when Vancouver Island and British Columbia were on the table.
It was George W. Bush who invoked this mandate “of God” sanctioned unlimited expansionism, transporting it to the present day. It is important to recognize that the “manifest destiny” doctrine was also transported and translated into the German rationalization of “lebensraum”, the borrowed influence (not the only borrowing that took place, vise versa, apparently, and quite a synonymy). And so we come full circle, and what an insidious circle it is, how the irrational choice of inherent superiority must support itself through hatred’s ideology, tacit because we alone are, or were, Chosen. These are the populations who are most unconscious of the self-justifying discrimination in their ideology, what they develop it to permit, the ones most capable of genocide and warfare conjured not out of defense, war that is indefensible. The world’s fate is still in the thrall of “God’s Chosen people” to the extent that we still believe it and have given those who identify themselves as such tacit control over the next potential war to end all wars. The concept of “exceptionalism” (scroll down) bereft of Godly mandate is in fact more manifestly irrational than when the pretext of Divine ordinance is used to arrive at it, since it relies on a belief in constitutional ideology manifest by a sequence of good works in foreign interventions. It is in fact a headless religion if one is cognizant of the origins of this pretext, which has always been an ideological crutch employed to extinguish nations where no basis for justification existed, adequately thrown into relief by its use in blustering and threatening Canada with the declaration it had no right to exist.
It was this administration that attempted to provide grounds for the tacit right to act above the UN and international law in justifying pre-emptive warfare and torture. This in turn was based on a notion of US “exceptionalism”. After all, Karl Rove said on the basis of being an empire (which in the deliberate resurrection of "manifest destiny" also carries the laden connotation of a mandate for unlimited empire sanctioned by God), they simply created reality (9:44-11:32). The ramifications in the real world were slaughter and Kafka worthy sham trials that sported real victims.
In the context of transcending individual perception and establishing the universal awareness, this arbitrary concept of God’s chosen people (if existent on the earth) also lay in the dust, which will be left to be self-explanatory (if it would have been insane for her to take this position, it’s equally insane for this senator). It inherently cannot be asserted but is rather existential, and seeks the emancipation of all in love. Existing in love, it is inherent in its equality. If it is in fact an ideology of hatred that defines its actions and manifest results, it has reached for a sanction it in no way possesses merely in the self-interest of self-justification, either for the sake of inordinate exploitation or sanctioned brutality.
It is indicative of a militarist society in a patriarchal coma that it would blithely assume the forbearance of all womankind is somehow “natural” when members of their sex are being forced by said militarists to have their wombs become incubators for horrific infant deformity, just so that the US, France, Israel and the UK can continue to employ and market depleted uranium. If Rahab deserved terrible opprobrium because her incestuous relationship produced one deformed child, how damning, in fact, is the knowledgeable deployment of depleted uranium? You cannot condemn one woman for what is existing national policy. (As for her father, it may have made him a criminal, but it made him far less of one than every individual who knowingly facilitated and implemented the use of depleted uranium.) The USA is performing the exact same violation of thousands upon thousands of women. To somehow find this action morally sanction-able for the sake warfare and profit, when you have irreversibly marred the sacred DNA template of human life, is a far greater violation of the sanctity of human life in God’s sight than abortion could be argued to be; it is the very inversion of life. You have violated human creation itself, whom were made in God’s image. There can be no greater blasphemy conceived against God. You’d find this absolutely deplorable individually, yet see nothing wrong with such a crime being caused en masse by State conduct, when it is a greater crime against humanity than Nazi eugenics. Furthermore it is the greatest violation conceivable of woman’s God granted biological purpose. There could be no greater blasphemy or violation potentially possible than what is currently committed by this patriarchal society, and sanctioned as normal, for the sake of killing others. In its end run, patriarchy has become the very violation of human creation. Welcome to “manifest destiny” and thank you very much. To be a female member of this society is to be complicit in the absolute violation of the female womb and in absolute violation to God as a contributing tax-payer, by forcing me to be a tacit and complicit contributor to your crimes against humanity, just by being part of your patriarchal society. You have made my very existence an existential violation, and you consider this civilized society, when this is the consequence of possessing a conscience (or potentially even this).
The ideological imbecilism of “have your cake and eat it too” exists on both sides of the fence, with one side opting to blast morality wide open and the other opting to assert its individual transcendence over reality (or the Law, with “exceptionalism” being sanctioned by God), but the inheritors of patriarchy (they are a mirror reflection of its arbitrary designation of inherent God instituted inferiority they have a right to trammel, transferring it from a gendered to a global scale, the same as the arbitration on gender has global ramifications); these inheritors are weighted with a far heavier legacy in bloodshed and violence, and doomed to remain so. The attitude of inherent right based on sheer power vested with the right or ability to transcend either reality or the law (based on the prerequisite of either power or “Providence”) produced a far higher death toll than the toll that she and her father would have been rightfully condemned for producing individually. Furthermore in their case the corollary of the loss of two infants had been an unintended consequence, whereas the assertion of the empire’s ability to create its own reality was intentional in devising and contriving a framework to attempt to justify war in Iraq. The war was also the intended manifest consequence of G. W. Bush’s invocation of “manifest destiny”. Nor could there have ever potentially been such an astronomical corollary death toll unleashed by broad social acceptance of her and her father’s actions, yet this level of arrogance that imposes death tolls in concrete terms to fulfill its hubris of actually being capable of arbitrating reality is fully unconscious of the level of its deluded barbarism, the utter fallacy that it thinks killing and the ability to conduct wars under false contrivance validates its utterly deluded position of being capable of fabricating reality. Reality catches up with you, -and then some; even if you were president.
Rahab would, (by the time of the quote) possess a far more tenable argument as per her ability to actually create reality as opposed to being eclipsed by it. She would be able to delineate an actual argument transcendent of herself and adequately defend Godly sanction based on the sanctity of the manifest outcomes, rather than generating a closed self-justifying system that was only reality based in terms on its ability to generate policy on false pretexts deliberately deluding its constituents that produced a massive death toll. It is absolutely fallacious to contend you can generate reality out of deliberate falsehood. Were they to defend their inherent right to pre-emptive warfare based on a WMD selling point that was knowingly false and killed many, they were far less justified than she would have been in defending the actions of her father and herself in terms of the ability to establish alternate realities, and far less capable of adequately defending any mandate from God given the results. With a death toll of two, their actions were far less reprehensible with what ended up being far more positive results. That she’d rejected this presumption to defend and validate her actions by either asserting sanction of breaking the moral barrier or claiming sanction from God for an act in exception to the law, and rather did the opposite in opting instead to disappear, and in this found transcendence, was what the video for “Please” would have signified to her personally had she known it.
Even with the blanket rejection of inherent dominance ideology (conversely the theology of Deuteronomy) and its main institution or benefactor, (patriarchy), the problem remains. Just the way the victims of spousal abuse exist in plain sight in a climate of sanction by silence and secrecy facilitated by patriarchal sanction, the promulgation of all varieties of sexual abuse under the guise of porn and/or redefined BDSM that isn’t really BDSM and the inroads it makes into the public discourse mainly via advertising/popular music become readily accessible and culturally inoculate the population in the sense that all varieties of sexual abuse become more acceptable since they are available without limit with just the click of a mouse. Ergo the hyper-sexualized downward youth trend of popular culture (the public virtual symbolic de-frocking virginity loss/ramped up sexualisation of “artists” like Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus as they mature, and their social impact in doing so) aids and abets violentacrez’s ability to justify his own actions on the web, a vicious cycle of enabling between the center and the edge. Congratulations, you just defined the maturation of a female celebrity/artist’s initiation into adulthood purely in terms of hyper-sexualization as the benchmark of maturation from pubescence in the minds of millions of female tweens who’ve followed you since childhood. –How interesting. What, exactly, does this serve - ? Miley’s performance works as tremendous validation in the minds of the media subjects of porn’s saturation to define young females as precisely what porn defines them as, blanket affirmation that women generally behave and hence deserve to be treated in the manner porn subjects and treats them, as no more than whores for use in a transaction in male sexual service, by granting the appearance of that definition through “agency” (artistic choice), while simultaneously conditioning all the female fandom that this is the “normal” trajectory of maturation. No matter what their attainment, (Annie was right on calling it, and so was Sinead) -a female artist is impelled to market with their ass.
Feminism reduced purely to the brackets of commercialism (purchase as the only definition of feminist “choice”(look what’s been done with that trope, by reducing “choice” to sexuality) impeccably welded to “sex sells” –female sexuality, that is; -the perfect way to get women both coming and going) -is just fine: confined to sexuality unleashed, the perfect capture of both the male and female consumer market is assured (patriarchy rewards the commercialization of female sexuality very well, as it turns it into a commodity morally sanction-able for males to consume (no comment there) in an unlimited quantity). Frankly this feminism as brand doesn’t rise above soft-core pimping of her feminine sexuality, merely marketing the context of her existing sexual relationship as a consumable pop product. This is solely contingent on her sexual objectification; she’s the only one in the partnership who has to grind and twerk onscreen in performing in this spousal partnership or dress provocatively, not just for his attentions; -the world’s the stage.
If the most influential individual on the TIME cover is male, had he, as a male individual of top influence, appeared on the cover in just underwear, eyebrows around the world would have been cocking in question at either his or the publisher’s questionable sanity. It wouldn’t be considered a liberating celebration of his body if a man did so, where his body being celebrated forwarded the cause of all male-dom. Therein lies the absurdity and redundancy of this argument. If it was in any way real or it worked, what was liberating for the goose would also be liberation for the gander, whereas it would merely be jarring perceptually. What would have been the perceptual connotations attaching themselves to Jason Collins had he done so? Why, in Beyonce’s case, is the excuse that this is her role as a pop star, -when it would not be considered the inevitable and certain role of any male pop star had he appeared on the cover?
Why is being “Drunk in Love” fine with invoking the abusive marriage of a man who self-perceptually and inter-relationally was a pimp who battered his wife into submission to the point of suicide, referenced as if this is celebrating a relationship utterly immune to any puncture by such self-reference, when the underlying truth is that her sexuality is being pimped in her marital/managed relationship as branding (the sexual context between them is packaged, part and parcel of the sale). If it ranges in implication into soft-core pimping, what is the larger implication of this lyric, in the context of the harnessing of his wife’s sexuality as applied marketing being a product of her full agency? This has always been the desired end result of marital patriarchy, full sexual marital harnessing of the female’s sexuality for male purpose; whether the profit is reproductive or monetary is immaterial (both constitute the production of different forms of wealth), -as the child of this union’s name is a trademark, this merger is already seamless. Is there a difference if this is done in partnership, when the main psychological avenue for subjecting young girls to trafficking is by giving her the perception of agency by emulating a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship to belie the existing reality of the pimp? What is this performance, other than an ultimately damaging generated endorsement of the most toxic form of abuse of young women in America today by inflicting a total misperception? (Or is it an underlying bedrock of truth, tempered to “benign” form in terms of her “agency” and limits to what she’s compelled to perform as a female pop star –?) -We just had a married couple at the apex of black empowerment through wealth happily emulate the context of a husband pimping (abusing) his wife, while she sung the line with a smile on her face and the audience laughed knowingly.
No socially responsible human being of Beyonce’s level of stature in her community would have considered this a “safe” performance in terms of social implications; it is the ultimate form of personal narcissism at a performance in front of 28 million to play act safely inside the apex of individualism or pure “choice” that is totally safe inside such mutual and exclusive agency, while simultaneously it literally has no consciousness or regard of that viewership, for what it means beyond their individual partnership in wealth generation though their sexuality (harnessing the consumer agency of the viewership) via marketing which is purely dependent on the extroversion of her beauty and sexuality. What is it when the lyric itself is saying as much? No one knows how much that worked to validate the essential dynamic of pimping as a viable “relationship” in the minds of we don’t know how many million viewers; especially when you compound that with the lyric content of hip-hop (already mainstreamed); -but what is it for Beyoncé to smilingly accept those connotations (graphic marital abuse and marital rape) in front of the millions of girls who adore her not only as a performer, but now a “feminist” too? In terms its capacity to generate misperception in young minds of both genders in terms of sexual relations (JayZ’s inevitable impression in the mind of potentially millions of young men) you begin to see how “terrorism” is ranging into becoming a viable word. It’s pure social terrorism in terms of gender interaction to generate the perception of sanction, especially in the realms of pure marketing. Yet liberal feminism can not make the connect between how legalizing prostitution validates and will ultimately enforce the relationship commodification performed by every single pimp, allowing them to feign that becoming sexual slaves for them is part and parcel of the range of BF/GF "relationships", by being legal.
Go ahead, feed us the ultimate Trojan! So long as “feminism” falls purely into the category of commercializing female sexuality (with every lyrical reference of Beyonce’s brand feminism falling into a point/counterpoint category of validation through appearance or sexually pleasing a male in full reciprocity in exchange for sexual loyalty (female sexuality solely in the realm of fully pleasing a male in the trade for control of it as the context in which full sexual reciprocity will be uh, granted)), its references are safely confined within the bounds of feminism as purely a matter consumerism and male sexual satisfaction (she is going for full liberation in the solely in the context of these two debates, you see, confining the nature of the debate to appearance and reciprocity while marketing herself, which defeats the matter completely). Ergo, the woman remains the sexual product (safely confined to defining her femininity merely as a consumer, extremely limited parameters on “choice” and “agency”), decorating herself to appease and please. “Feminism” that serves solely to commercialize female sexuality will always be rewarded very well.
There is an ultimate substitution of sexual misperception just in performance (19:30) and what is being performed, and how this is not based in reality, where what is witnessed invariably becomes a substitution for the norm; the girls, as compelled, perform. We know the above performance could not be farther from the truth, -why the audience felt in on a joke that collectively laughed at pimping, when the reality of pimping couldn’t be any further from amusing. But this is what is happening perceptually in sexual relation across its entire spectrum, the substitution of total unreality (which is utterly consistent in its modes of exclusion and degradation) is now informing the reality.
As in (for example): how many high school boys now think it is requisite and natural that women want to be ejaculated on their face because they’ve seen it countless times in porn, when dominance and subjugation and likely enjoyment by only one party are what this act really represents? And how many are imposing pressures to perform like they’ve witnessed in porn on their dates at present? Witness the ready results of the effect on culture with sexting and coercion of female teens to post themselves, which is the tip of the iceberg of what they are now being pressured to perform sexually, and at what age. We’ve suddenly graduated the culture of pressure upon adolescent females from a context of discreet “petting” on date nights to instant chat porn on first encounter; the onus on (much younger) females in terms of boundaries is not only infinitely worse in terms of coercive pressure (with male abuse and aggression being openly sanctioned and exhibited all over the web to give the impression that violent reaction in combination with coercion in order to gain sexual gratification is being normalized, in lethal combination with instant access to young women and adolescents being possible within the home allowing for virtual blackmail); at the same time that the level of coercive pressure has been drastically compounded; where young women are able to define boundaries of just what constitutes sexual invasiveness has been concertedly and very deliberately attacked and eroded to the point of first encounter instant chat nudity/virtual sex with far more potential avenues of sexual abuse being introduced as constituting the new “normal”. This when as mentioned the prices of promiscuity are far more costly to one gender as opposed to the other in practically every outcome, being either pregnancy, disease, victimization and/or ostracization.
This is in fact a concerted attack on young women (seriously) through liberalizing the culture, when the culture is still inculcated with the “moral” onus to attack and destroy any young woman who gets caught doing what the males actually pressure and demand, where the males have been indoctrinated with an entitlement to demand oh so much more based on the hyper-sexualisation of the present culture to the point of utter saturation. It is the re-defining of the boundaries of what is permissible that has put the onus on females to become exhibitionists and have multiple casual partners and perform sexual acts that are inherently put them at larger risk or are sexually degrading; the root lies less in inclination, more in conditioning and what is being demanded, and how this has been broadened to every conceivable extreme deviance being readily performed, portrayed and available. Yet it is the young women who are branded as “sluts” for responding, as if the sole basis lies in inclination rather than how they are taught to view and portray themselves as male sexual objects right from the onset of adolescence via advertising (with the conditioning in that direction starting far earlier).
Where the situation is weighted by the campaigns to sanction abuse with the realm of porn and BDSM and its actual prejudicial nature towards women and children is readily thrown into relief by the simple fact that Facebook has an eradication campaign of sorts eliminating any images that show a woman breastfeeding her infant (resulting in bans based on flagging and public opprobrium that went beyond their policy when they eventually developed one due to individual censorship by their staff), yet this behemoth has made no significant effort against groups or friend networks that exist solely to furnish images of child pornography, (which is evidently prevalent). This has compelled them to formally state their policy and delineate their collaboration with the New York Attorney General’s Office. There is an evident failure as to effort when any individual or advocacy group can find a swath of existing pages with the hit of a button, and again, they were so effective at eliminating breastfeeding images, yet this is the level of inaction with a sex trafficking page. That child porn cannot be self-regulated through a public flagging system is patently obvious when these are inherently insular through privacy functions. Protections are non-existent. Facebook has only bothered to remove advertising from “controversial” (rape joke) pages when it became a business matter that would actually cost them, i.e., other businesses took offence. It was only when feminist rights activists activated a boycott that such abuse mattered, but the only leverage they could use, was when it affected advertising revenue. Otherwise fairly rampant sexism, sex trafficking, sexual abuse and misogyny existing on Facebook were not a problem (or it has only mattered enough to run their overworked temp status workers into the ground). It didn’t matter until it threatened a loss in revenue.
Amanda Todd’s blackmailer used Facebook. Girls in Ottowa were groomed for prostitution via Facebook, not quite overnight (sleepover gone real bad). The same problem exists with Wikipedia, which is used by children for school research. As a mirror of society, Facebook is an exhibit of the blithe inability to differentiate the purpose of an image, but with an internalized bias defined by whether the image is sexually pleasurable for males. This exists across the www spectrum in a spectrum, all furnishing the same end. There is no consequence for this case of identity release in a rape case on twitter, for example. (Twitter, of course, is just fugly. What we have is a surfeit of infants with dongs.)
Why are conditions that allow underage prostitution to flourish on Craigslist, for instance, found across the board, with only public campaigns against such web-based companies eliciting any reform and why is there such a swath of considered resistance ((Forbes is f***ing sexist, btw), -or just plain “kill the messenger”/disperse the blame) whenever the issue’s brought to the fore? Does this really justify a lack of consideration of the ramped up availability and facilitation of sex slavery and the marketing of sexual abuse that the internet provides? No one’s implying they’re criminally liable, but what of civic responsibility and the real cost in lives? Why is the culture so driven to protect a climate with an unlimited ability to sell and solicit sex in any form just to protect the autonomy to do so to the point where this facilitates rampant abuse of women and children? And why have we arrived at a culture where what facilitates this the most is the interior belief of the minor girls being trafficked that their pimps love them? That they’re not exploited? Pimping has enough validation in modern culture that girls can be readily conditioned to believe this, all fulfilled by (and to fulfill) the insatiable demand of the market/male wandering dick that happily pays for this exploitation just blocks from where I live, all advertised through the internet?
If a site solely dedicated to marketing prostitution (Backpage) wants to exist and exist legitimately, what’s to stop it from having mandatory account verification (submission of ID’s verified through Skype) using a firm like Integrity Aristotle? It takes minutes. If freelance job sites do this for the sake of authenticity to protect the integrity of their job market for recruiters, why on earth wouldn’t this be considered mandatory to prevent the pimping of teenagers and children? If twitter does this, why on earth can’t there be a mandatory process on any site section dedicated to selling sex? Why is it so impossible as to not even enter the debate that if a site wants an adult sex selling section, they have to enact profiling to provide a modicum of protection in order to run it in a manner that at least attempts to be preventative of child prostitution? If they are not even capable of volunteering such an obvious solution (because of the extra work), such a site has no interest in marketing prostitution legitimately; they are just protecting their right to do so without any protections to maximize revenue. Why do they fight for the right of an inevitable human toll of sexual abuse cases (mainly of female minors) to protect their bottom line? And why does the culture protect them and fight for this assumed right to have utterly no protections on sex advertising on the internet? Is it not ludicrous that we’d do so little to protect our youth for the sake of advertising revenue and to avoid any costs of “doing business”? In the end doesn’t it boil down to a protracted resistance to creating any limits on sexual exploitation?
The combined outcomes of these trends represent the eventual full “liberation” sought by the investiture of a full-fledged patriarchal society (for the corporate mainstream to profit from especially), the ability to do anything it wants by way of disadvantage to the opposite sex while simultaneously being able to control them through shame at the same time, by creating the dynamic of culturally enforced male dominance as the “default” setting by regulating and imposing total submission, i.e., confining women to gratify men whether they want to, or not, in whatever manner they want, the ultimate outcome being sexual slavery of an individual who is no more than a slave. The marriage “ball and chain” scenario has taken a healthy beating, but witness the evolution of abuse, where submission is instead exacted by what is sought and demanded in terms of sexual gratification by the present culture with all visual wants being available to be culled on social media based on what we’ve condoned for dress and dissemination. With every sexual perversion and abuse one could want being visually available with the click of a button, no male actually needs to have the power to subjugate females individually within the home to satisfy of fulfill their harmful urges and desires successfully (though inevitably it does lead in cases to this result). They just need a society that has been conditioned to be this ambivalent. (Police simply aren’t concerned about naked women seen on their hands and knees out in the backyard on leashes, after all, it may be “consensual”, but they’ll bring in a SWAT for a plant; I realize they say they weren’t called in terms of there being no police reports, but, I’ve seen watered down police reports on domestic disputes; if they arrived, knocked and left, would they produce one? Besides which, a sexually “liberated” culture allows more latitude to get away with this. -And they do.)
When prostitution (even with minors and children) is so readily available, when open sanctioned promiscuity makes sex with unlimited partners freely available, when porn of unlimited scope and perversion is freely available, and when one can rove chat forums for an unlimited number of nicely, optimally sexually conditioned, emotionally vulnerable minors, there is no need for a social climate that enforces the notion of a kept submissive woman at home (who is in turn rendered incapable of protecting her children). Especially not when, for instance, you can manage to create a social climate where you can literally rob hundreds of thousands of women of their children, outright, just for the perceived crime of having birthed the children out of wedlock, and then exploit said children by shunting them into penal work institutions rife with physical and sexual abuse. (At risk children are still a profit mill in the UK with the privatization of residential care (and notably these were the teenage girls who were targeted in the Rochdale case (and many others)). Given how recently this was the form of institutional abuse towards women (forced adoption) this had hardly receded in the rear view, with the same social vulnerabilities still facilitating sexual predation.
Not to mention, the still existent costs of sexual promiscuity have in no way changed (nor the price to divorce (p. 13)), which is more beneficial to male patriarchy in the form of dispensable wives (and divestment of them having outlived their reproductive usefulness), and likely would not have been legally instituted if not for these “advantages”), just the ways and manner in which they are costing society by eroding the social edifice of a family with a nurturing father, and creating a swath of destitute struggling single mothers in a society so morally bereft and so far in decline it is more satisfactory generally to raise the children alone than to deal with the attendant risks of unlimited access by a swath of disinterested if not predatory spouses, fathers and/or substitutes; witness the most common form of domestic spousal abuse or child abuse deaths, -being either the father, stepfather or boyfriend (-if you are honour bound to impartiality, you are compelled to recognize that the Biblical prohibition of not remarrying after divorce was an institution that prevented child abuse by substitute partners, the most prevalent form of child abuse deaths within the home). The second issue is that it is immediate (or extended) familial males who are most often the sexual predators of children. This may be purely anecdotal thanks to its sourcing (this not so much), but it’s interesting in the depiction of the child porn industry from an alleged insider to run across the assertion that the worst instances of child porn produced were committed by the father/parents, i.e., family is still the most potent structure within which to empower and perpetrate abuse, which leads back to why the Biblical institution of patriarchy provided the ultimate form of power. (It also provides a ready example of how we are fully capable of rationalizing any perversion; how far does society want to ratchet up the stakes? The interesting ultimatum presented by patriarchy’s vestment in religion is that rejection constitutes a divestment of faith, i.e., it’s designed consequence for rejection is ostracization at the most fundamental spiritual level, -the human soul.) Given the present climate would it be more soundly argued that centuries of patriarchal dominance indoctrination successfully supress the violent tendencies of heterosexual males towards their family members, or enforces them, -especially given accord wasn’t reached on considering wife-beating illegal until 1920 (with decades of delay in enforcing it) -and especially given what we see indicated in present patriarchal societies? -How ‘bout the additional consideration that despite being challenged, it is so deeply ingrained as to have barely lessened its grip, but rather evolved?
The existing climate of familial abuse and gender inequity is actually so deplorable that it is, given the advent of the welfare state, a sounder survival decision carrying less potential risk to opt to become a single mother, and we have the states that institute this to thank for the fact that for the first time in history swaths of single mothers have not been forcibly confined by circumstance to raising their offspring to inculcate them that the confines of abuse are acceptable, and subjecting them to abuse that continues to be self-perpetuating generation to generation. Yes, it is a social failure and more costly to society (to the extent of the danger of being economically debilitating, but only for “have your cake and eat it too” militarist debt-fed states that would sooner destroy to feed their economy rather than opting to build society), but maybe this is not in the manner society represents and castigates and fears it. Rather than viewing this as the downfall of society, it is a valid consideration that this provides impetus for the graduation of society. When single mothers are provided with an existing option of actually supporting their offspring as single mothers (given that within the confines of patriarchy, apart from breadwinning (which wasn’t always the case) they already were foisted with all the work of child-rearing and maintenance of the home (patriarchy is a deliberate enforced model to burden females with the majority of the (completely unvalued and unpaid) work); since they are being burdened disproportionately in this manner already, a functioning welfare state with existing supports means women have the option of judging the non-contributing male as just an addition to the existing burden of enslavement; if in addition the male is abusive, it is a fully legitimate question whether they are in fact merely debilitating to the family unit. Despite all the many existent ulterior motives, I’d expect this would still reign as the primary basis for women’s initiation of divorce, though that does not necessarily give them the ability to protect their children from child sexual predators in America, even if the fathers are convicted of pedophilia. Divorce itself has now evolved into the process designed for force women to remain with batterers and molesters in order to better protect their children.
Being susceptible to actual judgement of their involvement and an assessment of real contribution the males are then compelled, if they want to remain gratified sexually, to actually have to attempt to behave in a nurturing manner in relationships. Yet once more it is the single women who are vilified for being parasites of the state unwilling to work, breeding to obtain support (when they are already consumed in child-rearing, in a nation where the costs of obtaining child care are more than equivalent to low wage income, making it unprofitable to attempt). This scapegoating avoids any assessment or consideration of the contribution of patriarchal society to creating a climate where it became the better option. Where is the castigation of a swath of failed fathers who foisted their offspring on the state rather than assume any real responsibility, or rational examination of the society that produced these conditions? Are we incapable of equal party attribution or an understanding that people err or exploit on both sides of the fence?
A patriarchal society that (for the first time in existence) is being faced with the compulsion that they must attempt actual healthy relationships (thanks to a two thirds initiation rate of divorce by women), not be abusive and possibly actually nurture and contribute if they want to remain gratified sexually will naturally do everything within its power to unleash sociological conditions and parameters of behaviours that will insure they are not compelled to reform in any way whatsoever. We have this reflexive protectionism to thank for the present unleashing of all forms of predatory sexual abuse and the hyper-sexualisation of female adolescent society under the guise of sexual liberation. The thing actually threatened by the spiralling divorce rate and supportable single motherhood is the unlimited sexual gratification that was patriarchally reinforced (no matter how abusive it was) for the ultimate benefit of one thing, the dick. The dick has naturally over compensated relative to its innate over cultivated sense of entitlement (thanks to patriarchy’s provisions) by attempting to drastically alter society in order to remain optimally “serviced”. The worldwide explosion of porn may in fact merely be a reflexive retreat into mental indulgence in order to utterly avoid the real sexual consequences of the first forays into sexual equality, retreat into a screen, embraced by both sexes, it so happens, because female pornography consumption may produce markedly different results.
The present economic implosion is also reflexive protectionism; it is a result of an oligarchy having found their ideological structures of thought based repression so threatened by the enabling of choice and the generation of sufficient leisure time actually available for actual examination and thought by and about the masses the situation won’t be permitted to repeat itself. It was the direct result of an economy capable of producing a middle class with something remotely akin to equitable wealth distribution, and the development of equitable universal public education. This produced results so dangerous in terms of the anti-war movement and movements for social equality they are not being permitted to carry over a generation (with my generation and the one below being destroyed economically so they’ll have no other focus outside of survival, -yup). It has been realized that such a civilizing impetus of human society as a real economy based on real sustained and sustainable growth cannot be permitted to thrive; it only leads to more equity; real equity is the death knell of oligarchy.
Patriarchy on the other hand institutes inherent subordination within the species itself; it is the ultimate institution of inequity, and hence a great enabler of the self-justification of oligarchy, which is why they are holding onto their precious institution with such utterly repellent sheer viciousness in the contest for female subservience by conquest of her own mind by conditioning her agreement through individual “choice”, while simultaneously inoculating the absolute worst and basest treatment she could ever possibly receive sexually as a cultural norm.
This is the deliberate circumvention of what we are currently going through, which is a recognition of choice based on the liberation of our thriving economy with developed social safety nets, i.e., it is the first time in human history we’ve examined en masse the institution of marriage as a choice rather than a matter of outright conjoined survival (at least in the West), and we’ve collectively found the existing climate to be seriously wanting. This may not actually be a concerted degeneration of society, but rather the initial growth pains in an evolution to making this institution of coupling completely autonomous and a situation designed to thrive rather than destroy via forced confinement that is morally, culturally enforced (which has proven so deadly in terms of the rates of domestic violence leading to death). As opposed to a stricture imposed out of survival necessity, we are arriving at the threshold of whether we will actually develop the institution of marriage optimally for what was meant, rather than abusing the institution, now that we are in fact somewhat liberated, economically, to do so, i.e., the liberation of choice imposes that marriage must reform itself to become a healthy context, or it will simply be rejected (once this is on the table, let’s just completely distort and alter the spectrum of “choice” so it serves what was always served through cultural subjection and confinement). It must survive the test of the fire to come out the other side with the valid recognition that it is the best framework of nurturing, loving and healthy survival; the optimal context in which to exist and opt to create a future, the optimal climate in which to raise our young. Sexual intimacy must survive the purifying fire inflicted by individual “choice” used to mean absolutely anything as well.
In tandem the current confluence of the status quo (with all its attendant historical patriarchal baggage) is trending in the complete opposite direction of culturally reinforced civility engendered in recognizing, respecting and protecting the physically weaker sex and/or recognizing its innate qualities, the one physically connected to rearing the young by pregnancy, and doing what is needful to support the raising of offspring a couple have produced in a nurturing manner. Patriarchy seeks to qualify itself in this guise of protection and as facilitating the rearing of the young, but the manifestations past and present have failed miserably, making this a patent falsehood. When it has not reinforced family but rather has had so many compounding effects in dismantling it and abusing vulnerable children (when not employing the institutions of marriage and family as a form of imprisonment and mental enslavement), the consideration must be made of what it in deed validates. To quote Valerie Tarico in this article, "at the level of evolutionary biology males gain advantage if they can control the sexual behavior of females"; the sum basis for the institution of patriarchy in the Bible is evolutionary and self-serving, not spiritual or religious. As we have progressed beyond the threshold where its framework could have been considered to have optimized survival (the tacit trade off of proffering the male total sexual control in monogamy offers the benefit of him supporting the raising of his offspring and partnering in their nurturing, the bounty and benefit of fatherhood). But in demanding total subservience in the trade it has facilitated rather than prevented gender based abuse, through every manifestation, devolution or evolution, with gendered religious repression on the one hand coming up with its own full-fledged serious sexual distortions of culture where it reaches its highest variables of extremity.
But what we are presently going through also bears the consideration of whether this is actually a dismantling of patriarchy/inherent male dominance, or really a temporary opening that will have a pendulum reactive re-assertive clampdown that in the end will only leave us with the worst of both worlds by also assimilating the full deviance and abuse of the so called liberalization of sexual attitudes in the present by inculcating the culture with the notion that all forms of male sexual dominance and abuse are behaviourally acceptable, that women shall make absolutely no inroads into any realms of power without the suffering the self-same “price-tags” of denigration they get in sexual subservience permeating the entire culture right down to their bedroom.
For on the other hand the concerted degeneration of social sexual mores just serves to broaden the horizons of what level of perversity systemic patriarchal abuse/assumed male dominance may be permitted to achieve when it comes to the abuse of individual women and/or children; (the existing market for child porn and rape pornography for example, which has led to systemic rape of women on film (including gang rape) where the difference between acting or real acts of rape on film are indistinguishable, and real rapes occur in plain sight and are voyeuristically consumed, the more realistic the “better”). This inculcates the culture itself by putting it in plain sight and making it acceptable to enjoy. This is how one aids and abets the other; there’s never been a better time for patriarchy to thrive and realize what it wants than right now in combination, the new front. Its old fronts have never been better realized either, witness the present prevalence of FGM, even to the point of a manifest inability to prevent or prosecute FGM inside the multicultural platform of the UK. Not even here can we eradicate FGM.
This represents a deep seated fear of the implications of female biology: 1) women have an organ that is exclusively designed for sexual pleasure, and that alone, and 2) this has the capacity to free them of any compulsion to perform sex with males. Our biology implies selection and autonomy over birth control on the part of the female by virtue of being fully capable of satisfying sexual drive without the need for males. Hence there exists a latent fear that if women utilize this autonomy or assume control of their own bodies, males could be rejected en masse, which in light of gender discrimination, treatment, overpopulation and the wholesale destruction of life support systems is basically entirely deserved, if not necessary at this threshold for our very survival. There is a deep seated fear of women exercising discrimination about reproduction in consideration of the quality of conditions to life (as has happened historically when patriarchal society imposed conditions were too abhorrent), when in fact the empowerment of this discrimination may be one of the only mechanisms that might save the planet from humanity, -and itself. The total subsumation of women to reproduction, male servicing and patriarchy (total divestment of the female gender in exercising discrimination over reproduction) has simply provided the mechanisms that have furnished the existing death knell of over-population leading to human population crash via resource scarcity, and that’s not even taking the existing prospects of global warming and the potentially disastrous outcomes of patriarchal militarism into account. At present it appears the institution will literally be responsible for killing itself as it holds onto survival mechanisms that were completely outmoded in less than a century due to exponential population growth. “Be fruitful and multiply” has long since outdone itself; the culture remains in complete denial.
The power of gender reversal (relative forms of equal empowerment) is present in biology itself (but only if you accept mutual reciprocity in pleasure as the prime mechanism in facilitating reproduction, over power), which has driven a need and desire for males to divest and assume control to compensate through imposed cultural structures to make females utterly subject to the males’ whims for sex, and imposed slavery in the sense of exerting total subsumation by reproduction. -It wasn’t really a divisive consideration or question until the advent of forms of birth control made this a choice, but the contest of these matters (that birth control is so severe and fraught a contest to the exclusion of matters of survival, and still a prohibition of the existing Catholic Church) is what really throws the motives of the existing patriarchal culture into relief, because when choice exists, they still rely on prohibiting it culturally.
But if we are viewing the world in terms of Creationism and the God worldview that has been utilized by patriarchy for control, the answer of biological make up is implicit: God wants us to be happy, or we women wouldn’t be designed that way; and God gave women the ability to avoid being compelled to procreate for the sake of male pleasure, because it wasn’t necessary for their own. The deferment of pleasure to sexual biological function by the Church in fact flies in the face of the reality of how God created women. It literally denies reality, or the nature of Divine creation. Even this reinforcement is a choice denial of the very existing nature of women. It is a deliberate abrogation of the female gender to subsume the existence of their ability of sexual pleasure to the existence and nature of the dick, for it is in the penis that ejaculation is conjoined with orgasm, ergo, reproduction. So to institute and declare that the only basis for sex is purely reproduction is to optimize male sexual function/gratification at the cost and deliberate subsumation of female sexual function.
Choice in terms of satisfying sex drive purely for pleasure alone rests with the female, a power of personal physical discrimination that has practically been stamped out in the desire to deny it; (this same trend of the complete ignoring of female pleasure is what’s presently trending among teens, thanks to the cultural inoculation of pornography). This climate of submission has never before been better optimized than through the mass mis-education and mis-perception generated by the mass consumption of male oriented porn. The culture represses the existence of women’s ability to sexual pleasure, whereby the female actually has no need for a male to achieve orgasm; the option of female masturbation is culturally eliminated to prevent reciprocal pleasure from ever being the primary mechanism in the selection of partners, and to insure that women never consider that they have to option of forgoing interaction with males altogether in matters of sexual pleasure, if sex with males is of no pleasure to them (which as defined by mainstream porn, it’s inherently designed not to be). The cultural drive to rather make sex a forced or coercive matter that best services and pleasures males at the deliberate expense of females becomes all the more vicious and strident (and in its cultural inoculation of total ambivalence, all the more disturbing) as we arrive at cognition of female biological reality (no one gave a flying f*** about 3D imaging the clitoris (which is largely internal) until 2009, which was attained by three years without funding).
Instead of the natural evolutionary impetus provided whereby women feel a greater desire to procreate with those who actually engage in reciprocity and mutual pleasure, the counter impulse has been to create artificial culturally inoculated conditions where only male pleasure is catered to under male dictate; that has been culturally broadened to something far greater than just what the attributes of physical force provided, ultimately to eradicate this natural existing form of selection in evolutionary biology. The astonishing truth is that patriarchy is an idealogical construct in complete abrogation of not just human biology, but of all mammalian biology. Moreover it is the equivalent of eradicating any sense of altruism or equality in sexual engagement, subsuming it to only serve the more physically powered gender. It is the ultimate victory of individual ego to the exclusion of the other, or what you might call the heartless form of competitive evolution, “might makes right”, or “survival of the fittest”, driven as the most divisive wedge possible at the very crux of creation and conjoining between the sexes.
The very sort of evolutionary Godless mechanism the Church professes as abhorrent is what they’ve instituted and enforced culturally through patriarchy in the repression of women, which has arrived at full-fledged distorted fulfillment in the ultimate elevation of psychopathy in the so called capitalist culture; (capitalism in not a culture, is an economic model falsely enshrined as ideology to enshrine its evacuation of ethics to enforce extreme exploitation and inequity, and no substitute). If this is reprehensible in secularism and laid at the feet of Godless society in terms of the wholesale abstention of morality when it comes to the economy, how come it has been enforced over thousands of years by our religious culture with respects to the female gender? As we arrive at the existing fulfillment of the axiom, “the wages of sin is death” in the discovery that evil inherently rises to the top of our existing structures to control and abuse and exploit the population, let’s consider the rails of inequity we artificially drove into the very heart of the human condition to deny the very reality of our existence so we could avoid reciprocity and love as facilitators of reproduction by avoiding the existent employ of females in being active in sexual selection via the very nature of their own sexual organs? -The total denial of female agency? Patriarchy instituted the fundamentals of physical power and over-powering as the prime mechanisms or vehicle of sexual selection, and made the basis for their sexual organ the only basis for sex. They drove the basest nature of what they regard as the Godless amoral nature of evolutionary biology into the very heart of sex.
If compelled to meet the female in equal engagement by catering to her pleasure as well as his own, the conditions are set for optimal procreation in the sense that the male interest is judged on his willingness not simply to over power and be serviced, but rather his interest in how happy he’s willing to make someone else, which is a sign he’s more likely to be willingly seek and serve the interests of those he procreates rather than neglecting them. It is the empowerment of female selection and control in sexual biology that introduces the element of love in the sexual equation. Ergo, the natural implication of biological reality is that the only component that elevates human identity above the animalian transaction of the same (purely survival of the species), the primary mechanism that elevates us as human beings as something above animals, apart from our cognitive intelligence and self-awareness, is mutual engagement in reciprocity in the act (love).
Incidentally in the same manner you can’t substitute capitalism as a belief system; the same existent fallacy exists with science, which is a methodology (it is not actually our cognitive intelligence, though it signifies the apex of discovery as method (3:21) as its vehicle of attainment). Put another way, why is it needful to believe in reality? Either you accept it, or remain deluded; via science, this process of ascertainment is not static but a process that reforms and rediscovers all the time, so why would you treat as infallible something that is processed through our collective perception (hence subject to our biases and delusions), as well as inherently always self-modifying? The predication of scientific exploration is based on our assumptions, it cannot escape our modulation as a process we formulate, but neither is it something to be believed in if it is methodology established to ascertain the true nature of reality. To enter belief into the equation, to believe in science, is to relegate it to the same proxy in our existence as the faculty of myth (back when myth was our only means of explaining existence), which amply exhibits the fallacy of how easily this is prone to falling to the wayside by virtue of becoming ideology by proxy; as ideology, it risks the attacks on dispensation that exiled religion, subject to judgment as such, and hence disposable. The present protectionist “reversionism” (a little more potentially insidious than revisionism) now at operation in the US is a direct result of the incorporation of science as ideology; as the existent arrival at empirical conclusiveness of the validity of only atheism and secular humanism, meaning that since science’s efficacy lies in concrete measurement of the material, we can operate on the assumptive awareness that only what we can materially ascertain by empirical evidence of this sort actually exists (this when we can’t even nail down the nature of human consciousness in the brain). Had this not been biased in its assumptions to deliberately do away with religion as no more than myth to render it impotent to collectively release us from the distortion of the egregious abuses humanity performed under its auspices (myth with an exceedingly high death toll), science would not exist under the fire it exists today. -Big oops if you think about it, as it creates a loophole that provides for regression to barbarism, the possible re-substitution of myth for reality, which might look like alarmism had not science already been subject to precisely this depredation thanks to the global warming debate.
I am fully secular humanist in that I believe the existence of morality is not contingent on a belief in Deity or religion, but the exit of the belief in the existence of evil and it having an inherent nature we need to expel from society has been more ruinous to our existence (in the full blown amoral institutionalized exercise of capitalism as resource depredation, both human and natural) than any form of belief system hitherto known to us. And so to the extent that science proves the device in the full blown destructiveness of this age and is employed to defend it, humanity, in witnessing this consequence, may arrive at dispensing with the inherent threat after having witnessed the fall-out, relative to the extent that it was employed for the unleashing of unfettered individualism to the extent of defining wholesale greed as virtuous and beneficial to society. Make no mistake, if employed in advocacy of this nature (amorality informed as a brand of ideology, the casus belli of so many neo-“economists” so utterly saddled in ideological baggage they made greed a “virtue”), science has been compelled to perform as substitution for a belief system.
Another way to look at it; humanity is actually equally if not more abusive in the absence of any belief system other than atheism/science/secular humanism at its employ, which can be amply argued just by the death tolls of the distortions of communism employed in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia, where communism was employed not in social collectivism for equity but as collectivization that was all the more easily controlled by despots (or seeing the necessity, modernism got exceedingly brutal, modernization of this cataclysmic nature having been impelled by capitalism; either compete successfully in the industrial revolution (the “brave new world” of amoral dog eat dog post-industrial capitalism) or risk suffering invasion by someone who has already engaged in an arms race with the capacity to totally annihilate you).
China is our existing template that shows capitalism is in no way associative with democracy or freedom, but operates to fuller efficacy in authoritarian regimes in terms of instituting adaptation; that it is fully adaptive to any form of governance is something the US knows full well in terms of the despots it supports where these also happen to be religiously instituted, nations with active mergers of Church and State (Turkey and Israel, for example are mergers (if not necessarily despotism) but if you want one, consider capitalism conjoined with Divine monarchy, -witness our friend and ally Saudi Arabia (and note this woman is Canadian, and has no protection having immigrated by marriage). That is existent because capitalism is not actually ideology; fascism however, is, and of course fascism provides the maximum optimization of capitalism just as well or better than authoritarianism, which is why all “capitalist” societies possess a slippery slope. The fallacies are indicative in both the interchangeableness and the continued unmitigated harm of the current status quo. We’re unmitigated ass-holes no matter how we happen to arrive there; power’s achieving basis (the use of superior force) means those most proficient at human abuse always rise no matter what our ideological construct happens to be, religion or no.
While cognitive intelligence (and its brainchild, science) is our greatest attribute or attainment, greater is the implication or possible existence of love, which is in fact an element introduced by the nature of human female sexual organs, as it is the clitoris that introduces the possibility of reciprocal pleasure as an element in evolutionary selection, and it is her womb that is the faculty of producing any result from penetration that may experience Love in being birthed. With child-rearing having been relegated to the female, it is also her reigning contribution directly to her offspring as nurture, especially in light of the consideration that child-rearing is economically relegated to being utterly value-less until mothers were forgoing it to enter the work force (it entered the equation of the economy only when someone other than the mother was compelled to do it, -funny, yet is the source of our collective impoverishment in matters of Social Security, when we in fact raise the resource (children) that provides for Social Security). It is women who give to and sacrifice for the successive generation (as well as birthing it), furnishing all this for free, unless you consider the tacit exchange of matrimony with the father as breadwinner in furnishing familial existence, but look what patriarchy exacted as the “price-tag” in all matters pertaining to this exchange to make it a matter of power more than love, to the extent of the complete subsumation and abnegation of even personhood for women. Based on female sexuality, we relegated what was existent as natural selection to indicate her position of subservience and define her entire role in existence, denigrating her capacity rather than elevating it, or viewing it as in any way equal. We codified it as her entire role, self-sacrifice, considered her all the lowlier for it, rendering her a mere beast of emotion furnished (by Divine ordinance) merely for servitude, and deliberately buried the inherent implications existent in her sexuality of being the real arbiter of reproduction; -if it wasn’t based on force or power. We instead institutionalized the dynamics of power, with patriarchy.
Love (its attendant interest in engendering equity in society and social justice and equality) holds the only possibility of mitigation and regulation of the unbridled abuse and employ merely of mere “power” (read superior ability of human on human abuse and employ of fear) to control populations, sheer barbarism no matter how technocratic your society might happen to be. The repression of love in evolutionary selection, conjoined with the full blown realization of our faculties, this division may well be considered as having led us to the threshold where we consider how the intelligent animal has no more succeeded in avoiding the failed animalian or biological model of simply being an aberration that succeeded in nothing more than the usual requisite consequences of exceeding carrying capacity (except we succeeded in exceeding it far more than usual for a temporary span enforced by our intelligence, which only succeeded in digging the hole deeper), meaning that despite our intelligence, we never managed to escape animalian consequences in terms of the basest form of elimination existent in the balance of ecology (population crash), which only elevates our collective stupidity in the face of our existing self-awareness.
But then we ourselves denied and supressed the existent mechanism in our biology that might have served to possibly curtail or regulate population (women seeking to reproduce or not as an active choice and thereby reducing her possible number of pregnancies was culturally inoculated as abhorrent to Godly creation). Genesis’ first edict, “be fruitful and multiply” is the basis of the existence of the penis where pleasure, orgasm and sperm deposition are all one and the same to furnish maximum possible reproduction. We facilitated male biological function to its utter maximum in the same token as we denied and supressed mutual reciprocity, or the possibility of love being active in sexual selection and reproduction, when it really inherently existed in our existent biology. It served us well, but only to the points of our achievement of success in total domination over all other species, each other, and the planet. At the threshold where this domination crossed the threshold of becoming so consumptive as to risk being self-terminating, these mechanisms of “success” have in no way been examined or checked.
Could we consider the possible contingency or combination of denial leading to inherent self-destruction to have been more elemental and fundamental than our cultural enforcement of might makes right between the genders by the full-fledged vestment of patriarchy, which trumped the furnishing mechanism of love, and thereby cooperative and fulfilling relationships, the most fundamental element introducing the prospect of cooperation in elevating our evolution, as opposed to our deliberate entrenchment of the fundamentals of power between the sexes? We did this by choice. We chose power as the prime mechanism in evolutionary biology when it was in fact unnatural and inherently unbalanced. We chose to disenfranchise the weaker sex throughout our history. We arrived at resounding success, but success in what, exactly, if the cyclical crash of civilization is still unerringly inevitable, the steeper the better given what has just been furnished in power, number and complexity? The fall has only succeeded in becoming possibly too precipitous to even imagine?
What do you think the Biblical “Fall” actually means as a litmus of the human condition, the concept of original sin? “In a real sense the projection of guilt upon women is patriarchy's Fall, the primordial lie. Together with its offspring – the theology of “original sin” - the myth reveals the “Fall” of religion into the role of patriarchy's prostitute.” –Mary Daly. How are you going to view these elements in the light of after, or will the arriving dark age throw us so far back as to never potentially arrive at being capable of ever seeing the light? What if the precipitous fall of Eve into subservience actually reflects on the inherent fall of humanity to the same inevitable collapses that inevitably cull the animal world in the instance of exceeding carrying capacity? Maybe the fall represents our inherent failure to rise above the animal parameters of survival of the fittest, because we actually instituted this as the defining mechanism of our internal selection in instituting the permanent imposed subservience of Eve? How come in our perceived elevation over nature, we defeated ourselves to being fully equal in its consequence? What sort of a paradox are we? “The culture that says we are liberated as such from nature is the culture that is most predatory of nature, with its very heavy footprint.” –Vandana Shiva (52:15) –Call it “moral calculus”.
In its elevation of service to the weak, what does Christianity seek and elevate? (“The meek shall inherit the earth”.) Christianity’s entire basis for coming into existence was the enshrinement and codification of Love as the primary driver in moulding and governing human society by defining societal morality, societal re-balance through charity. –So WTF happened? -?
Can we consider that its continued internalization of patriarchy enforced and maintained immunity to cooperation and love in unequal circumstances, enforcing selection purely on the basis of the dynamics and fundamentals of power? The male has more physical power and aggression (hence patriarchy granted the male full subordination of the female in not just this but all aspects (total domination in religious and spiritual concerns as well), rendering the full investiture of power in defining the most fundamental basis of relation between the most fundamental human differential). As the male is possessed of more physical power, therefore the male is entirely empowered in relating to the utter divestment of the gender that is lesser in these attributes. So in terms of gender, was the entire construct of Christianity rendered wholly meaningless, as in terms of gender, it performed its exact opposite? -Guess what? You are what you are. You inherently are what you’ve chosen and defined. Civilization is self-realized, and the present culmination of results we are arriving at are so abhorrent and self-terminating, it may be the only thing that rescues humanity is its calamitous demise. The mechanisms to elevate the meek (or weak), to choose cooperation over exploitation of other populations and the earth, and achieve balance were actually present. -They were actually indicative and inherent in our existing biology.
The Fall of Eve is when we chose to ignore and supress these elements, and chose might over right as the prime basis of not only selection, but in dividing the human race in this manner, our primary default basis for interacting with our very reality was basically an extrapolation on the exploitation of power to its fullest, the exploitation of any form of inequity, over the mechanism of seeking any form of redress or rebalance when presented with those prospective dynamics or circumstances. You are about to reap what you’ve sown, literally in every womb since our very inception of development as a culture, the outcomes of how we chose to come to grips with the very nature of humanity. Nothing in the present prognosis indicates prospective end results are going to be pretty. We are looking at a crash in the diversity of life that is propelling its present rate in keeping with the crash that collapsed the dinosaurs, and not alarmed yet. How population explosions are inherently doomed to end is an inevitable scientific reality. The habitat destruction at the heart of species crash is directly related to the rate of human population increase; it is not recommended to discover how this will end up being self-correcting, but it is guaranteed (cannibalism not necessarily).
What the Fall of Eve may really come to represent is our inevitable fall to the dictates of ecology; (expulsion from the Garden, the capacity to become angels). Despite all our human difference, it was the same dictates that dictate the animals that will revert us and finalize us as being dictated by the same animal limitations by the exact vehicle (“survival of the fittest”) that we chose as the primary default of our own evolutionary selection (it has, with the advent of secularism/evolution, also proved to be one of our beloved mental indulgences, for ends that were equally dubious).
We never came to terms with exceeding carrying capacity, which means, in the end, that for all our vaunted success in evolution, we still never opened the envelop on human capacity or transcended evolution, but suffered inevitable population crash no different than the animal world. The Fall of Eve is our fall or inevitable realization of arriving at really being no more than mere animals after all. At least in all their baser survival instinct they do not create gross excesses in excess of carrying capacity, which is all we in our vaunted intelligence will have succeeded in doing, while still remaining as subject as the animals to the reality of our inherent mutual limitations on a finite earth. Only we will have succeeded in killing way more life, collective abuse of ourselves and the entire natural world along the way, a path of untrammeled and unlimited life destruction. I can’t imagine the judgment of God or Creation (on our treatment of Creation) being kind on this outcome. In fact it’s completely in keeping with the Biblical modes of Divine judgment, Armageddon realized. It will all happen naturally. We will have furnished this outcome by choice.
It is in fact the mechanisms entrenched by patriarchy that made this sort of astronomically unlimited population explosion the only possible outcome of our untrammeled “success”, by its inherent primacy of only one function of our biology, “be fruitful and multiply”, to the point of supressing any prospective female regulation of reproduction at all costs. At this threshold of “success” in sheer consumption and sheer numbers, the very real prospect is that it is our success that is inherently going to kill us, (both in numbers and developmentally), in a manner so sheer and potentially drastic we’re too afraid to even examine reality any more. We’d rather be unconscious ‘til the brink. Inequity between the sexes is the human condition and human problem that we grapple with for our very existence; it is the crux of our very existence, our collective failure or success. This is not a feminist issue in the female interest. It is a matter of human interest, which is what history will resplendently indicate. The patriarchal modes of civilization extinguished its entirety because it was inherently self-terminating, and so the height of its deviance led to the depth of its crash, as naturally arbitrated by the laws of Nature.
Even our self-perceived inroads into sexual liberation and equality are developing as self-defeating and enforcement of the same, all the more heartless and brutal through different mechanisms of technology, liberalism and the information age. In contrast with the explosion of sexual slave trade and the explosion of sex as commodity, concurrently the distortion of patriarchy/inherent male dominance is more drastically pronounced in more religiously repressionist patriarchal modelled systems (just as it ever was), when it doesn’t just degenerate into purely barbarous forms. (It would be laughable to attempt to argue that this form of barbarism (rape accompanying genocide in warfare, rape as warfare) has actually been reduced over time, when were you to number the female victims, there has probably never been a more brutal time in all of history to be fated by being born a woman, which turns up even in the fetal condition, as per the relative ratio in abortion rates in any culture with an emphasis on patriarchy, where the males are valued over females, with China (that “happy” land of foot-binding, with an excoriating example of the invisible “price tag” of the same social vice grip that was institutionally exacted upon hundreds of thousands of Anglophone women in the Commonwealth in recent decades, due to the same erosion of sexual social mores) and India (with an all too typical brand of patriarchal sexist reactionism) being ready examples. This means to an end mentioned by an Indian founder of a woman’s NGO that “men ‘are not able to accept’ women's increasing assertiveness and ‘use heinous ways to punish them’” appears to be a global paradigm across the entire spectrum of every facet of human culture subject to this change, an all-out cultural war against our gender.
The only justification or counter that exists to assert that abuse levels of women have not really changed over time and there is existing progress is the real rate of population increase, which would more likely serve the argument that the ratio of male on female abuse has remained otherwise unchanged, with just the population increase making it more prevalent and worse. Then there is the consideration that this is only beginning to be addressed by being brought out into the open and castigated, not a rise per se, just a rise in disclosure and censure (but not in the face of population increase). For all the ascertainable trends, it doesn’t appear that much is concrete in terms of increase or decrease as both are found readily (in service of the argument that porn provides a safe virtual outlet, debunked here), but it is more common at present for a woman to be raped in the US than to be a smoker. –And there’s a remarkable increase for you.
Our self-awareness and intelligence and civilization have had their greatest successes in the elevation of sheer barbarism and utter resource exploitation to a threshold that will surely be self-terminating if left unchecked. Re-assessment of the fundamentals that got us to this level of risk and sheer ugliness and ignorance to our clear and present danger is imperative.
In other words, you have cocked up absolutely; i.e., since barbarism is component in the optimum realization of a maximum scale of male sexual success (when you can just as easily obtain sex by force who needs love to procreate), we inevitably retain and arrive at the default setting of barbarism; the male preference (by instinctive default if facilitated) is basically having all mechanisms or vehicles to arrive at sexual fulfillment available in combination to achieve maximum sexual opportunity (rape maximised is “better” in the maximization of male sexual opportunity), complementary to a deep fundamental drive in preserving and enshrining every form and manner of prostitution to the extent of mainlining it culturally. As economy is also an equal opportunity employer in terms of male sexual opportunity, the more vulnerable the female population, the more they are at risk, the more they are culturally forced into this position, the more they are willing to pay and be paid to play, the more they are willing to accept forms of abuse as part and parcel to sexuality (including the present belief that their pimps really love them, which is the current crux facilitating the sexual trafficking of female minors where I live right now in the US), the better all this is for the maximization of male sexual opportunity. It is only costly to us women who don’t have a choice if sexual opportunity is maximised in all these arenas, right? -Is this beginning to look presently familiar?
Maintain and battle for complete and utter control of this arena at your own peril, you animal. It’s a love/hate relationship you will never, ever escape. In the end, it really ends up being all about yourself, not anyone else, and that is the true mirror ugly point to all of this, man/woman; was our total exclusion inevitable in your little self-trip for the sake of self-gratification? That is your present little puerile “win” in the current “gender war”, -along with legislated control over insemination/reproduction, to enforce your deposition (despotism) of sperm, no matter how illegitimate? The fall of Eve is a present presentiment, ours, but in reality, it’s yours. It’s time to insure and consider what those two pronouns really mean, or don’t, what’s “Us”, what’s really “Us”, what what’s really happening to “Us”; where we’re going with it.
Do you have any fucking clue of the legal absurdities you’re introducing in the above, and how they abrogate the US citizenship of the mother of the fetus, the life carrier, in North Dakota? Do you have any clue of the potential ramifications of a woman carrier of a US embryo on US soil in immigration situations (legal or no), the level of legal absurdities and wrangling that could be introduced, the potential leverage you’ve given abusive male US partners to employ and attack a woman with in court to force her residency in a domestic abuse situation? Or use a miscarriage to accuse a woman of murder? -The added dimension of “anchor babies” to now include fetal rights? No, only the market infringements, how it would hamper in vitro fertilization outfits, are bloody mentioned. Such is your sense of priority. The erasure of female citizenship in the same token, you do not give one flying f*** about, the destruction of the rights of the life bringer, the life carrier, yet you opine you’re preserving the sanctity of human life imparting these rights to every fertilized embryo.
No, that’s not it, and if you have it in your goal to force me to birth my incest created offspring to either deformity or lifelong ostracism (risking my life in the process), protection of the inherent sacredness of human life is not your goal. Even a patriarchal bastard at the level and sophistication of my father, an ardent pro-life individual recognized that in those horrendous circumstances the choice lay solely with me. He offered no opinion or advice, and simply praised my decision afterward. In that respect he is less of a bastard than what your society would deem honorable enough to legislate. Your moral selectivism has rendered your morality relative, and thereby redundant. I mean this to both sides of the ideological fence, liberal or religious. It is the very foundation of human hypocrisy. And if your society is this fucking abusive to our gender in all matters of sex as to put me in the incest pregnancy situation, and commonly does this to its daughters, it has absolutely no goddamned right to legislate that I birth an infant potentially doomed to the horrible existing prices of suffering as a genetic abomination. You have no right to legislate that potential abomination of existence on any soul. They’d sooner be dead if the soul had a choice. You took the sexual abuse of individual fathers and institutionalized it as a lifelong sentence for both mother and child, yet your culture would destroy that child if nature didn’t, through social ostracization. Would you then give that father/grandfather visitation rights, as is a current and present risk in rape cases? When being faced with the ultimatum of these sorts of absolutely retrograde legal risks, you think the mother isn’t person enough to make an informed decision to abort? When society is so backward as to actually legally enforce the infant’s exposure and raising by a rapist, you think society is somehow actually vested in the capacity to legislate and restrict the ability to terminate a pregnancy to prevent such heinous potential outcomes society itself imposes? This is the self-same vice between immortality and morality with which you’ve punished and abused women for centuries, and made prey of their children. And where you press the vice to excruciating is in the already existent vice conditions of poverty.
A society this retrograde thinks it is in the position to regulate our wombs and legislate enforced procreation, instead of accepting the decisions of ourselves in weighing matters of life and death between ourselves, the fetus, and our prospective futures? You consider our entire gender this dishonourable and incompetent in weighing these matters, when you’re the ones fathering the incest babies? (So long as this realm of the abuse forces the debate (and this is the level of absurdity that is considered a response), guess what? It is not going to end). When the primary basis for seeking abortion is the financial concern of not being able to provide for that child adequately and provide a nurturing environment (usually the launch of an entire family into deep poverty), you abolish all social safety nets to protect those offspring while legislating that the mothers be forced to reproduce? The mother/family in that situation value the sanctity of human life. She/they are making a judgment call that the life of that child is better served by not having to exist in poverty the family or herself can’t support. You are not in those conditions and have no ability to judge individual conditions. The person in the best condition to do that with the most inherent empathy is the life carrier herself, the responsibility of the womb lies with the mother. If birthed into poverty, you are the first to castigate “poverty wombs” and welfare free loading mothers, yet you’ll force those conditions through legislation. That mother is making a judgment call on the sanctity of human life, just as you are, the judgement that to truly hallow human life, one must provide for it. And in making that judgment, she is exhibiting social responsibility towards her society, the world, and the planet.
If you treat this as advocating of abortion, as viewing abortion as my platform of fundamental right, woe unto you, as I have just wrote in excess of 20 pages about the culture of phallocentrism as the totalitarian culture of total sexual coercion and dis-empowerment (a battle fought one on one in most of the bedrooms of the world as you’ve reduced this matter to individualism, if not without that basic civil accoutrement as rape is rampant, in bedrooms too - “In America, the bedroom is second only to the highway as the scene of slaughter” (p.ix). –p. 7). This has never reached greater conditions of inculcated collective insanity and sado-masochistic sexual abuse than in our present western culture (the prime market and exporter and producer of porn and child porn is the United States). In its continued struggle for final dominance its territory for conquest is the minds of subsequent generations (now being conditioned to accept male sexual abuse at the ripe age of four).
“Female becoming is not the so-called ‘sexual revolution’.” – Mary Daly – and there is the hoodwink gambit performed on third wave feminism to use it as a vehicle for the furtherance of sado-masochistic sexual subjection of the female gender, combined with the strategy of burying any cohesion with rampant individualism, which serves to convert feminism merely into consumerism. These reductions led to wholesale mass embarrassment and abrogation of feminism as once again we are wholly defined by our appearance and organs (sexual activity) and so adequately reduced, in the interest of reversing feminism through the perceived conditioning of no other option but to facilitate a reversion of women to good old-fashioned Christian patriarchy. Simultaneously, you’ve actually subverted feminism as a corollary device in ultimately more brutal subjection of all women through the conquest/ total indoctrination of their minds by converting feminism to a “sexual revolution” to further service and maximize gratification of the male dick through promiscuity (the ultimate at risk climate for females in terms of pregnancy/sexual disease), with the acceptance of male brutality and total sexual coercion as part and parcel to the liberation package (something third wave feminists actually campaign for, along with the “right” to be debilitated in towering high heels): –Nice work!
Taken from another direction, if you had any interest of avoiding the inevitable uptick in abortions, you might actually try putting it back in your fucking pants? (Why on earth aren’t the impoverished men being preventative in seeking vasectomies when they already have children and why on earth is this surgery considered elective, rather than subsidized?) If unwanted pregnancies were an actual concern, you would act preventatively; you wouldn’t be confining and punishing women by putting them in the position where abortion is needful in the first place. You would quit creating and maintaining the optimum cultural conditions in order to maintain a steady diet of porn and prostitution for your horridly wretched selves (what you are to enjoy such exploitation, prostitution being one of the most “rational” and likely basis for abortion in the first place; abortion is the inevitable result of your use of women for sexual pleasure merely as commodity). More broadly the highest producer of unwanted pregnancy is your forced imposed imposition of sex on the weaker gender for your own gratification; it is you who are using sex for gratification as opposed to reproduction; this is what produces unwanted pregnancies, and the patriarchal climate most definitely tilts this abuse of sex with the attendant price tag of unwanted pregnancy in your direction, not ours. We’re the ones inherently sentenced to risk the outcome of childbirth without support (poverty), and hence far more adverse to the inherent risk. Then there’s the undeniable reality of our differing sexual biology, which means the matter isn’t just “tilted” at all.
The inherent risk of PIV (penis in vagina) is why you’d institute and campaign to completely normalize birth control (as a ultimate “solution” to the now mainstreamed trend of maximized promiscuity) even if it is inherently dangerous to our health (p. 13, 16 –cute there’s an omnipresent virus warning on the pdf’s of this book if you open it directly (not online though); never had that before… “Now that the model of female moral purity has been converted into pure sexual availability, the Purifiers have produced The Pill.”). Again this is to maximize your sexual gratification, not ours. We are the ones in possession of a clitoris; we are the ones who don’t need the sexual act of reproduction for sexual pleasure, our possession of a clitoris is what you’ve socially conditioned the total erasure of in order to facilitate your gratification. It is only in the interest of engaging males reciprocally and sexually (accept the inherent risk of reproducing by PIV) that we are even in need of “birth control” (i.e., the imposition of cancer risk along with an array of attendant health risks –ack!!!), thank you very much. But as an additional insanity, you’ve tried to mainstream the pill as hormonal control, in other words, to control the “crime” of hormonally being female, making it a condition for diagnosis, instead of any attempt to discover any actual treatment when problems exist. No one would want any momentary access of how depressing reality actually is (depression as a result of prescribed endocrine disruption for the sake of birth control is A-OK). No one wants a cycle that removes the rose-coloured glasses, optimizing our collective survival (through harrowing introspection) and interfering with our sexual availability and willingness to optimally service males now would they? –Get rid of their menstruation altogether and to hell with any consequences! It is still too deviant, female existence, to even be permitted to exist in this cycle, -even to ourselves apparently.
Yet we have virtually no need to engage in sex reciprocally, unless we actually want to reproduce. We are your complete opposite, darlings. In the matter of sexual pleasure, we could masturbate quite happily until you all die out, and ironically that outcome, thanks to how brutally you’ve framed our existence throughout our known human history is what you fully deserve; why on earth would we want this? -A 10 billion future in climate catastrophe compounding resource scarcity where you abuse us as much as ever-? In that sense the mass quota of unwanted pregnancy is entirely in your court. Your circle of denial in terms of the outcomes is manifestly absolute. Your fear of our inherent nature could not be more resplendently indicated than in the history of your concerted brutality and total subjugation of our gender and its innate natural autonomy, your enforcement in the imposition of power is merely self-reinforcement of your own sexual gratification at our total expense. You forced the matter of your sexual pleasure, inextricably combined as it were with reproduction, on us. What should be most considered and most entertained is our blanket boycott of penis in vagina with every effing one of you (especially the over-consuming first world rich, given the huge underlying looming problems based on the functioning utter delusion of a perpetual growth economy).
We can reverse the cultural consideration to sex as primarily a vehicle for sexual pleasure predicated on mutual reciprocity in masturbation, active avoidance of reproduction through all means (abstinence foremost, accompanied by attempting to furnish universal availability to birth control, with vasectomies as the priori means as it carries the least physical risk, after all, it is your depositing dick that is the actual problem, but male birth control for the depositing dick is apparently not a worthwhile pursuit; males certainly wouldn’t accept total universal endocrine disruption for the sake of avoiding unwanted pregnancies, as they’re not on the unwanted receiving end of the risk). Fine, we can obtain sexual pleasure completely without you; let’s try the reversal of sexual dynamics that is actual sexual reality. We can accept this reversal of the dynamics of selection to the female basis and priori for sexual selection, a complete reversal and restructuring to reverse patriarchy in all cultures (female full sexual re-education divested of the patriarchal “norm” and blanket female education, a culturally inoculated predication/right to refuse PIV), along with re-education of the males to actually even seek to refrain from sexual over-powering and cultural coercion as vehicles for male PIV “success”. It is for when you both really, really desire each other, enjoy each other, commit to that enjoyment, and if not preventative, know you are financially and psychologically capable of supporting and nurturing children, and That. Is. IT. –No other reason. -It is way, way, way overdue.
If you don’t think it’s possible, consider the Florida stand your ground rights against home invasion/suspicious activity and the second amendment also predicated on protection against rape; arming women with legal protections to protect herself from rape/physical abuse by force if necessary would actually reverse the matter rather quickly; (gee, so long as all the innocent human cost is only to one gender, you don’t care. I’m not saying there aren’t women who will be vile with that “opportunity”, but that it’s high time the risk went the other direction and we weren’t given life sentences for self-defence from domestic abusers). If that’s all just too horrifying, give us all bear spray in a can or a taser and the effing right to use it until you effing leave off, if you simply can’t suffer our right to simply refuse. Give us martial arts; may haps you’ll go porn yourselves into effing impotence with the aid of birth control in the water table and chemical industrial society. God knows we need it. -You find this a tad cavalier, and sounding more than a little insane? –A culture that can rationally invest this level of male narcissism in terms of women and their sexuality as mere status markers, to the extent he can feel rationally justified to kill over being disenfranchised sexually is what’s insane, compounded by the threat that more mass killings on this basis are somehow “inevitable”. The bed room is the now the 1st field of mortality/injury for us, harming us more than automobile accidents, muggings and rapes combined. How come it’s culturally predicated as “normal” for us? How come the culture has us conditioned to constantly internalize the risk of unintended pregnancy even in these deplorable conditions, even in climates of maximized sexual promiscuity, when we don’t even need PIV to orgasm at all, -just you do?
If the predatory capitalist system wasn’t based on an unlimited fodder provision of the poor to exploit, if patriarchy/sexual slavery wasn’t the default cultural institution, this would have been addressed by our political institutions decades ago. Patriarchy’s made you sexually entitled, catering to the sado-masochistic A-holes among you (culturally enforced female mutilation, genocide, cultural genocide and sexual slavery, slavery outright) for thousands of years. You’ll find it bloody hard to give up, but you have to. And if you won’t listen to reason, we may have to actually fight you on it. I’d happily contemplate a worldwide boycott attempt of PIV, for starters, and if force was necessary to maintain self-protection in the boycott, contemplate it. Such a protracted worldwide boycott could offer salvation for the human race; especially if we did it consistently, prolonged, and often, as in a real genuine tactic. It may start the wheels rolling on the debate; a reversal of years of cultural conditioning. There are plenty of good men among you. It has to change, and you are changing it. You’d better, because you already don’t like our initiative, and this is only just beginning. You are in an all-out cultural war on us in all but name, have done so for thousands of years. You fully deserve an actual cultural war from us in return, for the sake of human self-preservation/civilization. There’s something to be said for the present divorce rate; imagine what would happen if we weren’t utterly fractured with some actual direction in the war in the bedroom; for you have made it a war. How terrifying a prospect to give us adequate social safety nets and the ability to divorce you 100% (so you destroyed the divorce construct's ability to offer protection), Yes, you need poverty, confinement and desperation to maintain your sexist exploitation status quo.
In the meantime welcome to your results, the first being what will be the brutal consequences of final finality due to (your imposed) untrammeled population explosion, once we evolved to being sufficiently able to allow our birth rate to exceed our death rate, and you enforced patriarchy through every means necessary, mainly brutal physical and psychological violence. In terms of psycho-social much needed correction on these matters, you are running in all the opposite directions; in terms of psycho-social trends of what you absolutely refuse to allow to change and the current betrayal of the new “normal” is that it is still in the interest of the enforcement of our collective sexual abuse by yourselves, your desperation to retain your sexual “privilege” through the continued imposed maintenance of our enforced personal expense is omnipresent-ly palpable.
You are actually fighting to enforce unwanted pregnancy for the sake of maintaining your false alternate reality imposed conditions to enforce your own sexual gratification. That is all the current culture war on female youth and future is about. You want to forget arriving at female biological reality (combined with our uprising for equal social autonomy once the world was even evolved enough to be civilized enough to begin to even consider it, simultaneous to its scientific evolution/arrival at even being capable of recognizing reality) as some sort of passing miasma or bad memory. And the first thing you’re going to punish our attempt at equality with is the reduction of the contest to the most barbarous and reductionary legal contest possible (if they have to temerity to dare contest their existing circumstances, fine, let’s make it about this), the contest over the “right” to abortion, rather than the imposed social parameters that thrust us into the optimal maximal conditions for unwanted pregnancies in the first place (since after all, we don’t need your dicks inside us for sexual pleasure practically at all (that is a true if not contrived minority)). Since even the (debated) minority who are capable of solely vaginal orgasm are all in possession of a clitoris as their prime default method of orgasm (it causes the vaginal orgasm too) and vaginal orgasms are different; (in my (incredibly rare) experience not nearly so powerful); the organ for orgasm in women is the clitoris, its primary point of stimulation being external, not internal (the female penis equivalent functions only for pleasure). Since every woman is in possession of a clitoris and capable of arriving at orgasm without any penetration being needful or necessary, the sexual onus on PIV is all artificially imposed through societal conditions of force through socio-conditioning to forcibly “oblige” us to take dick for the matter of your sexual pleasure (which is combined with reproduction, -unless you’re homosexual).
Masturbation removes this context completely for us; our sexual pleasure is not connected to reproduction at all, except in the enactment of equal reciprocity. For you, even if masturbation serves as sexual relief, the matter is still combined, which is why through patriarchal imposition, you maximized the imposition of PIV (porn directing this to the point of multiple dicks in one orifice, and the maximal use of every orifice, and obtaining sexual pleasure through the pain of stimulating the gag reflex to induce unlimited vomiting). This “exhibitionism” as impositionism reinforces your imposition of sex as equated with power. You are pleasured by sexual performance as violently enforced (or observed enactment of such), as in violence (the imposition of your greater physical power) lies your sole inherent advantage over us in the sexual arena, the “advantage” that conquers and erases our own inherent advantage to abstain entirely unless engaged by reciprocal sexual pleasure, the furnishing impetus of love in sexual reproduction/selection. You absolutely erased the selecting mechanism of opting for pregnancy by actually deigning to want it from the psyche of gender, the furnishing of reciprocity. You erased us to do so, our very nature, erased our desire as a mechanism in furnishing pregnancy at all. You must to so to maintain your position of dominance in the matter.
I’d even speculate that this is why incest remains quite omni-present and “popular”; its legacy is a very potent extermination of female desire. Gendered assignation of incest abuse is tenable (if Australia is anything to go by), given the statistics of perpetrators according to gender -scroll down to "Misperception 2", and in fact based on its flaw (all categories should have been factored gender (not doing so serves to obscure the truth); -and in fact the most pertinent factor that should have been brought into consideration is what percentage of male juvenile victims are in fact being abused by male perpterators (where the majority are in fact abused by strangers, which demonstrates incest's efficacy, occurence, and very gendered incidence). Given the vast majority male perpetration within familial confines, the percentage of male perpetration is likey to be far higher, if it were natural to extrapolate. Conflate that implication with the takeaway of this stat that "82% of all juvenile victims [under 12] are female". These are impressionistic; it would be a boon when research begins to catch up to common sense rather than attempting to countervail it; but this is an arena where we do not want to know the truth.
The off-had second take-away to be gained from the above report is even more damning, (scroll in the Australian study to the 'role of opportunity'), where it is asserted that opportunity is as powerful a mechanism as individual character already pre-disposed to sexual predation (meaning a characteristic lifelong desire for children, i.e., dispensation towards pedophilia) in providing the dispensation to sexually abuse children. -Opportunity knocks. -Now conflate that with "equal-sharing" custodial policy in "no-fault" divorce in US family court (the amputation of any use of evidence), which amounts to a policy of equal distribution lending itself to equal unsupervised custody for both partners no matter what the marital history or basis for divorce. With all the appertaining policy failures that constitute the Family Court system (foremost being that the most probable way to presently lose custody is to make any abuse allegations against the other parent, but even in the status quo of the enforcement of shared custody, once a controlling father severs mutual custody he obtained through lack of any historical examination of his conduct, the only possible restraint mechanism remaining, that of enforcement of said custody, is not happening). And what we have is a massive unexplained parade of dead, which in its truncation of rationality as to causality amounts to domestic violence porn. You'd think it would be cautionary. You'd think the roots merited investigation, unless a certain bias wants this entrenched and in place.
What you have in fact generated is the most opportunistic climate possible for that small, exclusive minority of male predators to abuse their own children with almost unlimited license and impunity (as is amply documented in the news without ever once referencing the invisibility of the mother in the equation). You also created the most opportunistic climate possible for that minute minority of male batterers to exact the ultimate controlling punishment on their female targets through the measured exactment of physical and psychological abuse (not to mention the murder) of their own children. For christ-sakes, how many of these murders in the media do you need to get the message? -Or is it more a matter of DV porn, and how that effectively terrorizes women in place -? -How many dead infants do you need at the hands of their unattended fathers before there's an assessed consideration of the essentail nature of primary attachment and which gender puts infants less at risk? When will you quit irretrievably traumatizing these infants by negating that bond and isolating these infants with their fathers through "custodial rights", despite a pre-existing DV history, even?
DV history that was enough to obtain my green card under spousal battery, in my case. Yet he automatically obtained shared custody for a seven month old baby, who he'd barely visited at birth. The only reason he didn't obtain those visitation rights from birth was because she was born in another country because the birth would be covered there (and he was under obligation for airfare back, and her citizenship, which he didn't perform). Despite having 92 000 grand in the bank when I was pregnant, he was trying to coerce me to commit medicaid fraud. (His father phsycially charged me for refusing to do so.) I hadn't even been examined at seven months pregnant. The court put her with the father who'd demanded I abort her or otherwise sign a legal aggreement that abnegated all custodial obligation towards her (perhaps I should have signed him out of her life, but an attorney told me that was impossible). They put her with a family of complete strangers while she screamed until her eyes were red, and deprived her of breastfeeding, which she held onto in an almost desperate manner for two and a half years. (I couldn't even be present due to the domestic violence injunction that lasted two years.) There was an active DVI against this man for what he'd done to his two year old son, and he was handed over a ten month old baby. There was no choice in the matter. My daughter regressed to attempt some control over her environment, didn't speak and became years behind developmentally, with a slow recovery. She now goes into hyperventilating anxiety over something so simple as a ten minute math tutorial.
A 2003 study found that “alternating custody”—for example, week on, week off—“was associated with ‘disorganized attachment’ in 60 percent of infants under 18 months. Older children and adults who had endured this arrangement as youngsters exhibited what the researcher described as ‘alarming levels of emotional insecurity and poor ability to regulate strong emotion.’”
-In terms of the murder rate of unsupervised visitation fathers of these infants, at what probability of risk does of the right of the infant to life become paramount? How many dead do you need? What of the right to maternity leave, which is the probably the foremost cause above the massive abuse of custody for the sake of fathers who aren't fathers, of these infants being placed unsupervised with fathers/male caregivers who if left alone with them, kill them (while the woman, days, weeks or months off pregnancy, is forced to go into work -why no adequate subsidized daycare)? These murders are all a product of laissez faire governance; no one is attending to or even cares to examine this unmitigated swath of deaths. Never mind prevention, it's laissez faire enough not to care about causing them. Think of the spectrum of abuse that has been aided and abetted beyond that, that doesn't include outright murder. Father rights (and the failure in women's rights) trumped these infants right to life as soon as they were born. Never did equality imply homogeneity between the sexes. It was ludicrous to make that some sort of custodial assumption with respects to caregiving in divorce cases when it came to infants, but all you're capable of is the unmitigated drone of these "stories" (unlike Grimm's fairy-tales, these are real) but simultaneously unreal (to the point of vanished, invisible mothers), -all presented without a shred of causality, let alone impetus to prevention, not unlike the torture displays in the middle of the square in the Middle Ages. Without analysis, it is a macabre parade of voyeurism, a society that still feeds on its children. The swath of stories are in fact designed to obscure attribution and reality to avoid any reform to these social structures that "incidentally" produce a high collateral of child/infant murder in their wake. The sick part is the obscurantism to avoid assignating any culpbility that pervades the press presenting these "Stories" without causality also leads to the consideration that this unremitting level of barbarism (which this level of infant murder occurring so regularly should register as) -is being enabled, and therefore, in that very engagement of the matter (enablement by obscurantism) -it is actually being enforced. If perpetuated and enforced it is in fact being intentionally maintained.
In fact all this preponderance in the news is a mass terrorizing construct, a parade of horrific real examples exhibited to all women. In reality it is easily postulated that the most prevalent form of terrorism in the United States today is the waging of this gendered terrorism on mothers through their children and women murdered by their intimates. You might consider a 'war on terror' where your body count actually exists (enough mortalities to amount to a recurrence of the Twin Towers explosions EVERY TWO YEARS, -and that's not accounting for the children), as opposed to instituting this very systemic, highly orchestrated reign of terror through intergenerational trauma (which is instead exactly what you are doing; -that's the legacy for the survivors). The reigning question is, why would you even deign to protect such devastating perpetuation by such a tiny, wretched minority, -unless it protects entitlement of some sort of perverse net benefit?
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" might as well eclipse the buffoon who gave it utterance by being applied to what is by far your greatest existing death toll. -Laughably this was echoed by Canadian Minister Vic Toews in Orwellian 1984-speak: “[He can] can either stand with us or with the child pornographers”. (How utterly laughable, as the impregnated nanny that was the result of his infidelity is alleged to have been sixteen (here "underage").) Unfortunately the overwhelming prevalence of incidence is demonstrative of which side you are on. You are either with us, half of humanity, or with the terrorists. -But you'd sooner normalize government ministers having adulterous affairs with minors. It seems so much less worse "contextualized" as it were, beside the murder parade.
-Which brings us back to why the enshrinement of the extermination of (primarily female) desire matters enough to be culturally enforced; (since the enshrinement of unsupervised visition that encourages rather than prevents that margin of perpetrators insures the incidence of incest remains statistically the same in all metrics (that's what happens when you enforce unsupervised custody of children by their incestuous fathers), as well as insuring its most extreme graduations of deviance, -set to recur regularly). It is extremely potent because its most likely outcome is to erase desire in the context of sexual stimulation itself. This is a known in that it possess precisely the same impacts of cognitive disassociation that are a hallmark of prostitution.
“In reality, the bottom line is that prostituted women are not enjoying sex, and the longer she’s in it, the less she enjoys sex acts—even in her real life, because she has to shut down in order to perform sex acts with 10 strangers a day, and she can’t turn it back on. What happens is called somatic dissociation; this also happens to incest survivors and people who are tortured.” - Newsweek [italics mine]
Let's hear it for deliberately introducing the probability of somatic disassociation (the same effect you get from physical torture) at a gendered rate of one in five, -20%. Wow, let's raise a glass to psycho-social holocaust as normalized.
The erasure of female desire, in order to exterminate this ever becoming a mechanism of sexual selection (even though it is furnished by female biology) is why males seem to so enjoy the act of sex as repulsion, -put otherwise, -manifest in every repulsive context you can imagine in pornography (which is really happening to the women being shot, rape acting aside), ejaculation in women’s faces, gagging oral sex to induce vomitting, multiple cocks forcing both orifices in either/or, rape, gang rape, ad infinitum ad nauseum; it is merely symbolic extermination of the female inherent sexual advantage in the dynamics of gender that his hardly symbolic.
Such too is the impetus or mechanism of erasure in the imposed rape of child brides as a matter of normalization within a culture (p. 9). The “benefit” of imposing arranged marriage as institutionalized female child rape is that it institutes sex as utter repulsion in the minds of the untold millions of female children; this has been inflicted since time immemorial.
This too is a form of cultural enforcement of the inherent male sexual advantage, the ability to impose sex through violence, as forced sex (rape) is the ultimate fostering of sex as repulsion in the female mind. Let’s normalize this interior experience of sex on her end, so she accepts it as normal when it inevitably happens to her as domestic rape! Intra-familial sexual abuse, shrouded in secrecy but pervasively omnipresent, serves the same end. Under the prevailing paradigm of sexual intercourse obtained by force, as ideologically reinforced by patriarchy, pedophilia childhood sexual offenses and/or incest represent maximum empowerment of the male advantage via what you might call pre-existent social conditioning. It insures damage at the developmental level that will permanently impair females from ever developing the discretion to select a non-harmful partner, which ultimately serves to maximize the opportunity of male sexual advantage. When patriarchy is vested religiously and institutionalized, it permits the ultimate license of assuming these abuses, empowering them rationally.
The omnipresence of constant risk of intra-familial sexual abuse in Indian culture in this instance (p. 10, ¶6, ¶9) furnished the cultural “justification” of the mass rape of child brides by old men. In combination with incest, it is still an existent culturally conditioned form of sexual slavery. But the optimization of intra-familial sexual abuse has the same socio-conditioning effect of normalizing the sensation of sex as repulsion for female children of Western society as well, the net “benefit” being that it begins to optimally condition them from childhood to accept the climate of rape culture and sexual exploitation (which they experience as sex as repulsion) as somehow normalized. (Rape culture = force oriented sex as opposed to pleasure oriented sex, (which is not to imply the two are mutually exclusive; that’s where reciprocity comes in); the distinction is about where one dynamic is developed to operate to the total exclusion of the other, since the female gender’s impetus to engage in sex is physically dictated by desire, engagement in full reciprocity being the female gender’s basis for sexual selection.) This is the basis for speculation that the cultural inundation of sex being conditioned and equated as repulsion in female children is actually “beneficial” to males in order to condition the female gender to accept a broader array of force-oriented sex as inevitable, again to impose the exclusive advantage of males, their inherent ability to force the matter through superior physical strength. Again the psychological toll of this climate on the female gender since time immemorial has not mattered. Nor was it in any manifest, until abortion actually became legal. Until you are prepared as a culture to actually try to end rampant sexual abuse which costs the female gender in terms of unwanted pregnancy, you are not in the position, as a culture, to legislate the heinous “final solution” of abortion (a means to end unwanted pregnancy) as illegal. It is unjust.
If you were actually concerned about unwanted pregnancies, you would quit normalizing these social mechanisms to enable the enforcement of sexual brutality as “normal”; (enter pornography as the ultimate normalization device among the young of sex as repulsion substituted for desire in females, with young males being culturally conditioned to perceive this as the norm). You would quit conditioning the culture with a barrage of sexist and sexual imagery, quit mainlining sexual promiscuity as “liberation” among the young, accompanied by sado-masochistic abuse/male domination (as porn), address sexual blackmail via social media (likewise, the promulgation of witch burning “theology” exploded with exponential effectiveness thanks to the printing press), and quit casualizing the rape culture (this could only be perceived as a matter of balanced debate in a misogynist society), -along with the social conditioning to consistently blame the victim. Some of these are outliers, porn is no longer, neither is promiscuity, and neither is BDSM (controlled sado-masochistic male sexual dominance and the equation of eroticism with pain) with the success of Fifty Shades of Grey (Newsweek lawds this the the current sexual revulation. Either gawp, or vomit.) The same case could well be argued for rape.
If you were actually concerned about unwanted pregnancies, you would begin by eradicating the incidence where they're most unwanted, which is rape, rather than granting those unwanted fathers custodial rights in most states, you backassed, backward, worthless SOB's. How oblivious can you worthless bastards be not to recognize that the right to abortion is now the only mechanism left to us to protect ourselves from lifelong custodial abuse with our rapist over our very children, where they condition those children to their abusive natures that found raping us a worthwhile past-time? If you were concerned about unwanted pregnangies, you would eradicate the arena where unwanted the very most, which is intra-familial sexual abuse. You approach the matter of abortion by eradicating UNWANTED PREGNANCY. You indoctrinate against the incidence and nature of cultural coercion that furnishes unwanted pregnancies to occur in the first place. You start with education. (For this I thank Buffet.)
You would quit indoctrinating the entire female gender through sado-masochistic physical rites whose only interest is to utterly destroy their sexuality and sexual autonomy through pain (the most extreme variant being FGM), designed to utterly erase the female ability to refuse and forgo pregnancy, designed to make her purely a utility and sexual receptacle of male sexual gratification and function, with accompanying lifelong trauma. You would quit the religious subjugation of women in the confines of marriage, designed to furnish maximum rates of childbirth and constant female submission to the male desire for sex, and undermine her ability to protect her children from male “authority” as well as physical/sexual abuse. You would quit harming us through birth control. (Male birth control could have likely been acheived decades ago were it not for prevailing social bias that wouldn't even consider the question, whereas the prevailing methodology applied to females is so invasive as to artifically manage their entire biochemistry.) Moreover, you would actually offer and enforce protection from domestic violence (which is gendered). Your illogic viewed in combination with your cultural indoctrination is so mentally spine-snapping it presents you as fully out of your dick servile minds.
To give a notion of a culture that would behave in reverse (have any interest in sexual reciprocity/ avoiding pregnancy risk) consider that the greatest factor resulting in the male/female disparity of three orgasms for him to her one in western culture is the fact that males don’t bother giving orgasms during first encounters/ one night stands, because they have no interest as they are not seeking any prospect from the female. Yet the risk of pregnancy (without any pleasure benefit to the female in terms of reciprocal orgasm) is an imposed given first encounter, the complete opposite of granting primacy to the female orgasm first encounter to impel her to want to repeat sexual activity with the male, -which would also avoid pregnancy risk first encounter. This is manifestly how utterly backward the culture is in furnishing the primacy of the male dick/optimizing pregnancy.
Your interest isn’t in preventing the holocaust caused by millions of unwanted pregnancies, your only interest is the total subjection of women in that same number of millions, legislated prevention of a final solution, when in fact the hideous “final solution” is in fact merely a by-product of your culturally reinforced patriarchy. You’d rather have women continue to internalize the suffering of this abuse and wreak it on the next generation by attempting to inadequately provide for the now sentenced children’s lives in whatever respective traumas the woman would have sooner considered not suitable for birth, rather than witness the actual blood price of your hideous culture in concrete terms. This is your cultural holocaust. And more often than not, the law enforced enforcement of perpetuation through legislated forced reproduction will serve to make a price of these children, who will merely provide more fodder for the consuming nature of patriarchy in the form of criminalization as classism, maintenance of amply enforced poverty, and the continued maintenance of individual domestic abuse in far riskier social conditions. It provides the requisite quota of those desperate enough to opt for military service. In fact the requisite price of “social fodder” is exactly what patriarchy needs in order to maintain women at the level of survival, unable to escape domestic predation, which is exactly what it needs to provide the requisite quota of female bodies it demands through the infliction of inter-familial sexual abuse to provide the requisite quota of desperately pliant enough female bodies to provide its requisite quota of porn stars and prostitutes to accept unlimited male on female sexual sado-masochism and sexual abuse, in order to maximise male sexual abuse opportunity. These resource pools of nubile female consumed bodies must be unlimited to inflict all woman-dom with the belief that these are inevitable components of society, and to enforce acceptance of their individual domestic hells as “improvement”, -that sado-masochism and sexual servility and abuse are in fact “normal” in the bedroom, when we don’t even need to co-habitate in bedrooms with you for the sake of our sexual pleasure at all.
What a hideous (read desperate) inversion of reality ‘tis patriarchy, the complete and total avoidance of the most primal and basic furnishing mechanism that actually civilizes civilization! The true, perhaps deepest sign of arriving at true civilization is when the primacy of sexual selection becomes a female, rather than male determined context. Rather than relying on the dynamics of force (or default privilege imparted by force) to maintain sexual “success” or maximize procreation, a civilized society is one wherein human males would cater to women’s’ sexual organ in order to maximize sexual opportunity, by maximizing female orgasm to the benefit of his own, by maximizing mutual pleasure. Female dictated selection greatly reduces and disciplines reproduction, curtailing all the perils of over-population, starting at poverty. Patriarchy is the maintained enforcement and perpetuation of un-civilizing mechanisms within society, producing the greatest factors that loom large today with the existing ability to destroy us, starting at overpopulation. War is the violence enforced solution to resource scarcity; pestilence the product of unsanitary conditions resultant from too high human density.
You are in absolute denial of the existent reality, recognition that would start by accepting the true and real blood price of unwanted pregnancy (the manifest toll that is the result of the ability to end them), a manifest toll that reflects on the reality that it is you who are compelled to actually start wielding your hanging appendages with a modicum of actual social responsibility in order to rise out of it/end it. Just as the manifest blood price of my own children forced the recognition of reality that was the employ of my internal conscience, my path to salvation, your attempt to make abortion illegal is just another facet of your denial. Just as if I had escaped the blood price of incest through birth control (which I was biologically unable to use), and so escaped from the otherwise inevitable “price-tag” of incest, absence of any real consequence would have actually served to facilitate my own denial, (which was itself implemented through patriarchy). So you too avoid the present price of your meted out, culturally enforced unwanted pregnancies by attempting to make the prevention of them illegal, to avoid any recognition of why they exist in the first place.
(Conversely The Pill just inflicts psycho-social costs of “femininity/feminism” being rendered in the idiom of total sexual availability on the female, by greatly increasing her risks of contracting sexual diseases and inflicting the attendant health risks of The Pill itself on her exclusively. Ergo, you render the price tag of maximum sexual promiscuity/gratification on women once more as you simultaneously render these costs invisible (just as you did in the reign of hundreds of thousands of forced intra-country transferred mass adoptions), along with the consideration of just what all this estrogen is doing after being pissed out into the water table -?)
But if that’s not a go (as the Catholic Church just renders birth control immoral), your legislated “solution” is decidedly more brutal; just as abortion as a “solution” to unwanted pregnancy is a decidedly brutal infliction inside a womb, so is the battleground regarding it; making it the battleground is in fact a feigned attempt at subverting feminism into denigration by making this some sort of end all and be all contest, when it decidedly is not the real contest, just the most barbaric level at which to conduct it, which you are again forcing to be the platform as you denigrate our attempts at real social equity and autonomy for the first time in history (since the advent of patriarchy). It is just another playing field for your blanket denial of total dick culpability; (we have a clitoris, we don’t actually need dick for sexual gratification, practically not at all (despite all your bias and attempted re-ordering of this unwanted fact; in fact this is all about the “unwanted’ “price-tag” of your depositing dick optimizing its own sexual gratification).
Just as my father would sooner commit mariticide/female filicide (femicide) to avoid the reality of his deathly actions, you would sooner not witness the abuse of your patriarchal culture be manifest in the concrete terms of feticide. In order to maintain denial of the abusive nature of your patriarchal culture, you’d sooner legislate enforcement to render the circle of denial complete, exactly where my father would have preferred to have me trapped indefinitely, and destroyed me for escaping. It is the exact same manner you are attempting to destroy womankind right now on a mass scale in terms of existent “conditions” to “life”, life by your definition, both legislated (religious equivocation of imposed morality) and normalizing the heinously immoral psycho-socially.
That patriarchy is existent in utter denial is thrown into relief in a single microcosm by the fact that it completely denied the blood price of my children in the incest situation, and instead enforced not committing incest as the crime, to serve to implement a form of daughter/mother execution rite, all the while personally damning us employing the Fall of Eve.
Abortion is no more and no less than the manifest blood-price/execution contingent on the blanket phallocentric reinforcements of patriarchy that you would deny by legislating it as illegal. This is no different than how my father used God to legislate my condemnation, and rendered my suffering completely invisible, and rendered the attempt to withdraw from the crime, a crime. To even convince me he’d had to use the premise that the act of incest with him was ordained by God, which could only be accomplished by a lifetime of indoctrination employing the patriarchal indoctrination of the Judeo-Christian faith, with him as the father/church leader and total arbiter of my existence. To avoid his total culpability in this act, he sentenced his offspring to metaphysical death for withdrawing of her own volition from something deemed by society as unconscionable, using the self-same principles of the Fall of Eve to reinforce patriarchy literally as misogyny, to enforce his total denial of culpability. To render abortion illegal is simply a manner of enforcing your collective denial, which is manifest in your utterly heinous inversion and capacity to legislate forced childbirth in rape and incest situations. Your true nature is showing; it is as manifestly insane as my patriarchal father’s inverted condemnation of his offspring to legislatively enforce the birth of incest created offspring, beginning with those you’ve sentenced to lifelong debilitating deformity and suffering. He enforced the production of those offspring through patriarchy, and so do you. Well, well!
In order to prevent unwanted pregnancy, you might actually try striving to create a culture that wasn’t absolutely hell bent on furnishing the utmost potential number of unwanted pregnancies (and here’s where the reign of the Catholic Church remains equally tacit (to a nigh murderous level), just as all of Christendom is tacit in the Fall of Eve), rather than making the last option to prevent one bloody illegal, which is just another method of the tried and true methods outlined above, of using the combined mechanisms of immorality and morality as a complementary cultural vice to destroy the lives of un-numbered women. Abortion is a hideous vile choice, but not one that should be taken away so long as society is so brutal that life in such condemned circumstances merely provides for optimization of the potential prospects of un-numbered living personal hells (prostitutes with babies to become more prostitutes, as a glaring example).
These are the same outcomes you’ve promulgated even more effectively through the “green revolution” in combination with neo-con/neo-liberal “globalization”, enforced by warfare in the absence of “soft-power”. Quantity ain’t quality; kindly quit obliterating our option to refuse insemination through every possible means while you harm us with birth (not to mention hormonal) control (as well as preventing it); kindly quit obliterating any ability to enjoy life as you exponentially increase the mass of it; kindly quit obliterating life’s variety (beginning at us, the female gender, because that is where you betray your true colours, the ultimate substitution of death culture for life culture); bloody stop already. You’re still culturally employing the paradigm of morality, played against immorality (the spine snapping illogic of both sides of the fence), to continue the optimized victimization the female gender through every cultural shift.
You remove the inherent vileness of the abortion “choice” by actually hallowing life, rather than a barbarous, ham-fisted attempt at legislating it as hallowed, the quantity of these “unwanted” only providing unlimited fodder for more degenerative conditions to life, decidedly un-hallowing it, that were promulgated by your unhallowing of the sexual act in the first place. The absolute last thing the earth and world population needs would be the numbers of the previously aborted compounding North America’s inherently terminal standards of consumption for their entire life-spans (future-wise as well, – though thank God for the Millennials, it is too little, and far too late), -amazing that this is an outlier in implication when faced with the utterly barbarous nature of this militarist and utterly sexist society.
Our present prospects (for daughters particularly, but what sort of monsters you’d rather as sons is your preference) might ought to be your stuff of nightmares (as you assiduously maintain the patriarchal paradigms that reinforce the dynamics of power as the prima facie in male female relationships, i.e., “loving to survive” -p. 15, paragraph 4). In the meantime, just go enjoy some more porn and prostitution with minors (the “commercial” violence variety that socially reinforces and tacitly normalizes this as part of the spectrum we must accept to experience) while you’re about your stressful consumer lives on Highway 19 (the local motel strip’s primary economy where I live), and while you’re at it, let your four year old learn from observation that all this is how to “relate” (it starts early), so he can violate my daughter at that precious innocent age, hit her while he’s fingering her in the playground to keep her quiet, while I as a single mother fleeing a potential domestic violence situation leave her in shoddy government subsidized daycare as I must earn to care for her, to keep her out of the situation I fled as too emotionally intolerable to survive. -Whatever gets you off, mate; we’re good all the way; she quit crying out; he told her she was his “girlfriend”.
My daughter was raped in sunny Florida by a boy her age (repeatedly), it has prostitution of female minors/sex trafficking going on mere blocks from where I live, and the highest conviction rate for child sex crime prosecutions nationwide is right here. It‘s where a 13 year old girl being forced to strip at a club is not “vindictive”; it’s that the venue where the 13 year old is being prostituted has not been granted a liquor license. So long as this is the standard reality, you have nothing to preserve or protect. –Inherent sanctity of human life? –Bloody where, when this is what you’ve faced our daughters (life-bringers) with?!? Could you present any greater inversion of life as a celebration of living death and concerted torture of birth (total punishment for possessing a womb, or clitoris) and the very principle of creation, than you have with the present world culture? I beg to argue.
We’re all too ready and willing for whatever you suggest, so take it down the track you want to take it. You’re forcing us to anyhow, especially with the full knowledge of how much worse it is the world over, but that’s the beauty of maximum optimization. It mirrors the terrorization at work in the present globalized capitalist economy and its present rape of the earth while you’re about that as well, and your wholesale rape of humanity's quality of life. If a death toll like this (of women) is due to the Third World peregrinations of the economy, not terrorism, it hardly matters: “in this unnamed war, 1,500 women are murdered annually by their husbands or boyfriends. That adds up to a 9/11-sized disaster every two years.” –It mirrors your total and abject terrorization of the entire globe with your wholesale militarism, to the extent that you’ll prioritize warfare in your unholy budget, at the expense of (domestic) life itself. Your valuation is so little, you’d sooner sacrifice your own. And that actually beings with your very own.
- Go ahead mate, it’s all good!