Posted on 09/08/2014 4:44:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
I got called “vile” on Twitter the other day, which in itself is nothing new – my fiercely pro-American, pro-freedom, anti-moron agenda is a constant source of outrage for the online world’s liberal fascist contingent. What was significant was the reason. I had shamelessly observed that young women who preferred not to have their nude images made public or who wished to avoid sexual assault should take actions consistent with not having their nude images made public and avoiding sexual assault.
Apparently, suggesting that women should not do things likely to put them at risk makes me “vile” because helping women avoid danger takes the spotlight off liberals’ politically useful “War on Women” meme. In other words, liberals happily put women at risk by denying them the harsh truth in order to preserve what they see as a political advantage.
But then liberals have a long and disgraceful history of sacrificing the well-being – and even the lives – of women to promote their grubby political agenda. In the War on Women, the left is the side running up the casualty count.
Bill Clinton famously left behind a trail of abused and assaulted women, but did Hillary the Feminist Icon stand up against his serial sexual exploitation? Nah. She stood by her man instead and unleashed her minions to paint these victimized women as sluts, skanks and tramps.
Now, this is confusing because radical feminists sometimes embrace those terms. Maybe I just don’t understand what a “slutwalk” is. Chalk it up to shameless cisnormative phallocentrism.
The left rallied around Bill Clinton, finding his continued power more important than the women he abused. On the plus side, at least he didn’t pull a Ted Kennedy and kill any.
Just recently, Senator Kristen Gillibrand complained about being sexually harassed by at least one powerful male senator whom she won’t identify. This can only mean that the Honorable Gropey G. McGropenheimer was a fellow liberal – if it was a Republican there’d already be a Lifetime movie about it starring Tori Spelling.
Amanda Marcotte is a liberal feminist best known for her work for pro-woman Democrat vice-presidential candidate John Edwards. Well, technically Edwards was “pro-woman” with an asterisk, the asterisk excluding the dying woman he was married to. Anyway, Marcotte opined that Gillibrand was absolutely right to let the Distinguished Gentlemen from the Great State of Bootygrab remain anonymous. Who cares if future women are abused by this guy? Women should be honored to sacrifice their dignity and their bodies to provide transitory satisfaction to turgid liberal leaders!
Remember, the principal principle of liberal feminism is that every woman has the inalienable right to be a disposable sex toy for some horny progressive politician.
Certainly, liberals hate the notion of women protecting themselves, especially with guns. After all, independent women don’t need liberals. Check out this YouTube greatest hits video of Montana’s own Todd Akin, Democrat Amanda Curtis, as she positions herself at the forefront of the “Let’s Leave Women Defenseless ‘N Vulnerable” caucus.
Liberals have long been willing to sacrifice individual women, but it is becoming more and more obvious that liberals are willing to put women at risk generally in order to promote their goosesteppy goals. Liberals are now resisting the idea of transmitting basic information to young women that would protect them from the kind of exploitation and abuse that liberals point to most frequently. Such tips include:
If you don’t want naked pictures of yourself plastered all over the internet, don’t take naked pictures of yourself.
Recently, as fellow Townhall scribe Derek Hunter recently discussed, a number of nubile Hollywood starlets found their naked cell phone photos hacked. Now these ladies are devastated that any perv can surf the web and utilize these intimate snapshots in their personal onanistic rituals.
It’s hardly news that electronic devices are vulnerable to scuzzy, creepy hackers, so let me ask a simple question: What the hell were you thinking? Did your thought process go something like, “Well, I’m a big movie star and lots of lonely but tech-savvy shut-ins with plenty of time on their hands (among other things) want to see me naked. I know! I’ll take lots of pictures of myself sans clothes and put them up in the cloud. How could that possibly go wrong?”
Similarly, there is a huge outcry over those sexual assaults that aren’t committed by Democrat leaders, particularly ones occurring on campus. This brings to mind another key bit of advice liberals do not want given to young women:
If you want to dramatically decrease your chances of experiencing sexual activity that you may regret down the road, don’t get hammered and go back to some guy’s place for the night.
Again, if you’re in college it probably should not be so hard to understand that guzzling Jose Cuervo until you are a stumbling, puking wreck and then heading off to a random dude’s dorm is likely to end up in the inept coupling that passes for erotic activity among 19-year olds. But apparently this utterly obvious point is lost on many young women. It needs to be reinforced, but liberals reject doing so as furiously as a hippie rejects soap.
The liberals pretend that they are protecting the freedom of you young women, and in a way they are. You do have the freedom to take nude selfies and to stagger back to guys’ cribs. You just shouldn’t exercise that freedom if you don’t want to risk the consequences. Is it unfair that some bad people out there might exploit you when you exercise your freedom? Yeah, it is. So is life.
It’s not “blaming the victim” to tell a potential victim not to do stupid things that dramatically increase her risk. Nor does it somehow excuse the victimizer to point out that a little common sense would have made the victimizer’s task either much more difficult or impossible.
The law has a concept that helps explain this to the slow and the liberal. It’s called “joint and several liability.” That is, more than one individual can be concurrently (and differently) at fault for a given harm. The male who molests the passed out young woman who crawled into his bed is to blame, perhaps even in a criminal sense. But the young woman was still stupid to have gotten sloshed and gone home with him.
Yet liberals don’t want society to send that message. Is it because of liberals’ typically confused moral reasoning, or is it because of a more sinister desire to perpetrate sexual abuse the same way they stoke the fires of racial resentment in order to lock in their coalition? It doesn’t matter.
Ladies, be smart. Use your common sense and stay out of bad situations where you are at risk. That includes inside the voting booth.
In most states, I believe there's no "perhaps" about it.
Of course, expecting the young man, who is himself also sloshed, to be perfectly capable of making these decisions is itself illogical.
IOW, even an entirely ethical young man who intends to obey the law may make poor choices when drunk and horny.
I have never and will never understand the "meet in bars and go home with a stranger" routine.
The young women is stating, by her actions and in the most blatant way possible, that she utterly and completely trusts this guy she just met not to do her harm. Why? On what is that trust based?
They guy, OTOH, is equally trusting that she won't make a false accusation that will very likely ruin his life. Why does he trust her to this extent? What is the trust based on?
Worse yet is the double standard applied to the liability of the act. The woman, being drunk, is considered incapable of a rational decision to have sex or not, due to her diminished capacity. Yet the male, equally drunk and equally diminished, is held wholly liable and capable of forming criminal intent!
Not only is this morally indefensible — it still takes two to wango-tango — it is logically and legally unsupportable as well. But we all know that women are sexual victims and men are just pigs, so that trumps justice.
Which is why getting drunk and jiggy with strangers is so stupid.
You can wake up the next morning, and if accused of rape not even be able to say honestly that you are sure you didn't do it.
All you can say is that you don't believe you would do such a thing.
If a drunk man drives his car into another, I’m curious, what defense should he have for that?
If I take a shotgun into a mall, blindfold myself, and start randomly shooting in various directions, can I honestly say I didn't intend to hurt anyone? Surely, I did not purposely aim at anyone, and people in the mall could clearly see that I was incapacitated (blindfolded), so shouldn't they have hid or taken me out?
Discuss.
Excellent essay.
Many great lines, too, including this one:
Again, if you’re in college it probably should not be so hard to understand that guzzling Jose Cuervo until you are a stumbling, puking wreck and then heading off to a random dude’s dorm is likely to end up in the inept coupling that passes for erotic activity among 19-year olds.
I am reminded of an old British TV show, Doctor in the House.
At one point several of the young doctors do something stupid, I don’t remember what, and are trying to excuse themselves to their supervisor by explaining that they had been drunk at the time.
To which his response is, “Oh, you were drunk. Why didn’t you say so before? That’s all right then.” With, of course, magnificent sarcasm.
The difference, of course, as far as your question goes, is that it is illegal to drive while under the influence. It is not illegal to get drunk and have consensual sex with another person.
It is, however, really stupid. Especially when you have no reason at all to trust that person or believe he/she isn’t criminal or crazy.
I’ll concede your point arguendo. But shouldn’t that hold for BOTH parties, notjust the male?
If the woman penetrates the man or gives him a disease, I would say she has done harm, as well.
I’m not sure I understand the question.
Tell me what should be done with this:
A man gets drunk and sleeps with a sober woman who doesn’t use birth control. She gets pregnant from that man. Did he willfully become a father? Should he pay child support until that child is an adult?
By the standards being promoted by these folks, I guess if neither party is sufficiently sober to give full consent, neither party can be considered to have given it.
By this logic, both parties are guilty of rape.
Won’t be construed that way, of course, the default assumption being that the guy is guilty and she’s innocent.
An excellent point. The law will of course make him do so.
My response is that a man should avoid putting himself in a situation where such a thing is likely to happen. But that’s exactly the same advice, given the women, that the author of this article was attacked for giving.
Nobody will attack me for giving such advice to men, they’ll just think it’s stupid and unrealistic. Can’t expect men to keep it in their pants, you know.
I’ve been drunk enough at times, sadly, when such a thing could have happened to me, had I been with a different crowd. Had I impregnated a young lady, and it was provent to be so, I would have assumed as much responsibility for the child as she allowed. I’m responsible, even if I hadn’t planned on it happening.
Just as I’m responsible for killing somebody while driving under the influence, even though I had no such intention.
And if she merely destroys his reputation by alleging she was “raped?”
I’m getting a lot of mileage out of this quote today:
“The issue is never the issue. The issue is the revolution.”
—David Horowitz, quoting unnamed SDS leader.
He must countersue and drive that false accusation into the ground.
I would not accept such a lie, but then, I can’t say I’ve ever lost control of myself.
She wouldn’t have semen or pictures of merit with me. I would crush her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.