April 2, 2021

"In many... cases, students have felt deeply violated even when their partner followed affirmative-consent rules—asking for and receiving a 'yes'—because aspects of the situation made them feel that what occurred was not what they wanted...."

"Sometimes the explicit request for permission might have induced them to do something they were conflicted about. Some schools have trained students, as part of orientation, to seek and settle for nothing less than 'enthusiastic' agreement to sex. Even under an affirmative-consent regime’s valorization of clarity, 'yes' doesn’t always mean 'yes.' The jury is still out on whether our experiment with affirmative consent will reduce rape, prove useful for distinguishing sex from sexual assault, or lead to less experience of sexual violation. But what may well emerge is a recognition that the clearest practices of 'yes' and 'no' do little to untangle a deep difficulty that makes consent seem promising yet wide of the mark: the altogether human experience of not knowing in the first place what is wanted or unwanted, desired or undesired. In a letter to Princess Marie Bonaparte, a French psychoanalyst who sought treatment for what she described as 'frigidity,' Sigmund Freud wrote, in the nineteen-twenties, 'The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is "What does a woman want?"'"

That's from "The Politics of Bad Sex/A new book argues that current standards of affirmative consent place too much emphasis on knowing what we want" by Jeannie Suk Gersen (in The New Yorker). 

I was surprised to see the return of Sigmund Freud, but Suk Gersen perceives Freud's question — she calls it "Freud's aporia" — in the new book she's reviewing, Katherine Angel’s “Tomorrow Sex Will Be Good Again: Women and Desire in the Age of Consent.” 

Suk Gersen writes:

“Woe betide she who does not know herself and speak that knowledge,” [Angel] writes in her new book. 

I would have found a way around quoting a sentence with a blatant grammar mistake like that... unless I wanted to nudge the reader to think I don't actually like this book.

[In] what Angel terms “confidence feminism”... self-respecting women are supposed to be outspoken and assertive, so as to claim their equality and empowerment. (Cue Sheryl Sandberg’s “Lean In” or Amy Cuddy’s TED Talk on “power poses.”) In sex, this mode translates into the consent solution: a (strong) woman speaks to get the sex that she wants. If she doesn’t speak up, she risks assault, but there is also such a thing as bad sex, which we tend to see as an inevitable life experience, not rape....

Nobody talks about "Cat Person" anymore. Remember when that New Yorker story seemed to articulate exactly this problem, the one that has Suk Gersen going all the way back to Freud? That was back in 2017.

Angel's book seems like it might be more of a self-help happy talk. One of the things that women might want is hope. One of the things that women want — or think they might want in some complex way — is to be sex-positive. And this book gives us that:

[T]he final chapter... moves... into a surprisingly utopian self-help or how-to exposition on sexual fulfillment.

 I am not hearing respect in Suk Gersen's voice. 

[Angel] advises: “Pleasure involves risk, and that can never be foreclosed or avoided.” Leaning on the queer-theory classic by Leo Bersani “Is the Rectum a Grave?”...

 For your list of classics you haven't gotten around to reading yet. 

Angel writes, “We are all at someone else’s mercy in sex, and we all experience helplessness, that originary anguish and bliss; we all become infantile, dependent. . . . There is great joy, strength and transcendence to be found in the fracturing of the composed, adult self.” Sexual desire, she continues, “can take us by surprise; can creep up, unbidden, confounding our plans, and with it our beliefs about ourselves. But this giddiness is only possible if we are vulnerable to it. If asked, we might not say that what we want is sex in a hotel with a gruff stranger. It might be inaccurate to say either that we did, or that we didn’t. Desire isn’t always there to be known. Vulnerability is the state that makes its discovery possible."...

She urges “letting oneself go to places of intensity, to the hairsbreadth space between knowing and not knowing what you want, between controlling the action and letting the action take over—being spat out of the flume into this coursing water taking you God-knows-where.”

Speaking of giddiness... this writing. I wonder if Suk Gersen respects it. Suk Gersen is a Harvard law professor, and I'm looking for the law. It's fine to explore your own sexuality and the "hairsbreadth space between knowing and not knowing what you want," but plainly unethical to go to the authorities and seek real-world consequences against another person based on these internal subtleties of yours. That's why the law looks at the expression of consent.

Suk Gersen finally gets around to law:

If the parts of Angel’s book that read as “how to make sex good again” were followed... a lawyer would have to genuinely fear for people who tried this at home, because, in our current paradigm, such sexual surprise risks bringing on serious institutional penalties, not to mention profound feelings of harm.

 That's putting it mildly. 

It also may be naïve for oldsters to assume that young people’s risk-taking around current consent rules wouldn’t invite the vulnerability of being at another’s mercy—the ever-present risk that one or the other might be dramatically shamed as a sexual deviant and banished from the community, or worse.

That's the most twisted locution I've read all year. Diagram it, and you begin with the empty subject verb it | may be. Then Suk Gersen loads in the old-versus-young struggle for reasons that become hard to remember as you plunge headlong into the negative "wouldn't" and realize you have to connect it to the "may be" and the "assume" and whatever "risk-taking around" something is. And are we just trying not to be "naïve"?

If I move forward, I pair "wouldn't" with "invite," and I wonder what wouldn't invite? I'm not ready to move on to the question of what is invited, because I don't know who's extending this invitation. Or is it just the condition of naïve oldsters assuming something that does the inviting? No, I think it's that the naïve oldsters are assumed to assume that the behavior of youngsters is doing the inviting. 

Okay. Then, the thing that is invited is "vulnerability." To untwist the first half of the sentence: Maybe there are some oldsters and maybe they are assuming that young people are taking risks that invite vulnerability and maybe that assumption is naïve. As for the second half of the sentence, I think that shows what the naïve oldsters are worried about — horrible real-world consequences. 

But I have not frittered away my energy to the point where I don't stumble out of my sentence-reading task demanding to know why the "oldsters" have been impugned as naïve... or, excuse me, maybe naïve.

201 comments:

1 – 200 of 201   Newer›   Newest»
Churchy LaFemme: said...

Suk Gersen writes:

“Woe betide she who does not know herself and speak that knowledge,” [Angel] writes in her new book.

I would have found a way around quoting a sentence with a blatant grammar mistake like that... unless I wanted to nudge the reader to think I don't actually like this book.

Granted I haven't had my coffee yet, but the blatant error there is not jumping out at me.

Owen said...

We need lots more of this earnest pseudo-scientific tripe, packaged in trendy hardbacks and discussed at brunch by very intelligent and caring people. That way no man will ever be able to draw comfort —let alone legal protection— from acts or words of a woman with whom he seeks intimate connection. Because, clearly, “yes” doesn’t “yes,” it means “well, I guess, maybe; but then maybe not, especially if tomorrow or months hence I get a different kind of feeling about it. At which point you’ll be hearing from me. Or my lawyer. Or the police.”

Mark said...

Matt Gaetz was paying a 17 year old to have sex with him and this is what you choose to discuss.

Old people are weird.

Laslo Spatula said...

When a trans-cock is involved saying 'No' is racism.

I am Laslo.

Temujin said...

Methinks we're overthinking this a bit too much.

wendybar said...

I am so glad I grew up when I did in the 60's and 70's. I feel bad for kids today with the whacked out ideas out there. I could think for myself, and knew how to handle myself in most situations, without the guilt of offending people.

rehajm said...

I for one appreciate the ignoring of whatever they were trying to accomplish and turning it into a 6th grade English class.

tim in vermont said...

"Jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today."

tim in vermont said...

Get your own blog Mark.

wendybar said...

Mark said...
Matt Gaetz was paying a 17 year old to have sex with him and this is what you choose to discuss.

Old people are weird.

4/2/21, 7:40 AM

Were you there, do you have proof, or are you just a parrot for CNN. Now do Joe Biden and Tara Reade....or Hunter and his little underaged niece.

rehajm said...

For your list of classics you haven't gotten around to reading yet.

I think that one had a permanent place on my Nana's night stand...

Todd said...

The jury is still out on whether our experiment with affirmative consent will reduce rape, prove useful for distinguishing sex from sexual assault, or lead to less experience of sexual violation.

No, no, and no as it is all subjective at this point, by those "rules". By their "design" yes is supposed to mean yes and anything else means no. Stupid but at least everyone understood. Now yes does not even or really mean yes if it was not said while doing the "high five", showing a big fat joker smile, one video, with 2 friends agreeing that it did indeed mean yes, and while hooked up to a lie detector.

Would it not just be easier to ban all sex while attending school, with any school attending female? They are just not yet mature enough to handle the "pressure", I guess.

Big Mike said...

Even under an affirmative-consent regime’s valorization of clarity, 'yes' doesn’t always mean 'yes.'

Too effing bad! If a college age (or older) woman is so lacking in character that she says ‘yes’ when she doesn’t really want to move forward then she should leave the school and go home, or perhaps buy a chastity belt to save her from her feckless self.

effinayright said...

I would not touch with a ten-foot dick any woman who demands affirmative consent at every stage of seduction.

The evil and invariably physically ugly harridans such as Andrea Dworkin who politicized seduction and sex should burn in Hell...forever.

The hideous kabuki of affirmative consent is grotesque---ESPECIALLY now, when young women routinely have access to cheap birth control.

Laslo Spatula said...

"Jeannie Suk Gersen"

Gersen should thank Jeannie afterward.

I am Laslo.

Rob said...

I don't see the grammatical error either.

Humperdink said...

Mark's inner-MSNBC chimes in.

Bob Boyd said...

“Is the Rectum a Grave?”

Horror story told by oldster gerbils to youngster gerbils.

Mr Wibble said...

You know what avoids this problem? Not having meaningless hookups with near strangers.

stevew said...

If there is no doubt, no uncertainty, then the answer is 'yes', otherwise the answer is 'no'. If you change your mind afterwards there isn't much anyone can say or do to help. Would also be good to establish a clear, narrow definition of rape and sexual assault.

rhhardin said...

Risk is solved by mind-changing. Bad sex for women is, I assume, solved by power tools.

I don't think there's power tool regret.

mikee said...

Ahh, for the good old days of my teens, when herpes was the biggest sexual concern, and my 20s, when untoward panic about HIV prevalence prevailed. Back then, convincing a female to participate at all was the male's major stumbling block to sexual interaction.

The fumbling of innocent youth was shameful to both participants during initial sexual explorations but often led to mutually respectful coopertaion as the best means of overcoming that inexperience. Our porn came in printed format only. Our sexual guidance was available from peer discussions, family, truly abysmal educational sources, and from one or two oddly instructional books with line drawings of sexual positions. Our religion and families and peers often limited our sexual exploration, demanding a relatively mature relationship exist before banging uglies with another human.

Today one must learn anew that online porn is performance art, not documentary instruction; that disease still exists and promiscuity promotes infections; and perhaps most of all that sex isn't mandatory in human relations.

The young schlub in Brave New World who tells of being made to wait several weeks - weeks! - for a female to accommodate his sexual demands represented a person with a ridiculous misunderstanding of human interactions when I was young. Now he represents half the youth population, at least.

Suggestion for youth of both sexes and all gender choices: Try getting to know someone before using them for getting off. Treating people as objects is never proper behavior.

Mr Wibble said...

In sex, this mode translates into the consent solution: a (strong) woman speaks to get the sex that she wants

This strikes me as the source of the problem: the idea that sex is about yourself and not the other person. Two selfish people focused only on their own pleasure will often have bad sex. Two people each focused on their partner's pleasure will generally have good sex. Of course, it applies not just to sex, but to most of life.

Owen said...

Laslo @ 7:46: “...Gersen should thank...”

Threadwinner.

Mark said...

Surprised so many Trumpers are fine with Congressmen taking ecstasy before screwing teenagers.

Clearly Trump knew thus dirt, why else was Gaetz such an boot licker? It's noteworthy not a single Trump has decided to say a thing to defend their great sycophant ... and this all comes out now that Trump has no more use for Gaetz.

Under the bus he goes, just like all good Trump followers.

Humperdink said...

This would be a non-issue if men wore body cams, just like the police.

David Begley said...

“We are all at someone else’s mercy in sex, and we all experience helplessness.” Speak for yourself Angel.

tim in vermont said...

The men who will comply with "affirmative consent" protocols of sex are not the rapists so how they have a prayer of reducing rape, I can not imagine. Unless they have redefined "rape" the same as they have done "racism," in a way to keep all of the negative connotations of the old definition while changing the denotative meaning almost entirely.

I guess the latter is true. When I was in college, we all used to go to bars get drunk, then we would have sex. Turns out I once raped a girl in a snowbank. It didn't seem like rape at the time, and she certainly wasn't mad at me, in fact we net once for drinks years later and had a pleasant time. But now, decades later, we (she and I) are told that it was rape...

Young people are weird.

rehajm said...

I don't think there's power tool regret

Careful we could see another round of Liebeck v. McDonald's lawsuits. Hitachi hardest hit.

Sebastian said...

"a lawyer would have to genuinely fear for people who tried this at home, because, in our current paradigm, such sexual surprise risks bringing on serious institutional penalties"

Fear for people, meaning, fear for men who will be accused of exploiting hapless "vulnerable" women.

At home, meaning, between unmarried strangers connected to some "institution."

Bob Boyd said...

If you can't do, teach.

Humperdink said...

Some years ago, as this issue was beginning to rage, a Canadian college fraternity hung a sign from their balcony: "No means more beer". It did not end well for the frat house.

Mr Wibble said...

Some years ago, as this issue was beginning to rage, a Canadian college fraternity hung a sign from their balcony: "No means more beer". It did not end well for the frat house.

There was a story years ago of a fraternity who chanted, "No means yes, yes means anal!"

effinayright said...

Mr Wibble said...
In sex, this mode translates into the consent solution: a (strong) woman speaks to get the sex that she wants

This strikes me as the source of the problem: the idea that sex is about yourself and not the other person. Two selfish people focused only on their own pleasure will often have bad sex. Two people each focused on their partner's pleasure will generally have good sex. Of course, it applies not just to sex, but to most of life.
*************

You should listen carefully to the lyrics of Bob Segar's "Night Moves".

wendybar said...

Mark said...
Surprised so many Trumpers are fine with Congressmen taking ecstasy before screwing teenagers.

As surprised as we are that Regressives are okay that Hunter Biden diddled his underaged niece and it is all on his computer that the FBI is hiding from us.

narciso said...

How szechuan swallwell like it, dim sum or som eother way

tim in vermont said...

"People are VERY self focused during sex:"

Women, sure. Men have different responsibilities. We are pretty much guaranteed to get off, and if we focus solely on our own pleasure, we may not be invited back.

Tom T. said...

It's interesting how objectified the men are in all of this. Faceless, without feelings of their own. Women certainly don't like it when men year then that way.

Wouldn't a better solution be to develop a real emotional connection with one's partner? To some extent this reads like an exercise in choosing the right vibrator.

Fernandinande said...


"Granted I haven't had my coffee yet, but the blatant error there is not jumping out at me."

'Woe betide her who does not know sheself...'

policraticus said...

You know, I read these kind of articles and I think to myself, if only human culture had devised some sort of overarching, objective rules about the proper place and role for sexuality in human relationships. Something simple, that allows for the maximum amount of freedom contained within a safe matrix of mutual respect and affection. If only there was some set of principles that we could apply that would remind us that, while a sexual relationship is, perhaps, the best and most delightful thing two people can enjoy when it is properly ordered, it is also a relationship that has real, lasting, and important consequences. And, if it is done outside the boundaries of this rule, those consequences can be deeply damaging and destructive of future happiness.

If only.

Oso Negro said...

As an oldster, I love taking risks with young women. But not in this country.

LordSomber said...

Who ties their shoes in the morning?

Ann Althouse said...

@Fernandinande

Thank you for explaining what I was about to explain. I can't imagine that I would have put it more amusingly.

Ralph L said...

A lot less heartache if they stay sober.

tim in vermont said...

""How you doing? Everything okay here? Anything you need? Can I top off your drinks or bring you extra napkins, etc."?

That's not focusing on your partner's pleasure, that's just rude.

Ann Althouse said...

Pick one:

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

It's easy for a native speaker to make the wrong choice here, so learn the rule. I mentioned diagramming sentences. If you diagram, you'll never get this wrong. It's about subjects and objects.

tim in vermont said...

Nothing interrupts the flow of pleasure, pleasure which comes largely from the subconscious mind, than to be constantly waking the rational mind during sex with stupid questions.

Ann Althouse said...

I have read an entire book by the New Yorker copy editor Mary Norris. She's a grammar *pundit*. Maybe her rule is that if you're quoting an author, you leave the author's mistakes as they are, and you DON'T insert "[sic]."

tim in vermont said...

It seems like in the '70s, getting "deeply" violated was what a lot of girls were looking for.

narciso said...

Nah thats just crazy talk, this more of these credentialed idiots i was speaking of yesterday, no matter what do its wrong.

wildswan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chuck said...

Hormones don't care, they are nature's way to propagate the species whether you like it or not. All stable societies have had ways to deal with that, but we started at year zero in the 60's and haven't figured it out. Maybe the next attempt will be segregation of the sexes, segregation seems to be in vogue these days.

wildswan said...

"Oldsters don't realize that the young folks are quite likely to use the tool kit of cancel culture instead of the law. Something lawful or something the law can't prosecute might still be used to cancel. Beware but let go and enjoy." Unspoken: "I was trained as a lawyer to speak more clearly and make sense but I, too, might to maybe get cancelled later in some moral craze too up or down if people can easily work out what I mean, meant or didn't. Or not. So even a another lawyer will not know what I mean or, more truly, do not mean anything. But yesterday was blue.

iowan2 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wince said...

“Woe betide she who does not know herself and speak[s] that knowledge”?

The subject pronouns she, he, and it name only one person or thing, so they are singular. When a subject is singular, use a singular verb. Singular verbs end in -s, -es, or -ies.

Grammar aside, a totally underrated song with proper pronoun-verb agreement...

The Cars: Tonight She Comes

I know tonight she comes
She's taken a swipe at fun
She gives me a reason
The sight in my sights
Well I know tonight she comes

She channels me up
She does it with ease
And sometimes she passes through me
Just like a breeze
She gives me a reason
For feeling alright, oh well
(Know tonight) (I know tonight) I know tonight
(Know tonight) (I know tonight) she comes

I know she's gonna do it to me
One more time (one more time)
I know she's gonna stay implanted
In my mind
Why does she keep me hanging
(On the line) on the line, yeah
I know she's gonna do it to me
One more time (one more time)
I know she's gonna stay implanted
In my mind
Oh, why does she keep me hangin'
(On the line) on the line
Oh yeah

I know the way that she feels
And all of the hearts that she steals
She tells me it's easy
When you do it right, oh well
I know tonight she comes

She tells me it's easy
When you do it right
(Know tonight) (I know tonight) I know tonight
(Know tonight) (I know tonight) I know tonight
(Know tonight) (I know tonight) she comes
I know tonight (I know tonight)
Oh yeah (I know tonight)


- Ric Ocasek

iowan2 said...

@ 7:40

Who is making such a claim against Gaetz?

DavidUW said...

Yet another reason to avoid white American women like the plague they are.

Earnest Prole said...

These questions will be moot once heterosexuality is banned.

Charlotte Allen said...

Woe betide she who does not know herself and speak that knowledge,” [Angel] writes in her new book.

I would have found a way around quoting a sentence with a blatant grammar mistake like that... unless I wanted to nudge the reader to think I don't actually like this book.

Granted I haven't had my coffee yet, but the blatant error there is not jumping out at me.


The grammatical error is the use of "she." It's in the nominative case, even though it's the object of "betide." ("betide" is a hortatory subjunctive, short for "may woe betide...). The correct form is "her" (in the objective case). The sentence should read "Woe betide her who...."

Ray - SoCal said...

Having two systems of justice in the us is just wrong.

Two examples:

Hunter Biden there are even video loaded onto pornhub, text messages, and the gun debacle of his drug fueled life, including sex with an underage girl. Gun violation of lying about his drug use.

Media and big tech black out. Blocking of the ny post.

Gaetz information leaked by the FBI to NY Times. Fbi investigation of possible blackmail.

Gaetz reminds me of what happened to Michael Flynn. Another political hit job by a corrupt Fbi with media help.

And Andrew Cuomo is still in office. I think it’s 9 harassers now?

And shut of that Virginia Lt Governor?

And what of the Dear Colleague letter that Obama’s Administration pushed onto colleges that hurt so many Black Males out of proportion, with a standard of guilt of basically guilty until proven innocent. A modern day lynching. How many Black Lives were ruined?

rehajm said...

Can't we agree if a modern sentence begins with Woe betide... you're gonna pass a car crash before it's over?

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

Remote education is the answer.

Stay home with your parents.

Viva the variants.

narciso said...

I think dragons will burn the town down next

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

what policraticus said. That.

It's just awful for kids these days. Awful. The college-aged oldest Pants daughter wants to date and have a relationship, but it's complicated. She's a practicing Christian and while not, I don't believe, 100% unopposed to sex before marriage, she does want it to happen within the context of a caring, committed relationship. This rules out a lot of her peers as dating and sex partner material.

Meanwhile she has learned through the grapevine that many of the nice boys are terrified to even ask out girls because their fathers have told them, sensibly, that they could get thrown out of school and ruin their lives by saying the wrong thing or touching a girl in the wrong way. On the other end of the spectrum: a friend of a friend that she met briefly in her apartment thought it was OK to get her number and text her "You were pretty hott I'd like to ___________________ " {graphic explanation of all the things he wanted to do to her}. I'm sure that being a vulgar shithead to a nice girl was the fun part for him, but maybe he thought that would actually work to get her to touch his penis. Who knows.

Michael K said...

Mark said... [hush]​[hide comment]
Surprised so many Trumpers are fine with Congressmen taking ecstasy before screwing teenagers.


Lefty Mark is into blackmail. Better than sex, at least at first.

The best rules are still in "The Hot Crazy Matrix."

Mike Sylwester said...

Mark at 7:52 AM
Surprised so many Trumpers are fine with Congressmen taking ecstasy before screwing teenagers.

Go find another blog that is discussing that topic.

Richard said...

What the colleges need is a junior anti-sex league.

Mark said...

Mike, it appears many here are happy to discuss it. Yourself included.

If you didn't want to, you would scroll past that comment and say nothing. Yet you decided not to.

narciso said...


The rest of the story


https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/04/so_gaetz_was_telling_the_truth_all_along_about_the_fbi_probe_into_extortion_official_confirms.html

wild chicken said...

"Two people each focused on their partner's pleasure will generally have good sex"

Meh. Not if the man views himself as the mere instrumentality of the woman's pleasure. "Tell me what you want me to do (what button to push)"

Men always say, I'm not like other guys...lol.

n.n said...

For anyone who intends to incorporate, a business plan would be advisable.

The last time this topic arose, it was about justifying excess deaths at Planned Parent/hood.

Mike Sylwester said...

Mark at 7:52 AM
Surprised so many Trumpers are fine with Congressmen taking ecstasy before screwing teenagers.

You may bring up that topic in a cafe thread later today.

Churchy LaFemme: said...

The grammatical error is the use of "she." It's in the nominative case, even though it's the object of "betide."

OK, got it! Woe is me.

boatbuilder said...

“Sum Gersten is a Harvard law professor, and I’m looking for law.”

“Looking for law in all the wrong places...”

Clayton Hennesey said...

I feel the spirit of Darwin moving over the affirmative-consent folks, urging them not to reproduce.

Humperdink said...

So one of the resident trolls brings up a Republican congressmen committing a possible sexual indiscretion. To the troll: might I suggest there are enough sexual transgressions by members of both parties to fill volumes.

Mike Sylwester said...

Mark at 7:52 AM
Surprised so many Trumpers are fine with Congressmen taking ecstasy before screwing teenagers.

If you don't like the way that issues are discussed on this blog, then simply stop coming here.

Birches said...

You know consent and desire is a lot easier when you've made vows and have been having sex with the same person for years. Just saying.

iowan2 said...

You know, I read these kind of articles and I think to myself, if only human culture had devised some sort of overarching, objective rules about the proper place and role for sexuality in human relationships.

I had this talk with my mom when she was in her seventies. The notion that every twenty to thirty years, 18 year olds think they have invented sex, like the world have never imagined.

Every teenage girl should spend the day with her grandmother, shopping and talk about sex, relationships, love. Pay attention and follow her advice. Grandma will make a lot more sense than a person with multiple degrees attempting to curate the writings of other self identified experts, who themselves "learned" from reading others.

iowan2 said...

If you don't like the way that issues are discussed on this blog, then simply stop coming here.

I would love to discuss it. So far I cant find out who is making what specific accusation.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

I feel like the extra attention required to keep things interesting in monogamy is more than worth the reduction in abject confusion and physical/emotional/spiritual/social damage we have with our current chaos.

And women who feel unloved and used for sex will always create problems. Always. They cannot diagnose this themselves and do the obvious thing (avoid men who just want you for sex and stop hooking up for God's sake) and conduct their personal lives with dignity, so they create all this hooey we are currently mired in.

Rory said...

Sex passports.

You're welcome.

narciso said...

Its the new yorkerif theyre arent neuroticabout something, its not a day ending in y

Leland said...

Surprise, sometimes the sex isn't as good as you thought it would be. Suing won't make it better buttercup. Having the other sign consent isn't enough when they claim coercion.

This would be less of a problem if Universities quit trying to police sex and left complaints of rape with regular police to sort out. Instead, University's want jurisdiction and they often don't provide the same protections for the innocent (either side) that would be afforded in the rest of society.

madAsHell said...

When was the last time you read an article about a man having bad sex.......

I am so fucking tired of Harvard professors that can’t get laid!

Mike Sylwester said...

Mark at 8:47 AM
Mike, it appears many here are happy to discuss it. Yourself included.

If you didn't want to, you would scroll past that comment and say nothing. Yet you decided not to.


It's bad blog manners to come into a thread and insinuate that everyone else should feel ashamed for not discussing some other topic that you want to discuss.

Every day, this blog has one or several cafe threads where you can introduce a topic.

And there are many other blogs, some of which surely are discussing that topic that you want to discuss on this thread.

In this case, your bad blog manners can be called "thread-jacking".

Your comments on this blog will be more effective if you improve your manners.

gilbar said...

'yes' doesn’t always mean 'yes.'

Good to Know!
No means NO!
'yes' doesn’t always mean 'yes.'

Moral of the story.... Never, and i mean NEVER! let a girl know your last name or address

Francisco D said...

I wonder if this represents another normal aspect of life in which our moral intellectual "superiors" are trying to exercise control over us.

It seems to be a trend among the pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-scientific class that has been greatly exacerbated in the last few years.

CStanley said...

Like Pants, I fully endorse policraticus’s comment. I find it hard to imagine how all of the deep thought and study that liberals have engaged in about sex hasn’t yet brought them to the same conclusion- that vulnerability and risk taking are inherent parts of enjoyable sexual experience and when they occur in the context of relationships without real intimate love they often lead to pain and regret.

I suppose this can’t be fully acknowledged because it leads to the inevitable conclusion that the sexual libertine lifestyle leads to unhappiness.

At the very least though I would hope most people recognize that females are inherently more vulnerable and the framework of consent as the arbiter of sexual morality is an attempt to project vulnerability back on males by using legal jeopardy to equalize the natural risks that exist for women.

MadisonMan said...

When was the last time you read an article about a man having bad sex
The man of the species can chalk it up to something, and go on with their day. There's no need to ruminate on something bad.

Jeff Brokaw said...

Workin' on mysteries without any clues
Workin' on our night moves
Tryin' to make some front page drive-in news
Workin' on our night moves
In the summertime
In the sweet summertime

We weren't in love, oh no, far from it
We weren't searchin' for some pie in the sky summit
We were just young and restless and bored
Livin' by the sword
And we'd steal away every chance we could
To the backroom, to the alley or the trusty woods
I used her, she used me
But neither one cared
We were gettin' our share


The lyrics from “Night Moves” would be a far more practical guide to navigating sexual waters outside of a loving committed relationship than anything these clueless morons have to say. Writing rules for people to follow in the heat of passion? WTF?! No. It’s not Scrabble or Chess for crying out loud.

Workin on mysteries without any clues

That covers the topic pretty well in six words. Same as it ever was, to quote another great song from the era.

robother said...

"Old people are fond of giving good advice; it consoles them for no longer being capable of setting a bad example."
La Rochefoucauld.

gilbar said...

Humperdink said...
This would be a non-issue if men wore body cams, just like the police.


This makes NO Sense! The Whole Point is:
Even though a girl gave her Hole Consent; at the time...
Later (maybe, Much Later), *IF* the girl changes her mind....IT WAS RAPE!!!

I'm purty sure, that what they're looking for is:
If you Know a woman, you Must Cleave to Her...Forever (or, until; she Dumps YOU)

narciso said...

Like the stones said 'you cant always get what you want' harvard profs dont know this' then theres the coda.

tim in vermont said...

Now they would just use the body cameras as proof that the 'rape' happened since consent could be withdrawn at a later date turning formerly consensual sex into rape. It is a valid point though that by formalizing consent, you open the "Overton window" on things you might request of a partner, but the real problem college girls have these days is that they outnumber the boys instead of the other way around, so they are subject to competitive pressure on the sex front.

Despite that we used to have sex with girls when we and they were drunk and or high which has retroactively become verboten and tantamount to rape, we had to respect them, because the girls held the whip hand numbers wise.

Howard said...

Morning sex is a great way to start or end the day, thanks Ann. How much of this bullshit has actual statistical significance in real life. How much of these situations are perpetuated by helicopter parents who read this brand of tripe and scare their already immature college aged kids?

Social media and pop couture is not lens to view the world. This is an example of the leftist version of QAnon.

doctrev said...

I'm amused that we live in an era where hating Christ has reached a zenith, yet the arbitrarily absurd standard of "affirmative consent" has become a minefield in the battle of the sexes.

It doesn't stop tribal freakshows like the Weinsteins and Epsteins from simply raping women in their typically godless fashion, though.

Iman said...

Bad fuck (That's what you got, that's what you got), yeah
Bad fuck (That's what you got, that's what you got), yeah
Bad fuck (That's what you got, that's what you got)
Bad fuck, bad fuck

Aggie said...

...when their partner followed affirmative-consent rules—asking for and receiving a 'yes'—because aspects of the situation made them feel that what occurred was not what they wanted...."

Consequences, baby. That's what childhood is for, learning about consequences. And what is College for, now? Childhood.

Big O's Meanings Dictionary said...

feminism - definition

Obsolete.

Howard said...

Tim in Vermont, how is it to be back in the land of randy farm girls going commando in sundresses? That place seems like it's perpetually 1978. I can't wait for blueberry picking season.

tim in vermont said...

It is estimated that there are 600 million blogs. Mark has a busy day ahead of him.

tim in vermont said...

"randy farm girls going commando in sundresses"

I haven't noticed that one in at least a year and a half.

Howard said...

Maybe they only inhabit the "authentic" tourist traps for Massholes?

Mark said...

Only the progressive left could fuck up fucking. Maybe schools should STAY OUT OF PEOPLE'S BEDROOMS in the first place.

Mark said...

Even under an affirmative-consent regime’s valorization of clarity, 'yes' doesn’t always mean 'yes.' The jury is still out on whether our experiment with affirmative consent will reduce rape

Essentially, ultimately, "all sex is rape," which is historically presented as a summary of Andrea Dworkin's thought.

Joe Smith said...

Men will discover the secret of life, eternal happiness, and immortality before they discover what women want : )

Bob Smith said...

Maybe there’s a silver lining in all this bucksnort. The young ladies who say yes and then something else won’t reproduce. They’ll be replaced by some smoking hot Latina that Biden let in. Three generations of mixing it up and we’ve got an army of cafe au lait handsome guys and gorgeous women. Who get fat in their 30’s and die in their 60’s

Humperdink said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeff Vader said...

“Don’t stick your dick in crazy” is the best advice out there

SeanF said...

Question for Ann and others:

"Woe betide _______ does not know themselves..."

Fill in the blank. "Whoever" or "whomever"?

Tina Trent said...

The best book I found for practicing the rules of grammar is called The Transitive Vampire. Even if you know the rules, it makes grammar fun. Now that sex has been decoupled from fun, we may as well find our fun in diagramming sentences.

SGT Ted said...

Well, it seems that, according to the New Yorker, women are incapable of making decisions regarding sex and communicating that to a partner.

Or, maybe, it's time to stop catering to the whims of crazypeople.

Iman said...

Q: what do you call a quadruple amputee cow?


A: ground beef

DavidUW said...

They’ll be replaced by some smoking hot Latina that Biden let in.
>>
Excellente.

>>
Who get fat in their 30’s and die in their 60’s
>
why you gotta be like that.
heh.

my smoking hot Latina is still pretty skinny at the old age of 33.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

...a friend of a friend that she met briefly in her apartment thought it was OK to get her number and text her "You were pretty hott I'd like to ___________________ " {graphic explanation of all the things he wanted to do to her}. I'm sure that being a vulgar shithead to a nice girl was the fun part for him, but maybe he thought that would actually work to get her to touch his penis. Who knows.

Ten bucks says he's a self-described Male Feminist ala Joss Whedon.

Humperdink said...

Humperdink said...
This would be a non-issue if men wore body cams, just like the police.

gilbar responded: "This makes NO Sense! "

No kidding. That was the point of my comment. It was an absurdity to say this issue will ever be solved, excepting maybe utilizing the sex passport someone referenced above (also an absurdity).

*Since the grammar police are on patrol, I thought I had better correct my egregious errors. Still probably some mistakes in there.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Bob Smith said...

Maybe there’s a silver lining in all this bucksnort. The young ladies who say yes and then something else won’t reproduce. They’ll be replaced by some smoking hot Latina that Biden let in.

I wouldn't be surprised if that happens. I hope I'm still around, it will be most enjoyable to hear the whining of affluent White women.

tim in vermont said...

"but maybe he thought that would actually work "

Some guys play a numbers game and take rejection very lightly, it's like the sales guy who says "every 'no' is 1/10 of a 'yes.'"

Jerry said...

"I wouldn't be surprised if that happens. I hope I'm still around, it will be most enjoyable to hear the whining of affluent White women."

They won't be affluent - they'll be scraping by, living two to a cheap apartment with a cat constant of at least 1.5 per person.

Drago said...

No sane collegiate male should even date, much less have sexual relations with, any university chicka in this day and age.

It is the ewuivalent of playing russian roulette with your academic and future professional career.

And yes, I realize that my using the phrase "russian roulette" all by itself "qualifies" me as a russian spy in Dumb Lefty Mark world.

iowan2 said...

“Don’t stick your dick in crazy” is the best advice out there

But they are the most fun...for a couple of hours.

DavidUW said...

I wouldn't be surprised if that happens. I hope I'm still around, it will be most enjoyable to hear the whining of affluent White women.
>>
Hang out in SF sometime.
It's hilarious.

Of my circle of friends there, exactly 1 white guy is married to a white woman.
The rest, of course, being the Bay Area, married Asian women.

Lots and lots of single women in the rapidly depreciating age group of 29-39.

One white woman friend of mine who's not stupidly liberal wisely decided to be ahead of the curve and work remotely from the Nevada side of the border about 7 years ago due to the lack of "real men" here (her terms, and yeah she also said she wanted a white guy), and realizing that, at 35, it was then or never. She promptly got a lumberjack looking dude.

I'm Full of Soup said...

Idem Vetus Longe Reliquit Amentia.

Sebastian said...

"altogether human experience of not knowing in the first place what is wanted or unwanted"

Fair enough, for inexperienced youngsters, and a few confused adults. But of course, in keeping with the prog denial of human nature, men are supposed to know what women want, even if they don't, and even if they say they do but don't, or say they do and do but maybe not.

"What does a woman want?"

Whatever she decides after the fact.

Big O's Meanings Dictionary said...

cat lady - definition

A lonely lady stereotype where the individual comforts herself with cats as companions (or more typically children), not pets and acquires large amounts of them.

Those referencing cat ladies typically greatly underestimate the cat constant.

Owen said...

Leland @ 9:06: “...This would be less of a problem if Universities quit trying to police sex and left complaints of rape with regular police to sort out. Instead, University's want jurisdiction and they often don't provide the same protections for the innocent (either side) that would be afforded in the rest of society.”

I think the universities have little choice in this matter. Obama got his Department of Education to rewriteTitle IX into a Sex Inquisition, after Catherine Lhamon sent out the “Dear Colleague” letters that “interpreted” the statute as requiring a vast apparatus of investigation and adjudication of every interaction that could be construed as having a sexual aspect. “Sexual impropriety” covers everything from a lame double entendre to felony rape. Each school, knowing where its bread was buttered and anxious to avoid an endless rectal probe by DOJ, hastened to craft and adopt sweeping policies and to create vast new bureaucracies. Absent Federal pressure, some schools *might* have acted less insanely; but that didn’t happen.
I can’t imagine the paranoia that must attend every “romantic” encounter these days on campus (or off it: schools view their jurisdiction very broadly, and I bet you could be hammered for a bad move on Zoom).

DavidUW said...

I think the universities have little choice in this matter.
>>
They could have grown a pair and said, thanks for the "guidance" ... we'll "consider" it.

No, they gleefully took it on as iron-clad law.

Fuck them.

Geoff M said...

I'm certainly glad that I was raised in an era where the assumption of chastity before marriage was still around. The social pressures towards sex protected women from feeling exploited far better with the assumption of 'No' prior to marriage.

TelfordWork said...

Re "let him who is without sin" versus "Let he who is without sin":

Your example is really helpful, but it tripped me up a bit, because I tried to put it back into Greek. In case anyone cares, in the Greek of John 8:7 "the sinless one" is one word, not a whole clause. And it's nominative, not accusative, "he" not "him," because Greek has simple third-person imperatives: "The sinless one let-cast the first stone." English imperatives are weird and convoluted.

Otherwise Greek has the same rule that John 8:7 in English respects: the subject of a predicate clause is accusative, not nominative. I think it's a pretty obscure, counterintuitive grammatical rule, not sixth-grade grammar.

hombre said...

If this catches on in Hollywood the whiny, soft-core porn queens will be out of work. No more steamy, tear off each other’s clothes scenes. Intermissions will be required at each step where consent is needed. “#Metoo” has its drawbacks, ladies.

mtrobertslaw said...

This conversation raises an interesting question. Is there a difference between making love and sex?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

What puzzles me is what will happen when enough men simply tire of risking dealing with college girls at all. Will there be discrimination charges for guys who don't want to have sex with them? ISTR a case where a man refused to sleep with a MTF transsexual (I presume a surgically altered one -- or was it just a case of not wanting to do cunnilingus on a "girl" with a penis?); he was charged with being anti-trans.

I mean, there are an awful lot of people I respect and admire but absolutely wouldn't have sex with. Everyone on the planet but one, in fact. Does that make me prejudiced against the entire world?

Paul said...

Thank God I'm married, retired, and don't have to worry about this shit.

The young generation is stupid.

Yancey Ward said...

"The young schlub in Brave New World who tells of being made to wait several weeks - weeks! - for a female to accommodate his sexual demands represented a person with a ridiculous misunderstanding of human interactions when I was young. Now he represents half the youth population, at least."

LOL!! I was also thinking about that bit from Brave New World. I almost wrote a comment describing it, and then decided to read the comments instead.

tcrosse said...

“Woe betide she who does not know herself and speak that knowledge,”

The grammatical error can be fixed by prefacing the sentence with "Confucius say..."

Andrew said...

How do real men get women off? They don't bother, rel men don't care. ;-)

Yancey Ward said...

So, there I was about to get lucky when I accidentally mixed up objective and subjective in a sentence. All of a sudden, her clothing began going back on rather than off, and she was soon out the door, saying, "Don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."

Jupiter said...

Evolution! Clean-up on aisle Western Civ!

SeanF said...

TelfordWork: In case anyone cares, in the Greek of John 8:7 "the sinless one" is one word, not a whole clause.

See my question to Ann above. "Let whoever has no sin..." or "let whomever has no sin..."?

I think the mistaken perception that leads people to conclude it must be "him" is the equally mistaken assumption that the object of a verb must be a single word. It can, in fact, be an entire clause.

For what it's worth, I am not arguing that "Let him who..." (or "Woe betide her who...") is wrong. I am arguing that "Let he who..." (or "Woe betide she who...") is not wrong.

Renee said...

It's not what I want now, but what will I regret the morning after.

That's how people should think. If I'm going to regret it later, then it's a "no" five steps before the guy even had a chance.

Heck, sometimes the regret maybe lame and have nothing to do with shame, guilt, or risky behavior emotionally. I may want to be with my husband, but I have to up early in the morning and I need the sleep.

n.n said...

Whatever she decides after the fact.

Even 20, 30 years later, it may have been rape... rape-rape, or just an article of faith that comforts her when she counts her life's Choice(s) (pun intended). Here's to [solo] polyamory and other queer social constructs.

DavidUW said...

I think the mistaken perception that leads people to conclude it must be "him" is the equally mistaken assumption that the object of a verb must be a single word. It can, in fact, be an entire clause.

For what it's worth, I am not arguing that "Let him who..." (or "Woe betide her who...") is wrong. I am arguing that "Let he who..." (or "Woe betide she who...") is not wrong.
>>

Let/ object/ modifies object.

Let/ whomever / modified with "without sin" or longer phrase.

DavidUW said...

I mean, there are an awful lot of people I respect and admire but absolutely wouldn't have sex with. Everyone on the planet but one, in fact. Does that make me prejudiced against the entire world?
>>>
Short answer, yes.

n.n said...

Incorporation with a "severability" clause and a moral/ethical/legal liability waiver. No "burdens". No regrets. Be sure to demand severance payment. Meow.

Churchy LaFemme: said...

It's not what I want now, but what will I regret the morning after.

Maybe the sun's light will be dim
And it won't matter anyhow
If morning's echo says we've sinned
Well, it was what I wanted now
And if we're victims of the night
I won't be blinded by the light.

SeanF said...

DavidUW, I don't understand. You'd say, "Let whomever without sin..."?

n.n said...

Evolution! Clean-up on aisle Western Civ!

Once you go Pro-Choice, it's over. Still, you can always outsource. The father in absentia. The rent-a-womb mother. The select-child, if you're feeling empathetic.

Jupiter said...

Blogger Mike Sylwester said...
"Mark at 8:47 AM ...
It's bad blog manners to come into a thread and insinuate that everyone else should feel ashamed for not discussing some other topic that you want to discuss."

Mike, have a little sympathy. Mark is having a hard time getting over Donald Trump. How could he abandon us like that? Mark feels that his life is suddenly meaningless and empty. The idiotic slogans he learned to chant, the superior poses he adopted, all have lost their only purpose. Donald is gone. Gone, gone, gone. Gone!

Mark, I feel your pain. I miss him too.

DavidUW said...

DavidUW, I don't understand. You'd say, "Let whomever without sin..."?
>>
If that's the modifier.

Let (verb)/ whomever (object)/ without sin (prepositional phrase modifying object) / ..

Let / him / in the red jacket / throw the ball.

RMc said...

Jeannie Suk Gersen

...but only with proper consent!

Mark said...

Mike Sylvester is as much a scold as the writer of the article we are discussing.

I think, like Jupiter, he thinks I am the other guy who goes by my name here but is newer.

When you never get off your high horse, you can't always see everything clearly.

Mike, I have no doubt. There will be a thread on the topic in good time. And aren't we discussing sex on this thread?

We discussed Hunter Biden's laptop and Antifa in many many threads that have nothing to do with them and you weren't throwing a fit there. Seems like you want to shut down talk of your teenage mistress friend in congress. Wonder why.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Dear college girls:

1: "Regret" isn't rape
2: The fact that he didn't call / text / email you the next day is not rape
3: Are you an adult?
A: Yes: then you are responsible for your own happiness. No one else
B: No: Then you're not qualified to have sex. Don't do it until you become an adult
4: Letting a guy screw you is not going to get you the relationship you want
5: Don't get drunk around people you don't know and trust

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Mark said...
Matt Gaetz was paying a 17 year old to have sex with him and this is what you choose to discuss.

1: What is your proof for that statement?
2: What was the age of consent in the State where he supposedly did that? Age of consent isn't 18 in every State, are you too much of a parochial ignoramus not to know that?

Michael K said...

I agree with Jupiter that lefty Mark is having Trump withdrawal pains. Why else spread his bullshit here ?

Immature girls having regrets after one night stands (Is that too old fashioned a term?) is nothing new. What is new is that politics have gotten entwined. And nobody seems interested in how many of these cases involve black college boys.

Michael K said...

We discussed Hunter Biden's laptop and Antifa in many many threads that have nothing to do with them

Speaking of Hunter's laptop, NPR is fessing up to lying about it.

National Public Radio has corrected an online article that falsely asserted that documents from first son Hunter Biden’s laptop had been “discredited by U.S. intelligence.”

A book review of Hunter Biden’s memoir “Beautiful Things” initially dismissed the documents first reported in October by The Post.

“The laptop story was discredited by U.S. intelligence and independent investigations by news organizations,” the book review by NPR senior editor and correspondent Ron Elving initially claimed.

The correction on the Thursday article now says, “A previous version of this story said U.S. intelligence had discredited the laptop story. U.S. intelligence officials have not made a statement to that effect.”


Since you brought it up.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

DavidUW,

Short answer, yes.

I agree with you, actually. I am "prejudiced against" sleeping with people not my husband, and that's a good thing. But the logical conclusion of this is that everyone on the planet is similarly prejudiced against many, many people, which makes the whole thing kind of useless, wouldn't you say?

This guy didn't want to sleep with a transwoman. Suppose the guy were a girl, and refused to sleep with a lesbian, b/c she herself wasn't a lesbian; is that, too, "prejudice" against lesbians? Suppose she was 20 years old, and was propositioned by an 80-year-old gentleman; is she now guilty of age discrimination? Suppose the guy were her own age, but 400 lbs.; is she now fat-shaming?

All of this would have seemed nuts twenty years ago. I think it's still nuts, but I think there's a sizeable minority that disagree. Sexual attraction is a nasty, snarling critter when you try to stuff it into one of those "intersectional" cat carriers.

walter said...

Increased gaming, less alcohol and subjective unspoken determination of violation make for a great bot market. Though its probably hard to get a bot past the parents.
https://www.studyfinds.org/fewer-young-adults-having-casual-sex-due-to-less-drinking-more-video-games/

Greg The Class Traitor said...

"...when their partner followed affirmative-consent rules—asking for and receiving a 'yes'—because aspects of the situation made them feel that what occurred was not what they wanted...."

I am very disappointed in the commenters here. Not one single "you can't always get what you want"?

Greg The Class Traitor said...

To answer the questions someone asked:

Screwing: Using someone else for your own sexual gratification
Making Love: Engaging in sexual intimacy with someone you love, who loves you, as an expression of your mutual love
Having sex: Engaging in sexual intimacy with someone with a desire for mutual enjoyment, but not Making Love

GMay said...

Mark, you poor dear, however will you manage not having the room talk about what you want to?

You have my empathy.

Jeff Brokaw said...

@Michelle Dulak Thompson and others

I appreciate the thought exercises, but fortunately we can choose to back up and reject the arguments where they went wrong much earlier: the concept that the legal system can criminally charge someone for choosing *not* to pursue others sexually.

W. T. A. F. !!!

That needs to get shredded at every opportunity. Nobody can compel anyone to desire another person (excluding marriage situations, of course).

gilbar said...

Humperdink replied to me saying...
gilbar responded: "This makes NO Sense! "
No kidding. That was the point of my comment.


Thanx for Clarifying for me Humperdink!

GMay said...

"At the very least though I would hope most people recognize that females are inherently more vulnerable and the framework of consent as the arbiter of sexual morality is an attempt to project vulnerability back on males by using legal jeopardy to equalize the natural risks that exist for women."

This is all quite obvious, I'm sure, to everyone here. But it doesn't make the "attempt" any less a shitty solution, unless you feel that relegating morality to a bureaucratic form is effective.

Todd said...

Worry not, this will all get resolved in about another 10 years. Between Dems making higher ed free and advances in robotics, instead of parents paying for junior's schooling, they will be buying him a fem-bot for his 16th birthday. No need to get affirmative consent from Mary, the guys will just trade bot programs for "new kicks". No rape charges and all the male dorms will be clean. Win/win.

Michael said...

OK, the grammar issues:

- "She" is the object of "betide" and as such should be "her." You would not say Woe betide She (I'm done with the quotation marks.) But She is also the subject of Know and Speak, so you have a dilemma. Probably the independent clause dominates, so it should be Her.

- Even though She is singular, the Does takes care of that. Does (Not) Know and Does (not) Speak are compound verb forms. You would never say She Does Knows or She Does Speaks.

You're welcome. (Please forgive any typos - coming off cataract surgery.)

Mike Sylwester said...

Mark at 11:53 PM
Mike Sylvester is as much a scold .... Wonder why.

Mark, Since you wrote this comment so late in the thread, I want to inform you that did I read it.

tim in vermont said...

Speaking of Hunter, why isn't he in Federal prison for lying on his paperwork for his gun? We all know it happened. You or I would be rotting at Ft Leavenworth. Oh, that's right, he gets the Democrat exception, same as Hillary got for destroying Federal records, the records of her meeting with foreign donors when she was Secretary of State. She should be busting rocks somewhere too.

No, none of that matters a bit. I don't know if the accusation is true or not, but I do know that the same people were pushing an outright lie about Trump's phone call and there were attempts to destroy the recording of the phone call, which of course cleared him. Not only did they attempt to destroy the recording while people here were parroting the accusations against Trump, but they were putting together a prosecution to try to put Trump in prison over the lie. So forgive me if I wait until the evidence is fully known before jumping to conclusions.

Richard Aubrey said...

Back in the day fifty years plus, I was loosely affiliated with the Dean of Students office I was a frat grad adviser, taking on the role of housemother. Meanest mother on campus, I was labeled.
People thought, therefore, that i knew Stuff about relationships . So some told me their Stuff figuring I'd help them fix it. Not a good use of their time.
Of them, two women wanted to know how to get their boyfriends to Make the Move. It was a more innocent time. Thing is, he had to Make The Move himself. If he didn't think of it himself, if he had to be told, it didn't count. But she couldn't be too forward or it wouldn't be the fair maiden being overcome by a Real Man. Or something like that.
I had nothing to offer, but since then, various situations have reminded me.

I recall a dean of a CA uni remarking that regret is rape.

If this goes on, presuming it hasn't already, it improves the odds of townie girls getting a college guy.

CStanley said...

@Gmay-
In case it wasn’t clear, I agree it’s a shitty solution. Especially since we’re talking about the emotional inequity here, not physical harm (which is correctly handled by legal means) and pregnancy (for which I believe men should be held more to account instead of the feminist solution which is abortion.)

Vance said...

Man, nothing seems more clear now than my old "Fuddy duddy" religion's ask that we keep the law of chastity: Abstinence before marriage and total fidelity afterwards--solves and prevents a whooooole lot of heartache. And their advice to never get into a bad situation--two of you, alone, late at night. The girl inviting you in.

Just asking for trouble!

"But all of those rules mean we won't have fun!" Well, today kid, it's a lot more obvious how "having fun" for 20 seconds can lead, almost instantly, to years of regrets.

Fernandinande said...

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

They both sound partly wrong and partly right, because it's an awkward sentence structure.

"Let the sinless [person] throw the first rock."



ALP said...

Todd upthread:

"Would it not just be easier to ban all sex while attending school, with any school attending female? They are just not yet mature enough to handle the "pressure", I guess."

The writer C.S. Lewis once opined that the reason we 'covered up' sex and sexuality, considering it impolite to bring up the subject, was that it was such a fucking mess in the first place. We embarrass the entire species with the things we get up to.

The more I encounter tedious overthinking like this, I wonder if we shouldn't have a revival of the Victorian period. Just shut the fuck up about it already. We have heard enough.

Vance said...

ALP: interesting observation about bringing back the Victorian period. My mind flashes to Agatha Christie's Miss Marple, a thoroughly Victorian spinster.

She was never, ever surprised by wickedness, despite her genteel self. Several of the books had Miss Marple dealing with the 60's generation of slutty girls... and yet, Miss Marple was more worldly, more in tune with evil, as it were.

I've often wondered about that and how true it sometimes is. Just a thought.

SeanF said...

Michael: - "She" is the object of "betide" and as such should be "her." You would not say Woe betide She (I'm done with the quotation marks.) But She is also the subject of Know and Speak, so you have a dilemma. Probably the independent clause dominates, so it should be Her.

"She" is not the object of "betide". "She who does not know and speak her knowledge," as a clause, is the object of "betide." "She who" is the subject of "does" within that clause.

If you were referring to a specific person, you would use "her" - "Woe betide her, who does not not know..." - but "she who" is just another way of saying "whoever", and it's the subject of "does" and nothing else.

n.n said...

There is always consent between a lady and gentleman. The problem follows with social progress: feminists and masculinists who complement each other's liberal bent, the exceptional queers, the minority rape... rape-rapes, the day/year/decade after regrets, the politically congruent opportunists, and the Progressive Cult seeking to assuage a demos-cracy of their religiously-inspired Planned Parent/hood ("wicked solution").

Ambrose said...

People used to learn from experience. Make mistakes, grow a little, move on.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

"At the very least though I would hope most people recognize that females are inherently more vulnerable

Which would be why for the last thousand years or so society encouraged women to not quickly jump into sex.

But that was stupid bourgeoise morality, and it had to go.

Fine, it's gone.

but no, that doesn't mean you can replace it with legal double standards. You want women to be treated like men? Fine! Same rules for women and for men.

Women need to be "protected"? Then they're not equal to men, and it's time we stop treating them that way

DavidUW said...

But the logical conclusion of this is that everyone on the planet is similarly prejudiced against many, many people, which makes the whole thing kind of useless, wouldn't you say?
>>
Short answer, yes.

DavidUW said...

I think it's still nuts, but I think there's a sizeable minority that disagree.
>>
Longer answer, don't cater/pay attention to crazy people.
When they continue to pay attention to you, dispute their assertions/premises entirely because, well, they're crazy.

When the nuts in SF stand on a box and yell about aliens wanting to have sex with them (yes, there's a guy who regularly does that), you don't need to agree that there are aliens.

When a man claims he's a woman and wants to have sex with me, I say, no, you're a man, and I'm not gay.

When an Asian woman comes on to me, I say, no thanks, I am not attracted sexually to Asian women. (I like big butts and I cannot lie).

Simple.

Ken B said...

DavidUW
I hope you have someone who will visit you in the penitentiary.

GMay said...

Especially since we’re talking about the emotional inequity here, not physical harm (which is correctly handled by legal means) and pregnancy (for which I believe men should be held more to account instead of the feminist solution which is abortion.)

How do you propose to hold men more to account than they already are? If women don't like the emotional inequity, then perhaps they shouldn't have so readily cast off the social traditions which evolved to protect that.

GingerBeer said...

When will men understand that affirmative consent means no?

Lurker21 said...


Post coitum omne animal triste est.

*

Can't we just skip all the "stimulus" and "infrastructure" spending and just pay Dr. Zuma Zuk to fix everything for us.

It sounds like his bill probably doesn't run to 13 figures.

DavidUW said...

DavidUW
I hope you have someone who will visit you in the penitentiary.
>>
So far, I remain the only man in my family for 3 generations to have not spent a night in jail.

Oh, and fuck off, you pissant canadian.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Jeff Brokaw,

I appreciate the thought exercises, but fortunately we can choose to back up and reject the arguments where they went wrong much earlier: the concept that the legal system can criminally charge someone for choosing *not* to pursue others sexually.

Which was my point. The case about the college boy who wouldn't have sex with a particular trans female was my jumping-off point, and presumably yours. No one has a right to sex with any other person. Not even a husband's right to his wife's body, nor a wife's to her husband's (though when it comes to that in a marriage, a lot more than sex has already gone wrong). We should just throw that particular train of thought back to where it came from.

Long ago (well, decades ago) there was in fact a presumption in some states that a woman could not, as a matter of law, be raped by her husband. That now appears to be extinct, as it ought to be. I remember George Will writing about this perhaps forty years ago, saying that the question wasn't whether a man could rape his wife, but whether there ought to be, as a matter of law, the crime of rape-in-marriage. I would hazard a guess that his opinion on this, as on many other things, has altered. (Will of 2021 must have a lot to say to, say, Will of 1977, on subjects such as gay marriage -- the first column he wrote on that subject, which concerned an Australian attempting to bring his "husband" here under the immigration laws, is about the most venomous column I ever heard him write.)

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

And by "heard" in the last sentence, of course, I mean "saw." Yeesh.

ccscientist said...

Nothing is more sure to spoil the romance than the affirmative consent crap. In a marriage, you rarely "ask" for sex--you ease into it with flirting and touching and kisses. Asking kills the mood. Most women initially will say no if you ask but yes if you are nice to them.

College age girls may feel dirty or ashamed afterwards even though they said yes. This is not rape or assault. The boy should not be prosecuted. Women don't know what they want but men should be mind readers? Wow. No.

Ken B said...

Althouse is right, it’s an easy sentence. Separate out the subordinate clause. Let him cast the first stone. Who can cast it? He who is without sin can cast it. He can cast it.
Who is the subject of the clause “X is without sin”, not he or him, which is not part of that clause.

Michael K said...

Women don't know what they want but men should be mind readers? Wow. No.

My youngest daughter, who was in college ten years ago, used to talk about "The Walk of Shame" in which a girl walks back to her dorm wearing the clothes she wore the night before when she drank too much and and spent the night with a boy in his dorm or apartment. Much of this is regret for careless behavior by the girls.

DavidUW said...

Let whom. Which whom. The one without sin.

The Godfather said...

I think the grammar issue is thoroughly discussed in this thread, but what about: "who does not know herself and speak that knowledge"? Know yourself is old hat, but what the heck does "speak that knowledge" mean in the context of a sexual encounter? I would understand: "No! Stop! I don't want to do that! Put that back in your pants!" But when I was young and frisky, before she got through "I want to speak my self-knowledge" I'd have been half-way done. (I exaggerate for emphasis, of course.)

SeanF said...

Ken B: Althouse is right, it’s an easy sentence. Separate out the subordinate clause. Let him cast the first stone. Who can cast it? He who is without sin can cast it. He can cast it.
Who is the subject of the clause “X is without sin”, not he or him, which is not part of that clause.

You can't separate "him" from "who" like that. If "him" is "John Smith", you can't say "Let him John Smith cast the first stone..."

You could say "Let him - John Smith - cast the first stone..." or maybe "Let him, John Smith, cast the first stone..."

But in the original, "who is without sin" is not separated from "he/him". It's one clause altogether, not the single word "he/him" with a separate identifying clause.

That's why you could leave out "him" in the first case - "Let John Smith cast the first stone" - without changing the meaning at all, since "John Smith" merely identifies "him". But you can't do that with the original ("Let who is without sin cast the first stone...") because the word "who" doesn't work that way.

"Him who" just doesn't make sense, but "he who" does.

CStanley said...

perhaps they shouldn't have so readily cast off the social traditions which evolved to protect that.

As a traditional, conservative and non-feminist female, that’s exactly my point, GMay. Men should have been held to account more within the structures of the old social traditions. Perhaps shotgun marriages weren’t the right solution, but making men support the children they fathered out of wedlock would have been better than legalizing abortion which was the option that feminists chose. There’s a biological inequity in that women can’t walk away from a pregnancy- so instead of making men more accountable for that, feminists chose to pretend that women can now do so.

And before anyone starts arguing that now men have the worst of both because the woman can decide to abort the child without consulting him or give birth and require him to support the child...let me preempt by saying I’m in agreement with that complaint as well.

Jeff Brokaw said...

Michelle - agreed, we were talking about the same thing. I was not arguing with you but rather backing up from the specific to the general which (it seems to me) makes an argument stronger.

That is, if you can state the reasons why something is clearly and obviously wrong at a very basic, conceptual level in addition to the specific examples, that’s a stronger argument.

I was strengthening your case, not weakening it.

RigelDog said...

Althouse untwists: "To untwist the first half of the sentence: Maybe there are some oldsters and maybe they are assuming that young people are taking risks that invite vulnerability and maybe that assumption is naïve."

Thank you for the untwisting; it was fun following the macaroni loops!

I understood that sentence to mean the exact opposite of your conclusion though. To me, she was saying that oldsters (do we ride around in roadsters?) assume that today's young hep-cats have this consent thing figured out---and that because of the new, more clear ways of communicating, or the new emphasis on being sex-positive, today's youth won't be as vulnerable to bad sex/bad consequences. But that assumption is naive because today's youth are in fact still very vulnerable to bad consequences.

RigelDog said...

Bob Boyd quipped "“Is the Rectum a Grave?”

Horror story told by oldster gerbils to youngster gerbils.}}}}}


BWAHAHAHA---thank you for a good out-loud laugh!
See also: "Lemiwinks: The Resurrection"

RigelDog said...

Michelle Dulak Thompson wondered: "Suppose she was 20 years old, and was propositioned by an 80-year-old gentleman; is she now guilty of age discrimination?"


The exact same thought occurs to me when trying to create a logical framework for these weird new rules. The rules dictate that I would be guilty of trans-phobia if I did not want to "date" (that's the term they usually use for fuck) a trans-man. But a young trans-man is guilty of absolutely no social sin for not wanting to "date" my old-ass self, based strictly on my age. Why is his absolute-zero level of attraction to me because I am undeniably 20+ years older than he any different from my zero level of attraction to him because he is trans?

RigelDog said...

Michael: - "She" is the object of "betide" and as such should be "her." You would not say Woe betide She (I'm done with the quotation marks.) But She is also the subject of Know and Speak, so you have a dilemma. Probably the independent clause dominates, so it should be Her.

Sean: "She" is not the object of "betide". "She who does not know and speak her knowledge," as a clause, is the object of "betide." "She who" is the subject of "does" within that clause.

If you were referring to a specific person, you would use "her" - "Woe betide her, who does not not know..." - but "she who" is just another way of saying "whoever", and it's the subject of "does" and nothing else.}}}}

Here's how I look at these grammar questions: I try to re-word them because I don't always know the name/definition of the more obscure rules. If I break it down, I can better "hear" if it's correct.
I re-word this as: Suffering will/should come to her." So, the first phrase should definitely use "her" and not "she." Suffering is the subject; it's been turned into an animate creature rampaging around, looking for people who don't know themselves.

Skippy Tisdale said...

Sigmund Freud wrote, in the nineteen-twenties, 'The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is "What does a woman want?"'"

"Everything"
- Chris Rock

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 201   Newer› Newest»